Expanded access to investigational drugs in psychiatry: A systematic review.

Some psychiatric patients have exhausted all approved treatment options. Numerous investigational drugs are currently being developed and tested in clinical trials. However, not all patients can participate in clinical trials. Expanded access programs may provide an opportunity for patients who cannot participate in clinical trials to use investigational drugs as a therapeutic option outside of clinical trials. It is unknown to what extent expanded access occurs in psychiatry. We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, and PscyInfo, with additional information from ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and FDA/EMA approvals, in order to find all expanded access programs ever conducted, globally, in the field of psychiatry. This resulted in a total of fourteen expanded access programs ever conducted in psychiatry. Given the prevalence of psychiatric disorders, the activity in clinical research in psychiatry, the regulatory framework enabling expanded access, and the impact of psychiatric disorders on patients, their families, and society, we had expected a higher utilization of expanded access. We propose that the psychiatric community, with pharmaceutical industry, should consider establishing and optimizing expanded access programs.

Results from Expanded Access Programs: A Review of Academic Literature.

BACKGROUND: Although expanded access is an increasingly used pathway for patients to access investigational medicine, little is known on the magnitude and content of published scientific research collected via expanded access. METHODS: We performed a review of all peer-reviewed expanded access publications between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2022. We analyzed the publications for drugs, diseases, disease area, patient numbers, time, geographical location, subject, and research methodology (single center/multicenter, international/national, prospective/retrospective). We additionally analyzed endpoints reported in all COVID-19-related expanded access publications. RESULTS: We screened 3810 articles and included 1231, describing 523 drugs for 354 diseases for 507,481 patients. The number of publications significantly increased over time ([Formula: see text]). Large geographical disparities existed as Europe and the Americas accounted for 87.4% of all publications, whereas Africa only accounted for 0.6%. Oncology and hematology accounted for 53% of all publications. Twenty-nine percent of all expanded access patients (N = 197,187) reported on in 2020 and 2021 were treated in the context of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: By summarizing characteristics of patients, diseases, and research methods described in all scientific literature published on expanded access, we provide a unique dataset for future research. We show that published scientific research on expanded access has surged over the past decades, partly due to COVID-19. However, international collaboration and equity in geographic access remain an issue of concern. Lastly, we stress the need for harmonization of research legislation and guidance on the value of expanded access data within real-world data frameworks to improve equity in patient access and streamline future expanded access research.

Generating Evidence from Expanded Access Use of Rare Disease Medicines: Challenges and Recommendations.

Patients with rare diseases often have limited or no options for approved treatments or participation in clinical trials. In such cases, expanded access (or "compassionate use") provides a potential means of accessing unapproved investigational medicines. It is also possible to capture and analyze clinical data from such use, but doing so is controversial. In this perspective, we offer examples of evidence derived from expanded access programs for rare diseases to illustrate its potential value to the decision-making of regulators and payers in the European Union and the United States. We discuss ethical and regulatory aspects to the use of expanded access data, with a focus on rare disease medicines. The heterogeneous approach to expanded access among countries within the European Union leaves uncertainties to what extent data can be collected and analyzed. We recommend the issuance of new guidance on data collection during expanded access, harmonization of European pathways, and an update of existing European compassionate use guidance. We hereby aim to clarify the supportive role of expanded access in evidence generation. Harmonization across Europe of expanded access regulations could reduce manufacturer burdens, improve patient access, and yield better data. These changes would better balance the need to generate quality evidence with the desire for pre-approval access to investigational medicine.

Incremental benefits of novel pharmaceuticals in the UK: a cross-sectional analysis of NICE technology appraisals from 2010 to 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incremental value of new drugs across disease areas receiving favourable coverage decisions by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) over the past decade. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study assessed favourable appraisal decisions of drugs between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. Estimates of incremental benefit were extracted from NICE's evidence review groups reports. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental benefit of novel drugs relative to the best alternative therapeutic option, expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: 184 appraisals of 129 drugs provided QALYs. The median incremental value was 0.27 QALY (IQR: 0.07-0.73). Benefits varied across drug-indication pairs (range: -0.49 to 5.22 QALY). The highest median benefits were found in haematology (0.70, IQR: 0.55-1.22) and oncology (0.46, IQR: 0.20-0.88), the lowest in ophthalmology (0.09, IQR: 0.04-0.22) and endocrinology (0.02, IQR: 0.01-0.06). Eight appraisals (4.3%) found contributions of more than two QALYs, but one in four (50/184) drug-indication pairs provided less than the equivalent of 1 month in perfect health compared to existing treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In our review period, the median incremental value of novel drugs approved for use within the English National Health System, relative to the best alternative therapeutic option, was equivalent to 3-4 months of life in perfect health, but data were heterogeneous. Objective evaluations of therapeutic value helps patients and physicians to develop reasonable expectations of drugs and delivers insights into disease areas where medicinal therapeutic progress has had the most and least impact.

Real-world data from expanded access programmes in health technology assessments: a review of NICE technology appraisals.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify and characterise the usage of expanded access (EA) data in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals (TAs). EA offers patients who are ineligible for clinical trials or registered treatment options, access to investigational therapies. Although EA programmes are increasingly used to collect real-world data, it is unknown if and how these date are used in NICE health technology assessments. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of NICE appraisals (2010-2020). We automatically downloaded and screened all available appraisal documentation on NICE website (over 8500 documents), searching for EA-related terms. Two reviewers independently labelled the EA usage by disease area, and whether it was used to inform safety, efficacy and/or resource use. We qualitatively describe the five appraisals with the most occurrences of EA-related terms. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Number of TAs that used EA data to inform safety, efficacy and/or resource use analyses. RESULTS: In 54.2% (206/380 appraisals), at least one reference to EA was made. 21.1% (80/380) of the TAs used EA data to inform safety (n=43), efficacy (n=47) and/or resource use (n=52). The number of TAs that use EA data remained stable over time, and the extent of EA data utilisation varied by disease area (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: NICE uses EA data in over one in five appraisals. In synthesis with evidence from well-controlled trials, data collected from EA programmes may meaningfully inform cost-effectiveness modelling.

The wider perspective: twenty years of clinical trials in myelodysplastic syndromes.

Most patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) require therapeutic intervention. However, there are few approved treatments for MDS. To explore reasons, we searched clinicaltrials.gov and clinicaltrialsregister.eu for MDS trials from 2000 to 2020. We assessed which agents were under investigation and analysed clinical trial characteristics and continuation rates from phase I to II to III to approval. As such, we identified 384 unique agents in 426 phase I, 430 phase II and 48 phase III trials. Success rates for phase III trials and agents were low, and MDS trials took markedly longer to complete than the average clinical trial. Although success rates were higher when MDS-specific phase I trials were conducted, 52% of the agents had not been evaluated in a phase I trial for MDS. MDS trials often failed to include quality of life, an especially important outcome for older MDS patients. Our work identifies factors potentially contributing to the paucity of available agents for MDS. We suggest a framework to improve clinical research in MDS that might ultimately augment the number of available agents.

[Expanded Access in The Netherlands: prescribing unregistered medicine]. / Behandeling met een niet-geregistreerd geneesmiddel.

Expanded access is a pathway to access unregistered medicines if there are no registered treatments available and patients cannot enroll in clinical trials. Expanded access may serve as a last resort for patients who are in dire need of treatment options and cannot await the completion of drug development and for patients who may benefit from treatments that are not (or not anymore) registered in their jurisdiction. Unregistered medicine can be acquired via named-patient pathways ('Leveren op Artsenverklaring') or via group programs ('Compassionate Use Programma's). We describe the origins of expanded access and its daily practice in the Netherlands. We observe an increasing trend in expanded access requests. The potential risks these treatments provide, the possibility of ceasing further treatment and the preferences of individual patients should all inform the decision whether or not to pursue expanded access.

Two decades of targeted therapies in acute myeloid leukemia.

Precision medicine is gaining importance in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Objectively reviewing past and current knowledge aids guiding future research. Therefore, we provide a complete overview of all phase II and phase III trials investigating targeted therapies in AML and their primary endpoints over the past two decades in perspective of their clinical benefit. We assessed whether drugs were primarily designed to treat AML or were repurposed and how successful they were based on progression of distinct drugs from phase II to phase III to FDA-approval. Between January 2000 and September 2020, 167 agents with 96 targets were investigated in 397 phase II trials. Twenty-eight agents were steered towards phase III, after three phase II trials on average. Repurposed drugs less often advanced in clinical development than drugs primarily developed for AML. Composite responses were the most prevalent primary endpoints in phase II. Of the eight FDA-approved drugs, none investigated quality of life at time of approval, and three out of eight have yet to show benefit in overall survival. Returns on targeted therapy research remain lean for AML patients. Future trials should not overlook non-targeted agents and foremost study endpoints proven to predict patient well-being.

Expanded Access as a source of real-world data: An overview of FDA and EMA approvals.

AIMS: To identify, characterize and compare all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approvals that included real-world data on efficacy from expanded access (EA) programmes. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of FDA (1955-2018) and EMA (1995-2018) regulatory approval documentation. We automated searching for terms related to EA in 22,506 documents using machine learning techniques. We included all approvals where EA terms appeared in the regulatory documentation. Our main outcome was the inclusion of EA data as evidence of clinical efficacy. Characterization was based on approval date, disease area, orphan designation and whether the evidence was supportive or pivotal. RESULTS: EA terms appeared in 693 out of 22,506 (3.1%) documents, which referenced 187 approvals. For 39 approvals, data from EA programmes were used to inform on clinical efficacy. The yearly number of approvals with EA data increased from 1.25 for 1993-2013 to 4.6 from 2014-2018. In 13 cases, these programmes formed the main evidence for approval. Of these, patients in EA programmes formed over half (median 71%, interquartile range: 34-100) of the total patient population available for efficacy evaluation. Almost all (12/13) approvals were granted orphan designation. In 8/13, there were differences between regulators in approval status and valuation of evidence. Strikingly, 4 treatments were granted approval based solely on efficacy from EA. CONCLUSION: Sponsors and regulators increasingly include real-world data from EA programmes in the efficacy profile of a treatment. The indications of the approved treatments are characterized by orphan designation and high unmet medical need.