Search

In recent decades cancer care has seen improvements in the speed and accuracy of diagnostic procedures; the effectiveness of surgery, radiation therapy and medical treatments; the power of information technology; and the development of multidisciplinary, specialist-led approaches to care. Such innovations are essential if we are to continue improving the lives of cancer patients across Europe despite financial pressures on our healthcare systems. Investment in innovation must be balanced with the need to ensure the sustainability of healthcare budgets, and all health professionals have a responsibility to help achieve this balance. It requires scrutiny of the way care is delivered; we must be ready to discontinue practices or interventions that are inefficient, and prioritise innovations that may deliver the best outcomes possible for patients within the limits of available resources. Decisions on innovations should take into account their long-term impact on patient outcomes and costs, not just their immediate costs. Adopting a culture of innovation requires a multidisciplinary team approach, with the patient at the centre and an integral part of the team. It must take a whole-system and whole-patient perspective on cancer care and be guided by high-quality real-world data, including outcomes relevant to the patient and actual costs of care; this accurately reflects the impact of any innovation in clinical practice. The European CanCer Organisation is committed to working with its member societies, patient organisations and the cancer community at large to find sustainable ways to identify and integrate the most meaningful innovations into all aspects of cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Significant advances have recently occurred in the treatment of T2DM, with evidence of several new glucose-lowering medications showing either neutral or beneficial cardiovascular effects. However, some of these agents have safety characteristics with strong practical implications in HF [i.e. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors]. Regarding safety of DPP-4 inhibitors, saxagliptin is not recommended in HF because of a greater risk of HF hospitalisation. There is no compelling evidence of excess HF risk with the other DPP-4 inhibitors. GLP-1 RAs have an overall neutral effect on HF outcomes. However, a signal of harm suggested in two small trials of liraglutide in patients with reduced ejection fraction indicates that their role remains to be defined in established HF. SGLT-2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin) have shown a consistent reduction in the risk of HF hospitalisation regardless of baseline cardiovascular risk or history of HF. Accordingly, SGLT-2 inhibitors could be recommended to prevent HF hospitalisation in patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or with multiple risk factors. The recently completed trial with dapagliflozin has shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and HF events in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, with or without T2DM. Several ongoing trials will assess whether the results observed with dapagliflozin could be extended to other SGLT-2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF, with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence of T2DM. This position paper aims to summarise relevant clinical trial evidence concerning the role and safety of new glucose-lowering therapies in patients with HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The new European Medicines Agency (EMA) Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), based on the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR EU 536/2014), came into full effect on 31 January 2022 and was intended to provide an easier, more streamlined approach to the registration of clinical trials taking place in Europe. Using the experience gained on the new regulatory framework from three multi-national European clinical research studies of outbreak-prone infectious diseases, this article describes the advantages and shortcomings of the new clinical trial submission procedure. Methods: We report the time to approval, size of the application dossier, and number of requests for information (RFIs) for each study. We also explore the experience of each study within the regulatory framework and its use of CTIS to document the real-world, practical consequences of the system on individual studies. The study assesses the experience of three multi-country studies conducted in Europe working within the EU and non-EU regulatory environments. Results: While the time to regulatory and ethical approval has improved since the implementation of the new regulation, the timelines for approvals are still unacceptably slow, particularly for studies being conducted in the context of an evolving outbreak. Within the new regulatory approval procedure, there is evidence of conflicting application requirements, increased document burden, barriers to submitting important modifications, and debilitating technical hurdles. Conclusions: CTIS promised to lower the administrative bar, but unfortunately this has not been achieved. There are challenges that need to be urgently confronted and addressed for international research collaborators to effectively manage health crises in the future. While the value of multi-national outbreak research is clear, the limitations and delays imposed by the system, which raise challenging ethical questions about the regulation, are prejudicial to all clinical research, especially publicly funded academic studies. This report is relevant to both regulators and clinical researchers. It is hoped that these findings can help improve pan-European clinical trials, especially for the purpose of epidemic preparedness and response. Trial registration: This paper references experiences gained during management of three pan-European trials: EU-SolidAct's Bari-SolidAct (CT No. 2022-500385-99-00 - 15 March 2022) and AXL-SolidAct (CT No. 2022-500363-12-00 - 19 April 2022), and MOSAIC (CT No. 2022-501132-42-00 - 22 June 2022). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a highly debilitating neurodegenerative condition. Despite recent advancements in understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying ALS, there have been no significant improvements in therapeutic options for ALS patients in recent years. Currently, there is no cure for ALS, and the only approved treatment in Europe is riluzole, which has been shown to slow the disease progression and prolong survival by approximately 3 months. Recently, tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) has emerged as a promising and effective treatment for neurodegenerative diseases due to its neuroprotective activities. Methods: The ongoing TUDCA-ALS study is a double-blinded, parallel arms, placebo-controlled, randomized multicenter phase III trial with the aim to assess the efficacy and safety of TUDCA as add-on therapy to riluzole in patients with ALS. The primary outcome measure is the treatment response defined as a minimum of 20% improvement in the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) slope during the randomized treatment period (18 months) compared to the lead-in period (3 months). Randomization will be stratified by country. Primary analysis will be conducted based on the intention-to-treat principle through an unadjusted logistic regression model. Patient recruitment commenced on February 22, 2019, and was closed on December 23, 2021. The database will be locked in September 2023. Discussion: This paper provides a comprehensive description of the statistical analysis plan in order to ensure the reproducibility of the analysis and avoid selective reporting of outcomes and data-driven analysis. Sensitivity analyses have been included in the protocol to assess the impact of intercurrent events related to the coronavirus disease 2019. By focusing on clinically meaningful and robust outcomes, this trial aims to determine whether TUDCA can be effective in slowing the disease progression in patients with ALS. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03800524. Registered on January 11, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2016, an expert working group was convened under the auspices of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) and formulated consensus recommendations for the conduct of clinical trials for drugs to prevent or treat sarcopenia. Aims: The objective of the current paper is to provide a 2020 update of the previous recommendations in accordance with the evidence that has become available since our original recommendations. Methods: This paper is based on literature reviews performed by members of the ESCEO working group and followed up with face to face meetings organized for the whole group to make amendments and discuss further recommendations. Results: The randomized placebo-controlled double-blind parallel-arm drug clinical trials should be the design of choice for both phase II and III trials. Treatment and follow-up should run at least 6 months for phase II and 12 months for phase III trials. Overall physical activity, nutrition, co-prescriptions and comorbidity should be recorded. Participants in these trials should be at least 70-years-old and present with a combination of low muscle strength and low physical performance. Severely malnourished individuals, as well as bedridden patients, patients with extremely limited mobility or individuals with physical limitations clearly attributable to the direct effect of a specific disease, should be excluded. Multiple outcomes are proposed for phase II trials, including, as example, physical performance, muscle strength and mass, muscle metabolism and muscle-bone interaction. For phase III trials, we recommend a co-primary endpoint of a measure of functional performance and a Patient Reported Outcome Measure. Conclusion: The working group has formulated consensus recommendations on specific aspects of trial design, and in doing so hopes to contribute to an improvement of the methodological robustness and comparability of clinical trials. Standardization of designs and outcomes would advance the field by allowing better comparison across studies, including performing individual patient-data meta-analyses, and different pro-myogenic therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Therapeutic use of an unauthorised drug (or of an authorised drug for an unauthorised indication) for patients with a life-threating disease is permitted outside a clinical trial as an Expanded Access Programme (EAP).The regulations regarding EAPs is not the same all over the world. For example, the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in EU countries also includes within EAPs patients who have been treated in a clinical trial and who wish to continue the treatment. Nevertheless, the patients treated in a clinical trial could have the option of continuing treatment for an extended period in an Open-label Extension study, aimed to generate long-term data on efficacy, safety, tolerability and administration.The aims of this paper - based on the difficulties and incoherence encountered by an Italian Ethic Committee (EC) during the authorisation process of EAPs - are: understanding the origin of this misclassification by analysing differences and similarities among USA, European and Italian regulations concerning EAPs; and showing difficulties in classifying international study protocols as a consequence of the lack of harmonisation of definitions.We performed a critical review of the current USA, European and Italian regulations and we analysed some practical cases by retrieving protocols from Clinicaltrials.gov and the Italian Clinical Trials Registry (OsSC) containing in the title the keywords 'Expanded Access Programme', "'Expanded Access', 'Open-label Extension study' or 'Early Access'.We observed that the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) definition of EAP is very clear while the EMA definition is similar to that of an Open-label Extension study. This lack of a clear definition generates misclassification and it is possible to find an EAP with an efficacy or safety endpoint; or an EAP managed as a clinical trial; or an EAP classified in Clinical Trials Registries as a phase II, III or IV clinical trial.The internationalisation of the studies requires a harmonisation on a global level of legislation and definitions to eliminate misclassification of protocols. For this reason, the authors suggest that: a) the EMA definition should be harmonised with the FDA definition of EAPs, b) European regulation, even if optional, should be adopted in a compulsory way by national regulations. Moreover, separate registries for both EAPs and clinical trials should be organised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical outcome assessments (COAs), including patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, are routinely used in drug development and other clinical research initiatives to assess the impact of treatment on patient health and well-being. The FDA Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (2009), the European Medicines Agency’s Reflection Paper on the Regulatory Guidance for the Use of Health-Related Quality of Life Measures in the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (2005), and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research PRO Good Research Practices for the Assessment of Children and Adolescence Task Force (2013) outline key considerations and good measurement principles that are relevant to the selection and use of COAs in a pediatric population. However, challenges remain in the appropriate selection and use of COAs to assess treatment benefit in pediatric clinical research. The purpose of this paper is to summarize proceedings from a panel presentation at the Critical Path Institute’s 2015 Annual PRO Consortium Workshop. This paper underscores the importance of considering children’s specific needs and the numerous challenges faced when developing and implementing well-defined and reliable COAs in pediatric clinical trials evaluating medical products, and describes some approaches to addressing these unique needs and challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Favoring innovation by making timely medical technology available to people and by securing patients' safety is a challenge. The new European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) will have a central implication in the development of new devices and could affect their innovation and availability, as well as discourage investment in research within Europe. Start-ups and small companies might not be able to cope with the increasing complexity and the required changes of perspective. Health-care institutions are facing an increasing availability of complex technologies, while data on their clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness are rarely provided. A partnership/collaboration between health-care institutions, academia, and private industries will enhance their own specific interests with the common goal of improving overall health and quality of life. The complexity of the subject combined with the variety of specialists and stakeholders involved requires the implementation, in hospital centers of clinical excellence, of units dedicated to the whole path of the medical device innovation. Stakeholders should quickly provide adequate measures to facilitate the complex medical device innovation path under the more stringent MDR aimed to increase safety and quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic caused by the SARS‐CoV‐2 coronavirus has affected the health of tens of millions of people worldwide. In particular, in elderly and frail individuals the infection can lead to severe disease and even fatal outcomes. Although the pandemic is primarily a human health crisis its consequences are much broader with a tremendous impact on global economics and social systems. Vaccines are considered the most powerful measure to fight the pandemic and protect people from COVID‐19. Based on the concerted activities of scientists, manufacturers and regulators, the urgent need for effective countermeasures has provoked the development and licensure of novel COVID‐19 vaccines in an unprecedentedly fast and flexible manner within <1 year. To ensure the safety and efficacy of these novel vaccines during the clinical development and the routine use in post‐licensure vaccination campaigns existing regulatory requirements and procedures had to be wisely and carefully adapted to allow for an expedited evaluation without compromising the thoroughness of the regulatory and scientific assessment. In this review, we describe the regulatory procedures, concepts and requirements applied to guide and promote the highly accelerated development and licensure of safe and efficacious COVID‐19 vaccines in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction/Purpose: Relacorilant is a selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator (SGRM) with no progesterone receptor activity. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of relacorilant in patients with endogenous Cushing syndrome (CS). Materials and Methods: A single-arm, open-label, phase 2, dose-finding study with 2 dose groups (NCT02804750, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02804750) was conducted at 19 sites in the U.S. and Europe. Low-dose relacorilant (100-200 mg/d; n = 17) was administered for 12 weeks or high-dose relacorilant (250-400 mg/d; n = 18) for 16 weeks; doses were up-titrated by 50 mg every 4 weeks. Outcome measures included proportion of patients with clinically meaningful changes in hypertension and/or hyperglycemia from baseline to last observed visit. For patients with hypertension, clinical response was defined as a ≥5-mmHg decrease in mean systolic or diastolic blood pressure, measured by a standardized and validated 24-h ABPM. For patients with hyperglycemia, clinical response was defined ad-hoc as ≥0.5% decrease in HbA1c, normalization or ≥50-mg/dL decrease in 2-h plasma glucose value on oral glucose tolerance test, or decrease in daily insulin (≥25%) or sulfonylurea dose (≥50%). Results: 35 adults with CS and hypertension and/or hyperglycemia (impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes mellitus) were enrolled, of which 34 (24 women/10 men) received treatment and had postbaseline data. In the low-dose group, 5/12 patients (41.7%) with hypertension and 2/13 patients (15.4%) with hyperglycemia achieved response. In the high-dose group, 7/11 patients (63.6%) with hypertension and 6/12 patients (50%) with hyperglycemia achieved response. Common (≥20%) adverse events included back pain, headache, peripheral edema, nausea, pain at extremities, diarrhea, and dizziness. No drug-induced vaginal bleeding or hypokalemia occurred. Conclusions: The SGRM relacorilant provided clinical benefit to patients with CS without undesirable antiprogesterone effects or drug-induced hypokalemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) comprise 45% of all deaths in Europe and causes 3.9 million deaths annually. Coronary artery disease (CAD) which includes myocardial infarction (MI) represents the most common form of CVD. A relevant proportion of MI cases seems preventable since reports claim that up to two-thirds of these patients exhibit symptoms suggestive for MI within 12 months prior to the acute MI event. An early identification of these at-risk subjects is necessary to manage an early and efficient treatment during the ischemic phase. The aim of the PRecision MEDicine in Coronary Artery Disease (PREMED-CAD) consortium is to apply a system medicine approach towards studying and identifying an ischemia specific 'biomarker signature' that improves the identification of individuals 'at-risk' for acute MI. The consortium will take an interdisciplinary and translational approach integrating knowledge from CAD epidemiology, imaging, bioinformatics, statistics and molecular biology, as well as existing phenotypic, blood-based and clinical biomarker data of distinct CAD and subclinical MI phenotypes. This biomarker signature will be validated through atherosclerosis-prone mouse models and human cohorts. The validated signature will be translated in a real-world clinical setting using an ongoing clinical trial comprising patients with subclinical ischemia. The aim of the knowledge obtained from this project is to aid in early MI detection and reduce the mortality and morbidity rate in these at-risk MI individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine the current situation and future directions of clinical trials and data sharing in radiology.Methods: This survey was conducted between July and September 2018 among European heads of imaging departments and speakers at the Clinical Trials in Radiology sessions at ECR 2015-2018. The survey was approved by the ESR research committee, was administered online, and chi-square tests were used.Results: The overall response rate was 29% (132/460). Responses were received from institutions in 29 countries. These institutions reported having conducted 429 trials, leading to 332 publications, of which 43% were first and 44% were last authorships by those institutions. For future trials, 98% of respondents (93/95) said they would be interested in sharing data, although only 34% had shared data already (23/68, p < 0.001). The major barriers to data sharing were data protection (78%, 74/95), ethical issues (49%, 47/95), and the lack of a data sharing platform (49%, 47/95). Of the respondents, 89% believed a platform would facilitate data sharing (85/95 vs. 10/95 did not, p < 0.001) and should offer easy data uploading (74%, 70/95), data safety (66%, 63/95), easy communication between providers and re-users (62%, 59/95), and data access policies (56%, 53/95).Conclusion: A considerable number of imaging trials are being performed and published by radiologists in Europe whilst data sharing is hardly taking place, despite great interest. This is most likely due to data protection and ethical issues, as well as the absence of a data sharing platform.Key Points: • Radiologists have performed a considerable number of more than 400 imaging trials in the last 5 years. • Although only 34% of institutions had shared trial data already, 98% are interested in doing so. • Major data sharing barriers are ethics, data protection, and the absence of a sharing platform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has improved tremendously in recent years due to the introduction of new drug therapies but remains complex in terms of non-pharmaceutical issues. In order to determine the direction of scientific progress by characterizing the current spectrum of ongoing clinical research in JIA, we analyzed all ongoing studies in the field of JIA—registered in clinicaltrials.gov and clinicaltrialsregister.eu—concerning sponsoring, enrollment, duration, localization, and particularly objectives. The close of the database was 7 January 2021. After identifying double-registered studies, n = 72 went into further analysis. Of these, 61.1% were academia-sponsored and 37.5% were sponsored by the pharma industry. The majority of the studies was of the interventional type (77.8%), while others (22.2%) were observational. The median planned enrollments were 100 participants (interventional studies) and 175 participants (observational studies), respectively. The duration differed remarkably from one month to more than 15 years, with a median of 42.5 months. A total of 61.1% of studies were located in a single country, and 38.9% were in several. Europe and North America clearly dominated the study localizations. The study objectives were DMARDs (56.9%), followed by diagnostics and disease activity measurement (18.1%), and medication other than DMARD (12.5%), besides others. Studies on DMARDs were mainly sponsored by industry, predominantly interventional studies on established and novel biologics, with several on specific issues such as systemic JIA and others. The spectrum of registered studies is currently centered on drug therapy and diagnostics, while other issues in JIA play a subordinated role in current research. Drug development was transferred from adult rheumatology into the JIA population with little innovation for children. Future research should take specific pediatric needs better into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and the practicability of two different antithrombin III (AT III) high-dose regimens in patients with severe sepsis.Design: Prospective, open, randomized, 2 parallel groups, multinational clinical trial.Setting: Eleven academic medical center intensive care units (ICU) in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Norway and Sweden.Patients: Thirty-three patients with severe sepsis who received standard supportive care and antimicrobial therapy, in addition to the administration of AT III.Interventions: Patients received an intravenous loading dose of 6,000 IU AT III followed by either intermittent bolus infusions of 1,000 IU AT III every 4 h or a continuous infusion of 250 IU AT III/h for 4 days, resulting in a total dose for both dosage regimens of 30,000 IU AT III.Measurements: All patients were evaluated for safety and all but one for pharmacokinetics.Results and Conclusions: The administration of AT III was safe and well tolerated. The overall 28-day all-cause mortality was 30% (43% intermittent bolus infusions; 21% continuous infusion). The mean probability of dying according to the SAPS II was 48%. The difference in mortality between both groups was within the range of chance. AT III plasma levels were elevated from low baseline levels to above 120% soon after onset of AT III therapy and remained at these levels for the treatment phase of 4 days. Functional and immunologic levels of AT III corresponded very well. With an overall median volume of distribution of 4.5 l (range: 2.4-6.5 l), AT III only moderately extended beyond plasma. The overall median elimination half-life was 18.6 h (range: 5.1-37.4). Overall, median response was 1.75% per IU/kg (range: 1.14-2.8). The variability of elimination parameters was quite noteworthy (CV = 41-59%), whereas distribution-related parameters showed a moderate variability (CV = 24%). In spite of this variability, both high-dose IV regimens reliably provided AT III levels above 120% for all but one patient. An increased mortality was observed for patients with a distribution volume exceeding 4.5 l (or a response < 1.7% per IU/kg). AT III distribution volumes above 4.5 l might indicate a capillary leak phenomenon. The continuous infusion regimen was slightly preferred by the investigators with regard to practicability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a process of non-hydrostatic pulmonary edema and hypoxemia associated with a variety of etiologies carries a high morbidity, mortality (10-90%) and financial cost. The reported annual incidence in the United States is 150,000 cases, but this figure has been challenged and may be different in Europe. Part of the reason for these uncertainties is the heterogeneity of diseases underlying ARDS and the lack of uniform definitions for ARDS. Thus, those whose wish to know the true incidence and outcome on this clinical syndrome are stymied. The European American Consensus Committee on ARDS was formed to focus on these issues and on the pathophysiologic mechanisms of the process. It was felt that international coordination between North America and Europe in clinical studies of ARDS was becoming increasingly important in order to address the recent plethora of potential therapeutic agents for the prevention and treatment of ARDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) is a dominantly-inherited progressive muscular dystrophy caused by de-repression of the DUX4 gene, which causes disease by a toxic-gain-of-function. As molecularly targeted drugs move from preclinical testing into human trials, it is essential that we validate clinical trial tools and methodology to facilitate the drug development process.Methods/design: The primary goal of this study is to hasten drug development for FSHD by validating two novel clinical outcome assessments (COAs) and refining clinical trial strategies. We will perform an 18-month longitudinal study in 220 genetically confirmed and clinically affected participants using our FSHD Clinical Trial Research Network, comprised of 8 sites in the United States, and 3 collaborating sites in Europe. Visits occur at baseline and months 3, 12, and 18. At each visit we will collect: 1) a novel FSHD functional composite COA made up of 18 evaluator-administered motor tasks in the domains of shoulder/arm, hand, core/abdominal, leg, and balance function; and 2) electrical impedance myography as a novel muscle quality biomarker (US sites). Other COAs include 1) Domain 1 of the Motor Function Measure; 2) Reachable workspace; 3) orofacial strength using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument; 4) lean muscle mass using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA); 5) strength as measured by quantitative myometry and manual muscle testing; and 6) the FSHD Health Index and other patient-reported outcomes. Plasma, DNA, RNA, and serum will be collected for future biomarker studies. We will use an industry standard multi-site training plan. We will evaluate the test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity to disease progression, and minimal clinically important changes of our new COAs. We will assess associations between demographic and genetic factors and the rate of disease progression to inform refinement of eligibility criteria for future clinical trials.Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest collaborative study of patients with FSHD performed in the US and Europe. The results of this study will enable more efficient clinical trial design. During the conduct of the study, relevant data will be made available for investigators or companies pursuing novel FSHD therapeutics.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03458832; Date of registration: 1/11/2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]