Saint Quentin Cédex, France

Research of the Consequences on the Digestive Tract Following the Proposed Treatments for a Urinary Infection in Children

Prospective Non-interventional Study of Adult Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

During the last fifteen years, the landscape of AML diagnosis and therapeutical options has markedly evolved. Refined genetic and prognostic characterizations, together with new drug approvals and new allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) procedures, have increased patient journey diversity. I - At initial AML diagnosis, not all newly diagnosed patients are entering clinical trials. A substantial proportion of them are treated with standard therapies outside of any trial. To date, the standard approved frontline treatment options include: 1. Standard intensive 3+7 (anthracycline + cytarabine) chemotherapy ± an approved FLT3 inhibitor (midostaurine, Rydapt®), according to different dose schedules in older versus younger patients 2. Combination of sequential gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO, Mylotarg®) with 3+7 3. Liposomal formulation of daunorubicin + cytarabine (CPX-351, Vyxeos®) 4. Less intensive chemotherapy with azacytidine or low dose cytarabine (LDAC) in patients considered as not eligible for the more intensive options above The investigator's choice is guided by AML and patient's characteristics, and by the approved indications for each of these treatment options. This study will thus start including these specific options. Further study amendments might be necessary in case of new standard treatment definition. II - Secondly, no specific salvage regimen has emerged as a standard in patients with primary refractory or relapsed AML (R/R AML). R/R AML is thus an important field for investigational new drugs (INDs) and precision medicine development. To date, the only IND approved to treat R/R AML is gilteritinib for FLT3-mutated AML patients. The French agency ANSM also allow to use GO for treating R/R AML patients in the frame of a RTU (Recommendation Temporaire d'Utilisation). In the "real life", because of the multiplicity of treatments used in these patients, some of them being now quite efficient, it has become difficult to accurately describe the general outcome of R/R AML patients. III - Thirdly, allogeneic HSCT is no more considered at the ultimate and final goal of AML therapy in all patients, as it was in the past. Transplant indications have been better described and HSCT in now evaluated in the context of the whole treatment course, including pre- and post-transplant therapy, as well as pre- and post-transplant minimal residual disease (MRD) levels. For all these reasons, it is of utmost importance to document the various characteristics, treatments and outcomes of patients treated in the real-life, outside of clinical trials, for 1) real-world treatment evaluation; 2) post-approval use of recently approved drugs; 3) standardization and improvement of routine patient management; and 4) better disease understanding.

A Case Management Algorithm for Women Victims of Violence

DPX-Survivac and Pembrolizumab With and Without Intermittent Low-Dose Cyclophosphamide, in Subjects With Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

This is a Phase 2b, randomized, open label study to assess the safety and efficacy of DPX-Survivac and pembrolizumab, with and without low-dose cyclophosphamide (CPA) in subjects with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. The study will enroll up to 102 subjects. Eligible subjects will be randomized (1:1) to receive: - Arm 1: DPX-Survivac, pembrolizumab and intermittent, low-dose CPA; or, - Arm 2: DPX-Survivac and pembrolizumab All subjects will receive two 0.5 mL doses of DPX-Survivac 3 weeks apart on day 7 (D7) and D28 followed by up to twelve 0.1 mL doses of DPX-Survivac, 8 weeks apart (Q8W). All subjects will receive pembrolizumab intravenously (IV) at a flat dose of 200 mg starting at D7 and on day 1 of each 3-week cycle thereafter (i.e., D28, D49, D70 etc.) (Q3W). For subjects randomized to Arm 1, intermittent oral CPA at a dose of 50 mg twice a day (BID) is administered from D0 to D6 (7 days) followed by 7 days off. This 14-day cycle of "7 days on and 7 days off" will be repeated until the end of study treatment.

Savolitinib Plus Osimertinib Versus Platinum-based Doublet Chemotherapy in Participants With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Who Have Progressed on Osimertinib Treatment

This is a multicentre, Phase III, randomised, open-label study to investigate the efficacy and safety of savolitinib administered orally in combination with osimertinib versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in participants with EGFR mutated, MET-overexpressed and/or amplified, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who have progressed on first- or second-line treatment with osimertinib as the most recent therapy. Approximately 324 participants with EGFR mutated, MET-overexpressed and/or amplified, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC will be randomly assigned to study intervention with 1:1 ratio. Patients will be treated until either objective progression of disease (PD) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) is assessed by the investigator, unacceptable toxicity occurs, consent is withdrawn, or another discontinuation criterion is met.

De-escalation Immunotherapy mAintenance Duration Trial for Stage IV Lung Cancer Patients With Disease Control After Chemo-immunotherapy Induction

This is a phase II-III randomized, open-labelled, multicentre study for NSCLC patients who are naive of treatment for advanced disease. Patients will be given first-line chemotherapy + pembrolizumab: platinum doublet for at least 3 cycles, either paclitaxel-carboplatin for patient with SCC or 3 cycles of pemetrexed-platinum salt followed by 2 cycles of pemetrexed and 6 cycles of pembrolizumab. Only patients with disease control, confirmed at 6 months (27-weeks) without drug-related toxicity imposing treatment discontinuation will be randomized 1:1 either to continuation of pembrolizumab (± pemetrexed for non-SCC) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or 2 years, or observation (± pemetrexed for non-SCC). Patients will be stratified by performance status (0 versus 1), histology (SCC versus non-SCC), PD-L1 (PD-L1 < 1% versus 49%≥PD-L1 ≥ 1% versus PD-L1>49%), sex and response at randomization (partial response versus stabilisation).

Transplantation After Complete Response In Patients With T-cell Lymphoma

Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy as Treatment for MSS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer With High Immune Infiltrate

Influence of the PEPA Membrane on the Undernutrition Syndrome Inflammation in Chronic Hemodialysis

The objective of NutriPEPA2 study is to demonstrate that the use of an adsorbent membrane (PEPA-Poly Ester Poly Arylate synthetic co-polymer membrane) decreases undernutrition (often associated with inflammation) and consequently morbidity, comparing one year mortality in patients with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), with severe Protein-Energy Wasting (PEW), treated with dialysis using a non-adsorbent synthetic membrane (Polysulfone or Polyethersulfone) versus an adsorbent membrane (PEPA).

Extern Validation of a Predictive Score of Brain Death in Severe Stroke (DIAPASON1)

Main objective : External validation of a brain death evolution predictive score GRAHAL65 (initial Glasgow score ≤6, systolic blood pressure >150 mmHg, past history of alcohol abuse, herniation, hydrocephalus, and stroke volume>65 ml) for patients with severe stroke and withhold therapy built. Secondary objectives : Identification of other clinical and paraclinical predictive factors of brain death evolution: - Age,sex, - Temperature and glycemia - Rostro-caudal abolition of brainstem reflexes - Other cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, dyslipidemia,) - Antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulant treatment, - Intravenous thrombolytic therapy or thrombectomy - Type of stroke - Infarct location - Type of brain herniation