Faculty Bibliography

After witnessing extraordinary scientific and regulatory efforts to speed development of and access to new COVID-19 interventions, patients facing other serious diseases have begun to ask "where's our Operation Warp Speed?" and "why isn't Emergency Use Authorization an option for our health crises?" Although this pandemic bears a number of unique features, the response to COVID-19 offers translatable lessons, in both its successes and failures, for non-pandemic diseases. These include the importance of collaborating across sectors, supporting the highest-priority research efforts, adopting rigorous and innovative trial designs, and sharing reliable information quickly. In addition, the regulatory response to the pandemic demonstrates that lowering standards for marketing authorization can result in increased safety concerns, missed opportunities for research and treatment, and delays in determining what works. Accordingly, policymakers and patient advocates seeking to build on the COVID-19 experience for non-pandemic diseases with unmet treatment needs should focus their efforts on promoting robust and efficient research designs, improving access to clinical trials, and facilitating use of the Food and Drug Administration's existing Expanded Access pathway.

Deciding whether to grant an expanded access request for a child whose sibling is enrolled in a gene therapy trial involves a number of complex factors: considering the best interests of the child, the psychosocial and economic impact on the family, and the concerns and obligations of researchers. Despite the challenges in coming to a substantively fair outcome in cases of discordant eligibility, creating a procedurally fair decision-making process to adjudicate requests is essential.

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has rapidly grown in notoriety and popularity worldwide as a treatment for both recurrent and refractory C. difficile infection (CDI), as well as for a myriad of other indications, with varying levels of evidence to justify its use. At present, FMT use in the U.S. has not received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but is permitted under "enforcement discretion" for CDI not responding to standard therapy. Meanwhile, the rising interest in the gut microbiome throughout mainstream media has paved the way for "do-it-yourself" (DIY) adaptations of the procedure. This access and unregulated use, often outside any clinical supervision, has quickly outpaced the medical community's research and regulatory efforts. While some studies have been able to demonstrate the success of FMT in treating conditions other than CDI-studies on ulcerative colitis have been particularly promising-little is still known about the treatmen's mechanism of action or long-term side effects. Likewise, screening of donor stool is in its early stages in terms of protocol standardization. In this paper, we explore the regulatory and ethical concerns that arise from the need to balance access to a nascent but promising innovative treatment with the need for research into its efficacy, risk profile, and long-term impact.

Aim: The US FDA has two nontrial pre-approval access pathways: expanded access (EA) and right to try (RTT). Reports of successful RTT use are scarce, and the FDA has not yet published RTT usage data, yet proponents tout its utility. In the face of this discrepancy and a lack of transparency of usage statistics, our aim is to add to the limited understanding of RTT usage. Materials & methods: We searched crowdfunding campaigns referencing 'expanded access', 'right to try' or 'compassionate use' since 2018. Results: We identified 26 EA campaigns, 29 RTT campaigns and two referencing both. Twenty one EA campaigns described being approved to receive access to the requested experimental medical product versus one RTT campaign. Conclusion: RTT is associated with poor understanding of nontrial pre-approval access. These campaigns suggest RTT is not offering a practical alternative to EA. Cost remains a significant barrier to these patients.

This article examines the origins and context of mandatory bicycle helmet laws in the United States. Localities began to enact such laws in the early 1990s, having experimented with helmet laws for motorcycles previously. As cycling became increasingly popular in the 1970s and 1980s because of a variety of historical trends, from improved cycle technology to growing environmental consciousness, cycling-related injuries also increased. Bicycle safety advocates and researchers alike were particularly troubled by head injuries. National injury surveillance systems and a growing body of medical literature on bicycle-related injuries motivated a number of physicians, cyclists, children, and other community members to advocate helmet laws, which they argued would save lives. Controversy over these laws, particularly over whether they should apply universally or only to children, raised public health ethics concerns that persist in contemporary debates over bicycle helmet policies. (Am J Public Health. 2020;110:1198-1204. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305718).