Convalescent Plasma and the US Expanded Access Program: A Personal Narrative.

Between early April 2020 and late August 2020, nearly 100,000 patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV2 infections were treated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in the US under the auspices of an FDA-authorized Expanded Access Program (EAP) housed at the Mayo Clinic. Clinicians wishing to provide CCP to their patients during that 5-month period early in the COVID pandemic had to register their patients and provide clinical information to the EAP program. This program was utilized by some 2,200 US hospitals located in every state ranging from academic medical centers to small rural hospitals and facilitated the treatment of an ethnically and socio-economically diverse cross section of patients. Within 6 weeks of program initiation, the first signals of safety were found in 5,000 recipients of CCP, supported by a later analysis of 20,000 recipients (Joyner et al. in J Clin Invest 130:4791-4797, 2020a; Joyner et al. in Mayo Clin Proc 95:1888-1897, 2020b). By mid-summer of 2020, strong evidence was produced showing that high-titer CCP given early in the course of hospitalization could lower mortality by as much as a third (Joyner et al. in N Engl J Med 384:1015-1027, 2021; Senefeld et al. in PLoS Med 18, 2021a). These data were used by the FDA in its August decision to grant Emergency Use Authorization for CCP use in hospitals. This chapter provides a personal narrative by the principal investigator of the EAP that describes the events leading up to the program, some of its key outcomes, and some lessons learned that may be applicable to the next pandemic. This vast effort was a complete team response to a crisis and included an exceptional level of collaboration both inside and outside of the Mayo Clinic. Writing just 4 years after the initiation of the EAP, this intense professional effort, comprising many moving parts, remains hard to completely understand or fully explain in this brief narrative. As Nelson Mandela said of the perception of time during his decades in prison, "the days seemed like years, and the years seemed like days."

Multicenter expanded access program for access to investigational products for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Expanded access (EA) is a Food and Drug Administration-regulated pathway to provide access to investigational products (IPs) to individuals with serious diseases who are ineligible for clinical trials. The aim of this report is to share the design and operations of a multicenter, multidrug EA program for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) across nine US centers. METHODS: A central coordination center was established to design and conduct the program. Templated documents and processes were developed to streamline study design, regulatory submissions, and clinical operations across protocols. The program included three protocols and provided access to IPs that were being tested in respective regimens of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial (verdiperstat, CNM-Au8, and pridopidine). Clinical and safety data were collected in all EA protocols (EAPs). The program cohorts comprised participants who were not eligible for the platform trial, including participants at advanced stages of disease progression and with long disease duration. RESULTS: A total of 85 participants were screened across the 3 EAPs from July 2021 to September 2022. The screen failure rate was 3.5%. Enrollment for the regimens of the platform trial was completed as planned and results informed the duration of the corresponding EAP. The verdiperstat EAP was concluded in December 2022. Mean duration of participation in the verdiperstat EAP was 5.8 ± 4.1 months. The CNM-Au8 and pridopidine EAPs are ongoing. DISCUSSION: Multicenter EAPs conducted in parallel to randomized clinical trials for ALS can successfully enroll participants who do not qualify for clinical trials.

Pressing ethical issues relating to clinical pig organ transplantation studies.

Clinical pig heart transplant experiments have been undertaken, and further clinical experiments and/or clinical trials of gene-edited pig organ xenotransplantation are anticipated. The ethical issues relating to xenotransplantation have been discussed for decades but with little resolution. Consideration of certain ethical issues is more urgent than others, and the need to attain consensus is important. These issues include: (i) patient selection criteria for expanded access and/or clinical trials; (ii) appropriate protection of the patient from xenozoonoses, that is, infections caused by pig microorganisms transferred with the organ graft, (iii) minimization of the risk of a xenozoonosis to bystanders, and (iv) the need for additional public perception studies. We discuss why it is important and urgent to achieve consensus on these ethical issues prior to carrying out further expanded access experiments or initiating formal clinical trials. The ways forward on each issue are proposed.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric cancer: a multicenter, open-label, expanded-access study.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is an antibody-drug conjugate that consists of an anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) antibody bound by a cleavable tetrapeptide-based linker to a cytotoxic topoisomerase I inhibitor. Prior to marketing approval in Japan in September 2020, this expanded-access study was conducted to provide T-DXd to previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, expanded-access study was conducted between March 25 and September 25, 2020 at 17 Japanese sites. Previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas received T-DXd 6.4 mg/kg via intravenous infusions at 3-week intervals. Serious adverse events (SAEs), all potential cases of interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis, all liver-related events potentially meeting Hy's Law criteria, and all cases of overdose were reported on the case report forms. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were treated with T-DXd. Among the 17 (26.6%) patients with reported SAEs, 10 (15.6%) had SAEs related to T-DXd treatment. Febrile neutropenia was the most common SAE (n = 6). SAEs led to death in six patients; drug-related SAEs (sepsis and febrile neutropenia) led to death in one patient. Drug-related ILD, as determined by the external Adjudication Committee, occurred in three patients (Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3: all n = 1). CONCLUSION: This expanded-access study provided T-DXd to a broader population of Japanese patients prior to marketing approval in Japan, bridging the gap between clinical trials and drug approval. No new safety concerns were identified.

An International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy working group short report on the future of expanded access to unapproved cell and gene therapies.

Patient interest in non-trial access pathways to investigational cell-and gene-based interventions, such as expanded access in the USA, is increasing, while the regulatory and business environments for non-trial access in the cell and gene therapy field are shifting. Against this background, in 2022 the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy (ISCT) established a Working Group on Expanded Access to identify practical, ethical, and regulatory issues emerging from the use (and possible misuse) of the expanded access pathway in the cell and gene therapy field. In this Short Report, the Working Group sets the stage for its future activities by analyzing the history of expanded access and identifying three examples of questions that we anticipate arising as uses of expanded access for investigational cell and gene-based interventions increase and evolve.

Expanded access protocol (EAP) program for access to investigational products for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Expanded access protocols (EAPs) are a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-regulated pathway for granting access to investigational products (IPs) to individuals with serious diseases who are ineligible for clinical trials. There is limited information about the use of EAPs in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); the aim of this report is to share the design, operational features, and costs of an EAP program for ALS. METHODS: The program was launched in 2018 at a single center. In alignment with FDA guidance, protocols were designed as individual (single participant) or intermediate size. Inclusion criteria were broad (e.g., no restrictions due to long disease duration or low vital capacity). Safety information was collected in all EAPs. Selected biomarkers were collected in nine of the EAPs. RESULTS: From July 2018 through February 2022, 17 EAPs were submitted for FDA and institutional review board (IRB) approval. The mean time from submission to approval from the FDA and IRB were 24 days and 37 days, respectively. A total of 164 participants were enrolled and, of these, 77 participants were still receiving IP as of February 2022. The mean duration of participation in an EAP was 12.6 mo. No drug-related serious adverse events were reported from any of the EAPs. Average site cost was $613.47 per participant per month, not including IP costs. CONCLUSION: EAPs provide a framework through which access to IP can be safely provided to people with ALS who do not qualify for clinical trials. Site resources are needed to launch and maintain these programs.

Safety and activity of anti-CD14 antibody IC14 (atibuclimab) in ALS: Experience with expanded access protocol.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: IC14 (atibuclimab) is a monoclonal anti-CD14 antibody. A previous phase 1 trial of 10 participants with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) demonstrated initial safety of IC14 in an acute treatment setting. We provided long-term treatment with IC14 to individuals with ALS via an expanded access protocol (EAP) and documented target engagement, biomarker, safety, and disease endpoints. METHODS: Participants received intravenous IC14 every 2 weeks. Consistent with United States Food and Drug Administration guidelines, participants were not eligible for clinical trials and the EAP was inclusive of a broad population. Whole blood and serum were collected to determine monocyte CD14 receptor occupancy (RO), IC14 levels, and antidrug antibodies. Ex vivo T-regulatory functional assays were performed in a subset of participants. RESULTS: Seventeen participants received IC14 for up to 103 weeks (average, 30.1 weeks; range, 1 to 103 weeks). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were uncommon, mild, and self-limiting. There were 18 serious adverse events (SAEs), which were related to disease progression and unrelated or likely unrelated to IC14. Three participants died due to disease progression. Monocyte CD14 RO increased for all participants after IC14 infusion. One individual required more frequent dosing (every 10 days) to achieve over 80% RO. Antidrug antibodies were detected in only one participant and were transient, low titer, and non-neutralizing. DISCUSSION: Administration of IC14 in ALS was safe and well-tolerated in this intermediate-size EAP. Measuring RO guided dosing frequency. Additional placebo-controlled trials are required to determine the efficacy of IC14 in ALS.

Venetoclax plus low-dose cytarabine in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy: an expanded access study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: In a Phase 3 international clinical trial (VIALE-C), venetoclax plus low-dose cytarabine improved the response rate and overall survival versus placebo plus low-dose cytarabine in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. After the enrollment period of VIALE-C ended, we conducted an expanded access study to provide preapproval access to venetoclax in combination with low-dose cytarabine in Japan. METHODS: Previously, untreated patients with acute myeloid leukemia who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were enrolled according to the VIALE-C criteria. Patients received venetoclax (600 mg, Days 1-28, 4-day ramp-up in Cycle 1) in 28-day cycles and low-dose cytarabine (20 mg/m2, Days 1-10). All patients took tumor lysis syndrome prophylactic agents and hydration. Safety endpoints were assessed. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were enrolled in this study. The median age was 77.5 years (range = 61-84), with 78.6% over 75 years old. The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia (57.1%). Febrile neutropenia was the most frequent serious adverse event (21.4%). One patient developed treatment-related acute kidney injury, leading to discontinuation of treatment. Two patients died because of cardiac failure and disease progression that were judged not related to study treatment. No patients developed tumor lysis syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The safety outcomes were similar to those in VIALE-C without new safety signals and were well managed with standard medical care. In clinical practice, more patients with severe background disease are expected, in comparison with in VIALE-C, suggesting that it is important to carefully manage and prevent adverse events.

An expanded access protocol of RT001 in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-Initial experience with a lipid peroxidation inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Lipid peroxidation is thought to play a biologically important role in motor neuron death in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 11,11 Di-deuterated linoleic ethyl ester (RT001) prevents lipid peroxidation in cellular and mitochondrial membranes. Herein we report on the use of RT001 under expanded access (EA). METHODS: We provided RT001 to patients with ALS via EA at a single site. The starting dose was 2.88 g/day, which was increased to to 8.64 g/day as tolerated. Participants were not eligible for alternative clinical trials. Participants were followed for adverse events and pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were measured approximately 3 months after RT001 initiation. RESULTS: Sixteen participants received RT001 (5.6 ± 1.6 g/day; dose range, 1.92 to 8.64 g/day) for a mean period of 10.8 ± 7.1 months. After 3 months of treatment, PK studies showed that RT001 was absorbed, metabolized, and incorporated into red blood cell membranes at concentrations expected to be therapeutic based on in vitro models. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal, including diarrhea, which occurred in 25% of the participants, and were considered possibly related to RT001. One participant (6%) discontinued due to an adverse event. Ten serious adverse events occurred: these events were recognized complications of ALS and none were attributed to treatment with RT001. DISCUSSION: RT001 was administered safely to a small group of people living with ALS in the context of an EA protocol. Currently, there is an ongoing randomized, double-blind, controlled study of RT001 in ALS.

Free-of-charge medicine schemes in the NHS: A local and regional drug and therapeutic committee's experience.

INTRODUCTION: Free-of-charge (FoC) medicine schemes are increasingly available and allow access to investigational treatments outside clinical trials or in advance of licensing or NHS commissioning. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed FoC medicine schemes evaluated between 2013 and 2019 by a single NHS trust and a regional drug and therapeutics committee (DTC). The details of each locally reviewed FoC scheme, and any nationally available Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Early Access to Medicines Scheme (MHRA EAMS) in the same period, were recorded and categorised. RESULTS: Most FoC schemes (95%) allowed access to medicines intended to address an unmet clinical need. Over 7 years, 90% were company-FoC schemes and 10% were MHRA EAMS that were locally reviewed. Phase 3 clinical trial data were available for 44% of FoC schemes, 37% had phase 2 data and 19% were supported only by phase 1 data, retrospective observational studies or preclinical data. Utilisation of company-FoC schemes increased on average by 50% per year, while MHRA EAMS schemes showed little growth. CONCLUSION: Company-FoC medicine schemes are increasingly common. This may indicate a preference for pharmaceutical companies to independently co-ordinate schemes. Motivations for company-FoC schemes remain unclear and many provide access to treatments that are yet to be evaluated in appropriately conducted clinical trials, and whose efficacy and risk of harm remain uncertain. There is no standardisation of this practice and there is no regulatory oversight. Moreover, no standardised data collection framework is in place that could demonstrate the utility of such programmes in addressing unmet clinical need or to allow generation of further evidence.

Expanded access to anticancer treatments from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv in US breast cancer patients.

Aim: To estimate cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) and TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab) in breast cancer (BC) patients. Methods: Simulation modeling in panels of 20,000 BC and 5000 HER2+ (HER2+ BC) patients, varying treatment duration (one-six cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional AC and TCH treatment that could be provided. Results: In 20,000 patients, cost-savings of $1,083 per-patient per-cycle translate to $21,652,064 (one cycle) to $129,912,397 (six cycles). Savings range from $5,413,016 to $32,478,097, respectively, in the 5000-patient HER2+ BC panel. Conclusion: Conversion to pegfilgrastim-cbqv could save up to $130 million and provide more than 220,000 additional cycles of antineoplastic treatment on a budget-neutral basis to BC patients.

Lay abstract Pegfilgrastim is used to prevent low white blood cell count in patients receiving chemotherapy. Comparable to a generic version of a drug, a biosimilar is a follow-on version of a biologic treatment. We calculated the savings from using biosimilar pegfilgrastim in a hypothetical group of 20,000 patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy with AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide). We then computed the number of additional doses of AC chemotherapy that could be purchased with those savings. We did the same for a group of 5000 HER2+ breast cancer patients treated with TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab). Using biosimilar pegfilgrastim could save $1,083 per patient per cycle. If all patients were treated with biosimilar pegfilgrastim over six cycles, $129.9 million could be saved in the AC group and $32.5 million in the TCH group. This could provide 220,468 additional AC doses and 6981 TCH doses. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim can generate significant savings. These savings can be used to provide additional patients with chemotherapy cost-free.

The 'false hope' argument in discussions on expanded access to investigational drugs: a critical assessment.

When seriously ill patients reach the end of the standard treatment trajectory for their condition, they may qualify for the use of unapproved, investigational drugs regulated via expanded access programs. In medical-ethical discourse, it is often argued that expanded access to investigational drugs raises 'false hope' among patients and is therefore undesirable. We set out to investigate what is meant by the false hope argument in this discourse. In this paper, we identify and analyze five versions of the false hope argument which we call: (1) the limited chance at benefit argument, (2) the side effects outweighing benefits argument, (3) the opportunity costs argument, (4) the impossibility of making informed decisions argument, and (5) the difficulty of gaining access argument. We argue that the majority of these five versions do not provide normative ground for disqualifying patients' hopes as false. Only when hope is rooted in a mistaken belief, for example, about the likelihood of benefits or chances on medical risks, or when hope is directed at something that cannot possibly be obtained, should it be considered false. If patients are adequately informed about their odds of obtaining medical benefit, however small, and about the risks associated with an investigational treatment, it is unjustified to consider patients' hopes to be false, and hence, to deny them access to investigational drug based on that argument.

[Allocation of single-use drugs in children in global compassionate use programs]. / Allokation von einmalig zu applizierenden Arzneimitteln bei Kindern in globalen Compassionate Use-Programmen.

Definition of the problem: Compassionate use is the use of unapproved drugs in groups of patients suffering from a disease that, in the absence of an alternative treatment option, is life-threatening or leads to severe disability. Physicians are not in charge because access to the drug is only granted by pharmaceutical companies, which comes along with many ethical issues. Launched in 2020, the program of Onasemnogenum abeparvovecum against spinal muscular atrophy in children reached a new dimension. The intent of this drug is to stop the progression of the disease with just a single dose, but the company limited the doses in the program to only 100. The global allocation was by lottery, which was considered a novelty in compassionate use history and therefore widely criticized. This paper investigates alternative allocation principles. Arguments: Each possible principle is accompanied by many aspects that need to be considered with regard to urgency and global distribution. This makes some principles like first-come-first-served seem negligible. Remaining principles are ordered hierarchically to derive an algorithm that can represent an alternative to a lottery. A combination of willingness to participate in research, urgency, and likelihood of success (relative to the availability of supportive treatment options) may be considered in similar cases in future global compassionate use programs with children. Conclusion: Since universal algorithms are difficult to define, allocation criteria should always be discussed by an independent panel of experts. Both the constitution of such a panel and its mandatory consultation are necessary in order to decrease the burden for all those involved and to prevent arbitrariness.

Conflicts of interest in oncology expanded access studies.

Expanded access is a treatment use of investigational drugs, biologicals or medical devices outside of clinical trials. The purpose of our study was to assess self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) in oncology expanded access studies. One hundred fifty-eight oncology expanded access studies published from 2013 through 2020 were included. The pharmaceutical industry funded either completely or in part 94 studies (59.49%). The authors disclosed mostly financial COIs, while the number of the reported nonfinancial conflicts was relatively small (3528 and 57 COIs, respectively). The number of articles in which at least one author had a financial COI was 118 (74.68%). The most common financial COI types included advisory board membership/consulting (1471 COIs; 41.7%), followed by honoraria (570 COIs; 16.16%) and research funding (441 COIs; 12.5%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of disclosing financial COIs and positive study's conclusions. On univariate analysis, financial COIs were more likely to occur in studies with at least one center located in the United States (odds ratio [OR], 5.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-35.98; P = .02). We also found that positive conclusions about the studied treatments were less likely in studies without industry funding (OR, 0.26; CI, 0.08-0.77; P = .01). Most of the research on COIs in oncology performed to date focused on other types of studies, especially clinical trials. To our knowledge, our study is the first to evaluate COIs in oncology expanded access studies.

Avelumab expanded access program in metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: Efficacy and safety findings from patients in Europe and the Middle East.

Incidence rates of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), an uncommon skin cancer with an aggressive disease course, have increased in recent decades. Limited treatment options are available for patients with metastatic MCC (mMCC). Avelumab, an anti-programmed cell death-ligand 1 monoclonal antibody, became the first approved treatment for mMCC after the results of the phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 study. Prior to its regulatory approval, an expanded access program (EAP) enabled compassionate use of avelumab in patients with mMCC. Here we report findings from patients enrolled in the EAP in Europe and the Middle East. Efficacy and safety data were provided at the discretion of treating physicians. Between March 2, 2016, and December 22, 2018, 403 requests for avelumab were received from 21 countries, and avelumab was supplied to 335 patients. Most patients (96.7%) received avelumab as second-line or later treatment. In 150 patients for whom response data were available, the objective response rate was 48.0%, and in responding patients, median duration of treatment was 7.4 months (range, 1.0-41.7 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events were infusion-related reaction (2.4%) and pyrexia (2.1%), and no new safety signals were observed. Overall, results from European and Middle Eastern patients enrolled in this EAP confirm the efficacy and safety of avelumab treatment observed in previous studies in patients with mMCC.

Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Study 1102 heralds a new era in hematopoietic cell transplantation in high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes: Challenges and opportunities in implementation.

LAY SUMMARY: People who have advanced myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) may live longer if they get a bone marrow transplant (BMT) instead of other therapies. However, only 15% of people with MDS actually get BMT. Experts say community physicians and transplant physicians should team up with insurance companies and patient advocacy groups to 1) spread this news about lifesaving advances in BMT, 2) ensure that everyone can afford health care, 3) provide emotional support for patients and families, 4) help patients and families get transportation and housing if they need to travel for transplant, and 5) improve care for people of under-represented racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Oncology Expanded Access and FDA's Project Facilitate.

The Oncology Center of Excellence at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration launched Project Facilitate on May 31, 2019, to assist oncology health care providers with Expanded Access requests for investigational drugs. Expanded Access, sometimes called "compassionate use," is a regulatory pathway for physicians caring for patients who have a life-threatening condition or a serious disease to gain access to an investigational drug for treatment when no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options are available. Herein we describe the Project Facilitate program and the process for requesting Expanded Access to an investigational drug.

Avelumab treatment in Italian patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: experience from an expanded access program.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), a rare form of skin cancer with a poor prognosis, has increased in Italy in recent decades. Avelumab, an anti-programmed death ligand 1 monoclonal antibody, is approved for the treatment of metastatic MCC (mMCC) based on the results of the phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial. The global avelumab expanded access program (EAP) was designed to provide compassionate use of avelumab prior to approval for patients with mMCC who had limited treatment options. We report findings from a subgroup of Italian patients enrolled in the avelumab EAP. METHODS: Eligible patients had mMCC and progressive disease following ≥ 1 prior line of chemotherapy or were ineligible for chemotherapy or clinical trial participation. Patients received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Treating physicians were provided with an initial 3-month supply of avelumab; resupply was permitted if the patient achieved a complete response, partial response, stable disease, or other clinical benefit per physician assessment. Safety and efficacy data for the EAP were reported at the treating physician's discretion. RESULTS: Between April 1, 2016, and September 14, 2018, 109 requests for avelumab were received from Italy, and 102 were approved. All but 1 of the approved patients had received ≥ 1 prior line of therapy. At data cutoff (March 22, 2019), 95 patients had been supplied with avelumab and response data were available for 55 patients. The objective response rate in response-evaluable patients was 29.1%, including 6 patients (10.9%) who achieved a complete response and 10 patients (18.2%) who achieved a partial response; in the total population supplied with avelumab (n = 95), the proportion who had an objective response was 16.8%. The median duration of treatment in responding patients was 9.7 months (range, 3.5-41.7 months). The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse events were infusion-related reaction (single preferred term; n = 3 [3.2%]) and pyrexia (n = 2 [2.1%]). CONCLUSIONS: Results from Italian patients enrolled in the avelumab EAP are consistent with the findings of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial and confirm the efficacy and safety of avelumab treatment in this population.

Public availability of results of ClinicalTrials.gov-registered expanded access studies.

AIMS: Expanded access is the use of investigational treatments outside of clinical trials. Results of expanded access studies provide insights into how investigational treatments work in real-world settings. The objective of this study was to evaluate public availability of results of expanded access studies. METHODS: Eligible expanded access studies were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov). Publications matching records of individual studies were searched for in Medline and Embase. In addition, we assessed whether results of the included studies were publicly available from other sources including CT.gov, sponsor web sites and conference proceedings. RESULTS: After median time of 49.5 (interquartile range, 36.7-64.7) months from study completion, the results of 69 out of the 152 included studies (45.39%) were publicly available, either as a journal publication (53 studies; 34.87%) or from other source (16 studies; 10.52%). The percentage of studies whose results were available as a journal publication after 12, 24, 36 and 48 months from study completion was 13.2, 21.1, 33.1 and 35.7%, respectively. The percentage of studies whose results were publicly available from any source (including journal publications) at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months were 19.1, 29.6, 43.2 and 47.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results of a considerable proportion of expanded access studies are not publicly available. In view of the growing importance of real-world data, sponsors and principal investigators of those studies should always consider making their findings public.

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.