Faculty Bibliography

Currently, pediatric research involving investigational gene therapies (GT, used without intending to imply a therapeutic effect) targets a broad range of indications (including rare and ultra-rare diseases) that vary in severity and availability of approved disease-modifying therapies. Because of this diversity of circumstances, there is no one-size-fits-all list of ethical concerns relevant to all uses of investigational GTs in children. Here, we review the main ethical issues, specifically those surrounding the current state of knowledge about GT product-related immunogenicity, toxicity, duration, irreversibility, informed consent/assent, trial design (including the question of who 'goes first'), participant and caregiver burdens, and equity in diagnosis and access to research opportunities. Ethical issues that can be anticipated to arise in pediatric GT clinical trials, e.g., the uncertainty and risk of this research, the resultant preclusion of GT trial participants from other research, the length of follow-up monitoring, and the urgency often felt by caregivers dealing with dire, rapidly progressive conditions, should be proactively identified, addressed in accordance with existing best practices, and transparently discussed among all stakeholders.

This article expands upon a session, titled "Implications of Pediatric Initiatives on CNS Drug Development for All Ages-2020 and Beyond," that was presented as part of a two-day meeting on pediatric drug development at the International Society for Central Nervous System (CNS) Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM) Autumn Conference in Boston, Massachusetts, in October 2020. Speakers from various areas of pediatric drug development addressed a variety of implications of including children in drug development programs. The speakers wrote summaries of their talks, which are included here. The session's lead chair was Dr. Gahan Pandina, who wrote introductory and closing comments. Dr. Joseph Horrigan addressed the current landscape of pediatric development programs. Dr. Gahan Pandina addressed how the approach to research in pediatric populations affects the drug development process and vice versa. Dr. Alison Bateman-House discussed the ethical implications of research in the pediatric population. Dr. Luca Pani discussed some of the global regulatory issues and challenges concerning research in pediatric patients. Dr. Judith Kando served as a discussant and posed new questions about means of facilitating pediatric research. Finally, Dr. Gahan Pandina provided closing comments and tied together the presented issues. This paper should serve as an expert-informed reference to those interested and involved in CNS drug development programs that are aimed at children and/or required, through regulations, to include children as part of the approval process.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:The expanded access (EA) pathway permits patients to be treated with investigational medical products outside clinical trials. Because cancer care is a common indication for which EA is sought and these efforts require physician management, understanding oncologists' perspectives can help illuminate factors influencing patient access. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To learn how oncologists practicing at academic medical centers (AMCs) perceive EA and their role in offering it. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This qualitative study used data from semistructured interviews conducted from February 2020 to September 2021 with a purposive sample of oncologists recruited from large, urban AMCs in the northeast United States. Oncologists who had submitted at least 1 single-patient EA request to the institutional review boards at the University of Pennsylvania, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, NYU Langone Health, and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from January 1, 2014, through January 31, 2020, were eligible to participate. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to March 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Interviews focused on oncologist practice demographics, experience with EA, factors relevant to decisions to pursue EA and comfort with those decisions, perspectives on oncologists' role in EA, perspectives on the FDA's role, and the Right to Try pathway to access investigational drugs. Results/UNASSIGNED:Eligible oncologists were interviewed until thematic saturation was reached, resulting in 25 interviews; most participants were women (15 participants [60%]), reported primarily treating adult patients (15 participants [60%]), had more than 10 years of clinical experience (16 participants [64%]), and had submitted at least 2 single-patient EA requests to their institutional review boards during the relevant period (14 participants [56%]). Oncologists viewed EA as an important tool for securing what they determined to be the best treatment option for their patients based on their own expert assessment of available data. Interviewees reported that they would rather access interventions as commercially available products or through clinical trials; however, if the preferred option was not available through these means, they viewed pursuit of EA as part of their obligation to patients, while often recognizing the potential for inequities in the broader patient population beyond their institutions. Participating oncologists felt confident pursuing investigational drugs for treatment use, despite the absence of FDA marketing approval, and did not necessarily view EA as a last resort. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:These findings indicate that oncologists practicing in large academic settings sought to treat patients with the interventions they deemed most likely to be beneficial, regardless of approval status. As such, they viewed EA as an unexceptional means to obtain promising products, although it remains unclear whether their confidence in evaluating investigational treatments was justified. Future research should examine whether oncologists outside large AMCs share this confidence, as differences may influence patient access to the EA treatment pathway.

The first individualized therapy was administered in the United States just 2 years ago, when milasen, a therapeutic adapted from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antisense oligonucleotide technology, was developed for a young girl with an extremely rare genetic mutation associated with Batten disease. Since then there has been an explosion of enthusiasm in developing customized treatments for extremely rare genetic conditions. These interventions raise some of the ethics concerns characteristic of novel therapeutics while simultaneously challenging existing legal, regulatory, and ethical understandings. Their individualized aspect blurs to the point of erasing the historically distinct line separating research from treatment, leading regulators and ethics oversight bodies to reevaluate existing policies. As experimental therapeutics, they raise the potential for both compromised informed consent and conflicts of interest, and their considerable expense provokes serious justice concerns. This article examines these challenges, urges multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement to address them in a transparent and practicable manner, and recommends initial policy responses.

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.