Faculty Bibliography

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.

The book reflects Fins' role as co-director of the Consortium for the Advanced Study of Brain Injury at Weill Cornell Medicine and the Rockefeller University and his struggle to answer the kinds of questions that stand to shape how society treats people with brain injuries. What is the capacity of brains to recover? What are the mechanisms of that recovery? How do we know that our assessments are accurately describing what's going on in a patient's mind? And what does society morally owe these patients and families?

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.