Somatic Gene Therapy: Ethics and Access.

Manipulation of a patient's genome for therapeutic ends is being attempted through numerous methods, some of which have resulted in disease-modifying interventions. The much anticipated promise of somatic gene therapy is starting to pay off; however, there remain many scientific unknowns, including concerns about safety and durability. A significant ethical concern is that of access to these novel interventions, an issue that is normally framed in terms of the high costs of approved products. I describe how access issues permeate gene therapy long before there is any commercial product and how even upstream decisions-such as choices of indication to pursue, viral vector, and where to site a trial-have significant implications for access to resultant products in both the developmental and commercial stages.

Helpful Lessons and Cautionary Tales: How Should COVID-19 Drug Development and Access Inform Approaches to Non-Pandemic Diseases?

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.

Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws in the United States: Origins, Context, and Controversies.

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).

Ensuring Justice in Access to Investigational Neurological Drugs.

Patients who suffer from life-threatening illnesses or are stricken with conditions that could result in serious morbidity who have exhausted all appropriate treatments may choose to try, through the Food and Drug Administration's expanded access program, an investigational drug or device in development. The program has succeeded for decades in allowing patients to access potentially helpful but still experimental agents. Nevertheless, the administration of investigational drugs outside of clinical trials raises several ethical issues. Of particular concern are the validity of informed consent and the absence of a framework to ensure that experimental drugs are allocated justly and transparently. Although there are some safeguards to help protect the soundness of consent, little work to date has been done to guarantee that investigational medical products are allocated justly and transparently. We introduce a novel pilot project that seeks to address this issue.

Fair, just and compassionate: A pilot for making allocation decisions for patients requesting experimental drugs outside of clinical trials.

Patients have received experimental pharmaceuticals outside of clinical trials for decades. There are no industry-wide best practices, and many companies that have granted compassionate use, or 'preapproval', access to their investigational products have done so without fanfare and without divulging the process or grounds on which decisions were made. The number of compassionate use requests has increased over time. Driving the demand are new treatments for serious unmet medical needs; patient advocacy groups pressing for access to emerging treatments; internet platforms enabling broad awareness of compelling cases or novel drugs and a lack of trust among some that the pharmaceutical industry and/or the FDA have patients' best interests in mind. High-profile cases in the media have highlighted the gap between patient expectations for compassionate use and company utilisation of fair processes to adjudicate requests. With many pharmaceutical manufacturers, patient groups, healthcare providers and policy analysts unhappy with the inequities of the status quo, fairer and more ethical management of compassionate use requests was needed. This paper reports on a novel collaboration between a pharmaceutical company and an academic medical ethics department that led to the formation of the Compassionate Use Advisory Committee (CompAC). Comprising medical experts, bioethicists and patient representatives, CompAC established an ethical framework for the allocation of a scarce investigational oncology agent to single patients requesting non-trial access. This is the first account of how the committee was formed and how it built an ethical framework and put it into practice.

Bikes, helmets, and public health: decision-making when goods collide.

How ought public officials address policy choices that entail trade-offs between desirable public health goods? Increasing cycling improves public health both by promoting physical activity and by decreasing vehicle use, thus reducing vehicular emissions. Proponents of bicycle helmets argue that, used properly, they protect individual cyclists; however, there is concern that mandating helmet use may result in a decrease in cycling. In 2012, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg opposed a bicycle helmet mandate, concerned that it would have a negative impact on the city's cycling rate, which he had sought to increase. The mayor did not explain his rationale, leaving constituents unsure why he opposed the proposal. This case study underscores the challenge of creating public policy in the context of competing public health goods.

Clinician Perspectives of Gene Therapy as a Treatment Option for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

Background: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a progressive, life-limiting, neuromuscular disorder. Clinicians play an important role in informing families about therapy options, including approved gene therapies and clinical trials of unapproved therapies. Objective: This study aimed to understand the perspectives of clinicians about gene therapy for DMD, which has not previously been studied. Methods: We conducted interviews with specialist clinicians treating patients with DMD in the United States (n = 8) and United Kingdom (n = 8). Interviews were completed in 2022, before any approved gene therapies, to gain insight into barriers and facilitators to implementing gene therapy and educational needs of clinicians. Results: Most respondents expressed cautious optimism about gene therapy. Responses varied regarding potential benefits with most expecting delayed progression and duration of benefit (1 year to lifelong). Concern about anticipated risks also varied; types of anticipated risks included immunological reactions, liver toxicity, and cardiac or renal dysfunction. Clinicians generally, but not uniformly, understood that gene therapy for DMD would not be curative. Most reported needing demonstrable clinical benefit to justify treatment-related risks. Conclusions: Our data demonstrate variability in knowledge and attitudes about gene therapy among clinicians who follow patients with DMD. As our knowledge base about DMD gene therapy grows, clinician education is vital to ensuring that accurate information is communicated to patients and families.

ACT To Sustain: Adoptive Cell Therapy To Sustain Access to Non-Commercialized Genetically Modified Cell Therapies.

Genetically modified cell therapies (GMCT), particularly immune effector cells (IEC) such as chimeric receptor antigen (CAR) T cells, have shown promise in curing cancer and rare diseases after a single treatment course. Following close behind CAR T approvals are GMCT based on hematopoietic stem cells, such as products developed for hemoglobinopathies and other disorders. Academically sponsored GMCT products, often developed in academic centers without industry involvement, face challenges in sustaining access after completion of early phase studies when there is no commercial partner invested in completing registration trials for marketing applications. The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) formed a task force named ACT To Sustain (Adoptive Cell Therapy to Sustain) to address the "valley of death" of academic GMCT products. This paper presents the task force's findings and considerations regarding financial sustainability of academically sponsored GMCT products in the absence of commercial development. We outline case scenarios illustrating barriers to maintaining access to promising GMCT developed by academic centers. The paper also delves into the current state of GMCT development, commercialization, and reimbursement, citing examples of abandoned products, cost estimates associated with GMCT manufacturing and real-world use of cost recovery. We propose potential solutions to address the financial, regulatory, and logistical challenges associated with sustaining access to academically sponsored GMCT products and to ensure that products with promising results do not languish in a "valley of death" due to financial or implementational barriers. The suggestions include aligning US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) designations with benefit coverage, allowing for cost recovery of certain products as a covered benefit, and engaging with regulators and policy makers to discuss alternative pathways for academic centers to provide access. We stress the importance of sustainable access to GMCT and call for collaborative efforts to develop regulatory pathways that support access to academically sponsored GMCT products.

Somatic Gene Therapy Research in Pediatric Populations: Ethical Issues and Guidance for Operationalizing Early Phase Trials.

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.

The Lived Experience of Pediatric Gene Therapy: A Scoping Review.

Little is known about patients' and families' lived experiences of participating in pediatric gene therapy (GT) clinical trials. Currently, pediatric GT research targets a broad range of indications--including rare and ultra-rare diseases--which vary in severity and in the availability of alternative therapies. Pediatric GT differs meaningfully from adult GT because the decision to participate involves a dyad of both the child and parent or caregiver/s. It is critical to understand patients' and caregivers' perceptions and experiences of social, emotional, physical, and logistical burdens or benefits of participating in such trials, and how they weigh and prioritize these factors when deciding whether to participate. We conducted a scoping review of the current literature in this subject area with objectives to (1) provide an overview of existing literature, (2) identify gaps and areas for further research, and (3) better understand the lived impact of pediatric GT research on patients and their parents/caregivers. Four themes emerged, including (1) weighing risks and benefits (2) timing of GT trial participation, (3) value of clear communication, and (4) potential impact on quality of life. Notably, our sample surfaced articles about how patients/parents/caregivers were thinking about GT-their understanding of its safety, efficacy, and risks-rather than accounts of their experiences, which was our initial intention. Nevertheless, our findings offer useful insights to improve the informed consent process and promote a more patient- and family-centered approach. Moreover, our findings can contribute to patient advocacy organizations' efforts to develop educational materials tailored to patients' and families' expressed informational needs and perspectives, and can inform more patient- and family-centered policies from GT clinical trial sponsors.

Implications of Pediatric Initiatives on CNS Drug Development for All Ages-2020 and Beyond: Second of Three Sets of Expanded Proceedings from the 2020 ISCTM Autumn Conference on Pediatric Drug Development.

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.

Individualized Therapeutics Development for Rare Diseases: The Current Ethical Landscape and Policy Responses.

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.

Perspectives of Academic Oncologists About Offering Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs.

Importance: 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: To learn how oncologists practicing at academic medical centers (AMCs) perceive EA and their role in offering it. Design, Setting, and Participants: 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: 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: 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: 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.

A survey of pediatric hematologists/oncologists' perspectives on single patient Expanded Access and Right to Try.

Introduction: Physicians in the United States play an essential role guiding patients through single patient pre-approval access (PAA) to investigational medical products via either the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Expanded Access (EA) or the federal Right To Try (RTT) pathways. In this study, we sought to better understand pediatric hematologist/oncologists' attitudes about seeking PAA, on behalf of single patients, to investigational drugs outside of clinical trials. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was developed and sent to pediatric hematologist/oncologists via St. Baldrick's Foundation's email distribution list. Results: Of 73 respondents (10.1% of those who received the survey), 56 met eligibility criteria and are included in the analysis. Over 80% (n = 46) had prior experience with single patient PAA. Respondents were most concerned about the unknown risks and benefits of investigational drugs and financial implications of PAA for patients. One hundred percent and 91.1% of respondents indicated a willingness to support patients through EA and RTT pathways, respectively. When asked about their most recent experience with PAA, 40 out of 46 indicated that they used the FDA's EA pathway to seek PAA and 4 out of 46 indicated that they used the RTT pathway. Of 44 respondents who had used the EA or RTT pathway, 43 indicated that the biotechnology or pharmaceutical company they solicited granted access to the requested product. Conclusion: Survey results support other findings suggesting a need for additional physician support and education about PAA and that physicians may have unequal access to information about investigational drugs and concerns about financial implications of PAA for their patients.