Search

Background: In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) plays a central role in the complex health research legal framework. It aims to protect the fundamental right to the protection of individuals' personal data, while allowing the free movement of such data. However, it has been criticized for challenging the conduct of research. Existing scholarship has paid little attention to the experiences and views of the patient community. The aim of the study was to investigate 1) the awareness and knowledge of patients, carers, and members of patient organizations about the General Data Protection Regulation, 2) their experience with exercising data subject rights, and 3) their understanding of the notion of "data control" and preferences towards various data control tools. Methods: An online survey was disseminated between December 2022 and March 2023. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Answers to open-ended questions were analyzed using the thematic analysis method. Results: In total, 220 individuals from 28 European countries participated. The majority were patients (77%). Most participants had previously heard about the GDPR (90%) but had not exercised any of their data subject rights. Individual data control tools appeared to be marginally more important than collective tools. The willingness of participants to share personal data with data altruism organizations increased if patient representatives would be involved in the decision-making processes of such organizations. Conclusion: The results highlighted the importance of providing in-depth education about data protection. Although participants showed a slight preference towards individual control tools, the reflection based on existing scholarship identified that individual control holds risks that could be mitigated through carefully operationalized collective tools. The discussion of results was used to provide a critical view into the proposed European Health Data Space, which has yet to find a productive balance between individual control and allowing the reuse of personal data for research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to reflect how an investigational treatment would be applied in clinical practice. As such, unlike their explanatory counterparts, they measure therapeutic effectiveness and are capable of generating high-quality real-world evidence. However, the conduct of PCTs remains extremely rare. The scarcity of such studies has contributed to the emergence of the efficacy-effectiveness gap and has led to calls for launching more of them, including in the field of oncology. This analysis aimed to identify self-labelled pragmatic trials of antineoplastic interventions and to evaluate whether their use of this label was justified. Methods: We searched PubMed® and Embase® for publications corresponding with studies that investigated antitumor therapies and that were tagged as pragmatic in their titles, abstracts and/or index terms. Subsequently, we consulted all available source documents for the included trials and extracted relevant information from them. The data collected were then used to appraise the degree of pragmatism displayed by the PCTs with the help of the validated PRECIS-2 tool. Results: The literature search returned 803 unique records, of which 46 were retained upon conclusion of the screening process. This ultimately resulted in the identification of 42 distinct trials that carried the 'pragmatic' label. These studies examined eight different categories of neoplasms and were mostly randomized, open-label, multicentric, single-country trials sponsored by non-commercial parties. On a scale of one (very explanatory) to five (very pragmatic), the median PCT had a PRECIS-2 score per domain of 3.13 (interquartile range: 2.57–3.53). The most and least pragmatic studies in the sample had a score of 4.44 and 1.57, respectively. Only a minority of trials were described in sufficient detail to allow them to be graded across all domains of the PRECIS-2 instrument. Many of the studies examined also had features that arguably precluded them from being pragmatic altogether, such as being monocentric or placebo-controlled in nature. Conclusion: PCTs of antineoplastic treatments are generally no more pragmatic than they are explanatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Countries are struggling to provide affordable access to medicines while supporting the market entry of innovative, expensive products. This Perspective aims to discuss challenges and avenues for balancing health care system objectives of access, affordability and innovation related to medicines in Belgium (and in other countries). Methods: This Perspective focuses on the R&D, regulatory approval and market access phases, with particular attention to oncology medicines, precision medicines, orphan medicines, advanced therapies, repurposed medicines, generics and biosimilars. The authors conducted a narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature, of the grey literature (such as policy documents and reports of consultancy agencies), and of their own research. Results: Health care stakeholders need to consider various initiatives for balancing innovation with access to medicines, which relate to clinical and non-clinical outcomes (e.g. supporting the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials, treatment optimisation and patient preference studies, optimising the use of real-world evidence in market access decision making), value assessment (e.g. increasing the transparency of the reimbursement system and criteria, tailoring the design of managed entry agreements to specific types of uncertainty), affordability (e.g. harnessing the role of generics and biosimilars in encouraging price competition, maximising opportunities for personalising and repurposing medicines) and access mechanisms (e.g. promoting collaboration and early dialogue between stakeholders including patients). Conclusion: Although there is no silver bullet that can balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines, (Belgian) policy and decision makers should continue to explore initiatives that exploit the potential of both the on-patent and off-patent pharmaceutical markets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of real-world evidence (RWE) in the development of anticancer therapies has been gradually growing over time. Regulators, payers and health technology assessment agencies, spurred by the rise of the precision medicine model, are increasingly incorporating RWE into their decision-making regarding the authorization and reimbursement of novel antineoplastic treatments. However, it remains unclear how this trend is viewed by clinicians in the field. This study aimed to investigate the opinions of these stakeholders with respect to RWE and its suitability for informing regulatory, reimbursement-related and clinical decisions in oncology. Methods: An online survey was disseminated to clinicians belonging to the network of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer between May and July 2021. Results: In total, 557 clinicians across 30 different countries participated in the survey, representing 13 distinct cancer domains. Despite seeing the methodological challenges associated with its interpretation as difficult to overcome, the respondents mostly (75.0%) perceived RWE positively, and believed such evidence could be relatively strong, depending on the designs and data sources of the studies from which it is produced. Few (4.6%) saw a future expansion of its influence on decision-makers as a negative evolution. Furthermore, nearly all (94.0%) participants were open to the idea of sharing anonymized or pseudonymized electronic health data of their patients with external parties for research purposes. Nevertheless, most clinicians (77.0%) still considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be the gold standard for generating clinical evidence in oncology, and a plurality (49.2%) thought that RWE cannot fully address the knowledge gaps that remain after a new antitumor intervention has entered the market. Moreover, a majority of respondents (50.7%) expressed that they relied more heavily on RCT-derived evidence than on RWE for their own decision-making. Conclusion: While cancer clinicians have positive opinions about RWE and want to contribute to its generation, they also continue to hold RCTs in high regard as sources of actionable evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although collaborations between academic institutions and industry have led to important scientific breakthroughs in the discovery stage of the pharmaceutical research and development process, the role of multistakeholder partnerships in the clinical development of anticancer medicines necessitates further clarification. The benefits associated with such cooperation could be undercut by the conflicting goals and motivations of the actors included. The aim of this review was to identify and characterize past, present, and future stakeholder partnership models in cancer clinical research through the lens of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Based on the analysis of several landmark EORTC trials performed across the span of three decades, four existing models of stakeholder cooperation were delineated and characterized. Additionally, a hypothetical fifth model representing a potential future collaborative framework for cancer clinical research was formulated. These models mainly differ in terms of the nature and responsibilities of the partners included and show that clinical research partnerships in oncology have evolved over time from small‐scale academia‐industry collaborations to complex interdisciplinary cooperation involving many different stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current drug development paradigm has been criticized for being too drug-centered and for not adequately focusing on the patients who will eventually be administered the therapeutic interventions it generates. The drug-driven nature of the present framework has led to the emergence of a research gap between the pre-approval development of anticancer medicines and their post-registration use in real-life clinical practice. This gap could potentially be bridged by transitioning toward a patient-centered paradigm that places a strong emphasis on treatment optimization, which strives to optimize the way health technologies are applied in a real-world environment. However, questions remain concerning the ideal features of treatment optimization studies and their acceptability among key stakeholders. Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the views of key stakeholders in the drug development process regarding the concept of treatment optimization. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2018 and May 2019 with 26 participants across ten EU Member States and six different stakeholder groups, including academic clinicians as well as representatives of patient organizations, regulatory authorities, health technology assessment agencies, payers, and industry. Results: Based on the input of the experts interviewed, clarification was obtained regarding the optimal features of treatment optimization studies in terms of their conduct, funding, timing, design, and setting. Moreover, a number of opportunities and challenges of undertaking such trials were identified. Inter-stakeholder discussion during their design was seen as desirable. There was also broad support among the participants for regulatory measures to facilitate treatment optimization, although there was no agreement on the optimal scale and nature of these initiatives. Furthermore, the interviewees believed that the evidence strength of well-designed treatment optimization studies performed according to rigorous quality standards is greater than or at least equal to that of classical clinical trials. In addition, there was a strong consensus that the results of treatment optimization studies should be taken into account during the decision-making of regulators, payers, and/or clinicians. Conclusions: Stakeholders involved in drug development consider treatment optimization studies to be valuable tools to address current evidence gaps and support their implementation into the existing research framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]