Search

BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has evolved as a pandemic infectious disease transmitted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐)2. Allergists and other health care providers (HCPs) in the field of allergies and associated airway diseases are in the front line, taking care of patients potentially infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. Hence, strategies and practices to minimize risks of infection for both HCPs and treated patients have to be developed and followed by allergy clinics.MethodThe scientific information on COVID‐19 was analyzed by a literature search in Medline, Pubmed, national and international guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library and the Internet.ResultsBased on diagnostic and treatment standards developed by EAACI, on international information regarding COVID‐19, on guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations as well as on previous experience, a panel of experts including clinicians, psychologists, IT experts and basic scientists along with EAACI and the “Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)” inititiative have developed recommendations for the optimal management of allergy clinics during the current COVID‐19 pandemic. These recommendations are grouped into nine sections on different relevant aspects for the care of patients with allergies.ConclusionsThis international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients whilst ensuring necessary safety in the current COVID‐19 pandemic.

Major advances in the study of inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) have placed efforts to develop treatments for these blinding conditions at the forefront of the emerging field of precision medicine. As a result, the growth of clinical trials for IRDs has increased rapidly over the past decade and is expected to further accelerate as more therapeutic possibilities emerge and qualified participants are identified. Although guided by established principles, these specialized trials, requiring analysis of novel outcome measures and endpoints in small patient populations, present multiple challenges relative to study design and ethical considerations. This position paper reviews recent accomplishments and existing challenges in clinical trials for IRDs and presents a set of recommendations aimed at rapidly advancing future progress. The goal is to stimulate discussions among researchers, funding agencies, industry, and policy makers that will further the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical trials needed to accelerate the approval of effective treatments for IRDs, while promoting advocacy and ensuring patient safety.

Performing well-designed and ethical trials in pediatric inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is a priority to support optimal therapy and reduce the unacceptable long lag between adult and pediatric drug approval. Recently, clinical trials in children have been incorporating placebo arms into their protocols under conditions that created controversy. Therefore, 4 organizations (the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition; European Crohn's and Colitis Organization; the Canadian Children IBD Network; and the Global Pediatric IBD Network) jointly provide a statement on the role of placebo in pediatric IBD trials. Consensus was achieved by 94 of 100 (94%) voting committees' members that placebo should only be used if there is genuine equipoise between the active treatment and placebo; for example, this may be considered in trials of drugs with new mechanisms of action without existing adult data, especially when proven effective alternatives do not exist outside the trial. Placebo may also be used in situations where it is an add-on to an effective therapy or to evaluate exit-strategies of maintenance therapy after long-term deep remission. It has been, however, agreed that no child enrolled in a trial should receive a known inferior treatment both within and outside the trial. This also includes withholding therapy in children who show clinical response after a short induction therapy. Given the similarity between pediatric and adult IBD regarding pathophysiology and response to treatments, drugs generally cannot be considered being in genuine equipoise with placebo if it has proven efficacy in adults. Continued collaboration of all stakeholders is needed to facilitate drug development and evaluation in pediatric IBD.

Quality improvement of care for patients with head and neck cancer remains a constant objective for the multidisciplinary team of physicians managing these patients. The purpose of quality assurance (QA) for head and neck surgical oncology and surgical trials however differs. While QA for the general head and neck patient aims to improve global outcome through structural changes of health-care systems, QA for surgical trials pursues the goal to help providing meaningful results from a clinical trial through the definition of structure, process and outcome measures within the trial. Establishing a QA program for surgical trials is challenging largely due to the variation in the execution of surgical techniques. Within this article, we describe the surgical QA program, which was developed for the phase III European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1420 study, a trial assessing swallowing function after transoral surgery compared with radiation therapy. We propose based on our experience to further develop surgical QA for surgical clinical trials by introducing two separate components, one adaptable and one non-adaptable. The adaptable is tailored to the scientific question and specific procedure; the non-adaptable consists of minimal structural requirements of the clinical unit to participate in surgical trials at EORTC as well as guidelines and incentives for protocol adherence based on our experience in EORTC 24954. Finally, we strongly believe that surgical QA designed for clinical trials may serve as a basis for the development of QA surgical guidelines in clinical practice.

The EU regulation 536/2014 aims to facilitate the experimental use of diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals in particular for GMP requirements and needs to be applied in EU countries. As definitely clarified by this survey, the application is still far from being completed due to national restrictions that are conflicting with the content of the above EU regulation. Although the nuclear medicine centers are obliged to be compliant with national regulatory, national authorities have to be required to work towards full application of the regulation. On the other hand, an update of 536/2014 that includes therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals would also be beneficial to a rational and safe advance of nuclear medicine.

BACKGOUND: Allergen exposure chambers (AEC) are clinical facilities allowing for controlled exposure of subjects to allergens in an enclosed environment. AEC have contributed towards characterizing the pathophysiology of respiratory allergic diseases and the pharmacological properties of new therapies. In addition, they are complementary to and offer some advantages over traditional multi-centre field trials for evaluation of novel therapeutics. To date, AEC studies conducted have been monocentric and have followed protocols unique to each center. Because there are technical differences among AEC, it may be necessary to define parameters to standardize the AEC so that studies may be extrapolated for driving basic immunological research and for marketing authorization purposes by regulatory authorities.METHODS: For this task force initiative of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) experts from academia and regulatory agencies met with chamber operators to list technical, clinical and regulatory unmet needs as well as the prerequisites for clinical validation.RESULTS: The latter covered the validation process, standardization of challenges and outcomes, intra- and inter-chamber variability and reproducibility, in addition to comparability with field trials and specifics of paediatric trials and regulatory issues.CONCLUSION: This EAACI Position Paper aims to harmonize current concepts in AEC and to project unmet needs with the intent to enhance progress towards use of these facilities in determining safety and efficacy of new therapeutics in the future. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Purpose Sarcopenia is an age-related muscle condition which is frequently a precursor of frailty, mobility disability and premature death. It has a high prevalence in older populations and presents a considerable social and economic burden. Potential treatments are under development but, as yet, no guidelines support regulatory studies for new drugs to manage sarcopenia. The objective of this position paper is therefore to suggest a set of potential endpoints and target population definitions to stimulate debate and progress within the medico-scientific and regulatory communities. Methods A multidisciplinary expert working group was hosted by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis, which reviewed and discussed the recent literature from a perspective of clinical experience and guideline development. Relevant parallels were drawn from the development of definition of osteoporosis as a disease and clinical assessment of pharmaceutical treatments for that indication. Results A case-finding decision tree is briefly reviewed with a discussion of recent prevalence estimations of different relevant threshold values. The selection criteria for patients in regulatory studies are discussed according to the aims of the investigation (sarcopenia prevention or treatment) and the stage of project development. The possible endpoints of such studies are reviewed and a plea is made for the establishment of a core outcome set to be used in all clinical trials of sarcopenia. Conclusions The current lack of guidelines for the assessment of new therapeutic treatments for sarcopenia could potentially hinder the delivery of effective medicines to patients at risk. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40520-015-0517-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aims Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of mortality and morbidity in the world, but the pharmaceutical industry's willingness to invest in this field has declined because of the many challenges involved with bringing new cardiovascular drugs to market, including late-stage failures, escalating regulatory requirements, bureaucracy of the clinical trial business enterprise, and limited patient access after approval. This contrasts with the remaining burden of cardiovascular disease in Europe and in the world. Thus, clinical cardiovascular research needs to adapt to address the impact of these challenges in order to ensure development of new cardiovascular medicines.Methods and results The present paper is the outcome of a two-day workshop held by the Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology. We propose strategies to improve development of effective new cardiovascular therapies. These can include (i) the use of biomarkers to describe patients who will benefit from new therapies more precisely, achieving better human target validation; (ii) targeted, mechanism-based approaches to drug development for defined populations; (iii) the use of information technology to simplify data collection and follow-up in clinical trials; (iv) streamlining adverse event collection and reducing monitoring; (v) extended patent protection or limited rapid approval of new agents to motivate investment in early phase development; and (vi) collecting data needed for health technology assessment continuously throughout the drug development process (before and after approval) to minimize delays in patient access. Collaboration across industry, academia, regulators, and payers will be necessary to enact change and to unlock the existing potential for cardiovascular clinical drug development.Conclusions A coordinated effort involving academia, regulators, industry, and payors will help to foster better and more effective conduct of clinical cardiovascular trials, supporting earlier availability of innovative therapies and better management of cardiovascular diseases.

While they account for one-fifth of new cancer cases, rare cancers are difficult to study. A higher than average degree of uncertainty should be accommodated for clinical as well as for population-based decision making. Rules of rational decision making in conditions of uncertainty should be rigorously followed and would need widely informative clinical trials. In principle, any piece of new evidence would need to be exploited in rare cancers. Methodologies to explicitly weigh and combine all the available evidence should be refined, and the Bayesian logic can be instrumental to this end. Likewise, Bayesian-design trials may help optimize the low number of patients liable to be enrolled in clinical studies on rare cancers, as well as adaptive trials in general, with their inherent potential of flexibility when properly applied. While clinical studies are the mainstay to test hypotheses, the potential of electronic patient records should be exploited to generate new hypotheses, to create external controls for future studies (when internal controls are unpractical), to study effectiveness of new treatments in real conditions. Framework study protocols in specific rare cancers to stepwisely test sets of new agents, as from the early post-phase I development stage, should be encouraged. Also the compassionate and the off-label settings should be exploited to generate new evidence, and flexible regulatory innovations such as adaptive licensing could convey new agents early to rare cancer patients, while generating evidence. Though validation of surrogate end points is problematic in rare cancers, the use of an updated notion of tumor response may be of great value in the single patient to optimize the use of therapies, all the more the new ones. Disease-based communities, involving clinicians and patients, should be regularly consulted by regulatory bodies when setting their policies on drug approval and reimbursement in specific rare cancers ., While they account for one-fifth of new cancer cases, rare cancers are difficult to study. A higher than average degree of uncertainty should be accommodated for clinical as well as for population-based decision making. Rules of rational decision making in conditions of uncertainty should be rigorously followed and would need widely informative clinical trials. In principle, any piece of new evidence would need to be exploited in rare cancers. Methodologies to explicitly weigh and combine all the available evidence should be refined, and the Bayesian logic can be instrumental to this end. Likewise, Bayesian-design trials may help optimize the low number of patients liable to be enrolled in clinical studies on rare cancers, as well as adaptive trials in general, with their inherent potential of flexibility when properly applied. While clinical studies are the mainstay to test hypotheses, the potential of electronic patient records should be exploited to generate new hypotheses, to create external controls for future studies (when internal controls are unpractical), to study effectiveness of new treatments in real conditions. Framework study protocols in specific rare cancers to sequentially test sets of new agents, as from the early post-phase I development stage, should be encouraged. Also the compassionate and the off-label settings should be exploited to generate new evidence, and flexible regulatory innovations such as adaptive licensing could convey new agents early to rare cancer patients, while generating evidence. Though validation of surrogate end points is problematic in rare cancers, the use of an updated notion of tumor response may be of great value in the single patient to optimize the use of therapies, all the more the new ones. Disease-based communities, involving clinicians and patients, should be regularly consulted by regulatory bodies when setting their policies on drug approval and reimbursement in specific rare cancers.