Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 156, Issue 1, pp 155–171 | Cite as

The Expanded Access Cure: A Twenty-First Century Framework for Companies

  • Stacey B. LeeEmail author
  • Alexandra Y. Murata
Original Paper

Abstract

Through expanded access protocols, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases access to experimental drugs outside the clinical trial setting when no satisfactory alternative treatment is available. While the FDA has established a mechanism for providing patients with unapproved drug access, the regulations do not require the pharmaceutical company to provide the drug. The drug company’s permission to use its experimental drug is a necessary prerequisite to using the FDA’s expanded access mechanism. Increasingly, drug companies are coming under scrutiny regarding the programs governing that decision-making power. Historically, disclosing whether a company has an expanded access program, and whether or how it would respond to an expanded access request, has been left to discretion of the drug companies themselves. Few manufacturers publish adequate expanded access protocols. As a result, patients were provided with little insight into how companies evaluate expanded access requests and are naturally skeptical as to the ethical integrity of the process. The recently passed 21st Century Cures Act changes that practice by requiring drug companies to have, and make publically available, their expanded access procedures including criteria for evaluating and responding to patient requests. In this article, we contend that complying with the new transparency provisions will require drug companies to respond to several unresolved expanded access issues. Namely, how to reconcile a patient’s desire to access lifesaving experimental therapies alongside the company and society’s interest in the efficient development of new drugs. Even more challenging, how can companies devise practices for evaluating and processing expanded access requests that also fairly and equitably acknowledge those concerns? In addressing these questions, this article explores the legal, regulatory, business, and societal influences that have shaped expanded access policies and practices. From there, we provide companies a framework that balances appropriately the desires of individuals and gaining the requisite approvals ensure access not just for one person but for society.

Keywords

Expanded access Compassionate use Corporate frameworks Experimental drugs Investigational drugs FDA Pharmaceutical manufacturers Resource allocation 

References

  1. Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenhach, 495 F. 3d. 695 (D.C. Cir. 2007)Google Scholar
  2. Adebamowo, C., Bah-Sow, O., Binka, F., Bruzzone, R., Caplan, A., Delfraissy, J. F., et al. (2014). Randomised controlled trials for Ebola: practical and ethical issues. Lancet, 384(9952), 1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman-House, A. (2016). Right-to-try laws could curtail the development of innovative new therapies. Retrieved from https://www.statnews.com/2016/11/09/right-try-laws/.
  4. Brower, V. (2014). Food and Drug Administration responds to pressure for expanded drug access. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 106(6), 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buhles, W. C. (2011). Compassionate use: a story of ethics and science in the development of a new drug. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 54(3), 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron, S. (2014). Trials for new Cancer Treatments Reach Only a Tiny Fraction of Patients. Healthline. http://www.healthline.com/health/cancer/trials-for-new-teatments-reach-few-patients.
  7. Caplan, A., & Moch, K. (2014). Rescue me: The challenge of compassionate use in the social media era. Health Affairs Blog. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/08/27/rescue-me-the-challenge-of-compassionate-use-in-the-socialmedia-era/.
  8. Caplan, A. L., & Ray, A. (2016). The ethical challenges of expanded access. JAMA, 315(10), 979–980. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, E. (2014). Company denies drug to dying child. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/health/cohen-josh.
  10. Darrow, J. J., et al. (2015). Practical, legal, and ethical issues in expanded access to investigational drugs. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(3), 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Docker Marcus, A. (2014). Researchers fret as social media lift veil on drug trials. Wall Street Journal. July 29, 2014 http://www.wsj.com/articles/researchers-fret-as-social-media-lift-veil-on-drug-trials-1406687404.
  12. Edney, A. (2017). Dying Patients Have Pence’s Backing on ‘Right to Try’ Policy. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-08/pence-piles-on-drugmakers-with-push-for-right-to-try-regulation.
  13. Eichler, H. G., et al. (2013). The risks of risk aversion in drug regulation. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 12(12), 907–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Expanded Access Programs: Points to Consider - BIO. (2016). N.p., n.d. Web. 13 June 2016.Google Scholar
  15. Flatten, M. (2016). Dead on Arrival: Federal “Compassionate Use” Leaves Little Hope for Dying Patients (Rep.). Goldwater Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133-34 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. (2009). Expanded access to investigational drugs for treatment use. Final rule. Federal Register, 74(155), 40900.Google Scholar
  18. Genentech: Investigational Medicines. (2016). Genentech: Investigational Medicines. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 June 2016.Google Scholar
  19. H.R. 1281, Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2014); H.R. 1685, Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Mo. 2014); 46. H.R. 891, Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (La. 2014).Google Scholar
  20. Huneycutt, B., Mermelstein, N., & Woollett, G. (2016). Current state of transparency of manufacturer’s compassionate use policies (rep.). Washington, DC: Avalere Health.Google Scholar
  21. Jarow, J. P., Lemery, S., Bugin, K., Khozin, S., & Moscicki, R. (2016). Expanded access of investigational drugs: the experience of the center of drug evaluation and research over a 10-year period. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 50(6), 705–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaye, R. (2014). How the Ebola drug ZMapp is made. Retrieved from http://khon2.com/2014/10/06/how-the-ebola-drug-zmapp-is-made/.
  23. Kim, T., Lurie, P., & Pazdur, R. (2015). US Food and Drug Administration efforts to facilitate the use of expanded access programs. J Clinical Oncology, 33, 3979–3980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolata, G. (1989). F.D.A. Approves the use of an experimental drug for AIDS patients’ eye infections. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/03/us/fda-approves-the-use-of-an-experimental-drug-for-aids-patients-eye-infections.html.
  25. Mackey, T. K., & Schoenfeld, V. J. (2016). Going “social” to access experimental and potentially life-saving treatment: an assessment of the policy and online patient advocacy environment for expanded access. BMC Medicine, 14(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McDiarmid, J. (2014). Cobourg patient drew the ‘short straw’ in cancer drug trial. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/02/07/cobourg_woman_34_faces_death_from_melanoma_without_access_to_trial_drug.html.
  27. Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett, 133 S.Ct. 2466 (2013).Google Scholar
  28. Nichols E; Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable for the Development of Drugs and Vaccines Against AIDS. Expanding Access to Investigational Therapies for HIV Infection and AIDS: March 12–13, 1990 Conference Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1991. 1, Historical Perspective. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234129/.
  29. Ochs, Ashley. (2009). Study in Futility: Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs Will Not Expand Access to Experimental Drugs for the Terminally Ill, A. Seton Hall Law Review, 39, 559.Google Scholar
  30. Okie, S. (2006). Access before approval—a right to take experimental drugs? New England Journal of Medicine, 355(5), 437–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Proposed new drug, antiboticm and biologic drug product regulations, Federal Register 1983; 48:26729Google Scholar
  32. Pub. L. No. 114-255, 130 Stat. 1033 (2016).Google Scholar
  33. Qiu, X., Wong, G., Audet, J., Bello, A., Fernando, L., Alimonti, J. B., et al. (2014). Reversion of advanced Ebola virus disease in nonhuman primates with ZMapp. Nature, 514, 47–53. doi: 10.1038/nature13777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raus, K. (2016). An analysis of common ethical justifications for compassionate use programs for experimental drugs. BMC Medical Ethics, 17, 60. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0145-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rid, A., & Emanuel, E. J. (2014). Ethical considerations of experimental interventions in the Ebola outbreak. The Lancet, 384(9957), 1896–1899. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61315-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. S.2912 Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act 2016, https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2912. Sen. Johnson’s prior attempt to move this legislation last year was blocked by then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
  37. Sanghavi, D. M. (2013). The Pills of Last Resort: How Dying Patients Get Access to Experimental Drugs. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/magazine/how-dying-patients-get-access-to-experimental-drugs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
  38. Shire Policies: no access. (2016). Shire Policies: Expanded access. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 June 2016.Google Scholar
  39. Tenth Amendment Center. (2013). Right to Try. Retrieved from http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/issues/right-to-try/.
  40. United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544, 551-555 (1979)Google Scholar
  41. U.S. Department Health and Human Services. (2013). Guidance for Industry: Expanded Access to Investigation Drugs for Treatment Use – Qs & As 1.Google Scholar
  42. US Food and Drug Administration. (2013). IND Activity Reports. Expanded Access INDs and Protocols. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/DrugandBiologicApprovalReports/INDActivityReports/ucm373560.htm.
  43. Walker, M. J., Rogers, W. A., & Entwistle, V. (2014). Ethical justifications for access to unapproved medical interventions: An argument for (limited) patient obligations. The American Journal of Bioethics, 14(11), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Young, F. E., Norris, J. A., Levitt, J. A., & Nightingale, S. L. (1988). The FDA’s new procedures for the use of investigational drugs in treatment. JAMA, 259(15), 2267–2270. doi: 10.1001/jama.1988.03720150043034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zettler, P. J., & Greely, H. T. (2014). The strange allure of state “Right-to-Try” laws. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(12), 1885–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Johns Hopkins Carey Business SchoolBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations