US state laws on medical freedom and investigational stem cell procedures: a call to focus on state-based legislation.

The premature marketing of investigational stem cell interventions (SCIs) is a growing market in the US. Several US states have passed legislation to permit and promote unproven and experimental SCIs for individuals with terminal or chronic diseases. These SCI medical freedom laws, which are largely based on right-to-try legislation, increase access to experimental SCIs with little to no oversight. They undermine federal regulatory authority and can compromise patient safety and informed decision-making. SCI medical freedom laws have gone largely unnoticed by scientific societies interested in the responsible translation of stem cell medicine. In this article, we analyze state SCI medical freedom laws and describe their detrimental impact on patients and society. We contend that scientific and medical societies are uniquely poised to advocate against state-based policy promoting unproven SCIs but recognize resource and other constraints to advocate for or against legislation in 50 states. We recommend societies establish coalitions and share resources to address state-based SCI medical freedom laws and other legislation surrounding unproven SCIs.

Prescribing unproven cancer drugs: physician perspectives on expanded access and right to try.

Background: For gravely ill patients who have no treatment options and who are ineligible for clinical trials, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established the Expanded Access Program (EAP). Motivated by efforts to weaken FDA regulation and sold as providing greater access to experimental drugs, the federal Right to Try Act (RTT) was passed in 2017. It reduces FDA oversight by not requiring physicians to report safety data and foregoes approval of protocols by local institutional review boards. Methods: This study explored the views of 17 neuro-oncologists from 15 different academic medical centers with varying experience with EAP and RTT using convenience sampling. We conducted semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis to identify emerging themes. Results: Most oncologists were confused between the two pathways, had little familiarity with RTT, and had little knowledge about experimental medicine available through either pathway. Oncologists reported a preference of enrolling patients in clinical trials over off-trial preapproval pathways with scant data. As a result, oncologists revealed concerns over properly evaluating risks for their patients. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that neuro-oncologists need better resources and clearer mechanisms at their institutions to help navigate EAP and RTT in order to counsel patients interested in experimental medicine.

Single-patient expanded access: A primer for pharmacists.

PURPOSE: The process of providing treatment with investigational drugs through expanded access is explained. Roles and informational resources for pharmacists are discussed. SUMMARY: Expanded access is a regulatory pathway for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions with investigational agents outside of clinical trials. In the setting of no available therapies or ineligibility for clinical trials, a patient and their treating physician may pursue therapies that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The drug manufacturer, FDA, and institutional review boards are required stakeholders in the expanded access process. Other pathways for obtaining investigational agents outside of clinical trials, including federal Right to Try and emergency use authorization, exist but differ in their level of involvement of these key stakeholders. Pharmacists are equipped to be involved in therapy identification, risk vs benefit evaluations, therapy preparation and administration, supportive care, transitions of care, and regulatory compliance. Specific websites, publications, and organizations can aid in navigating expanded access. CONCLUSION: Combining elements of traditional clinical care and research, expanded access involves direct treatment with non-FDA-approved agents outside of a clinical trial. Healthcare providers should be aware of the possibility of providing investigational treatments after all approved options have been exhausted.

Ethical Challenges in Pediatric Oncology Care and Clinical Trials.

The care of pediatric cancer patients is a vast departure from cancer care of adults. While the available treatment modalities-chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery-are the same, the diseases, care-delivery, and outcomes differ greatly. And just as 'children are not just little adults,' pediatric bioethics occupies a distinct place within the broader field of bioethics. In this chapter, we will begin with an introduction to fundamental principles and frameworks for understanding ethical issues in pediatrics, highlighting the triadic nature of medical decision-making between a physician, the child-patient, and the child's parent as the surrogate decision-maker. We will then delve into further details of how these principles and frameworks shape the care of children with cancer, examining specific ethical challenges commonly encountered by pediatric oncologists. We will traverse this landscape by examining issues involving (a) informed consent; (b) research involving children; (c) end of life; (d) genetic and genomic testing; and (e) professionalism. We also examine ethical challenges in clinical research, in children and more broadly. While not an exhaustive exploration of the myriad ethical issues one might encounter in pediatric cancer medicine and clinical trials, this chapter provides readers with a foundation for further reading.

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.

Ethics framework for treatment use of investigational drugs.

BACKGROUND: Expanded access is the use of investigational drugs (IDs) outside of clinical trials. Generally it is performed in patients with serious and life-threatening diseases who cannot be treated satisfactorily with authorized drugs. Legal regulations of expanded access to IDs have been introduced among others in the USA, the European Union (EU), Canada and Australia. In addition, in the USA an alternative to expanded access is treatment under the Right-to-Try law. However, the treatment use of IDs is inherently associated with a number of ethically relevant problems. MAIN TEXT: The objective of this article is to present a coherent framework made up of eight requirements which have to be met for any treatment use of an ID to be ethical. These include a justified need for the use of an ID, no threat to clinical development of the ID, adequate scientific evidence to support the treatment, patient's benefit as the primary goal of the use of an ID, informed decision of a patient, fair access of patients to IDs, independent review, as well as the dissemination of treatment results. CONCLUSIONS: While this framework is essentially consistent with the legal regulations of expanded access of the USA, the EU, Canada and Australia, it is substantially wider in scope because it addresses some important issues that are not covered by the regulations. Overall, the framework that we developed minimizes the risks and threats, and maximizes potential benefits to each of the four key stakeholders involved in the treatment use of IDs including patients, doctors, drug manufacturers, and society at large.

Is right to try being tried? Using crowdfunding data to better understand usage of nontrial pre-approval access pathways.

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 & m ethods: 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.

"Right-to-Try" experimental drugs: an overview.

The "Right-to-Try" experimental drugs act passed by Donald Trump in 2018 provides an opportunity of early access to experimental drugs for the treatment of life-threatening diseases and a potential boon to many young and under-capitalized biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. The pros and cons of experimental drugs, including a number of "cutting edge" scientific, clinical, and a number of synergistic approaches such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, data refineries, electronic health records, data driven clinical decisions and risk mitigation are reviewed.

Free to Choose: A Moral Defense of the Right-to-Try Movement.

The claim that individuals legitimately differ with respect to their values seems to be uncontroversial among bioethicists, yet many bioethicists nevertheless oppose right-to-try laws. This seems to be due in part to a failure to recognize that such laws are intended primarily to be political, not legal, instruments. The right-to-try movement seeks to build political support for increasing access to newly developed drugs outside of clinical trials. Opponents of right-to-try laws claim that increasing access outside of clinical trials would undermine evidence-based medicine. They seek to maximize overall gains to patients by protecting them from adverse drug reactions and ensuring that drugs are more effective on average. In contrast, right-to-try activists have a point that regulatory judgments of drug safety and effectiveness impose one set of trade-offs on all individuals, regardless of their different values. That might be acceptable if determinations of safety and effectiveness were black and white, but that does not seem to be the case. This article argues that judgments of safety and effectiveness are in an important respect normative and reflect the perceived value of those ends relative to others. Such judgments, when universally imposed, harm patients who would readily make do with less knowledge of drug safety and effectiveness in exchange for more time and self-determination. The relevant moral principle is that of respect for individual autonomy. Just as that principle should lead one to substitute collective decisions for individual ones to regulate a natural monopoly, the same principle should lead one to substitute individual decisions for collective ones to avoid a government monopoly on access to newly developed drugs. It is argued that reforms should increase the number of treatment options available to patients outside of clinical trials. The final section of the article discusses ways in which current regulations might be reformed so as to provide more treatment options outside of clinical trials, without undermining evidence-based medicine.

Oversight of Right-to-Try and Expanded Access Requests for Off-Trial Access to Investigational Drugs.

For decades, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has provided an "expanded access" pathway that allows patients who meet qualifying conditions to gain access outside a clinical trial to an investigational medical product being tested to see if it is safe and effective for a specific use. The Right to Try (RTT) Act, enacted in 2018, created a second mechanism for off-trial, or non-trial, access to investigational drugs. In contrast to the expanded access pathway, the federal RTT pathway does not require the involvement of the FDA or an institutional review board (IRB). Given that physicians, drug manufacturers, and medical institutions now have a choice whether to assist individual patients through the expanded access or the federal RTT pathway, we review the differences between these options and discuss the benefits and burdens of IRB involvement in requests to access interventions through the pathways. We also suggest ways in which IRB oversight may be further improved.

A Response to Meyerson's Defence of the American Right to Try : Experimenting with hope.

This comment responds to a defence of the right to try, a law adopted by the United States and many state governments that seeks to expand access to experimental drugs. In defending the right to try, Meyerson argues that it is part of a broader rights-based approach for patient access to innovation. But a drug that is still part of the experimental process may not be an innovation-indeed, it may be a failure and even harmful or dangerous. Further, this approach does not weigh other rights that may be at stake such as the property rights of the drug maker or the rights of future patients seeking access to cures. Lastly, research has found that many patients often fail to receive recommended treatments and preventive care from their providers, let alone experimental or innovative therapies. These policy problems suggest that there is a need for patients to have a greater involvement and role in their care and in how research funding is made, but the right to try fails to address these problems.

Single-Patient Expanded Access Requests: IRB Professionals' Experiences and Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: U.S. physicians may treat a patient with an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial by using the expanded access (EA) pathway or the recently created federal right to try (RTT) pathway. The EA pathway requires physicians to get prior permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, except in emergency cases, institutional review board (IRB) approval. The perspectives of IRB professionals on the review of single-patient EA requests have not been empirically studied. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional online survey to ascertain IRB professionals' perspectives on IRB experiences with and preparedness for review of single-patient EA requests, as well as their attitudes about the importance of IRB review of such requests. Email invitations were sent to 234 IRB professionals connected to the SMART IRB platform. Approximately half of the survey questions used a Likert scale to assess respondents' agreement with specific statements. RESULTS: Eighty-three respondents completed the survey (36.4% response rate, with 228 deliverable e-mail invitations). Of the respondents, 73.5% were affiliated with an academic medical institution; 78.3% of respondents agreed that it is important for a designated member of an IRB to review single-patient EA requests before investigational drugs are used by patients. The majority indicated that local review of the EA request was important and that a single designated reviewer was sufficient (rather than full board). Further, 86.6% felt that their IRBs were prepared to review these requests, and 9.2% indicated that not all the single-patient EA requests reviewed by their IRBs in 2017 were approved. CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of IRB professionals affiliated with the SMART IRB platform who responded to this survey felt IRB review of single-patient EA requests is important and that their IRBs were prepared to handle such requests.

Social value, clinical equipoise, and research in a public health emergency.

The 2016 CIOMS International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans states that 'health-related research should form an integral part of disaster response' and that, 'widespread emergency use [of unproven interventions] with inadequate data collection about patient outcomes must therefore be avoided' (Guideline 20). This position is defended against two lines of criticism that emerged during the 2014 Ebola outbreak. One holds that desperately ill patients have a moral right to try unvalidated medical interventions (UMIs) and that it is therefore unethical to restrict access to UMIs to the clinical trial context. The second holds that clinical trials in contexts of high-mortality diseases are morally suspect because equipoise does not exist between a standard of care that offers little prospect of clinical benefit and a UMI that might offer some clinical advantage.

Compassionate use of gene therapies in pediatrics: An ethical analysis.

In this commentary, we raise concerns about the compassionate use of CRISPR-mediated gene therapies in pediatric and perinatal patients. There is already a precedent for obtaining gene therapies for pediatric patients through compassionate use programs, and the recent passage of a federal Right to Try law may contribute to an increase in the number of patients who seek access to investigational products outside of a clinical trial. Clinicians, nurses, drug companies, and parents need support as they grapple with whether compassionate use of CRISPR-mediated gene therapies is the right thing to pursue for a child. We raise three issues to consider in that decision: (1) the effects of compassionate use on scientific research; (2) hype and harms of gene therapies; and (3) the limits and scope of parental authority.

Expanding Patient Access to Investigational Drugs: Single Patient Investigational New Drug and the "Right to Try".

With drug approval times taking an average of 8 years from entry into clinical trials to full U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, patients with life-threatening and severely debilitating disease and no reasonable therapeutic options are advocating for expanded access (EA) to investigational drugs prior to approval. Special investigational new drug (IND) application categories allow patients who meet specific criteria to receive treatment with non-approved drugs. The FDA approves over 99% of all single-patient INDs, providing emergency approval within hours, and non-emergency approval within an average of 4 days. "Right-to-try" laws passed in 38 states would allow patients to bypass FDA processes altogether, but contain controversial provisions that some claim risk more harm than benefit to desperate and vulnerable patients. This review focuses on FDA EA to non-approved drugs through a special category of IND-the single-patient IND-and "right-to-try" (R2T) access outside of the FDA.

Texas H.B. 810: Increased Access to Stem Cell Interventions or an Increase in Unproven Treatments?

Born of the expectations and hype associated with regenerative medicine, there are now numerous clinics around the world selling stem cell-based interventions (SCBI) that have yet to be proven effective or safe, with little to no accounting of the outcomes being collected. In the United States, SCBI are overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but several SCBI clinics have been pushing for policies to expand access and circumvent FDA oversight. Related to this effort, in 2017, Texas passed a bill, HB 810, which allows clinics to provide "investigational stem cell treatments to patients with certain severe chronic diseases or terminal illnesses." In this article, we describe how the new law relates to another deregulation movement, state and federal, the Right to Try laws, the content of HB 810, and the state legislators' intent in passing HB 810.

The ethical plausibility of the 'Right To Try' laws.

'Right To Try' (RTT) laws originated in the USA to allow terminally ill patients to request access to early stage experimental medical products directly from the producer, removing the oversight and approval of the Food and Drug Administration. These laws have received significant media attention and almost equally unanimous criticism by the bioethics, clinical and scientific communities. They touch indeed on complex issues such as the conflict between individual and public interest, and the public understanding of medical research and its regulation. The increased awareness around RTT laws means that healthcare providers directly involved in the management of patients with life-threatening conditions such as cancer, infective, or neurologic conditions will deal more frequently with patients' requests of access to experimental medical products. This paper aims to assess the ethical plausibility of the RTT laws, and to suggest some possible ethical tools and considerations to address the main issues they touch.

Characterizing expanded access and compassionate use programs for experimental drugs.

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.

Medical Negligence Determinations, the "Right to Try," and Expanded Access to Innovative Treatments.

This article considers the issue of expanded access to innovative treatments in the context of recent legislative initiatives in the United Kingdom and the United States. In the United Kingdom, the supporters of legislative change argued that the common law principles governing medical negligence are a barrier to innovation. In an attempt to remove this perceived impediment, two bills proposed that innovating doctors sued for negligence should be able to rely in their defence on the fact that their decision to innovate was "responsible." A decision to innovate would be regarded as responsible if it followed a specified process. Although these changes to the law of medical negligence were not passed, this article argues that the idea of a process-based approach was sound. In the United States, a number of states have passed "Right to Try" laws that permit doctors to prescribe and companies to provide investigational products without the need for FDA approval. These laws do not purport to and nor are they able to alter the obligations of individuals and companies under federal law. They are consequently unlikely to achieve their stated aim of expanding access to investigational products. This article argues that they nevertheless have a cogent rationale in so far as they highlight the need for rights-based reform to federal regulations governing access.