What do patients with unmet medical needs want? A qualitative study of patients' views and experiences with expanded access to unapproved, investigational treatments in the Netherlands

Impatto economico di 14 programmi di uso compassionevole dei farmaci in Italia, nella prospettiva del Servizio Sanitario Nazionale

Background:

Compassionate use programs (CUP) for medicines allow patients, not recruited in trials, accessing medicines before marketing approval. The evidence on the economic impact of CUP is limited to one paper that did not include the possible long-term economic impact of medicines used in CUP compared to alternative treatments, like avoided hospitalization costs. This paper aims at covering this information gap, updating and integrating the existing evidence, with a cost analysis in the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (SSN).

Methods:

Data were retrieved from the Roche CUP Database, the peer-reviewed literature (e.g. published cost-effectiveness studies, if any), the gray literature (e.g. regional documents for the alternative treatment cost) and unpublished data (e.g. cost-effectiveness analysis provided for price and reimbursement negotiation for medicines in CUP).

Results:

We retrieved data from 14 CUPs and 3,485 patients (70% affected by tumors) (Jan 2015-August 2022). The alternative treatment mean cost per patient ranged from € 11.1 k to € 18.8 k. The net economic benefit ranged from € 47 million to € 75 million (€ 13.5 k-€ 21.5 k per patient). Avoiding alternative treatments mostly contributes to the economic benefit. The long-term economic impact accounted for 20/30% of the net economic impact. The net economic benefit for cancer drugs ranged from € 12.6 million to € 40.0 million.

Conclusions:

Despite research limitations, this paper provides additional evidence on the economic impact of CUP in Italy. This could represent the first step of a broader analysis of the economic impact of early access schemes for drugs.

Expanded access to investigational drugs in psychiatry: A systematic review

Some psychiatric patients have exhausted all approved treatment options. Numerous investigational drugs are currently being developed and tested in clinical trials. However, not all patients can participate in clinical trials. Expanded access programs may provide an opportunity for patients who cannot participate in clinical trials to use investigational drugs as a therapeutic option outside of clinical trials. It is unknown to what extent expanded access occurs in psychiatry. We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, and PscyInfo, with additional information from ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and FDA/EMA approvals, in order to find all expanded access programs ever conducted, globally, in the field of psychiatry. This resulted in a total of fourteen expanded access programs ever conducted in psychiatry. Given the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, the activity in clinical research in psychiatry, the regulatory framework enabling expanded access, and the impact of psychiatric disorders on patients, their families, and society, we had expected a higher utilization of expanded access. We propose that the psychiatric community, with pharmaceutical industry, should consider establishing and optimizing expanded access programs.

Do Physicians Have a Duty to Discuss Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs with their Patients? A Normative Analysis

Drawing on ethical and legal frameworks in the Netherlands, the United States and France, we examine whether physicians are expected to inform patients about potentially relevant opportunities for expanded access to investigational drugs. While we found no definitive legal obligation, we argue that physicians have a moral obligation to discuss opportunities for expanded access with patients who have run out of treatment options to prevent inequality, to promote autonomy, and to achieve beneficence.

Procedures for application of the extended dosing after antitumor drug clinical trials

New drug clinical trials have been considered as a positive way for treating cancer by cancer patients and doctors, and the extended dosing is a special way for patients' withdrawal from antitumor clinical trials to obtain investigational new drugs. However, neither the regulations of expanded dosing nor the detail documents for expanded dosing have been officially published in China. At present, expanded dosing of investigational drugs is still at the exploratory stage in various medical institutions, and a complete management system has not been established to meet patients' urgent needs for drug use. Based on the practical experience of extended dosing in Hunan Cancer Hospital, this paper preliminarily explored the application procedures and ethical review requirements of extended dosing for subjects in antitumor clinical trials. It is necessary to clarify the responsibilities of all patients in the procedure and establish a patient-medical institution-sponsor joint application system. In the process of ethical review, it is recommended that all parties fully consider the risks and benefits of extended dosing for patients, and then the ethics committee makes a comprehensive assessment to decide whether to approve extended dosing.

Characteristics of Clinical Trial Sites for Novel Transcatheter Mitral and Tricuspid Valvular Therapies

Importance

Racial and ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients have been underrepresented in randomized clinical trials. Efforts have focused on enhancing inclusion of minority groups at sites participating at clinical trials; however, there may be differences in the patient populations of the sites that participate in clinical trials.

Objective

To identify any differences in the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic composition of patient populations among candidate sites in the US that did vs did not participate in trials for novel transcatheter therapies.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional analysis used Medicare Provider Claims from 2019 for patients admitted to hospitals in the US. All clinical trials for transcatheter mitral and tricuspid valve therapies and the hospitals participating in each of the trials were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov. Hospitals with active cardiac surgical programs that did not participate in the trials were also identified. Data analysis was performed between July 2021 and July 2022.

Exposures

Multivariable linear regression models were used to identify differences in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic characteristics among patients undergoing cardiac surgery or transcatheter aortic valve replacement at trial vs nontrial hospitals.

Main Outcome and Measures

The main outcome of the study was participation in a clinical trial for novel transcatheter mitral or tricuspid valve therapies.

Results

A total of 1050 hospitals with cardiac surgery programs were identified, of which 121 (11.5%) participated in trials for transcatheter mitral or tricuspid therapies. Patients treated in trial hospitals had a higher median zip code-based household income (difference of $5261; 95% CI, $2986-$7537), a lower Distressed Communities Index score (difference of 5.37; 95% CI, 2.59-8.15), and no significant difference in the proportion of patients dual eligible for Medicaid (difference of 0.86; 95% CI, -2.38 to 0.66). After adjusting for each of the socioeconomic indicators separately, there was less than 1% difference in the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients cared for at hospitals participating vs not participating in clinical trials.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study among candidate hospitals for clinical trials for transcatheter mitral or tricuspid valve therapies, trial hospitals took care of a more socioeconomically advantaged population than nontrial hospitals, with a similar proportion of Black and Hispanic patients. These data suggest that site selection efforts may improve enrollment of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients but may not improve the enrollment of Black and Hispanic patients.

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.

Real-world data from expanded access programmes in health technology assessments: a review of NICE technology appraisals

OBJECTIVES

To quantify and characterise the usage of expanded access (EA) data in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals (TAs). EA offers patients who are ineligible for clinical trials or registered treatment options, access to investigational therapies. Although EA programmes are increasingly used to collect real-world data, it is unknown if and how these date are used in NICE health technology assessments.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of NICE appraisals (2010-2020). We automatically downloaded and screened all available appraisal documentation on NICE website (over 8500 documents), searching for EA-related terms. Two reviewers independently labelled the EA usage by disease area, and whether it was used to inform safety, efficacy and/or resource use. We qualitatively describe the five appraisals with the most occurrences of EA-related terms.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Number of TAs that used EA data to inform safety, efficacy and/or resource use analyses.

RESULTS

In 54.2% (206/380 appraisals), at least one reference to EA was made. 21.1% (80/380) of the TAs used EA data to inform safety (n=43), efficacy (n=47) and/or resource use (n=52). The number of TAs that use EA data remained stable over time, and the extent of EA data utilisation varied by disease area (p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

NICE uses EA data in over one in five appraisals. In synthesis with evidence from well-controlled trials, data collected from EA programmes may meaningfully inform cost-effectiveness modelling.

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.

The economic impact of compassionate use of medicines

BACKGROUND

Compassionate use programs (CUP) for medicines respond to the ethical imperative of providing access to medicines before marketing approval to patients not recruited in trials. The economic impact of clinical trials has previously been investigated. No evidence on the net economic benefit of CUP exists. This research aims to address this information gap by estimating the economic consequences of 11 CUP in Italy conducted between March 2015 and December 2020 from the perspective of public health care system in Italy (National Health Service). Eight programs concern cancer treatments, two refer to spinal muscular atrophy, and one is indicated for multiple sclerosis.

METHODS

Since CUP medicines are covered by the industry, the net economic benefit includes: (i) avoided costs of the Standard of Care (SoC) the patients would have received had they not joined the CUP, (ii) costs not covered by the pharmaceutical industry sponsor, but instead sustained by payers, such as those associated with adverse events (only severe side effects resulting in hospitalisation and attributable to CUP medicines), and (iii) costs for combination therapies and diagnostic procedures not used with the SoC. The SoC costing relied on publicly available data. Information on adverse events and diagnostic procedures was retrieved from the CUP and monetized using the relevant fee for episode or service. One CUP was excluded since a SoC was not identified.

RESULTS

2,713 patients were treated in the 11 CUP where a SoC was identified. The SoC mean cost per patient ranged from €11,415 to €20,299. The total cost of the SoC ranged between €31.0 and €55.1 million. The mean cost per patient covered by hospitals hosting CUP was equal to €1,646, with a total cost of €4.5 million. The net economic benefit ranged €26.5 million - €50.6 million.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite research limitations, this paper illustrates for the first time the net economic impact of CUP from a public payer perspective. It is important to integrate these estimates with the prospective effects of CUP implementation, i.e., the economic value of the comparative benefit profile of medicines used in CUP versus the SoC, including effects from a societal perspective.

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.

Consumer perspectives of accelerated access to medicines: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

In this study, the authors aimed to explore consumer perspectives on accelerated access to medicines. The authors were particularly interested in how they balance competing considerations of safety, efficacy, equity and access; whether and how their views change when there are different levels of uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of new medicines; and the procedures that they think should be used to make decisions about accelerated access to new medicines.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

This was an exploratory qualitative study. Thirteen semi-structured interviews with patient advocates and two focus groups with patients were conducted and analysed thematically. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed through inductive thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Participants outlined a range of justifications for accelerated access, including addressing unmet medical needs and encouraging further research and development. However, they were also cognisant of the potential risks and viewed ongoing data collection, disinvestment and market withdrawal as ways to address these. They also emphasised the importance of transparent decisions being made by people with relevant expertise, based on a thorough consideration of scientific evidence and stakeholder perspectives.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This is the first study to comprehensively explore Australian consumers' views of accelerated access to medicines. The results suggest that consumers want timely access to new medicines, but not at the expense of safety, efficacy, equity and sustainability. While accelerated access programs are likely to be welcomed by consumers, they must be fully informed of their conditions and limitations, and robust post-market data surveillance must be implemented and enforced to protect the interests of both individual patients and the broader community.