Access to Investigational Drugs: FDA Expanded Access Programs or “Right‐to‐Try” Legislation?

PurposeThe Food and Drug Administration Expanded Access (EA) program and “Right‐to‐Try” legislation aim to provide seriously ill patients who have no other comparable treatment options to gain access to investigational drugs and biological agents. Physicians and institutions need to understand these programs to respond to questions and requests for access.MethodsFDA EA programs and state and federal legislative efforts to provide investigational products to patients by circumventing FDA regulations were summarized and compared.ResultsThe FDA EA program includes Single Patient‐Investigational New Drug (SP‐IND), Emergency SP‐IND, Intermediate Sized Population IND, and Treatment IND. Approval rates for all categories exceed 99%. Approval requires FDA and Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, and cooperation of the pharmaceutical partner is essential. “Right‐to‐Try” legislation bypasses some of these steps, but provides no regulatory or safety oversight.ConclusionThe FDA EA program is a reasonable option for patients for whom all other therapeutic interventions have failed. The SP‐IND not only provides patient access to new drugs, but also maintains a balance between immediacy and necessary patient protection. Rather than circumventing existing FDA regulations through proposed legislation, it seems more judicious to provide the knowledge and means to meet the EA requirements.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/115991/1/cts12255.pd

Novel baseline predictors of adverse events during oral immunotherapy in children with peanut allergy

Though peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising investigational therapy, its potential is limited by substantial adverse events (AEs), which are relatively understudied

Sustained unresponsiveness to peanut in subjects who have completed peanut oral immunotherapy

Although peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been conclusively shown to cause desensitization, it is currently unknown whether clinical protection persists after stopping therapy

Warning Letters to Sponsor-Investigators at Academic Health Centres – The Regulatory “Canaries in a Coal Mine”

Purpose: This study highlights Warning Letter (WL) findings issued to sponsor-investigators (S-Is) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods: The online index of WLs issued from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2012 was reviewed [1]. Through a manual screening process, letters were evaluated if specifically issued to ‘clinical investigators’, ‘sponsors’ or ‘sponsor-investigators’. A particular focus was given to S-Is at Academic Health Centres (AHCs). Each letter was scored for the presence of violations in 40 general regulatory categories. Results: A review of FDA WLs issued over a five-year period (FDA Fiscal Years 2008-2012) revealed that WLs to S-Is represent half of the WLs issued to all sponsors (16 of 32 letters). A review of these letters indicates that S-Is are not aware of, or simply do not meet, their regulatory responsibilities as either investigators or sponsors. In comparing total sponsor letters to those of S-Is, the most cited violation was the same: a lack of monitoring. A review of publicly available inspection data indicates that these 16 letters merely represent the tip of the iceberg. Conclusion: This review of the WL database reveals the potential for serious regulatory violations among S-Is at AHCs. Recent translational funding initiatives may serve to increase the number of S-Is, especially among Academic Health Centres (AHCs) [2]; thus, AHCs must become aware of this S-I role and work to support investigators who assume both roles in the course of their research

Novel baseline predictors of adverse events during oral immunotherapy in children with peanut allergy

Though peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising investigational therapy, its potential is limited by substantial adverse events (AEs), which are relatively understudied

Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure

BACKGROUND The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016 -002299-28.)