Going "social" to access experimental and potentially life-saving treatment: An assessment of the policy and online patient advocacy environment for expanded access

BMC Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Mackey, Tim K ^a,b,c   Schoenfeld, Virginia J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Global Health Policy Institute   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Access to experimental drugs; Compassionate use; Expanded access; Health policy; Patient advocacy; Regulatory science; Social media

Indexed keywords

CETUXIMAB; PEMBROLIZUMAB; PERTUZUMAB; RAMUCIRUMAB;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ADVANCED CANCER; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HEAD AND NECK CANCER; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NON SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER; ONLINE SYSTEM; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PATIENT INFORMATION; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; RELIABILITY; SOCIAL MEDIA; STOMACH ADENOCARCINOMA; TERMINAL CARE; TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT; UNITED STATES; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPASSIONATE USE; DRUG APPROVAL; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMMUNICATION; COMPASSIONATE USE TRIALS; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUG APPLICATION; PATIENT ADVOCACY; SOCIAL MEDIA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84956634520     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17417015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0568-8     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Lauckner C, Whitten P. The differential effects of social media sites for promoting cancer risk reduction. J Canc Educ. 2015:1-4. in press.
2. Fast I, Sørensen K, Brand H, Suggs LS. Social media for public health: an exploratory policy analysis. Eur J Public Health. 2014;25:162-6.
3. Liang BA, Mackey TK. Prevalence and global health implications of social media in direct-to-consumer drug advertising. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13:e64.
4. Mackey TK, Liang BA, Strathdee SA. Digital social media, youth, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs: the need for reform. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e143.
5. Pew Research Center. Health fact sheet. http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/health-fact-sheet/. 31 January 2016.
6. Chou WY, Hunt YM, Beckjord EB, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Social media use in the United States: implications for health communication. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11:e48.
7. Korda H, Itani Z. Harnessing social media for health promotion and behavior change. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14:15-23.
8. Walker MJ, Rogers WA, Entwistle V. Ethical justifications for access to unapproved medical interventions: an argument for (limited) patient obligations. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14:3-15.
9. Chapman A. Proposal for patient obligations for access to unapproved medical interventions: both too much and not enough. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14:25-6.
10. Darrow JJ, Sarpatwari A, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. Practical, legal, and ethical issues in expanded access to investigational drugs. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:279-86.
11. Caplan A, Moch K. Rescue me: the challenge of compassionate use in the social media era. Bethesda: Health Affairs Blog; 2014. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/08/27/rescue-me-the-challenge-of-compassionate-use-in-the-social-media-era/. 31 January 2016.
12. Magnus D. Compassion and research in compassionate use. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14:1-2.
13. Roth-Cline M, Nelson R. FDA implementation of the expanded access program in the United States. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14:17-9.
14. Brower V. Food and Drug Administration responds to pressure for expanded drug access. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:dju171.
15. Lorigan P, Ascierto PA, Dummer R, Eggermont AM, Flaherty KT, Garbe C, et al. Expanded access programmes: patient interests versus clinical trial integrity. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:15-7.
16. Enck RE. Access to experimental drugs in terminally ill patients: a new idea? Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2010;27:509-10.
17. Miracle VA. Compassionate use in research. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2009;28:85-8.
18. Falit BP, Gross CP. Access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients. JAMA. 2008;300:2793-5.
19. Zettler PJ, Greely HT. The strange allure of state "right-to-try" laws. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1885-6.
20. Folayan M, Brown B, Yakubu A, Peterson K, Haire B. Compassionate use of experimental drugs in the Ebola outbreak. Lancet. 2014;384:1843-4.
21. Joffe S. Evaluating novel therapies during the Ebola epidemic. JAMA. 2014;312:1299-300.
22. Kesselheim AS, Tan YT, Darrow JJ, Avorn J. Existing FDA pathways have potential to ensure early access to, and appropriate use of, specialty drugs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:1770-8.
23. Amorosa V, Tebas P. Is it time to rethink the expanded-access programs for HIV infection? J Infect Dis. 2007;196:974-7.
24. Buhles WC. Compassionate use: a story of ethics and science in the development of a new drug. Perspect Biol Med. 2011;54:304-15.
25. Jacobson PD, Parmet WE. A new era of unapproved drugs: the case of Abigail Alliance v Von Eschenbach. JAMA. 2007;297:205-8.
26. Ochs A. A study in futility: Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs will not expand access to experimental drugs for the terminally ill. Seton Hall Law Rev. 2009;39:559-603.
27. Shah S, Zettler P. From a constitutional right to a policy of exceptions: Abigail Alliance and the future of access to experimental therapy. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics. 2010;10:135-96.
28. Leonard EW. Right to experimental treatment: FDA new drug approval, constitutional rights, and the public's health. J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37:269-79.
29. Benderly BL. Experimental drugs on trial. Sci Am. 2007;297:92-9.
30. Traynor K. Court denies constitutional right to experimental drugs. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2007;64:1996-7.
31. Roehr B. FDA proposes changes in access and charges for experimental drugs. BMJ. 2007;334:12.
32. Okie S. Access before approval - a right to take experimental drugs? N Engl J Med. 2006;355:437-40.
33. Waltz E. US court rules to allow experimental drugs for dying patients. Nat Med. 2006;12:596.
34. Fuhrmans V. Under pressure, drug firms bow to "compassionate use". New York City: The Wall Street Journal; 2002. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1039029132132913913. 31 January 2016.
35. Mack GS. Expanded access rules pose quandary for drug developers. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27:871-2.
36. Freedman RS, Markman M. Food and drug administration expanded access to treatment. Cancer. 2007;109:2157-60.
37. Traynor K. FDA finalizes rules on accessing experimental drugs. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66(1596):1599-600.
38. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Expanded access to investigational drugs for treatment use. Qs & As. Draft guidance. Silver Spring: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration; 2013. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM351261.pdf. 31 January 2016.
39. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration. Individual patient expanded access applications: form FDA 3962. Guidance for industry. Draft guidance. Silver Spring: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration; 2014. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM432717.pdf. 31 January 2016.
40. Sarpatwari A, Darrow JJ, Kesselheim AS. Expanded access to investigational drugs. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1473.
41. Lurie P, Chan-Tack KM, Woodcock J. Expanded access to investigational drugs. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1473-4.
42. US Food and Drug Administration. IND Activity Reports. Expanded Access INDs and Protocols. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/DrugandBiologicApprovalReports/INDActivityReports/ucm373560.htm. 31 January 2016.
43. Kim T, Lurie P, Pazdur R. US Food and Drug Administration efforts to facilitate the use of expanded access programs. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3979-80.
44. Holbein ME, Berglund JP, Weatherwax K, Gerber DE, Adamo JE. Access to investigational drugs: FDA Expanded Access Programs or "Right-to-try" legislation? Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8:526-32.
45. Usdin S. Viral crossroads. Redwood City: BioCentury; 2014. http://www.biocentury.com/biotech-pharma-news/coverstory/2014-03-31/hardy-case-shows-flaws-in-compassionate-use-system-provides-catalyst-for-change-a1. 31 January 2016.
46. Goodman M. Twitter storm forces Chimerix's hand in compassionate use request. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:503-4.
47. Rossen BR. FDA's proposed regulations to expand access to investigational drugs for treatment use: the status quo in the guise of reform. Food Drug Law J. 2009;64:183-223.
48. Finkelstein JB. FDA clarifies rules for getting experimental drugs. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:584-5. 589.
49. Cohen C. Dying patients denied drugs. Atlanta: CNN; 2014. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/05/health/cohen-compassionate-use/index.html. 31 January 2016.
50. Hoerger M. Right-to-try laws and individual patient "compassionate use" of experimental oncology medications: a call for improved provider-patient communication. Death Stud. 2015:1-8. in press.
51. Liang BA, Mackey T. Health care policy. Reforming off-label promotion to enhance orphan disease treatment. Science. 2010;327:273-4.
52. Mackey T, Liang B. Off-label promotion reform: a legislative proposal addressing vulnerable patient drug access and limiting inappropriate pharmaceutical marketing. Univ Mich J Law Reform 01. 2011;45:1-54.
53. Hyry HI, Manuel J, Cox TM, Roos JC. Compassionate use of orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10:100.
54. Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson announces NYU School of Medicine partnership to evaluate compassionate use of investigational medicines. New Brunswick: Johnson & Johnson; 2015. http://www.jnj.com/news/all/Johnson-Johnson-Announces-NYU-School-of-Medicine-Partnership-to-Evaluate-Compassionate-Use-of-Investigational-Medicines. 31 January 2016.
55. Yang YT, Chen B, Bennett C. "Right-to-try" legislation: progress or peril? J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2597-9.
56. Caplan AL, Bateman-House A. Should patients in need be given access to experimental drugs? Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2015;16:1275-9.
57. National Conference of State Legislatures. Right to Try" experimental prescription drugs state laws and legislation for 2014 & 2015. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures; 2015. http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/RighttoTry2015.pdf. 31 January 2016.
58. Kardish C. Arizona first to pass "Right to Try" drug law at ballot box. Washington, DC: Governing; 2014. http://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-arizona-experimental-drugs-ballots.html. 31 January 2016.
59. Drug and Device Law. On "Right To Try" legislation. http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com/2014/10/on-right-to-try-legislation.html. 31 January 2016.
60. Mihalko WM. How do I get what I need? Navigating the FDA's custom, compassionate use, and HDE pathways for medical devices and implants. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:919-22.
61. Grajales 3rd FJ, Sheps S, Ho K, Novak-Lauscher H, Eysenbach G. Social media: a review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16:e13.
62. Lupkin S. Push to get experimental drugs with social media pressure on the rise. New York City: ABC News; 2014. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/social-media-push-experimental-drugs-rise/story?id=23143393 = 23143393. 31 January 2016.
63. McDermott DF, Atkins MB. PD-1 as a potential target in cancer therapy. Cancer Med. 2013;2:662-73.
64. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Reimbursement for cancer treatment: coverage of off-label drug indications. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3206-8.
65. Conti RM, Bernstein AC, Villaflor VM, Schilsky RL, Rosenthal MB, Bach PB. Prevalence of off-label use and spending in 2010 among patent-protected chemotherapies in a population-based cohort of medical oncologists. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1134-9.
66. Antineoplastons (PDQ®). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/PMH0032742/. 31 January 2016.
67. Lewis JRR, Lipworth W, Kerridge I, Doran E. Dilemmas in the compassionate supply of investigational cancer drugs. Intern Med J. 2014;44:841-5.
68. Printz C. Attorneys aim to reform "compassionate use": groups say the regulatory system lags behind scientific advances. Cancer. 2015;121:163-4.
69. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2015. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2015. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/editorial/documents/document/acspc-044552.pdf. 31 January 2016.
70. Text of H.R.6, 21st Century Cures Act. http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20150706/CPRT-114-HPRT-RU00-HR6.pdf. 31 January 2016.
71. H.R.909 - Andrea Sloan CURE Act. 114th Congress (2015-2016). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/909/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22andrea+sloan%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1. 31 January 2016.
72. Compton WM, Volkow ND, Throckmorton DC, Lurie P. Expanded access to opioid overdose intervention: research, practice, and policy needs. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:65-6.
73. Horsburgh CRJ, Haxaire-Theeuwes M, Lienhardt C, Wingfield C, McNeeley D, Pyne-Mercier L, et al. Compassionate use of and expanded access to new drugs for drug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013;17:146-52.
74. Geffen N. Anything to stay alive: the challenges of a campaign for an experimental drug. Dev World Bioeth. 2015. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12084.