Outpatient healthcare and clinical trials in the care pathway: Organisational and regulatory aspects and tools.

Clinical research in outpatient healthcare, particularly in general practice, which is the first line of contact with the population, is now a public health issue. However, this type of research has specific characteristics that differentiate it from clinical research conducted in a hospital setting and requires an adaptation of its conditions of practice: in terms of organisation, the development of research in outpatient healthcare relies on the appropriation of its fundamentals by the investigators, which implies their presentation, upstream, from the initial cycle, and the participation of practitioners in training modules adapted to research in primary care, such as those already organised by several GIRCI (Groupement Inter régional de la Recherche Clinique et de l'Innovation [French Interregional Clusters for Clinical Research and Innovation]). To compensate for the fragmented nature of their location, on the model of the EMRCs (équipes mobiles de recherche clinique [mobile clinical research teams]) in oncology, mobile research teams should enable general medical practices to participate in clinical trials. This presupposes, on the one hand, the allocation of earmarked funding to ensure the sustainability of a base of dedicated personnel and, on the other hand, the impetus of a national dynamic through the setting up of a multi-organisation thematic institute for "research in primary care" associated, at the operational level, with a national scale investigation network supported by a platform of excellence. The use of digital tools and innovations (telemedicine; data collection via connected tools; e-consent; electronic signature) which make it possible to digitise and relocate all or part of the research procedures for both the participant and the investigation teams. An adaptation of the legal framework in order to bring the place of research closer to the patient and not the other way round, which means moving the equipment and investigations closer to the patient. Taking into account the acceptability of the patient, thus limiting the disruption that may be caused by his or her participation in a research protocol and motivating the practitioner by valuing his or her contribution and providing all the guarantees of scientific relevance and independence of practice. In view of the contextual analysis, positive feedback and the availability of organisational and digital support points facilitating the delocalisation and digitisation of the conduct of research activity as close as possible to the patient and his or her doctor, the round table concluded that opportunities exist today which favour the development of clinical research in general practice. It is important to seize this opportunity and make the most of it without delay.

From single-arm studies to externally controlled studies. Methodological considerations and guidelines.

Single-arm studies are sometimes used as pivotal studies but they have methodological limitations which prevent them from obtaining the high level of reliability as for a randomised controlled study which remains the gold standard in the evaluation of new treatments. The objective of this roundtable was to discuss the limitations of these single-arm studies, to analyse available and acceptable solutions in order to propose guidelines for their conduct and assessment. Single-arm studies themselves are intrinsically inappropriate for demonstrating the benefit of a new treatment because it is impossible to infer the benefit from a value obtained under treatment without knowing what it would have been in the absence of the new treatment. The implication is that comparison with other data is necessary. However this comparison has limitations due to (1) the post hoc choice of the reference used for comparison, (2) the confusion bias for which an adjustment approach is imperative and, (3) the other biases, measure and attrition among others. When these limitations are taken into account this should, first and foremost, lead to the conduct of externally controlled trials instead of single-arm trials as is proposed by the latest version of ICH E10. Moreover, the external control must be formalised in the study protocol with a priori selection of both the reference control and the formal method of comparison: test in relation to a standard, adjustment on individual data, a synthetic control group or matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC). Lastly, externally controlled studies must be restricted to situations where randomisation is infeasible. To be acceptable, these studies must be able to guarantee freedom from residual confusion bias, which is only truly acceptable if the observed effect is dramatic and the usual course of the disease is highly predicable.

[Attractiveness of France for international clinical research: 8th survey conducted by Leem (French association for pharmaceutical companies)]. / Attractivité de la France pour la recherche clinique internationale : résultats de la 8e enquête du Leem.

The Leem (French association of pharmaceutical companies) has conducted the eighth survey on attractiveness of France for clinical research. It serves to measure France's global competitiveness for international clinical trials and assess its strengths and areas of excellence. It also highlights the potential for progress and emerging trends at a time when the regulatory environment in France and Europe is undergoing change. This survey has been updated every two years since 2002 using the same methodology. It assesses the current status of research undertaken in France by the pharmaceutical industry between January 1st 2014 and December 31st 2015. Thirty companies (62% of the French market) have participated in this 8th survey which involved 3474 centers (versus 2860 in 2014) and 16,622 patients (versus 14,634 in 2014) enrolled in France across 586 clinical trials (versus 613 in 2014). This survey shows a reduction in the number of phase I and phase II trials. It also confirms that the studies conducted in France are primarily concerned with oncology (45%). Despite improvements across hospital contracts times (due to the adoption of the sole agreement) and performance indicators in trials (such as the number of patients enrolled by center), trial setup times in France are still overly lengthy (with stable times by French authorities). Ensuring that clinical research remains a priority issue for country is crucial for patients because of rapid access to innovation but also for the vitality of the French economy. Constructive dialogue with stakeholders on the subject of clinical research is essential to enhance the attractiveness of France and to improve the continuum between research, innovation and care.

How to strengthen the presence of patients in health technology assessments conducted by the health authorities.

The constant development of health technologies, combined with the increase in the cost of treatment, means that States must continually make choices about the introduction of new technologies into their healthcare system and how they are to be funded. In France, the systematic participation of patients in these processes is one of the targets to be met in terms of healthcare democracy. Although, on an international level, patient involvement in these assessments is constantly growing, it is difficult to define due to the presence of unstabilised elements in terms of both terminology and assessment methods. As a result, patient and public involvement in health technology assessments varies considerably from one country to the next, from one field to the next and even from one type of technology to the next. Several types of involvement exist, ranging from studies conducted to collect patient "insight" (experience, perception, needs, preferences, attitudes to treatment and health, etc.) to processes aimed at including patients in assessments (as individuals, as representatives of associations, etc.). Given the scope and complexity of the subject, and the difficulty involved in understanding all the different aspects of health technologies and innovations, the members of the Round Table chose to concentrate on health technology assessments (medicinal products and medical devices) to develop national recommendations on all possible types of patient involvement in the health technology assessment processes conducted by the health authorities in France.

The human gut microbiome as source of innovation for health: Which physiological and therapeutic outcomes could we expect?

From the moment of birth, each human being builds a microbe-host symbiosis which is key for the preservation of its health and well-being. This personal symbiotic coexistence is the result of progressive enrichments in microorganism diversity through external supplies. This diversity is nowadays massively overthrown by drastic changes related to clinical practice in birth management, environmental exposure, nutrition and healthcare behaviors. The last two generations have been the frame of massive modifications in life and food habits, with people being more and more sedentary, overfed and permeated with drugs and pollutants. We are now able to measure the impact of these changes on the gut microbiota diversity. Concomitantly, these modifications of lifestyle were associated with a dramatic increase in incidence of immune-mediated diseases including metabolic, allergic and inflammatory diseases and most likely neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders. Microbiota is becoming a hot topic in the scientific community and in the mainstream media. The number of scientific publications increased by up to a factor three over the last five years, with gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases being the most productive areas. In the intellectual property landscape, the patent families on microbiota have more than doubled in the meantime. In parallel, funding either from National Institutes (e.g. from NIH which funds research mainly in the field of allergies, infections, cancer and cardiovascular diseases, from the White House which launched the national microbiome initiative) or by pharmaceutical companies follow the same trend, showing a boost and a strong support in the research field on microbiota. All major health players are investing in microbiome research as shown by the number of deals signed and by funding during 2015. The Giens round table addressed how the medicine of tomorrow, considering human beings as a human-microbe symbiotic supraorganism, could leverage microbiome knowledge and tools. The rationale for our working group has been structured around four domains of innovation that could derive from ongoing efforts in deciphering the interactions between human cells and intestinal microbiome as a central component of human health, namely: (1) development of stratification and monitoring tools; (2) identification of new target and drug discovery, as a part of our supra-genome; (4) exploitation of microbiota as a therapeutic target that can be modulated; (4) and finally as a source of live biotherapeutics and adjuvants. These four streams will exemplify how microbiota has changed the way we consider a wide range of chronic and incurable diseases and the consequences of long-lasting dysbiosis. In-depth microbiota analysis is opening one of the broadest fields of investigation for improving human and animal health and will be a source of major therapeutic innovations for tackling today's medical unmet needs. We thus propose a range of recommendations for basic researchers, care givers as well as for health authorities to gain reliability in microbiome analysis and accelerate discovery processes and their translation into applications for the benefits of the people. Finally, les Ateliers de Giens round table on microbiota benefited from the richness of the French ecosystem. France represents a center of excellence in the microbiota research field, with French institutions as Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA [Metagenopolis, Micalis]), Centre national de la recherché scientifique (CNRS), Unité de recherche sur les maladies infectieuses et tropicales émergentes (URMITE), Institut of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition (ICAN), Institut des maladies métaboliques et cardiovasculaires (I2MC), Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm), Pasteur Institute and Gustave-Roussy being top-players for the number of publications.

Promoting the place of the allied health professions in clinical research.

Clinical research is of major importance to today's society, as scientific evidence is increasingly demanded as a basis for progress, whether this involves developing new healthcare products, improving clinical practice and care protocols or progress in prevention. Clinical research therefore requires professionals who are both experienced and increasingly well trained. Against this background, allied health professionals are becoming involved more and more, both as team members supporting clinical research projects and as managers or coordinators of projects in their own field. Clinical research activities provide an ideal opportunity for continuing professional development. All of this means that the professional skills of the allied health professions and clinical research support professions must be enhanced, their role promoted in the context of lecturer status and in the longer term, their status recognised by the supervisory authorities.

[Attractiveness of France for international clinical trials in 2012: 6(th) survey assessed by Leem (French association of pharmaceutical companies)]. / État des lieux 2012 de l'attractivité de la France pour la recherche clinique internationale : 6(e) enquête du Leem.

Since 2002, the Leem (French Association of Pharmaceutical Companies) has conducted a survey every two years to update the attractiveness of France for international clinical trials. Thirty companies (68% of the French market) have participated in this 6(th) survey which involved 79 countries, a greater number of Phases I/II, II and III studies (420 versus 352 in 2010), a relatively stable number of included patients (246,895 versus 249,704 in 2010) and a greater number of centers (32,965 versus 24,337 in 2010). The evolution of time-lines for the go-ahead by French Authorities is heterogeneous (shorter time-lines by the French National Agency of Drug and Health Products Safety [ANSM] but longer time-lines by Research Ethics Comittees [CPP]). The time-lines for first hospital contracts remain stable. France ranks at an average position among European countries in regards to quantitative and qualitative data, and its state-of-art in early stages is still recognized. Its good performance in oncology and orphan diseases are major assets of competitiveness.

[France, an attractive country for international clinical research: 2010 survey assessed by Leem (French association of pharmaceutical companies)]. / Place de la France dans la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2010 du Leem France et recherche clinique internationale.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Twenty-nine companies (72% of the French market) including 10 newly participants, have participated in the current survey which included 328 international phase II and III clinical studies, 79 countries, 24,337 centres and 249,704 patients (included in 2008/2009). France (291 patients/million inhabitants) ranked among the best European recruiters in second position behind Scandinavia. Since 2008, protocols are still to be given the go-ahead by French Authorities (Afssaps and CPP) within 60 days, in accordance with European directive. The continuation of reduction in deadlines for hospital contracts is encouraging and highlights the positive effect of CeNGEPS. French state-of-art is well recognized in Oncology/Hematology and Orphan disease which could be an example to improve the competitiveness of France in other key therapeutic areas such as Alzheimer's disease and Immuno-Inflammation.

Clinical trials and E-health: impact of new information technology applied to clinical trials (including source data-medical records) and to human and drug research.

Within the last few years, new technology has come to play an important part in our professional and private daily environment. Healthcare has not escaped this progressive mutation with computers reaching the bedside. Clinical research has also shown growing interest in these new tools available to the clinical investigator, the patient, as well as to specialist departments for diagnosis and follow-up of patients, and to the different professions in clinical research. If the use of new technology seems to make life easier, by centralizing data or by simplifying data-sharing between different teams, it is still a matter of private data which must remain reliable, confidential and secure, whether it is being used in ordinary healthcare or in academic or industrial research. The aim of the round table was to estimate the impact of new information technology applied to clinical trials (including source data-medical records) and to human and drug research. First, an inventory was made of the development of these new technologies in the healthcare system. The second point developed was identification of expected benefits in order to issue guidelines for their good use and hazard warnings in clinical trials. Finally, the impact of these new technologies on the investigator as well as the project manager was analysed.

[Not Available]. / La France, un pays attractif pour la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2008 du Leem.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Nineteen companies (61.9 % of the French market) have participated in the current survey which included 385 international phase II and III clinical studies, 77 countries, 29,708 centres and 312,835 patients (included in 2006/2007). France (400 patients/million inhabitants) ranked among the best European recruiters in second position behind Scandinavia. Since 2006, France has improved administrative processes and reduced deadlines for hospital contracts. Protocols are now to be given the go-ahead by French Authorities (Afssaps and CPP) within 60 days, in accordance with European directive. Its performance in early phases, oncology/hematology and vaccines/anti-infectious contribute to the attractiveness of France in international clinical research.

[France, an attractive country for international clinical research: 2008 survey assessed by Leem (French association of pharmaceutical companies)]. / La France, un pays attractif pour la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2008 du Leem.

In order to evaluate the attractiveness of France for conducting international clinical trials, a survey is performed every two years among pharmaceutical companies that are based in France or have affiliates in France. Nineteen companies (61.9 % of the French market) have participated in the current survey which included 385 international phase II and III clinical studies, 77 countries, 29,708 centres and 312,835 patients (included in 2006/2007). France (400 patients/million inhabitants) ranked among the best European recruiters in second position behind Scandinavia. Since 2006, France has improved administrative processes and reduced deadlines for hospital contracts. Protocols are now to be given the go-ahead by French Authorities (Afssaps and CPP) within 60 days, in accordance with European directive. Its performance in early phases, oncology/hematology and vaccines/anti-infectious contribute to the attractiveness of France in international clinical research.

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs reduce radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: A 2-year randomized controlled trial was performed to test the hypothesis that long-term, continuous treatment with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), in comparison with NSAID treatment on demand only, influences radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Patients with AS (n = 215), who had previously participated in a 6-week, randomized, double-blind clinical trial that compared celecoxib, ketoprofen, and placebo, were randomly allocated to receive either continuous treatment with NSAIDs or on-demand treatment with NSAIDs for a period of 2 years. All patients began treatment with celecoxib, at a starting dosage of 100 mg twice daily; patients could increase this dosage to 200 mg twice daily or could switch to another NSAID while maintaining the same treatment strategy. Structural changes were assessed by radiographs of the lumbar and cervical spine and scored according to the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score by one observer who was blinded to the treatment strategy and temporal order of the radiographs. Statistical analyses included a between-group comparison of 1) radiographic progression scores (by Mann-Whitney U test), 2) time-averaged values of variables reflecting signs and symptoms of AS (by linear regression analysis), and 3) the frequency of reported site-specific adverse events (by chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate). RESULTS: Complete sets of radiographs were available for 76 of the 111 patients in the continuous-treatment group and for 74 of the 104 patients in the on-demand group. The mean +/- SD scores for radiographic progression were 0.4 +/- 1.7 in the continuous-treatment group and 1.5 +/- 2.5 in the on-demand treatment group (P = 0.002). Parameters reflecting signs and symptoms were not statistically significantly different between groups. The between-group difference in radiographic progression did not disappear after adjusting for baseline values of radiographic damage or disease activity variables and for time-averaged values of disease activity variables, nor after input of missing data. Relevant adverse events tended to occur more frequently in the continuous-treatment group than in the on-demand group (for hypertension, 9% versus 3%; for abdominal pain, 11% versus 6%; for dyspepsia, 41% versus 38%), but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: A strategy of continuous use of NSAIDs reduces radiographic progression in symptomatic patients with AS, without increasing toxicity substantially.

Agreement between rheumatologist visit and lay interviewer telephone survey for screening for rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthropathy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate agreement between a rheumatologist visit and a telephone interview by a patient organization member, regarding the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthropathy (SpA) and the classification criteria for these two conditions. METHOD: Patients underwent a standardized interview and physical examination by hospital-based rheumatologists, who diagnosed RA in 230 cases, SpA in 175, and other conditions (controls) in 195. Members of patient organizations then used a standardized questionnaire to interview the patients by telephone about their diagnosis and about 1987 ACR classification criteria for RA and the ESSG criteria for SpA. RESULTS: Agreement between the two sources of data was poor for the classification criteria but satisfactory for the diagnosis (kappa, 0.84 (0.81-0.87) for RA and 0.78 (0.75-0.81) for SpA). CONCLUSION: Standardized telephone interviews conducted by patient organization members accurately identify the diagnosis made by rheumatologists based on a physical examination and medical record review, whereas agreement is poor regarding classification criteria for RA and SpA.