Implementation of 21st Century Cures Act Expanded Access Policies Requirements.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded access pathway allows patients with life-threatening or serious conditions to access investigational drugs outside of trials, under certain conditions. The 21st Century Cures Act ("Cures Act") requires certain drug companies to publicly disclose their expanded access policies. We characterized the proportion of applicable US biopharmaceutical companies, with an oncology related drug, implementing Cures Act requirements for expanded access policies and whether available policies contain the information described in the Act. We found about one-third of applicable biopharmaceutical companies (32%, 140/423) implemented the Cures Act requirement to have a public expanded access policy. Less than one-third of public policies contained all described information (31%, 44/140). Larger companies and those with at least one drug receiving an FDA expedited designation (59% vs. 21%; P < 0.001), or at least one FDA-approved drug (57% vs. 28%; P < 0.001) were more likely to have a public policy. Our results suggest the Cures Act may be having a limited impact on its goals of supporting timely medical decisions and closing informational gaps for patients and doctors around expanded access to investigational oncology therapies, especially for products sponsored by smaller and newer companies.

Compassionate Drug Use - Time Arising for a New Law in Bulgaria in the Era of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Despite clinical trials, there are still no approved specific therapies or any vaccine against COVID-19. The only option available is using investigational drugs for compassionate use. The update of the existing regulation regarding compassionate use is to ensure the effective and sustainable development of health policies and technologies over the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. AIM: The present short communication aimed to highlight the need for early and expanded access to investigational drugs for compassionate use as well as a call for an update of the existing regulation in Bulgaria concerning compassionate use in the era of COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In EU and Bulgaria as well, the legal framework for compassionate use was introduced by Article 83 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council; in principle, Regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council are mandatory for all Member States. Remdesivir appears to have a favorable clinical and safety profile, as reported in a case involving patients with severe COVID-19 through a compassionate use programme. RESULTS: The overall probability of clinical improvement observed in 36 of 53 COVID-19 patients received intravenous remdesivir as part of a compassionate use programme was 68% (95% CI 40% to 80%). Thirty two patients (60%) demonstrated at least one adverse event, twelve 12 patients (23%) experienced serious adverse events and seven patients (13%) died. CONCLUSION: The global pandemic mandates Bulgarian Drug Agency for a reasonable update of the existing national regulation concerning compassionate use and off-label therapies. In the era of COVID-19, it is important for Bulgarian patients to have early and expanded access to investigational drugs for compassionate use.

Unproven stem cell therapies: is it my right to try?

BACKGROUND: Nowadays one of the most critical aspects of innovative cell-based therapies is the unregulated industry, as it is becoming a competitor of the regulated system. Many private clinics, worldwide, advertise and offer cell-based interventions treatments directly to the consumer and this poses a risk to both vulnerable patients and health systems. Several countries have implemented Compassionate Use Programmes (CUP) that provide patients with medicines that have not yet completed the approval pathway, in the event that no reasonable alternative exists. Recently, in the public discourse, compassionate use has been increasingly associated with a patient's right to try. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess public knowledge of the clinical trials process with specific reference to innovative stem cell treatments, and trust in the institutions responsible for regulatory activities. We also asked people about their "right" to use unregulated therapies. METHODS: We developed an ad hoc questionnaire on three main areas of concern and administered it to 300 people in the patient waiting room at an Italian university hospital. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that people have a good knowledge of the clinical trials process and trust in healthcare institutions. Nonetheless, one person in two believes it is a right to use unregulated therapies. CONCLUSIONS: We stress the need, in the age of cellular therapies, for a commitment to support vulnerable patients and to strengthen awareness among the public about the substantial boundary that differentiates experimental therapies from unproven therapies. There should not be a "right to try" something that is unsafe but rather approved treatments and in line with good clinical practice. The trend, which emerged on this issue from our study, is quite different, confirming the urgent need to improve health information so that it is as complete as possible.

Single-Patient Expanded Access Requests: IRB Professionals' Experiences and Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: U.S. physicians may treat a patient with an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial by using the expanded access (EA) pathway or the recently created federal right to try (RTT) pathway. The EA pathway requires physicians to get prior permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, except in emergency cases, institutional review board (IRB) approval. The perspectives of IRB professionals on the review of single-patient EA requests have not been empirically studied. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional online survey to ascertain IRB professionals' perspectives on IRB experiences with and preparedness for review of single-patient EA requests, as well as their attitudes about the importance of IRB review of such requests. Email invitations were sent to 234 IRB professionals connected to the SMART IRB platform. Approximately half of the survey questions used a Likert scale to assess respondents' agreement with specific statements. RESULTS: Eighty-three respondents completed the survey (36.4% response rate, with 228 deliverable e-mail invitations). Of the respondents, 73.5% were affiliated with an academic medical institution; 78.3% of respondents agreed that it is important for a designated member of an IRB to review single-patient EA requests before investigational drugs are used by patients. The majority indicated that local review of the EA request was important and that a single designated reviewer was sufficient (rather than full board). Further, 86.6% felt that their IRBs were prepared to review these requests, and 9.2% indicated that not all the single-patient EA requests reviewed by their IRBs in 2017 were approved. CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of IRB professionals affiliated with the SMART IRB platform who responded to this survey felt IRB review of single-patient EA requests is important and that their IRBs were prepared to handle such requests.

21st Century Citizen Pharma: The FDA & Patient-Focused Product Development.

Perpetual debate regarding the delicate balance between access and innovation and the protection of the public health and safety dominate discussions of the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Established chiefly as a command and control federal administrative agency, iterative changes in legislation have shaped the FDA's activity in drug, biologic, and medical device regulation over the course of the last one hundred plus years. The most recent fundamental reframing of the agency's authority and directive presented itself in the 21st Century Cures Act, reflecting an important role for patient perspectives in the regulatory process. This Article explores recent developments in patient-focused product development efforts at the FDA and offers modest insights on the increasing role of patients, and patient advocacy groups, in agency decision-making. The Article terms this era "21st century citizen pharma."

Little to lose and no other options: Ethical issues in efforts to facilitate expanded access to investigational drugs.

BACKGROUND: Today, public and private bodies around the world are trying to facilitate and increase expanded access to unapproved, investigational drugs for patients with unmet medical needs. METHODS: This paper discusses three major shifts in the field of expanded access and presents an argumentative account of ethical issues connected with those shifts, based on a literature study and unstructured interviews with 35 stakeholders in the Netherlands. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Traditionally, expanded access has been based on three key principles: 1) it is exceptional, 2) it is done 'out of compassion', and 3) it has a therapeutic aim. Current efforts to facilitate expanded access affect these key principles, rendering expanded access a default option, allowing companies to charge for investigational drugs and gather data on its outcomes. These shifts may generate new ethical issues, including false hope, safety concerns and funding issues, which must be anticipated by physicians, pharmaceutical companies, payers and policymakers. CONCLUSION: Healthcare systems allow for the use of promising unapproved drugs in exceptional circumstances, but do not always assist patients with unmet medical needs in getting access. It is time to replace the current patchwork of practices with systems for expanded access in which criteria are clearly described, responsibilities are assigned and arrangements are made, so that patients will know what (not) to expect from expanded access.

Improving Expanded Access in the United States: The Role of the Institutional Review Board.

BACKGROUND: The FDA allows patients with a serious or immediately life-threatening illness to use investigational medical products outside of clinical trials through its "expanded access" program. In response to criticism that the process to apply for expanded access is too onerous, numerous changes have been made over the last few years. These have been largely focused on the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, while institutional review boards (IRBs)-which must approve expanded access protocols, except in emergencies when there is not time to do so-have remained relatively unstudied. We conducted a pilot study to review a sample of publicly available IRB policies from the United States to investigate how these entities handle expanded access. METHODS: We performed an online search to find publicly available policies for IRBs operating in the United States, utilizing a convenience sampling strategy, selecting the first 100 eligible policies we identified. RESULTS: Of the 95 policies reviewed, the majority (92.6%, n = 88) contained language referencing nonemergency expanded access and/or expanded access for emergency requests for a single patient. Of these 88 policies, 11.4% (n = 19) did not explicitly specify detailed procedures for handling nonemergency single-patient expanded access requests. Of the 88 policies that mentioned expanded access in nonemergency situations, 11.5% did not explicitly specify whether full IRB review was required, as was the rule at that time. There was considerable variation in other aspects of these policies, including charging patients for use of investigational products and the use of data from expanded access. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of our pilot, IRB policies on expanded access vary considerably. It is often difficult to find, interpret, and understand IRB policies on expanded access. Further research is needed to determine if and to what extent this negatively impacts patient access to investigational products outside of clinical trials.

Prevalence of Publicly Available Expanded Access Policies.

The Food and Drug Administration's expanded access program allows patients with serious or immediately life-threatening conditions to seek access to experimental drugs and treatments from their manufacturers. The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 sought to increase the transparency of manufacturers' approaches to expanded access by requiring public listing of five key pieces of information about their expanded access programs: 1) relevant contact information, 2) procedures for making requests, 3) general criteria used to evaluate requests, 4) length of time anticipated to acknowledge receipt of requests, and 5) a reference to pertinent information on ClinicalTrials.gov. Manufacturers were given 60 days from the Act's enactment, or until February 11, 2017, to post this information. We reviewed a sample of pharmaceutical manufacturers' expanded access policies to determine what information is readily available to patients online, including assessing whether the information described in the Act is available.

Right-to-Try Investigational Therapies for Incurable Disorders.

Patients with life-threatening disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, for which only minimally effective medical therapies currently exist, often seek treatments not proven to be effective and not approved by regulatory agencies for use outside of experimental treatment trials. The expanded access (compassionate use) provisions of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for access to such therapies are often perceived as being inadequate. In response, states have passed right-to-try laws designed to improve access to experimental therapies for patients willing to assume the risks associated with such treatments. This situation has resulted in conflicts between those who perceive access to such treatments as their right as autonomous individuals and those who believe that the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence justify actions of physicians and regulators in controlling access to such treatments. A variety of factors also contribute to the inequitable distribution of such treatments. Better systems are needed to improve access to promising new treatments while protecting these vulnerable patients from the abuses associated with human research in the preregulatory era.

Off-Label Use of Medical Devices in Children.

Despite widespread therapeutic needs, the majority of medical and surgical devices used in children do not have approval or clearance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pediatric populations. The clinical need for devices to diagnose and treat diseases or conditions occurring in children has led to the widespread and necessary practice in pediatric medicine and surgery of using approved devices for "off-label" or "physician-directed" applications that are not included in FDA-approved labeling. This practice is common and often appropriate, even with the highest-risk (class III) devices. The legal and regulatory framework used by the FDA for devices is complex, and economic or market barriers to medical and surgical device development for children are significant. Given the need for pediatric medical and surgical devices and the challenges to pediatric device development, off-label use is a necessary and appropriate part of care. In addition, because of the relatively uncommon nature of pediatric conditions, FDA clearance or approval often requires other regulatory pathways (eg, Humanitarian Device Exemption), which can cause confusion among pediatricians and payers about whether a specific use, even of an approved device, is considered experimental. This policy statement describes the appropriateness of off-label use of devices in children; the use of devices approved or cleared through the FDA regulatory processes, including through the Humanitarian Device Exemption; and the important need to increase pediatric device labeling information for all devices and especially those that pose the highest risk to children.

One Last Shot.

Texas' right-to-try law makes experimental drugs more accessible to terminally ill patients when all other FDA-approved treatment options are unavailable or are unlikely to prolong life.