Electronic health records (EHRs) in clinical research and platform trials: Application of the innovative EHR-based methods developed by EU-PEARL.

OBJECTIVE: Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems are digital platforms in clinical practice used to collect patients' clinical information related to their health status and represents a useful storage of real-world data. EHRs have a potential role in research studies, in particular, in platform trials. Platform trials are innovative trial designs including multiple trial arms (conducted simultaneously and/or sequentially) on different treatments under a single master protocol. However, the use of EHRs in research comes with important challenges such as incompleteness of records and the need to translate trial eligibility criteria into interoperable queries. In this paper, we aim to review and to describe our proposed innovative methods to tackle some of the most important challenges identified. This work is part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) EU Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatforms (EU-PEARL) project's work package 3 (WP3), whose objective is to deliver tools and guidance for EHR-based protocol feasibility assessment, clinical site selection, and patient pre-screening in platform trials, investing in the building of a data-driven clinical network framework that can execute these complex innovative designs for which feasibility assessments are critically important. METHODS: ISO standards and relevant references informed a readiness survey, producing 354 criteria with corresponding questions selected and harmonised through a 7-round scoring process (0-1) in stakeholder meetings, with 85% of consensus being the threshold of acceptance for a criterium/question. ATLAS cohort definition and Cohort Diagnostics were mainly used to create the trial feasibility eligibility (I/E) criteria as executable interoperable queries. RESULTS: The WP3/EU-PEARL group developed a readiness survey (eSurvey) for an efficient selection of clinical sites with suitable EHRs, consisting of yes-or-no questions, and a set-up of interoperable proxy queries using physicians' defined trial criteria. Both actions facilitate recruiting trial participants and alignment between study costs/timelines and data-driven recruitment potential. CONCLUSION: The eSurvey will help create an archive of clinical sites with mature EHR systems suitable to participate in clinical trials/platform trials, and the interoperable proxy queries of trial eligibility criteria will help identify the number of potential participants. Ultimately, these tools will contribute to the production of EHR-based protocol design.

Developing generic templates to shape the future for conducting integrated research platform trials.

BACKGROUND: Interventional clinical studies conducted in the regulated drug research environment are designed using International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) regulatory guidance documents: ICH E6 (R2) Good Clinical Practice-scientific guideline, first published in 2002 and last updated in 2016. This document provides an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing and conducting trials that involve the participation of human subjects. Recently, there has been heightened awareness of the importance of integrated research platform trials (IRPs) designed to evaluate multiple therapies simultaneously. The use of a single master protocol as a key source document to fulfill trial conduct obligations has resulted in a re-examination of the templates used to fulfill the dynamic regulatory and modern drug development environment challenges. METHODS: Regulatory medical writing, biostatistical, and other members of EU Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatforms (EU-PEARL) developed the suite of templates for IRPs over a 3.5-year period. Stakeholders contributing expertise included academic hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, non-governmental organizations, patient representative groups, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). RESULTS: The suite of templates for IRPs based on TransCelerate's Common Protocol Template (CPT) and statistical analysis plan (SAP) should help authors navigate relevant guidelines as they create study design content relevant for today's IRP studies. It offers practical suggestions for adaptive platform designs which offer flexible features such as dropping treatments for futility or adding new treatments to be tested during a trial. The EU-PEARL suite of templates for IRPs comprises a preface, followed by the actual resource. The preface clarifies the intended use and underlying principles that inform resource utility. The preface lists references contributing to the development of the resource. The resource includes TransCelerate CPT guidance text, and EU-PEARL-derived guidance text, distinguished from one another using shading. Rationale comments are used throughout for clarification purposes. In addition, a user-friendly, functional, and informative Platform Trials Best Practices tool to support the setup, design, planning, implementation, and conduct of complex and innovative trials to support multi-sourced/multi-company platform trials is also provided. Together, the EU-PEARL suite of templates and the Platform Trials Best Practices tool constitute the reference user manual. CONCLUSIONS: This publication is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the EU-PEARL suite of templates for designing IRPs. The reference user manual and the associated website ( http://www.eu-pearl ) should facilitate the designing of IRP trials.

Current state-of-the-art and gaps in platform trials: 10 things you should know, insights from EU-PEARL.

Platform trials bring the promise of making clinical research more efficient and more patient centric. While their use has become more widespread, including their prominent role during the COVID-19 pandemic response, broader adoption of platform trials has been limited by the lack of experience and tools to navigate the critical upfront planning required to launch such collaborative studies. The European Union-Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatform (EU-PEARL) initiative has produced new methodologies to expand the use of platform trials with an overarching infrastructure and services embedded into Integrated Research Platforms (IRPs), in collaboration with patient representatives and through consultation with U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency stakeholders. In this narrative review, we discuss the outlook for platform trials in Europe, including challenges related to infrastructure, design, adaptations, data sharing and regulation. Documents derived from the EU-PEARL project, alongside a literature search including PubMed and relevant grey literature (e.g., guidance from regulatory agencies and health technology agencies) were used as sources for a multi-stage collaborative process through which the 10 more important points based on lessons drawn from the EU-PEARL project were developed and summarised as guidance for the setup of platform trials. We conclude that early involvement of critical stakeholder such as regulatory agencies or patients are critical steps in the implementation and later acceptance of platform trials. Addressing these gaps will be critical for attaining the full potential of platform trials for patients. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking with support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA.

Regulatory Issues of Platform Trials: Learnings from EU-PEARL.

Although platform trials have many benefits, the complexity of these designs may result not only in increased methodological but also regulatory and ethical challenges. These aspects were addressed as part of the IMI project EU Patient-Centric Clinical Trial Platforms (EU-PEARL). We reviewed the available guidelines on platform trials in the European Union and the United States. This is supported and complemented by feedback received from regulatory interactions with the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Throughout the project we collected the needs of all relevant stakeholders including ethics committees, regulators, and health technology assessment bodies through active dialog and dedicated stakeholder workshops. Furthermore, we focused on methodological aspects and where applicable identified the corresponding guidance. Learnings from the guideline review, regulatory interactions, and workshops are provided. Based on these, a master protocol template was developed. Issues that still need harmonization or clarification in guidelines or where further methodological research is needed are also presented. These include questions around clinical trial submissions in Europe, the need for multiplicity control across the whole master protocol, the use of non-concurrent controls, and the impact of different randomization schemes. Master protocols are an efficient and patient-centered clinical trial design that can expedite drug development. However, they can also introduce additional operational and regulatory complexities. It is important to understand the different requirements of stakeholders upfront and address them in the trial. While relevant guidance is increasing, early dialog with relevant stakeholders can help to further support such designs.