The DRUG Access Protocol: access inequality and European harmonisation

Results from Expanded Access Programs: A Review of Academic Literature

BACKGROUND

Although expanded access is an increasingly used pathway for patients to access investigational medicine, little is known on the magnitude and content of published scientific research collected via expanded access.

METHODS

We performed a review of all peer-reviewed expanded access publications between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2022. We analyzed the publications for drugs, diseases, disease area, patient numbers, time, geographical location, subject, and research methodology (single center/multicenter, international/national, prospective/retrospective). We additionally analyzed endpoints reported in all COVID-19-related expanded access publications.

RESULTS

We screened 3810 articles and included 1231, describing 523 drugs for 354 diseases for 507,481 patients. The number of publications significantly increased over time ([Formula: see text]). Large geographical disparities existed as Europe and the Americas accounted for 87.4% of all publications, whereas Africa only accounted for 0.6%. Oncology and hematology accounted for 53% of all publications. Twenty-nine percent of all expanded access patients (N = 197,187) reported on in 2020 and 2021 were treated in the context of COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

By summarizing characteristics of patients, diseases, and research methods described in all scientific literature published on expanded access, we provide a unique dataset for future research. We show that published scientific research on expanded access has surged over the past decades, partly due to COVID-19. However, international collaboration and equity in geographic access remain an issue of concern. Lastly, we stress the need for harmonization of research legislation and guidance on the value of expanded access data within real-world data frameworks to improve equity in patient access and streamline future expanded access research.

Controversies in the management of patients with soft tissue sarcoma: Recommendations of the Conference on State of Science in Sarcoma 2022

BACKGROUND

Owing to the rarity and heterogeneity in biology and presentation, there are multiple areas in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of soft tissue sarcoma (STS), with no, low-level or conflicting evidence.

METHODS

During the first Consensus Conference on the State of Science in Sarcoma (CSSS), we used a modified Delphi process to identify areas of controversy in the field of sarcoma, to name topics with limited evidence-based data in which a scientific and knowledge gap may remain and a consensus statement will help to guide patient management. We determined scientific questions which need to be addressed in the future in order to generate evidence and to inform physicians and caregivers in daily clinical practice in order to improve the outcomes of patients with sarcoma. We conducted a vote on STS key questions and controversies prior to the CSSS meeting, which took place in May 2022.

RESULTS

Sixty-two European sarcoma experts participated in the survey. Sixteen strong consensus (≥95%) items were identified by the experts, as well as 30 items with a ≥75% consensus on diagnostic and therapeutic questions. Ultimately, many controversy topics remained without consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

In this manuscript, we summarise the voting results and the discussion during the CSSS meeting. Future scientific questions, priorities for clinical trials, registries, quality assurance, and action by stakeholders are proposed. Platforms and partnerships can support innovative approaches to improve management and clinical research in STS.

Generating Evidence from Expanded Access Use of Rare Disease Medicines: Challenges and Recommendations

Patients with rare diseases often have limited or no options for approved treatments or participation in clinical trials. In such cases, expanded access (or “compassionate use”) provides a potential means of accessing unapproved investigational medicines. It is also possible to capture and analyze clinical data from such use, but doing so is controversial. In this perspective, we offer examples of evidence derived from expanded access programs for rare diseases to illustrate its potential value to the decision-making of regulators and payers in the European Union and the United States. We discuss ethical and regulatory aspects to the use of expanded access data, with a focus on rare disease medicines. The heterogeneous approach to expanded access among countries within the European Union leaves uncertainties to what extent data can be collected and analyzed. We recommend the issuance of new guidance on data collection during expanded access, harmonization of European pathways, and an update of existing European compassionate use guidance. We hereby aim to clarify the supportive role of expanded access in evidence generation. Harmonization across Europe of expanded access regulations could reduce manufacturer burdens, improve patient access, and yield better data. These changes would better balance the need to generate quality evidence with the desire for pre-approval access to investigational medicine.