Search

Expanded access is a treatment use of investigational drugs, biologicals or medical devices outside of clinical trials. The purpose of our study was to assess self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) in oncology expanded access studies. One hundred fifty-eight oncology expanded access studies published from 2013 through 2020 were included. The pharmaceutical industry funded either completely or in part 94 studies (59.49%). The authors disclosed mostly financial COIs, while the number of the reported nonfinancial conflicts was relatively small (3528 and 57 COIs, respectively). The number of articles in which at least one author had a financial COI was 118 (74.68%). The most common financial COI types included advisory board membership/consulting (1471 COIs; 41.7%), followed by honoraria (570 COIs; 16.16%) and research funding (441 COIs; 12.5%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of disclosing financial COIs and positive study's conclusions. On univariate analysis, financial COIs were more likely to occur in studies with at least one center located in the United States (odds ratio [OR], 5.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-35.98; P = .02). We also found that positive conclusions about the studied treatments were less likely in studies without industry funding (OR, 0.26; CI, 0.08-0.77; P = .01). Most of the research on COIs in oncology performed to date focused on other types of studies, especially clinical trials. To our knowledge, our study is the first to evaluate COIs in oncology expanded access studies., (© 2021 UICC.)

Objective: Compassionate Drug Use (CDU) allows patients with a specific disease and no further treatment option to access unauthorized treatments. In this study, we analyzed the requests of CDU approved by the Ethics Committee of Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli in the period January 1, 2018-June 30, 2021. We also estimated the economic impact of CUs., Materials and Methods: CDU requests were analyzed by year, by frequency and by regulatory status of the medicines requested. If an ex-factory price was available at the cutoff date of June 30, 2021, we estimated what would have been the costs for the National Health System (NHS) if the price was already negotiated at the time of CDU request., Results: In the study period, 463 CDU requests were processed by the Ethics Committee. The number of requests increase linearly from 45 in 2018 to an estimated number of 260 in 2021. The requests included 68 medicines or combinations of medicines; 16 products out of 68 accounted for 75% of all requests. For 7 of these 16 highly requested treatments, accounting for 110 requests out of 463, it was possible to estimate the costs of therapies according to their ex-factory prices. If these products were to be purchased by the NHS, the estimated cost was € 5.472.225., Conclusions: The access to unauthorized drugs through CDUs is undergoing a huge increase in the last few years. Such increase meets the ethical need to provide patients with the most recent, often innovative, therapeutic options.

Many countries employ "alternative access schemes" (e.g. compassionate use, early access programs, off-label use) that seek to provide patients with access to drugs not included on a positive drug list. These schemes offer flexibility to policy-makers but often lack transparency and clear rules. This ambiguity allows for dynamic responses to weaknesses in the main drug approval and reimbursement systems, but also opportunistic use by the health professionals, industry or patients. Yet, most descriptions of these schemes focus on the de jure rather than the de facto situation, presenting a potentially misleading picture. We describe one such scheme in practice: the Slovak "extraordinary reimbursement regime" (ERR), using semi-structured interviews with 18 experts and a new dataset of ERR drugs. The ERR expanded rapidly, doubling between 2012 and 2016. It combined features of four reimbursement schemes: (1) a backdoor market access for expensive drugs; (2) a compassionate use scheme for investigational drugs combined with a "legacy drugs" scheme for older unlicensed drugs; (3) a disease-specific scheme for cancer and orphan drugs; and (4) a scheme for off-label and "off-indication" drugs. These four features reflect broader challenges facing the Slovak reimbursement system. We conclude that detailed study of the type, size and evolution over time of alternative access schemes can serve as indicators of health policy objectives neglected by standard reimbursement systems., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

There are increasing demands on regulators and insurers internationally to provide access to medicines more quickly, and often on the basis of less robust evidence of safety, efficacy or cost-effectiveness than have traditionally been required. These demands arise from a number of sources, including those advocating for access to medicines for patients with life-threatening diseases, rare diseases, or subsets of common diseases and where entire populations are threatened in the context of public health emergencies. In response to these demands, policymakers have instituted a number of initiatives aimed at speeding up access to medicines, which we refer to collectively as "accelerated access" programs. While there are strong arguments for accelerated access programs, these programs also raise a number of socio-political, epistemic and moral issues. Some of these issues are common to all types of accelerated access programs, while others are specific to particular types of accelerated access. Here, we offer a conceptual framework that highlights ethically relevant similarities and differences among different kinds of accelerated access processes for the purpose of enabling ethically and politically-informed policy making., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

In 2015, Chile enacted the 20850 law, providing public funds for rare and costly diseases that demanded high diagnostic and therapeutic expenditures. The law modifies the Chilean Sanitary Code regulation of research with human beings, aiming at the protection of subjects by securing post-investigational medical benefits and insurance coverage for damage imputable to the research they participated in. Due to ambiguous phrasing, a polemic rose for fear that these protective measures applied to all clinical research, although a careful reading of the law in its context clearly suggests that it refers to phase I therapeutic trials. This paper stresses the distinction between compassionate use and genuine phase I/II therapeutic trials aimed at both pharmacodynamics and an intended therapeutic effect for severe and progressive diseases that are therapeutically orphaned, emphasizing the ethical and medical duty of providing post-trial beneficial medication.

Focusing on the benefits of patients with rare disease the authors analysed the aspects of orphan medicines financed in the frame of the Hungarian social insurance system in 2012 in order to make the consumption more rational, transparent and predictable. Most of the orphan drugs were financed in the frame of compassionate use by the reimbursement system. Consequently, a great deal of crucial problems occurred in relation to the unconventional subsidized method, especially in the case of the highest cost enzyme replacement therapies. On the base of the findings, proposals of the authors are presented for access to orphan drugs, fitting to the specific professional, economical and ethical aspects of this unique field of the health care system. The primary goal is to provide a suitable subsidized method for the treatment of rare disease patients with unmet medical needs. The financial modification of orphans became indispensible in Hungary. Professionals from numerous fields dealing with rare disease patients' care expressed agreement on the issue. Transforming the orphan medicines' financial structure has been initiated according to internationally shared principles.

Background: To reach the French market, a new drug requires a marketing authorization (MA) and price and reimbursement agreements. These hurdles could delay access to new and promising drugs. Since 1992, French law authorizes the use of unlicensed drugs on an exceptional and temporary basis through a compassionate-use programme, known as Temporary Authorization for Use (ATU). This programme was implemented to improve early access to drugs under development or authorized abroad. However, it is suspected to be inflationary, bypassing public bodies in charge of health technology assessment (HTA) and of pricing., Objective: The aim of this study is to observe the market access after the formal licensing of drugs that went through this compassionate-use programme., Methods: We included all ATUs that received an MA between 1 January 2005 and 30 June 2010. We first examined market access delays from these drugs using the standard administrative path. We positioned this result in relation to launch delays observed in France (for all outpatient drugs) and in other major European markets. Second, we assessed the bargaining power of a hospital purchaser after those drugs had obtained an MA by calculating the price growth rate after the approval., Results: During the study period, 77 ATUs were formally licensed. The study concluded that, from the patient's perspective, licensing and public bodies' review time was shortened by a combined total of 36 months. The projected 11-month review time of public bodies may be longer than delays usually observed for outpatient drugs. Nonetheless, the study revealed significant benefits for French patient access based on comparable processing to launch time with those of other European countries with tight price control policies. In return, a 12 % premium, on average, is paid to pharmaceutical companies while drugs are under this status (sub-analysis on 56 drugs)., Conclusions: In many instances, the ATU programme responds to a public health need by accelerating the availability of new drugs even though this study suggests an impact of the programme on the market access of these drugs for which the standard administrative path is longer than usual. In addition, pharmaceutical companies seem to market compassionate-use drugs with a presumed benefit/risk ratio at a price that guarantees a margin for future negotiation.

Background: Where proven cancer therapies remain unfunded, patients are faced with difficult decisions regarding personally covering some or all of the treatment cost. Clinical trials provide an alternative form of access to unfunded drugs., Aims: To examine the patient population and utilisation of the colorectal cancer cetuximab Interim Access Programme (IAP) in Australia., Methods: We retrospectively analysed de-identified data collected as part of the costsharing colorectal cancer cetuximab IAP in Australia, which extended from June 2005 until November 2009. The impact of the CO20 clinical trial that opened in early 2008 and provided free access to cetuximab was also examined., Results: Eight hundred and fifty-eight patients received ≥1 treatment on the IAP. The median age of participants was lower than the general colorectal cancer population (61 vs 71 years). A greater uptake by males was limited to patients over 65 years old. Socioeconomic status correlated with programme enrolment, and there appeared to be lower uptake among regional patients. The majority (93%) of patients received combination treatment with irinotecan, with a trend towards increasing use of single-agent cetuximab over time. The median time-on-treatment was longer in patients treated with combination therapy than with monotherapy (12 vs 8 weeks). The CO20 trial had minimal impact on IAP enrolment and approximately doubled the number of Australian patients receiving cetuximab., Conclusions: Patients' age and gender in older patients impacted on participation in the IAP. Both the IAP and the CO20 trial contributed to a substantial proportion of Australian patients accessing an unfunded treatment, with an estimated 50% of the eligible patient population receiving cetuximab., (© 2012 The Authors; Internal Medicine Journal © 2012 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Deep brain stimulation-a novel surgical procedure-is emerging as a treatment of last resort for people diagnosed with neuropsychiatric disorders such as severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. The US Food and Drug Administration granted a so-called humanitarian device exemption to allow patients to access this intervention, thereby removing the requirement for a clinical trial of the appropriate size and statistical power. Bypassing the rigors of such trials puts patients at risk, limits opportunities for scientific discovery, and gives device manufacturers unique marketing opportunities. We argue that Congress and federal regulators should revisit the humanitarian device exemption to ensure that it is not used to sidestep careful research that can offer valuable data with appropriate patient safeguards.