Dilemmas in the compassionate supply of investigational cancer drugs

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.

Oncologists' reflections on patient rights and access to compassionate use drugs: A qualitative interview study from an academic cancer center

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows patients with serious illnesses to access investigational drugs for "compassionate use" outside of clinical trials through expanded access (EA) Programs. The federal Right-to-Try Act created an additional pathway for non-trial access to experimental drugs without institutional review board or FDA approval. This removal of oversight amplifies the responsibility of physicians, but little is known about the role of practicing physicians in non-trial access to investigational drugs. We undertook semi-structured interviews to capture the experiences and opinions of 21 oncologists all with previous EA experience at a major cancer center. We found five main themes. Participants with greater EA experience reported less difficulty accessing drugs through the myriad of administrative processes and drug company reluctance to provide investigational products while newcomers reported administrative hurdles. Oncologists outlined several rationales patients offered when seeking investigational drugs, including those with stronger health literacy and a good scientific rationale versus others who remained skeptical of conventional medicine. Participants reported that most patients had realistic expectations while some had unrealistic optimism. Given the diverse reasons patients sought investigational drugs, four factors-scientific rationale, risk-benefit ratio, functional status of the patient, and patient motivation-influenced oncologists' decisions to request compassionate use drugs. Physicians struggled with a "right-to-try" framing of patient access to experimental drugs, noting instead their own responsibility to protect patients' best interest in the uncertain and risky process of off-protocol access. This study highlights the willingness of oncologists at a major cancer center to pursue non-trial access to experimental treatments for patients while also shedding light on the factors they use when considering such treatment. Our data reveal discrepancies between physicians' sense of patients' expectations and their own internal sense of professional obligation to shepherd a safe process for patients at a vulnerable point in their care.

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.

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.

Formulating an Ethics of Pharmaceutical Disinvestment

There is growing interest among pharmaceutical policymakers in how to "disinvest" from subsidized medicines. This is due to both the rapidly rising costs of healthcare and the increasing use of accelerated and conditional reimbursement pathways which mean that medicines are being subsidized on the basis of less robust evidence of safety and efficacy. It is crucial that disinvestment decisions are morally sound and socially legitimate, but there is currently no framework to facilitate this. We therefore reviewed the bioethics literature in order to identify ethical principles and concepts that might be relevant to pharmaceutical disinvestment decisions. This revealed a number of key ethical considerations-both procedural and substantive-that need to be considered when making pharmaceutical disinvestment decisions. These principles do not, however, provide practical guidance so we present a framework outlining how they might be applied to different types of disinvestment decisions. We also argue that, in this context, even the most rigorous ethical reasoning is likely to be overridden by moral intuitions and psychological biases and that disinvestment decisions will need to strike the right balance between respecting justifiable moral intuitions and overriding unjustifiable psychological impulses.

Physician perspectives on compassionate use in pediatric oncology

BACKGROUND

Targeted cancer treatments are almost always first studied in adults, even when there is a biologically plausible potential for efficacy in children. Through compassionate use programs, children who are not eligible for a clinical trial and for whom there are no known effective therapies may obtain access to investigational agents, including drugs under development for adults. However, little is known about pediatric oncologists' experiences with applying for and obtaining compassionate use agents.

METHODS

This study surveyed 132 pediatric oncologists to assess awareness and utilization of compassionate use programs, to identify barriers to their use, and to evaluate available institutional support and resources.

RESULTS

We found that the process of applying for access to drugs in development is poorly understood, which presents a barrier to obtaining investigational drugs. Fifty-seven percent of the pediatric oncologists applied for compassionate use. Providers from larger institutions or with more than 15 years of clinical experience were more likely to complete an application and obtain investigational agents for their patients.

CONCLUSION

Identified perceived and actual barriers to compassionate use application submission suggest pediatric oncologists may benefit from educational resources and support to ensure children with cancer equal access to investigational agents and care.

Use of Real-World Data for the Research, Development, and Evaluation of Oncology Precision Medicines

Although randomized controlled trials remain the scientific ideal for determining the efficacy and safety of new treatments, they are sometimes insufficient to address the evidentiary requirements of regulators and payers. This is particularly the case when it comes to precision medicines because trials are often small, deliver incomplete insights into outcomes of most interest to policymakers (eg, overall survival), and may fail to address other complex diagnostic and treatment-related questions. Additional methods, both experimental and observational, are increasingly being used to fill critical evidentiary gaps. A number of modified early- and late-phase trial designs have been proposed to better support earlier biomarker validation, patient identification, and selection for regulatory studies, but there is still a need for confirmatory evidence from real-world data sources. These data are usually provided through observational, postapproval, phase IIIB and IV studies, which rely heavily on registries and other electronic data sets—most notably data from electronic health records. It is, therefore, crucial to understand what ethical, practical, and scientific challenges are raised by the use of electronic health records to generate evidence about precision medicines.

Ethics review in compassionate use

BACKGROUND

Compassionate use is the use of unapproved drugs outside of clinical trials. So far, compassionate use regulations have been introduced in the US, Canada, many European countries, Australia and Brazil, and treatment on a compassionate use basis may be performed in Japan and China. However, there are important differences between relevant regulations in individual countries, particularly that approval by a research ethics committee (institutional review board) is a requirement for compassionate use in some countries (e.g. the US, Spain, and Italy), but not in others (e.g. Canada, the UK, France, and Germany).

DISCUSSION

The main objective of this article is to present aspects of compassionate use that are important for the discussion of the role of research ethics committees in the review of compassionate use. These aspects include the nature of compassionate use, potential risks to patients associated with the use of drugs with unproven safety and efficacy, informed consent, physicians' qualifications, and patient selection criteria. Our analysis indicates that the arguments for mandatory review substantially outweigh the arguments to the contrary.

CONCLUSIONS

Approval by a research ethics committee should be obligatory for compassionate use. The principal argument against mandatory ethical review of compassionate use is that it is primarily a kind of treatment rather than biomedical research. Nonetheless, compassionate use is different from standard clinical care and should be subject to review by research ethics committees. First, in practice, compassionate use often involves significant research aspects. Second, it is based on unapproved drugs with unproven safety and efficacy. Obtaining informed consent from patients seeking access to unapproved drugs on a compassionate use basis may also be difficult. Other important problems include the qualifications of the physician who is to perform treatment, and patient selection criteria.

Discussing and prescribing expensive unfunded anticancer drugs in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Australia has a publicly funded universal healthcare system which heavily subsidises the cost of most registered anticancer drugs. The use of anticancer drugs that are unfunded, that is, not subsidised by the government, entails substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. We sought to determine how frequently Australian medical oncologists discuss and prescribe unfunded anticancer drugs, and their attitudes and beliefs about their use.

METHODS

Members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA) completed an online survey about their clinical practices over a recent 3-month period. A negative binomial regression model was used to examine the influence of respondent characteristics on the rate of discussions about, and prescription of, unfunded anticancer drugs.

RESULTS

Of the 154 respondents (27% of 575 MOGA members), 92% had discussed and 68% had prescribed at least one unfunded anticancer drug in the last 3 months. Respondents reported discussing unfunded anticancer drugs with an average of 2.5 patients per month (95% CI 2.1 to 2.9), and prescribed them to an average of 0.9 patients per month (95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). The rate of discussing unfunded anticancer drugs was associated with being fully qualified (p=0.01), and being in a metropolitan practice (p=0.009), the rate of prescription was associated only with being in metropolitan practice (p=0.006). The concerns about discussing and prescribing unfunded anticancer drugs rated most important were as follows: 'potential to cause financial hardship' and 'difficulty for patients to evaluate the benefits versus the costs'.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian medical oncologists frequently discuss and prescribe unfunded anticancer drugs, and are concerned about their patients having to face difficult decisions and financial hardship. Further research is needed to better understand the factors that affect how oncologists and patients value expensive, unfunded anticancer drugs.

An analysis of common ethical justifications for compassionate use programs for experimental drugs

BACKGROUND

When a new intervention or drug is developed, this has to pass through various phases of clinical testing before it achieves market approval, which can take many years. This raises an issue for drugs which could benefit terminally ill patients. These patients might set their hopes on the experimental drug but are unable to wait since they are likely to pass away before the drug is available. As a means of nevertheless getting access to experimental drug, many seriously ill and terminally ill patients are therefore very willing to participate in randomised controlled trials. However, only very few terminally ill patients are able to actually participate, and those that do participate are at risk of participating solely as a way of getting experimental drugs. Currently, there are, however, ways of getting access to drugs that have not (yet) gained market approval. One such mean is via expanded access or compassionate use programs where terminally ill patients receive experimental new drugs that are not yet market approved. In this paper, I examine some of the common justifications for such programs.

MAIN BODY

The most frequently voiced justifications for compassionate use or expanded access programs could be put in one of three categories. First, there are justifications of justice, where compassionate use programs could be seen as a just or fair way to distribute experimental new drugs to patients who are denied access to RCT's through no fault of their own. Second, such programs could be justified by reference to the ethical principle of beneficence where it could be claimed that terminally ill patients stand to benefit greatly at very little risk (as they are already dying). Third, there are considerations of autonomy where, it is claimed, patients should be able to exercise their autonomy and have access to such drugs if that is there free choice and they are fully aware of the risks associated with that choice.

SHORT CONCLUSION

In this paper, I argue currently all justifications are potentially problematic. If they truly form the basis for justification, compassionate use programs should be designed to maximize justice, beneficence and autonomy.

Going "social" to access experimental and potentially life-saving treatment: an assessment of the policy and online patient advocacy environment for expanded access

Social media is fundamentally altering how we access health information and make decisions about medical treatment, including for terminally ill patients. This specifically includes the growing phenomenon of patients who use online petitions and social media campaigns in an attempt to gain access to experimental drugs through expanded access pathways. Importantly, controversy surrounding expanded access and "compassionate use" involves several disparate stakeholders, including patients, manufacturers, policymakers, and regulatory agencies-all with competing interests and priorities, leading to confusion, frustration, and ultimately advocacy. In order to explore this issue in detail, this correspondence article first conducts a literature review to describe how the expanded access policy and regulatory environment in the United States has evolved over time and how it currently impacts access to experimental drugs. We then conducted structured web searches to identify patient use of online petitions and social media campaigns aimed at compelling access to experimental drugs. This was carried out in order to characterize the types of communication strategies utilized, the diseases and drugs subject to expanded access petitions, and the prevalent themes associated with this form of "digital" patient advocacy. We find that patients and their families experience mixed results, but still gravitate towards the use of online campaigns out of desperation, lack of reliable information about treatment access options, and in direct response to limitations of the current fragmented structure of expanded access regulation and policy currently in place. In response, we discuss potential policy reforms to improve expanded access processes, including advocating greater transparency for expanded access programs, exploring use of targeted economic incentives for manufacturers, and developing systems to facilitate patient information about existing treatment options. This includes leveraging recent legislative attention to reform expanded access through the CURE Act Provisions contained in the proposed U.S. 21st Century Cures Act. While expanded access may not be the best option for the majority of individuals, terminally ill patients and their families nevertheless deserve better processes, policies, and availability to potentially life-changing information, before they decide to pursue an online campaign in the desperate hope of gaining access to experimental drugs.

Coverage With Evidence Development and Managed Entry in the Funding of Personalized Medicine: Practical and Ethical Challenges for Oncology

Personalized medicines hold promise for many diseases. However, demonstrating the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of these medicines can be difficult. It is essential that decision-making processes for funding new medicines, including personalized medicines, are both robust and fit for purpose. We will argue that randomized trials of personalized medicines should be routinely supplemented with other research methods, such as observational research and single-arm studies, and that managed-entry funding programs, such as coverage with evidence development, may offer a means of providing early access to technologies where there is uncertainty about efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness. These programs, however, raise a number of practical and ethical challenges that need to be worked through and resolved.

Why Prospectively Randomized Clinical Trials Have Been Rare in Reproductive Medicine and Will Remain So?

There is almost unanimity that modern medicine should be "evidence based." In this context, lack of prospectively randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is widely lamented in reproductive medicine. Some leading voices, indeed, increasingly suggest that only RCT-based clinical conclusions should be integrated into clinical practice, since lower levels of evidence are inadequate. We have argued that reproductive medicine requires special considerations because, like clinical oncology, fertility treatments (especially in older women) are time dependent. Unlike clinical oncology, reproductive medicine, however, does not receive substantial financial research support from government or industry and, at least in the United States, has, therefore, to be primarily funded via patient revenues. Given a 50% chance of receiving placebo, infertility patients are, understandably, reluctant to fund their own RCTs. We here selectively review this subject, contrasting opposing opinions recently published in the literature by a prominent reproductive scientist and one of the world's leading experts on evidence-based medicine. Placing these recent publications into the evolving context of infertility practice, as also addressed in this journal in recent publications, we conclude that objective reasons explain why relatively few RCTs are performed in reproductive medicine and predict that this will not change in the foreseeable future. Reproductive medicine, therefore, has to find ways to develop satisfactory clinical evidence in other ways, satisfying patients' rights to easy access to potentially beneficial medical treatments with low costs and low risks. The RCTs should be reserved for relatively high risk and/or high cost treatments.

Examining the ethics of clinical use of unproven interventions outside of clinical trials during the Ebola epidemic

The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa began in the spring of 2014 and has since caused the deaths of over 6,000 people. Since there are no approved treatments or prevention modalities specifically targeted at Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), debate has focused on whether unproven interventions should be offered to Ebola patients outside of clinical trials. Those engaged in the debate have responded rapidly to a complex and evolving crisis, however, and this debate has not provided much opportunity for in-depth analysis. Additionally, the existing literature on access to unproven therapies has focused on contexts like HIV/AIDS and oncology, which are very different than the Ebola epidemic. In this paper, we examine the ethical issues surrounding access to unproven therapies in the context of the recent Ebola outbreak to yield new insights about this controversial and unsettled issue. We argue first that, in this context, the interests of patients in obtaining access to unproven therapies are not fully aligned with the interests of their providers and drug developers. Second, we focus on the resource constraints facing providers, funders, and patients and conclude that they often counsel against the use of unproven interventions against EVD.