The growing implementation of Single-Arm Trials (SATs) with External Control Arms (ECAs) has been the subject of heated debate across Europe. Some advocate its use when traditional Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) are unfeasible for a variety of reasons, while others fear that using ECAs is a means to accelerate timelines and limit costs at the expense of robust quality of evidence.
At ISPOR Europe 2022, Catia Proenca, Director of Real World Solutions at Alira Health, provided an overview of the regulatory and HTA use of ECAs, supported by case studies and inputs from patient-representatives about their perspective on usage of ECAs.
In a RCT, patients are randomly split into experimental arms (those who receive the new therapy) and control arms (those who receive a placebo and/or the standard of care). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) defines an ECA as an external group of patients who are not part of the same study receiving the intervention and are therefore not composed of the same population. Using an ECA, a sponsor relies on prior clinical trial data or Real World Data (RWD) that already exists; either historical data from a group of patients treated at an earlier time, or contemporaneous, which refers to a group treated during the same time period as the clinical trial but in a different setting
ECAs can be used in multiple contexts:
The data shows a transforming global ecosystem. In the past decade, there has been a steady increase in the submission of dossiers to Health Authorities and Health Technology Assessment (HTAs) containing Real World Evidence (RWE) and ECAs to support the demonstration of efficacy. The number of clinical trials using SATs registered on Clinicaltrials.gov between 2014 and 2021 went from 15 to 184. Key stakeholders (U.S. Food and Drug Administration and EMA) have acknowledged and encouraged the use of RWD/E (e.g., 21st Century Cures Act). Also, HTA bodies in some countries are publishing guidance documents setting out the recommendations for RWD study design and execution, including for ECA design.
To discover what HTAs think about SATs with ECAs, Alira Health conducted a study. The study approach was to:
The technologies identified were all targeting rare diseases, and the respective technologies all received orphan-drug designation by EMA. The reimbursement decisions and ECA acceptance status were examined across five countries: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy (note that Italy’s reporting did not include ECA acceptance). The chart below shows the results.
The UK reimbursed all technologies and accepted all the ECAs. France failed to reimburse for one technology, and rejected all ECAs but one. Germany reimbursed for all and rejected four out of six ECA. Germany’s HTA will not accept ECAs readily because their standards are very high: if the treatment group does not do dramatically better or see dramatic improvement over the control group, the HTA will not approve. Many of these technologies only deliver incremental improvement, which still can mean a lot to a patient.
Italy reimbursed for all, and Spain reimbursed for six and accepted four ECAs. The majority of reimbursements (28 out of 30) were made, and of the ECAs submitted for approval, 13 out of 24 were approved.
The study concluded that successful ECAs in SATs must follow a robust study design and high RWD quality. Companies developing drugs or devices should follow these parameters as much as possible when designing clinical trials that will use an ECA, in order to be accepted by the HTAs in each country.
Contact us to learn how we can help you design your clinical trials using single-arm trials with external control arms.
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest news, events, and thought leadership