You are here

Study: With FDA Input, Compassionate Use Programs Appear to Work Well

Some experts still opposed to “right to try” treatments

When terminally ill Americans receive experimental medicines through so-called “compassionate use” programs, they typically only get these drugs after extensive tests for safety and effectiveness, a recent study suggests.

“This means that sufficient evidence of safety and effectiveness has been generated, ensuring that terminally ill patients are not being exposed to therapies that are unlikely to be beneficial or unsafe,” senior study author Joseph Ross, MD, MHS, of Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, told Reuters.

“To me, this is reassuring, and suggests that companies and the FDA are providing expanded access to experimental therapies in a responsible way that protects patients and the public health, ensuring that as many patients as possible are enrolled in clinical trials before expanded access,” Dr. Ross said by email.

This system may change under The Right to Try Act of 2017, which would let companies decide whether to give patients experimental therapies without any input from the FDA.

It has passed the U.S. Senate and is under consideration in the House of Representatives, and versions of the law had been enacted in 38 states as of March, the researchers note in JAMA Network Open.

President Donald J. Trump also endorsed the Right to Try Act in his State of the Union Address, arguing that it will give potentially life-saving treatments to patients who have exhausted all approved therapies and don’t qualify for clinical trials.

The current study doesn’t examine the impact of Right to Try laws already enacted, but it does offer fresh evidence of how well compassionate use programs are working for patients, researchers say.

Under current federal policy, when terminally ill patients want to use drugs and devices that are too early in their development to be approved by the FDA, their doctors typically ask for the manufacturer to grant expanded access to the experimental therapy under the compassionate use program.

If the company agrees, the FDA and a review board where the physician works would also vet the request. Among other things, reviewers might assess whether the patient has exhausted other options and understands the potential risks and benefits of therapies that haven’t yet been cleared for sale, according to the article.

For the study, researchers examined two decades of data on compassionate use, or expanded access, programs for 92 experimental treatments ultimately approved by the FDA. Half of these programs gave patients access to the drugs within 10 months or less of FDA approval.

Half of the compassionate use programs were for drugs to treat cancer, the study found. Another 17% of the programs were for metabolic, endocrine, or genetic diseases; infectious disease treatment accounted for another 15% of programs.

Two-thirds of the programs started allowing patients to get experimental drugs just before companies formally submitted new drug applications to the FDA for approval, the study also found.

At that point, there’s more data available from human trials showing about the safety and effectiveness of experimental therapies, Patricia Zettler, JD, of the Georgia State University College of Law told Reuters.

This highlights a potential flaw in proposed Right to Try legislation: mainly that it might let patients get medicines earlier in the development process when less is known about safety or effectiveness, Ms. Zettler, who wasn’t involved in the study, said by email.

“Getting access to an investigational drug, after all, is not the same as being helped by it,” she said.

The chances of a drug not helping a patient or causing serious harm are higher when medicines are earlier in development, Paul Beninger, MD, MBA, of Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston told Reuters. This is much more likely with Right to Try than with the current compassionate use system, he said.

“I could not in good conscience recommend Right to Try, nor can I identify a patient profile that would experience a differential benefit from Right to Try over the available expanded access mechanisms,” Dr. Beninger, who wasn’t involved in the study, said by email.

Source: Reuters; June 18, 2018.

More Headlines

COMPASS Trial Shows 24% Reduction in Major CV Events
Only 18.7% of Patients Treated Had Uveitis Recurrence
Protein Organizes and Stores DNA for B Cells in Methodical Fashion
Patients’ Bodies Most Common Source of Hospital-Acquired Bloodstream Infections
Growing opioid crisis fueling suicide increase according to study
Vaccine Prevents Some Cancers, Diseases Caused by 9 HPV Types
In Future, Providers May Screen for APOE4 Before Treatment 
MIT Professor Working to Produce Thousands of Drugs on Demand
Agency Scrutinizes Attempts to Block Generics