Ethics review in compassionate use

If it walks like a duck…: Monitored Emergency Use of Unregistered and Experimental Interventions (MEURI) is research

Monitored Emergency Use of Unregistered and Experimental Interventions (MEURI) is an ethical framework developed by the WHO for using unproven interventions in public health emergencies outside the context of medical research. It is mainly intended for use when medical research would be impracticable, but there is still a need to systematically gather data about unproven interventions. As such, it is designed as something of a middle ground between clinical and research ethical frameworks.However, I argue that MEURI does not truly lie at the intersection of clinical care and research. Due to its intent, structure and oversight requirements, it takes on most of the crucial features of research, to the point that it is best understood as a form of research. As a result, cases where MEURI could practicably be applied should instead make use of existing research frameworks. For those circumstances where research is truly impracticable, a more straightforward oversight system than MEURI is needed. While existing practices of compassionate use have some applicability, proposals to make use of clinical ethics committees to oversee unproven interventions may help achieve the right balance in acting in a patient's best interests when the relevant evidence base is weak.

The Early Access and the Potential Cost Savings by the Compassionate Use of Onco-haematological Drugs: Results from the Italian Study Compass-O

BACKGROUND

Compassionate drug use (CDU) provides early access to not yet authorised medicines and is funded by pharmaceutical companies. The observational retrospective study Compass-O monitored the CDU of onco-haematological drugs, managed by seven Italian units for cytotoxic drug preparations (Unità Farmaci Antiblastici [UFA]), between 1 January, 2016 and 31 December, 2021.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the CDU of onco-haematological drugs managed by seven Italian UFA, between 2016 and 2021.

METHODS

The seven UFA provided anonymised data concerning CDU approved in the study period. The early access and potential cost savings for the National Health System (Servizio Sanitario Nazionale [SSN]) were analysed for CDU concerning drug-therapeutic indication combinations with complete data and reimbursed by SSN up to December 2023 (date of study execution), according to the executive decision of the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco [AIFA]). Both analyses distinguished solid/liquid tumours and categorised the combinations as innovative (fully/conditionally) or non-innovative based on AIFA assessments.

RESULTS

Compass-O collected 783 CDU authorisations, with 572 (73.1%) analysable in terms of early access and cost savings. On average, early access amounted to 514 days and the total cost savings was €376,115,801. Compassionate drug use approvals involved mainly solid tumours (93.7% vs 6.3% for liquid tumours), and the combination of trastuzumab emtansine-breast cancer was the most dispensed (n = 73; early access = 426 days; potential cost savings: €610,388). Out of 572 CDU approvals, 200 (35%) were innovative drug-therapeutic indication combinations, with 598 days of early access and a total potential saving of €113,124,069.

CONCLUSIONS

The study Compass-O showed a significant economic burden of CDU and a relevant need for early access, particularly for innovative drugs. However, there is currently no structured monitoring of CDU in Italy, suggesting the need for a national observatory, of which Compass-O can be the pilot phase.

Benefit assessment of extended dosing in cancer patients after their withdrawal from clinical trials

Background: Clinical trials have been widely recognized as an effective treatment approach by physicians and cancer patients alike. Physicians' evaluations suggest that many patients are likely to continue experiencing benefits from extended dosing of investigational new drugs even after withdrawing from clinical trials. Objective: Given the uncertainty surrounding the efficacy and safety of investigational new drugs, it is essential to continually assess the benefits of extended dosing for patients. Methods: The trial group for this study comprised patients who requested extended dosing after withdrawing from clinical trials at Hunan Cancer Hospital between 2016 and 2020. The control group consisted of patients who received conventional treatment and were enrolled in a 1:1 ratio. Follow-up assessments were conducted every 3 months for both groups, and included monitoring of patients' health status, survival time, disease control or remission, treatment modalities received, and medical costs. Results: A total of twenty-three patient pairs were successfully matched for this study. The Ethics Committee approved extended dosing for all patients in the trial group, with an average gap period of 16.48 days between their withdrawal from clinical trials and continuous access to the investigational drugs. The median overall survival for patients after withdrawal from clinical trials was 17.3 months in the extended dosing group and 12.9 months in the control group, with no significant difference observed between the two groups (p > 0.250). The median total cost of treatment after the previous clinical trial was 38,006.76 RMB, of which the median cost of therapeutic drugs for conventional treatment was 15,720 RMB, while extended dosing was provided free of charge. Conclusion: Extended dosing can indeed provide benefits, including survival benefits and economic benefits, to cancer patients after their withdrawal from clinical trials and will clinically present an additional treatment option for patients.

Precision medicine in monogenic inflammatory bowel disease: proposed mIBD REPORT standards

Owing to advances in genomics that enable differentiation of molecular aetiologies, patients with monogenic inflammatory bowel disease (mIBD) potentially have access to genotype-guided precision medicine. In this Expert Recommendation, we review the therapeutic research landscape of mIBD, the reported response to therapies, the medication-related risks and systematic bias in reporting. The mIBD field is characterized by the absence of randomized controlled trials and is dominated by retrospective observational data based on case series and case reports. More than 25 off-label therapeutics (including small-molecule inhibitors and biologics) as well as cellular therapies (including haematopoietic stem cell transplantation and gene therapy) have been reported. Heterogeneous reporting of outcomes impedes the generation of robust therapeutic evidence as the basis for clinical decision making in mIBD. We discuss therapeutic goals in mIBD and recommend standardized reporting (mIBD REPORT (monogenic Inflammatory Bowel Disease Report Extended Phenotype and Outcome of Treatments) standards) to stratify patients according to a genetic diagnosis and phenotype, to assess treatment effects and to record safety signals. Implementation of these pragmatic standards should help clinicians to assess the therapy responses of individual patients in clinical practice and improve comparability between observational retrospective studies and controlled prospective trials, supporting future meta-analysis.

Clinical Course of Two Patients with COVID-19 Respiratory Failure After Administration of the Anticancer Small Molecule, RRx-001

Two critically ill COVID-19 infected patients, who had exhausted all available treatment options, were treated with the small-molecule RRx-001 with subsequent improvement. RRx-001, a first-in-class small molecule with anti-inflammatory, vascular normalizing and macrophage-repolarizing properties, has been safely administered 300+ patients in clinical trials. This is the first report of RRx-001 treatment of COVID-19.

Allokation von einmalig zu applizierenden Arzneimitteln bei Kindern in globalen Compassionate Use-Programmen

Compassionate Use beschreibt die Anwendung zulassungsüberschreitender Arzneimittel für Patient*innengruppen, die an einer lebensbedrohlichen oder zu einer schweren Behinderung führenden Erkrankung leiden, ohne dass eine alternative Therapieoption besteht. An Ärzt*innen vorbei werden solche Programme ausschließlich von Pharmaunternehmen initiiert, was viele ethische Konflikte mit sich bringt. Eine neue Dimension erreichte das 2020 gestartete Programm für Onasemnogenum abeparvovecum zur Therapie von Spinaler Muskelatrophie bei Kindern, welches die Krankheit nach nur einmaliger Gabe stoppen sollte. Die globale Allokation von nur 100 zur Verfügung gestellten Dosierungen per Losverfahren stellte ein Novum bei der Allokation in Compassionate Use-Programmen dar und wurde vielfach kritisiert. Diese Arbeit untersucht mögliche alternative Allokationsprinzipien auf das Beispiel von Onasemnogenum abeparvovecum. Für jedes in Frage kommende Prinzip der Allokation medizinischer Güter bestehen Aspekte, die im Hinblick auf die drängende Zeit und die globale Verteilung bedacht werden müssen. Dies lässt einige Prinzipien wie First-Come-First-Served vernachlässigbar erscheinen. Verbliebene Prinzipien werden hierarchisch geordnet, um einen Algorithmus abzuleiten, der eine Alternative zum Losverfahren darstellen kann. Eine Kombination von Teilnahmebereitschaft bei Forschung, Dringlichkeit und Erfolgsaussicht (bezogen auf die Existenz supportiver Therapieoptionen) kann in ähnlichen Fällen bei zukünftigen globalen Compassionate Use-Programmen bei Kindern erwogen werden. Da universelle Algorithmen nur schwer definierbar sind, sollten Allokationskriterien in jedem Fall durch ein unabhängiges Expert*innengremium diskutiert werden. Sowohl die Konstitution eines solchen Gremiums sowie deren verpflichtende Konsultierung sind gefordert, um für Entlastung aller Beteiligten zu sorgen und Willkür vorzubeugen.

Licensing of Orphan Medicinal Products—Use of Real-World Data and Other External Data on Efficacy Aspects in Marketing Authorization Applications Concluded at the European Medicines Agency Between 2019 and 2021

Background: Reference to so-called real-world data is more often made in marketing authorization applications for medicines intended to diagnose, prevent or treat rare diseases compared to more common diseases. We provide granularity on the type and aim of any external data on efficacy aspects from both real-world data sources and external trial data as discussed in regulatory submissions of orphan designated medicinal products in the EU. By quantifying the contribution of external data according to various regulatory characteristics, we aimed at identifying specific opportunities for external data in the field of orphan conditions.

Methods: Information on external data in regulatory documents covering 72 orphan designations was extracted. Our sample comprised public assessment reports for approved, refused, or withdrawn applications concluded from 2019–2021 at the European Medicines Agency. Products with an active orphan designation at the time of submission were scrutinized regarding the role of external data on efficacy aspects in the context of marketing authorization applications, or on the criterion of “significant benefit” for the confirmation of the orphan designation at the time of licensing. The reports allowed a broad distinction between clinical development, regulatory decision making, and intended post-approval data collection. We defined three categories of external data, administrative data, structured clinical data, and external trial data (from clinical trials not sponsored by the applicant), and noted whether external data concerned the therapeutic context of the disease or the product under review.

Results: While reference to external data with respect to efficacy aspects was included in 63% of the approved medicinal products in the field of rare diseases, 37% of marketing authorization applications were exclusively based on the dedicated clinical development plan for the product under review. Purely administrative data did not play any role in our sample of reports, but clinical data collected in a structured manner (from routine care or clinical research) were often used to inform on the trial design. Two additional recurrent themes for the use of external data were the contextualization of results, especially to confirm the orphan designation at the time of licensing, and reassurance of a large difference in treatment effect size or consistency of effects observed in clinical trials and practice. External data on the product under review were restricted to either active substances already belonging to the standard of care even before authorization or to compassionate use schemes. Furthermore, external data were considered pivotal for marketing authorization only exceptionally and only for active substances already in use within the specific therapeutic indication. Applications for the rarest conditions and those without authorized treatment alternatives were especially prominent with respect to the use of external data from real-world data sources both in the pre- and post-approval setting.

Conclusion: Specific opportunities for external data in the setting of marketing authorizations in the field of rare diseases were identified. Ongoing initiatives of fostering systematic data collection are promising steps for a more efficient medicinal product development in the field of rare diseases.

A Thorough Synthesis of Phage Therapy Unit Activity in Poland-Its History, Milestones and International Recognition

The year 2020 marked 15 years of the Phage Therapy Unit in Poland, the inception of which took place just one year after Poland's accession to the European Union (2004). At first sight, it is hard to find any connection between these two events, but in fact joining the European Union entailed the need to adapt the regulatory provisions concerning experimental treatment in humans to those that were in force in the European Union. These changes were a solid foundation for the first phage therapy center in the European Union to start its activity. As the number of centers conducting phage therapy in Europe and in the world constantly and rapidly grows, we want to grasp the opportunity to take a closer look at the over 15-year operation of our site by analyzing its origins, legal aspects at the local and international levels and the impressive number and diversity of cases that have been investigated and treated during this time. This article is a continuation of our work published in 2020 summarizing a 100-year history of the development of phage research in Poland.

Inadequate reporting quality of registered genome editing trials: an observational study

Background

To assess registration completeness and safety data of trials on human genome editing (HGE) reported in primary registries and published in journals, as HGE has safety and ethical problems, including the risk of undesirable and unpredictable outcomes. Registration transparency has not been evaluated for clinical trials using these novel and revolutionary techniques in human participants.

Methods

Observational study of trials involving engineered site-specific nucleases and long-term follow-up observations, identified from the WHO ICTRP HGE Registry in November 2020 and two comprehensive reviews published in the same year. Registration and adverse events (AEs) information were collected from public registries and matching publications. Published data were extracted in May 2021.

Results

Among 81 eligible trials, most were recruiting (51.9%) phase 1 trials (45.7%). Five trials were withdrawn. Most trials investigated CAR T cells therapies (45.7%) and used CRISPR/Cas9 (35.8%) ex vivo (88.9%). Among 12 trials with protocols both registered and published, eligibility criteria, sample size, and secondary outcome measures were consistently reported for less than a half. Three trials posted results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and one reported serious AEs.

Conclusions

Incomplete registration and published data give emphasis to the need to increase the transparency of HGE trials. Further improvements in registration requirements, including phase 1 trials, and a more controlled publication procedure, are needed to augment the implementation of this promising technology.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01574-0.

Ethical considerations in the care of encephalopathic neonates treated with therapeutic hypothermia

Engaging with ethical issues is central to the management of neonatal encephalopathy (NE). As treatment for these neonates evolves, new ethical issues will arise and many existing challenges will remain. We highlight three key ethical issues that arise in the care of neonates with NE treated with therapeutic hypothermia: facilitating shared decision making, understanding futility, and defining the boundaries between standard of care and research. Awareness of these issues will help clinicians counsel families in light of evolving treatments and outcomes.

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.

Back to WHAT? The role of research ethics in pandemic times

The Covid-19 pandemic creates an unprecedented threatening situation worldwide with an urgent need for critical reflection and new knowledge production, but also a need for imminent action despite prevailing knowledge gaps and multilevel uncertainty. With regard to the role of research ethics in these pandemic times some argue in favor of exceptionalism, others, including the authors of this paper, emphasize the urgent need to remain committed to core ethical principles and fundamental human rights obligations all reflected in research regulations and guidelines carefully crafted over time. In this paper we disentangle some of the arguments put forward in the ongoing debate about Covid-19 human challenge studies (CHIs) and the concomitant role of health-related research ethics in pandemic times. We suggest it might be helpful to think through a lens differentiating between risk, strict uncertainty and ignorance. We provide some examples of lessons learned by harm done in the name of research in the past and discuss the relevance of this legacy in the current situation.

Ethics of kidney care in the era of COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic presents significant challenges for health systems globally, including substantive ethical dilemmas that may pose specific concerns in the context of care for people with kidney disease. Ethical concerns may arise as changes in policy and practice affect the ability of all health professionals to fulfill their ethical duties toward their patients in providing best practice care. In this article, we briefly describe such concerns and elaborate on issues of particular ethical complexity in kidney care: equitable access to dialysis during pandemic surges; balancing the risks and benefits of different kidney failure treatments, specifically with regard to suspending kidney transplantation programs and prioritizing home dialysis, and barriers to shared decision-making; and ensuring ethical practice when using unproven interventions. We present preliminary advice on how to approach these issues and recommend urgent efforts to develop resources that will support health professionals and patients in managing them.

Ethics framework for treatment use of investigational drugs

BACKGROUND

Expanded access is the use of investigational drugs (IDs) outside of clinical trials. Generally it is performed in patients with serious and life-threatening diseases who cannot be treated satisfactorily with authorized drugs. Legal regulations of expanded access to IDs have been introduced among others in the USA, the European Union (EU), Canada and Australia. In addition, in the USA an alternative to expanded access is treatment under the Right-to-Try law. However, the treatment use of IDs is inherently associated with a number of ethically relevant problems.

MAIN TEXT

The objective of this article is to present a coherent framework made up of eight requirements which have to be met for any treatment use of an ID to be ethical. These include a justified need for the use of an ID, no threat to clinical development of the ID, adequate scientific evidence to support the treatment, patient's benefit as the primary goal of the use of an ID, informed decision of a patient, fair access of patients to IDs, independent review, as well as the dissemination of treatment results.

CONCLUSIONS

While this framework is essentially consistent with the legal regulations of expanded access of the USA, the EU, Canada and Australia, it is substantially wider in scope because it addresses some important issues that are not covered by the regulations. Overall, the framework that we developed minimizes the risks and threats, and maximizes potential benefits to each of the four key stakeholders involved in the treatment use of IDs including patients, doctors, drug manufacturers, and society at large.

Arzneimittel für neuartige Therapien – Perspektiven, Chancen, Herausforderungen

Arzneimittel für neuartige Therapien (ATMP) wie somatische Gentherapie und Zelltherapie besitzen ein hohes therapeutisches Potenzial für Krankheiten, die sehr früh im Leben beginnen, und die bisher nicht behandelbar waren. Sie werden oft in einem sehr frühen Entwicklungsstadium zugelassen, wenn an wenigen Betroffenen die Wirksamkeit gezeigt wurde und sich ein bisher nie dagewesener Therapieerfolg auftut, vor allem, wenn die Therapie vor Eintritt von Organschäden greift. Dadurch ergeben sich für Pädiater neue arzneimittelrechtliche und ethische Fragen.

Um die neuen Behandlungsmöglichkeiten adäquat einzusetzen, muss die Diagnose früher als bisher gestellt werden, oder neue Screeningmethoden müssen zur Verfügung stehen. Denkbar ist, dass das Neugeborenenscreening in zeitkritische Krankheiten in den ersten 72 h nach Geburt und ein genetisches Screening (z. B. in der 4. bis 5. Lebenswoche) aufgeteilt wird.

ATMP sind bei ihrer Zulassung noch nicht in ausreichender Anzahl angewendet worden, sodass die notwendigen Erkenntnisse für Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit noch nicht vorliegen (Nutzen-Risiko-Verhältnis). Deswegen werden sie unter strengen Auflagen in spezialisierten Behandlungszentren nach Qualitätskriterien eingesetzt, die der Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss (G-BA) nach Beratung mit den Fachgesellschaften festlegt. Der Aufwand der Therapie und der Dokumentation des Verlaufes in Registern ist erheblich und muss entsprechend vergütet werden.

Der Wert eines ATMP wird erst mit seiner breiteren Anwendung nach der Zulassung klar, ähnlich wie die Sicherheit eines Arzneimittels nicht mit der Zulassung vollumfänglich bekannt ist. Für die Pädiatrie ergeben sich neue Herausforderungen und Chancen.

Compassionate use of psychedelics

In the present paper, we discuss the ethics of compassionate psychedelic psychotherapy and argue that it can be morally permissible. When talking about psychedelics, we mean specifically two substances: psilocybin and MDMA. When administered under supportive conditions and in conjunction with psychotherapy, therapies assisted by these substances show promising results. However, given the publicly controversial nature of psychedelics, compassionate psychedelic psychotherapy calls for ethical justification. We thus review the safety and efficacy of psilocybin- and MDMA-assisted therapies and claim that it can be rational for some patients to try psychedelic therapy. We think it can be rational despite the uncertainty of outcomes associated with compassionate use as an unproven treatment regime, as the expected value of psychedelic psychotherapy can be assessed and can outweigh the expected value of routine care, palliative care, or no care at all. Furthermore, we respond to the objection that psychedelic psychotherapy is morally impermissible because it is epistemically harmful. We argue that given the current level of understanding of psychedelics, this objection is unsubstantiated for a number of reasons, but mainly because there is no experimental evidence to suggest that epistemic harm actually takes place.

Compassionate use of unauthorized drugs: Legal regulations and ethical challenges

Compassionate use (also referred to as expanded access) is therapeutic use of unauthorized drugs outside of clinical trials. The objective of this review is to discuss practical aspects of the current legal regulations concerning compassionate use that have been introduced in the European Union, the USA (both the Food and Drug Administration regulations and Right-to-try laws), Canada and Australia. We also present main ethical challenges associated with use of unauthorized drugs such as possible difficulties with obtaining informed consent and fair patient selection. Moreover, we discuss guidelines, especially those contained in the Declaration of Helsinki, which may aid doctors in the ethical conduct of compassionate treatments.

Current State of Compassionate Phage Therapy

There is a current unmet medical need for the treatment of antibiotic-resistant infections, and in the absence of approved alternatives, some clinicians are turning to empirical ones, such as phage therapy, for compassionate treatment. Phage therapy is ideal for compassionate use due to its long-standing historical use and publications, apparent lack of adverse effects, and solid support by fundamental research. Increased media coverage and peer-reviewed articles have given rise to a more widespread familiarity with its therapeutic potential. However, compassionate phage therapy (cPT) remains limited to a small number of experimental treatment centers or associated with individual physicians and researchers. It is possible, with the creation of guidelines and a greater central coordination, that cPT could reach more of those in need, starting by increasing the availability of phages. Subsequent steps, particularly production and purification, are difficult to scale, and treatment paradigms stand highly variable between cases, or are frequently not reported. This article serves both to synopsize cPT publications to date and to discuss currently available phage sources for cPT. As the antibiotic resistance crisis continues to grow and the future of phage therapy clinical trials remains undetermined, cPT represents a possibility for bridging the gap between current treatment failures and future approved alternatives. Streamlining the process of cPT will help to ensure high quality, therapeutically-beneficial, and safe treatment.

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.

Ethics codes and use of new and innovative drugs

Treatment with new and/or innovative drugs with uncertain safety and efficacy profile is associated with substantial ethical concerns. The main objective of this paper is to present guidance on the use of such drugs contained in: (i) major international codes and guidelines pertaining to medical ethics and biomedical research; (ii) national codes of medical ethics and professional conduct of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, France and Germany. Out of the four international codes and guidelines analysed, only the Declaration of Helsinki addresses the question of the use of unproven drugs. Among national codes, only two (USA and New Zealand) explicitly allow for use of new or innovative drugs. Moreover, treatment with unproven drugs seems to be permissible under the French code, though this is not stated explicitly. The remaining codes do not contain any articles on the use of new and innovative drugs. An update of existing articles, as well as the addition of new guidelines to the codes, should be considered in view of the rapid pace of development and introduction to clinical practice of new drugs. This work is relevant to innovative off-label applications of approved drugs and expanded access to investigational drugs.

Improving Expanded Access in the United States: The Role of the Institutional Review Board

BACKGROUND

The FDA allows patients with a serious or immediately life-threatening illness to use investigational medical products outside of clinical trials through its "expanded access" program. In response to criticism that the process to apply for expanded access is too onerous, numerous changes have been made over the last few years. These have been largely focused on the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, while institutional review boards (IRBs)-which must approve expanded access protocols, except in emergencies when there is not time to do so-have remained relatively unstudied. We conducted a pilot study to review a sample of publicly available IRB policies from the United States to investigate how these entities handle expanded access.

METHODS

We performed an online search to find publicly available policies for IRBs operating in the United States, utilizing a convenience sampling strategy, selecting the first 100 eligible policies we identified.

RESULTS

Of the 95 policies reviewed, the majority (92.6%, n = 88) contained language referencing nonemergency expanded access and/or expanded access for emergency requests for a single patient. Of these 88 policies, 11.4% (n = 19) did not explicitly specify detailed procedures for handling nonemergency single-patient expanded access requests. Of the 88 policies that mentioned expanded access in nonemergency situations, 11.5% did not explicitly specify whether full IRB review was required, as was the rule at that time. There was considerable variation in other aspects of these policies, including charging patients for use of investigational products and the use of data from expanded access.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of our pilot, IRB policies on expanded access vary considerably. It is often difficult to find, interpret, and understand IRB policies on expanded access. Further research is needed to determine if and to what extent this negatively impacts patient access to investigational products outside of clinical trials.

Compassionate use and hospital exemption for regenerative medicine: Something wrong to apply the program for patients in a real world

"Compassionate use" or "Hospital exemption" provides an important pathway for patients with life-threatening conditions to gain access to unproved human cells and tissue products. In a real world, any practitioners may not comply with relevant system. Such regulation should establish an international registry of clinical practices of stem cell therapy as well as provide education for patients to prevent deception by the spread of misinformation by testimonials on websites.

Compassionate use programs in Italy: ethical guidelines

BACKGROUND

This article proposes a retrospective analysis of a compassionate use (CU), using a case study of request for Avelumab for a patient suffering from Merkel Cell Carcinoma. The study is the result of a discussion within a Provincial Ethics Committee (EC) following the finding of a high number of requests for CU program. The primary objective of the study is to illustrate the specific ethical and clinical profiles that emerge from the compassionate use program (CUP) issue. The secondary goals are: a) to promote a moral reflection among physicians who require approval for the CUP and b) provide the basis for recommendations on how to request CUP.

MAIN BODY

The instruments for carrying out the analysis of the case study and the discussion are as follows: Analysis of the audio-recording of the EC meeting regarding the selected Case study. In-depth discussion of topics that emerged during the meeting by means of administration of 5 semi-structured interviews with 2 doctors involved in the case (proposing physician and palliative physician) and with 3 components of the EC who played a major role in the EC internal discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

In an exploration of emerging clinical and ethical issues, four primary themes arise: 1. efficacy, safety of the treatment and patient's quality of life; 2. clear, realistic, adequate communication; 3. right to hope; 4. simultaneous Palliative Care approach. The results of ethical analysis carried out concern two areas: 1) ethical profiles relating to the use of CUP; 2) the role of the EC concerning the compassionate use of drugs and the need to provide recommendations on how to request CUP. With the aim of implementing these conclusions, the provincial EC of Reggio Emilia chose to steer the request for drugs for compassionate use through recommendations for good clinical and ethical practice based on the following assumptions: 1) the "simultaneous care" approach must be preferred. Secondly, 2) the EC's assessment must be part of the decision-making process that the care team conducts before proposing compassionate use to the patient.