Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the characteristics of "expanded access" and "compassionate use" programs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and to determine the percentage of drugs provided through these programs that ultimately received FDA marketing approval. RESULTS: We identified 398 expanded access and compassionate use programs (hereafter referred to as expanded access programs) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Industry funded 61% (n = 241) of programs individually or collaboratively, while NIH and the US Federal Government rarely funded programs (3% [n = 11] and 2% [n = 6], respectively). Most programs provided access to drugs (71% [n = 282]), 11% to biologics (n = 43), and 10% to medical devices (n = 40). These programs covered 460 unique conditions, the most common being HIV (n = 26), leukemia (22), and multiple myeloma (n = 14). Only 2% of programs reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov. Most programs (82%) were open to enrolling adults and seniors (n = 326). These programs provided access to 210 unique experimental drugs, of which 76% have received FDA approval.

BACKGROUND:Patients who are seriously ill and have run out of available treatment options may seek access to investigational agents that have not yet been fully vetted by regulatory agencies for safety and efficacy and approved for use in human subjects. Over time, a variety of terms have evolved internationally to denote mechanisms for providing access to such unapproved investigational agents. The lack of consistency in terminology used to describe this process is confusing at best and, at worst, possibly even detrimental to patients. METHODS:To highlight variation around the globe in terminology denoting pre-approval access to investigational agents, we conducted extensive Internet searches to locate specific legislation, guidance, or policy documents describing access mechanisms in numerous countries. We created a table of results intended to convey a sampling of international terminological diversity. RESULTS:The profusion of terms used internationally to indicate pre-approval access to investigational agents is evident. We recommend a shift toward the use of "pre-approval access" as an umbrella term encompassing all forms of access to unapproved agents. We also recommend use of the phrases "individual/named patient regulatory routes for pre-approval access" and "group/cohort regulatory routes for pre-approval access" to differentiate between pre-approval access programs designed for single patients, versus those designed for groups of patients. CONCLUSIONS:There is a pressing need to revisit and better align pre-approval access terminology at the international level. Adopting the umbrella term "pre-approval access" may be a useful strategy for initiating and promoting harmonization of terms to reduce potential confusion by patients and health care decision makers regarding experimental treatment options.

This article reflects on the relevance and applicability of the Belmont Report nearly four decades after its original publication. In an exploration of criticisms that have been raised in response to the report and of significant changes that have occurred within the context of biomedical research, five primary themes arise. These themes include the increasingly vague boundary between research and practice, unique harms to communities that are not addressed by the principle of respect for persons, and how growing complexity and commodification in research have shed light on the importance of transparency. The repercussions of Belmont's emphasis on the protection of vulnerable populations is also explored, as is the relationship between the report's ethical principles and their applications. It is concluded that while the Belmont Report was an impressive response to the ethical issues of its day, the field of research ethics involving human subjects may have outgrown it.

BACKGROUND: For men with significant genitourinary injury, penile transplantation is being considered as an option when reconstruction is not feasible or proves unacceptable to the injured patient. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted to assess the current state of penile reconstruction and transplantation options, as well as to evaluate scholarly research addressing the ethical dimensions of penile transplantation. RESULTS: The state of penile transplantation is elementary. If reconstruction is not a possibility, proceeding ethically with research on penile vascularized composite allotransplantation will require the articulation of guidelines. To date, very little has been published in the scholarly literature assessing the ethics of penile transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines should be developed to address penile transplantation and must cover the donation of tissue, consent, subject selection, qualifications of the surgical team, and management of both failure and patient dissatisfaction. Unless guidelines are established and disseminated, penile transplants should not be undertaken. The preliminary recommendations suggested in this article may help to inform development of guidelines.

The 11 original regions for organ allocation in the United States were determined by proximity between hospitals that provided deceased donors and transplant programs. As liver transplants became more successful and demand rose, livers became a scarce resource. A national system has been implemented to prioritize liver allocation according to disease severity, but the system still operates within the original procurement regions, some of which have significantly more deceased donor livers. Although each region prioritizes its sickest patients to be liver transplant recipients, the sickest in less liver-scarce regions get transplants much sooner and are at far lower risk of death than the sickest in more liver-scarce regions. This has resulted in drastic and inequitable regional variation in preventable liver disease related death rate.A new region districting proposal - an eight district model - has been carefully designed to reduce geographic inequities, but is being fought by many transplant centers that face less scarcity under the current model. The arguments put forth against the new proposal, couched in terms of fairness and safety, will be examined to show that the new system is technologically feasible, will save more lives, and will not worsen socioeconomic disparity. While the new model is likely not perfect, it is a necessary step toward fair allocation.