Expanded access to investigational drugs: balancing patient safety with potential therapeutic benefits

Optimising oncology drug expenditure in Ireland

A combination of improvements in patient survival, increasing treatment duration, and the development of more expensive agents has led to a doubling of per-capita spending on cancer medicines in Ireland (2008-2018). Despite this, access to new drugs is poor in comparison to other EU countries. We examine methods to optimise oncology drug spending to facilitate access to newer anticancer agents. Key targets for spending optimisation (biosimilar use, clinical trials and expanded access programs, waste reduction, avoidance of futile treatment, and altered drug scheduling) were identified through an exploratory analysis. A structured literature search was performed, with a focus on articles relevant to the Irish Healthcare system, supplemented by reports from statutory bodies. At the present time, EMA-approved agents are available once approved by the NCPE. Optimising drug costs occurs through guideline-based practice and biosimilar integration, the latter provides €80 million in cost savings annually. Access to novel therapies can occur via over 50 clinical trials and 28 currently available expanded access programmes. Additional strategies include reversion to weight-based immunotherapy dosing, potentially saving €400,000 per year in our centre alone, vial sharing, and optimisation of treatment schedules. A variety of techniques are being employed by oncologists to optimise costs and increase access to innovation for patients. Use of biosimilars, drug wastage, and prescribing at end of life should be audited as key performance indicators, which may lead to reflective practice on treatment planning. Such measures could further optimise oncology drug expenditure nationally facilitating approval of new agents.

The impact of expanded access programs for systemic anticancer therapy in an Irish cancer centre

BACKGROUND

Expanded access programs (EAPs) allow cancer patients with unmet clinical need to obtain access to pre-authorisation treatments. There is no standardised process for implementing these programs nationally, and real-world data on their impact is lacking.

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of such EAPs and their impact in a cancer centre.

METHODS

Data relating to adult cancer patients treated via EAPs from 2011 to 2021 in three Cork university hospitals was collated. Descriptive statistics were employed to get an overview of the impact these programs currently have on cancer care provision.

RESULTS

We identified 193 patients who accessed EAPs during the study period, availing of 33 separate drugs for a total of 50 different cancer indications. The prevalence of EAP usage was shown to have been trending upwards in recent years with a total of 189 programs being accessed throughout the period. Drugs provided were from a number of different anti-cancer drug classes, particularly targeted therapies (n = 18) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 17). Cancers from a wide range of both solid and liquid tumour types were treated with EAP drugs, and patients treated were from across a broad spectrum of ages (26-82, SD 11.99).

CONCLUSIONS

EAPs have an increasing role in accessing novel cancer therapies in our community and by extension nationally. Equity of EAP access would be facilitated by a national registry of available agents which we have established. Assessment of their benefits and toxicities would be enhanced by the requirement for a real-world database as a condition of EAP approval.

Tumor-agnostic baskets to N-of-1 platform trials and real-world data: Transforming precision oncology clinical trial design

Choosing the right drug(s) for the right patient via advanced genomic sequencing and multi-omic interrogation is the sine qua non of precision cancer medicine. Traditional cancer clinical trial designs follow well-defined protocols to evaluate the efficacy of new therapies in patient groups, usually identified by their histology/tissue of origin of their malignancy. In contrast, precision medicine seeks to optimize benefit in individual patients, i.e., to define who benefits rather than determine whether the overall group benefits. Since cancer is a disease driven by molecular alterations, innovative trial designs, including biomarker-defined tumor-agnostic basket trials, are driving ground-breaking regulatory approvals and deployment of gene- and immune-targeted drugs. Molecular interrogation further reveals the disruptive reality that advanced cancers are extraordinarily complex and individually distinct. Therefore, optimized treatment often requires drug combinations and N-of-1 customization, addressed by a new generation of N-of-1 trials. Real-world data and structured master registry trials are also providing massive datasets that are further fueling a transformation in oncology. Finally, machine learning is facilitating rapid discovery, and it is plausible that high-throughput computing, in silico modeling, and 3-dimensional printing may be exploitable in the near future to discover and design customized drugs in real time.

Tumor Necrosis Alpha (TNF-α) Antagonists Used in Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases: Risks and their Minimization Measures

Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF- α) inhibitors are widely employed for the management of chronic inflammatory rheumatism. However, their usage carries significant risks, including site and infusion reactions, serious infections, malignancy, heart failure autoimmune and demyelinating disorders. These risks are comprehensively outlined in risk management plans (RMPs) associated with these molecules. RMP provides information on the safety profile of a medicinal product as well as the measures that will be taken to minimize risks; these are known as risk minimization measures. These measures are divided into routine measures related to elements, such as the summary of product characteristics, labeling, pack size, package leaflet, or legal supply status of the product, while additional measures may include educational programs, including tools for healthcare providers and patients, controlled access or pregnancy prevention programs, among others. Additional measures can consist of one or more interventions that need to be implemented in a sustainable way in a defined target group, while respecting the timing and frequency of any intervention and procedures to reach the target population. An evaluation of the effectiveness of these measures is required to determine whether or not an intervention has been effective. This comprehensive review offers an in-depth exploration of the current treatment, uses, and associated risks of TNF-α inhibitors. Additionally, it provides a detailed account of risk minimization measures and risk management practices while shedding light on their real-world implementation and effectiveness.

Molecular tumour boards - current and future considerations for precision oncology

Over the past 15 years, rapid progress has been made in developmental therapeutics, especially regarding the use of matched targeted therapies against specific oncogenic molecular alterations across cancer types. Molecular tumour boards (MTBs) are panels of expert physicians, scientists, health-care providers and patient advocates who review and interpret molecular-profiling results for individual patients with cancer and match each patient to available therapies, which can include investigational drugs. Interpretation of the molecular alterations found in each patient is a complicated task that requires an understanding of their contextual functional effects and their correlations with sensitivity or resistance to specific treatments. The criteria for determining the actionability of molecular alterations and selecting matched treatments are constantly evolving. Therefore, MTBs have an increasingly necessary role in optimizing the allocation of biomarker-directed therapies and the implementation of precision oncology. Ultimately, increased MTB availability, accessibility and performance are likely to improve patient care. The challenges faced by MTBs are increasing, owing to the plethora of identifiable molecular alterations and immune markers in tumours of individual patients and their evolving clinical significance as more and more data on patient outcomes and results from clinical trials become available. Beyond next-generation sequencing, broader biomarker analyses can provide useful information. However, greater funding, resources and expertise are needed to ensure the sustainability of MTBs and expand their outreach to underserved populations. Harmonization between practice and policy will be required to optimally implement precision oncology. Herein, we discuss the evolving role of MTBs and current and future considerations for their use in precision oncology.

An International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy working group short report on the future of expanded access to unapproved cell and gene therapies

Patient interest in non-trial access pathways to investigational cell-and gene-based interventions, such as expanded access in the USA, is increasing, while the regulatory and business environments for non-trial access in the cell and gene therapy field are shifting. Against this background, in 2022 the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy (ISCT) established a Working Group on Expanded Access to identify practical, ethical, and regulatory issues emerging from the use (and possible misuse) of the expanded access pathway in the cell and gene therapy field. In this Short Report, the Working Group sets the stage for its future activities by analyzing the history of expanded access and identifying three examples of questions that we anticipate arising as uses of expanded access for investigational cell and gene-based interventions increase and evolve.

Clinical innovation ethics frameworks: A systematic narrative review

BACKGROUND

It is common for doctors to engage in clinical innovation-i.e. to use novel interventions that differ from standard practice, and that have not yet been shown to be safe or effective according to the usual standards of evidence-based medicine-in the belief that this will benefit their patients. Clinical innovation is currently poorly defined and lacks cohesive oversight mechanisms.

METHODS

A systematic narrative review, with the aim of identifying areas of similarity and divergence in innovation ethics frameworks developed across different medical specialties.

RESULTS

47 articles were included in the review. Few ethical issues raised by the ethics frameworks appear to be unique to distinct areas of practice. While variations exist in the oversight mechanisms suggested, these are again not specific to areas of practice, but rather reflect either cautious or more permissive attitudes towards clinical innovation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable overlap amongst ethics frameworks developed for use in diverse areas of practice. This reflects a tendency to treat innovative interventions in each area of practice as "exceptional" and a failure to develop "higher order" frameworks such as those that have been developed for research. Those involved in the oversight of clinical innovation need to aim for a balance between exceptionalism and harmonisation.

Perspectives of Academic Oncologists About Offering Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs

IMPORTANCE

The expanded access (EA) pathway permits patients to be treated with investigational medical products outside clinical trials. Because cancer care is a common indication for which EA is sought and these efforts require physician management, understanding oncologists' perspectives can help illuminate factors influencing patient access.

OBJECTIVE

To learn how oncologists practicing at academic medical centers (AMCs) perceive EA and their role in offering it.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study used data from semistructured interviews conducted from February 2020 to September 2021 with a purposive sample of oncologists recruited from large, urban AMCs in the northeast United States. Oncologists who had submitted at least 1 single-patient EA request to the institutional review boards at the University of Pennsylvania, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, NYU Langone Health, and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from January 1, 2014, through January 31, 2020, were eligible to participate. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to March 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Interviews focused on oncologist practice demographics, experience with EA, factors relevant to decisions to pursue EA and comfort with those decisions, perspectives on oncologists' role in EA, perspectives on the FDA's role, and the Right to Try pathway to access investigational drugs.

RESULTS

Eligible oncologists were interviewed until thematic saturation was reached, resulting in 25 interviews; most participants were women (15 participants [60%]), reported primarily treating adult patients (15 participants [60%]), had more than 10 years of clinical experience (16 participants [64%]), and had submitted at least 2 single-patient EA requests to their institutional review boards during the relevant period (14 participants [56%]). Oncologists viewed EA as an important tool for securing what they determined to be the best treatment option for their patients based on their own expert assessment of available data. Interviewees reported that they would rather access interventions as commercially available products or through clinical trials; however, if the preferred option was not available through these means, they viewed pursuit of EA as part of their obligation to patients, while often recognizing the potential for inequities in the broader patient population beyond their institutions. Participating oncologists felt confident pursuing investigational drugs for treatment use, despite the absence of FDA marketing approval, and did not necessarily view EA as a last resort.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings indicate that oncologists practicing in large academic settings sought to treat patients with the interventions they deemed most likely to be beneficial, regardless of approval status. As such, they viewed EA as an unexceptional means to obtain promising products, although it remains unclear whether their confidence in evaluating investigational treatments was justified. Future research should examine whether oncologists outside large AMCs share this confidence, as differences may influence patient access to the EA treatment pathway.

International Country-Level Trends, Factors, and Disparities in Compassionate Use Access to Unlicensed Products for Patients With Serious Medical Conditions

Importance

Compassionate use (CU) is a treatment option for patients with serious or life-threatening medical conditions that provides access to locally unlicensed medications (generally free of charge) when all available treatment options have been exhausted and enrollment in a clinical trial is not possible.

Objective

To examine the disparity in CU access observed across countries and explore the key driving factors.

Design Settings and Participants

This study analyzed all Novartis CU requests (for individual/named patients and cohort programs) received between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, and investigated selected country-specific factors for association with request activity. Data analysis was performed from February 2021 to February 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Country-specific request activity was quantified using request counts and rates per million population and examined in stratified and multivariable analyses (negative-binomial regression) for association with the following covariates: existence of local CU regulations and their public availability, clinical trial activity, population size, and gross domestic product.

Results

During the 36-month observation period, 31 711 CU requests were received from 110 countries, 23 194 (73%) of which came from only 10 high-income countries. All high-income countries combined accounted for 27 612 (87%) of all requests, while lower-middle-income and low-income countries contributed only 1021 (3%). Of all requests, 29 870 (94%) were from countries with CU regulations made publicly available on the internet, and higher request activity was demonstrated in countries conducting more clinical trials. Presence and public availability of CU regulations, population size, gross domestic product, and clinical trial activity were independently associated with the CU request activity in multivariable analysis.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study analyzing Novartis CU requests over a 3-year period, existence and public availability of CU regulations and local clinical trial activity were positively associated with higher CU request rates. The analysis also identified an association between macroeconomic factors and CU request activity, despite the generally free provision of unlicensed therapeutic products. Similar analyses of other comparable experiences are needed to supplement these initial observations. Ultimately, better understanding of factors associated with CU request activity would translate into improved early access to novel lifesaving products for patients with unmet medical needs around the world.

Factors Associated With Off-Label Oncology Prescriptions: The Role of Cost and Financing in a Universal Healthcare System

Purpose: Various solutions have been put forward for prescribing and reimbursing treatments outside their registered indications within universal healthcare systems. However, most off-label oncology prescriptions are not reimbursed by health funds. This study characterized the financing sources of off-label oncology use and the predictors of the decision to forego treatment.

Materials and Methods: All 708 off-label oncology requests submitted for approval in a large tertiary cancer center in Israel between 2016 and 2018 were examined for disease and patient sociodemographic characteristics, costs and financing sources, and the factors predicting actual off-label drug administration using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results: The mean monthly cost of a planned off-label treatment was ILS54,703 (SD = ILS61,487, median = ILS39,928) (approximately US$ 15,500). The main sources of funding were private health insurance (25%) and expanded access pharma company plans (30%). Approximately one third (31%) of the requests did not have a financing source at the time of approval. Of the 708 requests, 583 (or 82%) were filled and treatment was initiated. Predictors for forgoing treatment were the impossibility of out-of-pocket payments or the lack of a financing solution (OR = 0.407; p = 0.005 and OR = 0.400; p < 0.0005).

Conclusion: Although off-label recommendations are widespread and institutional approval is often granted, a large proportion of these prescriptions are not filled. In a universal healthcare system, the financing sources for off-label treatments are likely to influence access.

ClinicalTrials.gov as a Source of Information About Expanded Access Programs: Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov) is the most comprehensive internet-based register of different types of clinical studies. Expanded access is the use of unapproved drugs, biologics, or medical devices outside of clinical trials. One of the key problems in expanded access is the availability to both health care providers and patients of information about unapproved treatments.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate CT.gov as a potential source of information about expanded access programs.

METHODS

We assessed the completeness of information in the records of 228 expanded access programs registered with CT.gov from February 2017 through May 2020. Moreover, we examined what percentage of published expanded access studies has been registered with CT.gov. Logistic regression (univariate and multivariate) and mediation analyses were used to identify the predictors of the absence of some information and a study's nonregistration.

RESULTS

We found that some important data were missing from the records of many programs. Information that was missing most often included a detailed study description, facility information, central contact person, and eligibility criteria (55.3%, 54.0%, 41.7%, and 17.5% of the programs, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that information about central contact person was more likely to be missing from records of studies registered in 2017 (adjusted OR 21.93; 95% CI 4.42-172.29; P<.001). This finding was confirmed by mediation analysis (P=.02). Furthermore, 14% of the programs were registered retrospectively. We also showed that only 33 of 77 (42.9%) expanded access studies performed in the United States and published from 2014 through 2019 were registered with CT.gov. However, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between any of the variables related to the studies and the odds of study nonregistration (P>.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, CT.gov is a quite fragmentary source of data on expanded access programs. This problem is important because CT.gov is the only publicly available primary source of information about specific programs. We suggest the actions that should be taken by different stakeholders to fully exploit this register as a source of information about expanded access.

Educational needs, perception, and perspectives of oncologists regarding compassionate use programs in Asia

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to capture the educational needs, perceptions, and perspectives of oncologists towards Compassionate Use Programs (CUPs) in Asia, with the aim of gathering insights related to unmet needs for physician and patient assistance.

METHODS

The participants responded to a voluntary, self-administered, closed-ended questionnaire through an online platform between 29 April 2020 and 17 June 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 111 oncologists provided informed consent to participate in the study. Of these, 102 respondents fully completed the questionnaire and were included in the analyses. Maximum respondents (35.3%) had 10-20 years of experience after specialization with 19.6, 23.5, and 21.6% respondents having <5, 5-10, and ≥20 years of experience, respectively. Practice type plays a statistically significant role in the awareness of the existing compassionate program (p = .0066). While many respondents seem clear on the application process for CUP set in place by pharmaceutical companies, a higher number of respondents are unclear about the country regulations and processes for applying to CUPs set in place by regulatory authorities. Most respondents (75.5%) reported that there are no resources or training provided to them regarding CUPs. There was a significant association between the clarity of the application process for CUP set in place by the sponsors and the number of applications submitted (p = .0321).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study brings light on various issues faced by physicians in accessing CUPs especially related to the lack of education and training on utilizing CUPs. There are significant unmet needs related to improving the clarity for the application process, providing resources and related training, particularly for oncologists who do not have previous experience with CUPs.

Conflicts of interest in oncology expanded access studies

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.

The Role of Physicians in Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs: A Mixed-Methods Study of Physicians' Views and Experiences in The Netherlands

Treating physicians have key roles to play in expanded access to investigational drugs, by identifying investigational treatment options, assessing the balance of risks and potential benefits, informing their patients, and applying to the regulatory authorities. This study is the first to explore physicians' experiences and moral views, with the aim of understanding the conditions under which doctors decide to pursue expanded access for their patients and the obstacles and facilitators they encounter in the Netherlands. In this mixed-methods study, semi-structured interviews (n = 14) and a questionnaire (n = 90) were conducted with medical specialists across the country and analysed thematically. Typically, our respondents pursue expanded access in "back against the wall" situations and broadly support its classic requirements. They indicate practical hurdles related to reimbursement, the amount of time and effort required for the application, and unfamiliarity with the regulatory process. Some physicians are morally opposed to expanded access, with an appeal to safety risks, lack of evidence, and "false hope." Some of these moral concerns and practical obstacles may be essential targets for change, if expanded access to unapproved drugs is to become available for wider groups of patients for whom standard treatment options are not-or no longer-available, on a more consistent and equal basis.

The Equitable Implementation of Cystic Fibrosis Personalized Medicines in Canada

This article identifies the potential sources of inequity in three stages of integrating cystic fibrosis personalized medicines into the Canadian healthcare system and proposes mitigating strategies: (1) clinical research and diagnostic testing; (2) regulatory oversight and market authorization; and (3) implementation into the healthcare system. There is concern that differential access will cast a dark shadow over personalized medicine by stratifying the care that groups of patients will receive-not only based on their genetic profiles, but also on the basis of their socioeconomic status. Furthermore, there is a need to re-evaluate regulatory and market approval mechanisms to accommodate the unique nature of personalized medicines. Physical and financial accessibility ought to be remedied before personalized medicines can be equitably delivered to patients. This article identifies the socio-ethical and legal challenges at each stage and recommends mitigating policy solutions.

Expanded Access Programs, compassionate drug use, and Emergency Use Authorizations during the COVID-19 pandemic

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Expanded Access (EA) Program, which allows for compassionate uses of unapproved therapeutics and diagnostics outside of clinical trials, has gained significant traction during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While development of vaccines has been the major focus, uncertainties around new vaccine safety and effectiveness have spawned interest in other pharmacological options. Experimental drugs can also be approved under the FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) program, designed to combat infectious disease and other threats. Here, we review the US experience in 2020 with pharmacological EA and EUA approvals during the pandemic. We also provide a description of, and clinical rationale for, each of the EA- or EUA-approved drugs (e.g. remdesivir, convalescent plasma, propofol 2%, hydroxychloroquine, ruxolitinib, bamlanivimab, baricitinib, casirivimab plus imdevimab) during the pandemic and concluding reflections on the EA program and its potential future uses.

Experiences of caregivers of children with spinal muscular atrophy participating in the expanded access program for nusinersen: a longitudinal qualitative study

Background

Expanded access programs (EAPs) allow patients with serious, life-threatening conditions access to drugs prior to their formal approval. Despite the possible benefits for patients, EAPs present several challenges, including uncertainty regarding a drug’s efficacy and safety as well as inequities regarding access to treatment. Although the number of EAPs is growing, the experience of patients participating in EAPs has not yet been studied. In Germany, an EAP for the treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) with nusinersen ran from December 2016 to May 2017). SMA is a rare, progressive neuromuscular disorder characterized by muscle atrophy and proximal muscle weakness. Insights into patients’ and caregivers’ experiences could help to improve future EAPs.

Results

We conducted a prospective study using semi-structured interviews with caregivers of children with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) Type 1who participated in the nusinersen EAP in Germany. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive approach according to the principles of content analysis. Eight families participated in the study. Their children were between 2 and 28 months old. Six children received non-invasive ventilation. Participation in the EAP marked an important turning point in the caregivers’ experiences. Their perspective changed from a severely limited life expectancy and a palliative approach to a more optimistic view including hopes for a longer life and positive development of their children. However, participating in the EAP was also challenging for caregivers in several ways. Lack of information regarding the launch of the program and the enrollment procedures caused significant uncertainty and stress among caregivers prior to the actual treatment. Further, concerns persisted that nusinersen could not be approved or that the child could be excluded due to an insufficient treatment response. Good communication and trusting relationships with medical and non-medical staff at the hospital helped caregivers cope with the uncertainties associated with the treatment.

Conclusion

From the caregivers’ perspective, there was no alternative to participating in the EAP for nusinersen. All participants were positive regarding their decision to participate. However, this study suggests that developing procedures to increase speed and transparency and to ensure fairness could help to further improve the system of EAPs as a way to provide urgently needed care to highly vulnerable patients.

Before It's Too Late: Multistakeholder Perspectives on Compassionate Access to Investigational Drugs for Pediatric Patients With Cancer

Patients and their families, physicians, drug companies, and regulatory agencies have common goals: to find effective therapies for life-threatening conditions. In oncology, the lines between clinical research and treatment are often blurred; parents and physicians of patients who have exhausted standard-of-care treatments and cannot participate in a clinical trial are likely to consider seeking compassionate use access to investigational drugs; however, knowledge and perspectives about compassionate use may differ among these groups. There are unique considerations associated with providing compassionate use to children diagnosed with cancer, including evaluation for potential developmental toxicities, the need for pediatric-specific dosing and formulations, informed consent, and, when appropriate, patient assent. Positive impacts of providing access to investigational therapies to children include potential treatment benefits to patients who obtain investigational agents as well as benefits to future patients if data from expanded access support drug development for childhood cancer. Challenges for physicians seeking compassionate use access to investigational drugs for their patients include obtaining the drug sponsor's agreement to provide the investigational drug as well as lack of knowledge about the process and regulatory requirements. Clinical trials in oncology provide the possibility of therapeutic benefit for pediatric patients; when feasible and warranted, these benefits should also be available to patients on a compassionate use basis outside of trials.

Expanded Access as a source of real-world data: An overview of FDA and EMA approvals

Aims

To identify, characterize and compare all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approvals that included real‐world data on efficacy from expanded access (EA) programmes.

Methods

Cross‐sectional study of FDA (1955–2018) and EMA (1995–2018) regulatory approval documentation. We automated searching for terms related to EA in 22,506 documents using machine learning techniques. We included all approvals where EA terms appeared in the regulatory documentation. Our main outcome was the inclusion of EA data as evidence of clinical efficacy. Characterization was based on approval date, disease area, orphan designation and whether the evidence was supportive or pivotal.

Results

EA terms appeared in 693 out of 22,506 (3.1%) documents, which referenced 187 approvals. For 39 approvals, data from EA programmes were used to inform on clinical efficacy. The yearly number of approvals with EA data increased from 1.25 for 1993–2013 to 4.6 from 2014–2018. In 13 cases, these programmes formed the main evidence for approval. Of these, patients in EA programmes formed over half (median 71%, interquartile range: 34–100) of the total patient population available for efficacy evaluation. Almost all (12/13) approvals were granted orphan designation. In 8/13, there were differences between regulators in approval status and valuation of evidence. Strikingly, 4 treatments were granted approval based solely on efficacy from EA.

Conclusion

Sponsors and regulators increasingly include real‐world data from EA programmes in the efficacy profile of a treatment. The indications of the approved treatments are characterized by orphan designation and high unmet medical need.

Mosaic APP Gene Recombination in Alzheimer's Disease-What's Next?

A first example of somatic gene recombination (SGR) within the human brain was recently reported, involving the well-known Alzheimer’s disease (AD)-related gene amyloid precursor protein (APP). SGR was characterized by the creation of APP genomic complementary DNA (gencDNA) sequences that were identified in prefrontal cortical neurons from both normal and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease (SAD) brains. Notably, SGR in SAD appeared to become dysregulated, producing many more numbers and forms of APP gencDNAs, including 11 single-nucleotide variations (SNVs) that are considered pathogenic APP mutations when they occur in families, yet are present mosaically among SAD neurons. APP gene transcription, reverse transcriptase (RT) activity, and DNA strand-breaks were shown to be three key factors required for APP gencDNA production. Many mechanistic details remain to be determined, particularly how APP gencDNAs are involved in AD initiation and progression. The possibility of reducing disease-related SGR through the use of RT inhibitors that are already FDA-approved for HIV and Hepatitis B treatment represents both a testable hypothesis for AD clinical trials and a genuine therapeutic option, where none currently exists, for AD patients.

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.

Analysis of nutrition clinical studies involving children in the Middle East and globally

Aim:

To assess pediatric clinical nutrition research by analyzing clinical studies in the Middle East (ME) and globally.

Methods:

Using ClinicalTrials.gov, the numbers of clinical studies in the ME and globally were analyzed.

Results:

The majority of clinical nutrition trials are in North America and Europe. The ME accounts for 4% of all nutrition trials. The majority of pediatric nutrition studies in the ME are in the later phases or are observational and/or epidemiological studies with a focus on poor nutrition or nutrition disorders. Industry funding in the ME is mostly by regional or local companies; few major global companies are involved.

Conclusion:

The ME is not well represented in clinical nutrition studies involving children. Effort should be expended to rectify this.

Nutritional disorders have become an important worldwide disease burden during the last several decades. The development of effective therapies for nutritional disorders requires clinical trials in the affected populations. Our results showed that although the Middle East currently has the highest proportion of children worldwide, it is not well represented in clinical trials on nutritional studies in children. Furthermore, there is suboptimal funding from the multinational nutrition industry. This analysis indicates that there is a reasonable rationale for inclusion of the Middle East in nutritional clinical research in children, and that there is an untapped opportunity for the expansion of clinical research in this region.