Wayne M. Dankner, MD, is a senior medical director of North American Medical Services, and Hua Dupré, MD, PhD, is a director
of project management and operations, for Parexel International.
For a patient who is running out of hope, waiting for a drug to be approved can be interminable. Even on the fast track, a
review can take six months or longer. Some patients with life-threatening diseases cannot afford to wait. In response, many
countries have developed expanded access programs (EAPs) that give patients with no other viable alternative access to medically
important drugs before they are commercialized.
The benefit of expanded access is clear. In fact, much of the groundwork for FDA's current policy regarding EAPs was driven
by the AIDS community and its vocal demand for access to experimental treatments in the 1980s and early 1990s. Regulatory
agencies such as FDA also stand to gain, because an EAP can generate additional safety data on the new product. But what about
pharmaceutical companies? What is the benefit to them?
This article outlines the benefits of EAPs, describes how programs are structured in the United States and abroad, examines
several regulatory issues associated with EAPs, and highlights the management and logistical issues that should be taken into
account when considering implementing them.
The Upside
For pharmaceutical companies, EAPs create several advantages, including:
- public good will
- expanded safety data across a more clinically and ethnically diverse population than often encountered in clinical trials
- opportunity for larger groups of physicians to gain experience with both the benefits and adverse events associated with the
drug
- pre-approval exposure to hundreds or thousands of practicing physicians
- the potential to develop valuable clinical experience that may support additional labeling and/or product-related publications
and communications.
Those benefits—and in some countries, the possibility of generating revenue—can make it well worth a sponsor's while to consider
EAPs for certain products.
Making the drug available on a global scale can multiply those benefits across a wider marketplace, but the process can be
challenging because of differences in regulations and philosophy from one country to the next, particularly in Europe. A thorough
understanding of those variations can facilitate a successful global EAP. Such insight is especially important given that
the programs are conducted under regulatory review.
Making the Case
EAPs—sometimes called compassionate use programs—have been most commonly used in oncology and HIV/AIDS, although their application
is expanding into such areas as neuropathy, hepatitis B, sepsis, and coagulopathy (a disease affecting blood coagulation).
Pharmaceutical companies should consider EAPs when they are developing a new product for a life-threatening illness or disorder
that leads to major disability and when there are patients who have exhausted alternative therapies in that particular therapeutic
category. However, the decision must be weighed carefully. Regulatory agencies are particularly sensitive to demonstration
of patient need. Programs that the agencies perceive to have marketing value only will not be approved.
EAPs are usually established during Phase III of development, between pivotal trials for approval and receipt of marketing
authorization. At that point, the sponsor has accumulated sufficient safety and efficacy information to permit use of the
new drug in a minimally controlled outpatient setting.
Patient entry criteria for EAPs need not be as strict as they are for clinical trials but should match the indications in
the proposed drug label. Patients who participate in an EAP often have not been eligible for a Phase III trial because of
co-morbidity, disease stage, or concomitant medication use—or simply because they reside in countries where no clinical trial
is available. In the United States, where EAPs are administered primarily through an FDA–designated Treatment Investigational
New Drug (IND), a clinician must still determine patient eligibility, but the inclusion/exclusion criteria are more open.
How They Differ
In certain countries, particularly the United States, an EAP is similar to a standard Phase IIIb trial: both are conducted
according to a specific protocol and require Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight and informed consent from patients.
The major difference between an EAP and a standard Phase IIIb clinical trial is that no efficacy data are collected. Data
collection for an EAP is usually limited to demographic and safety information and involves far fewer case report forms (CRFs).
Data monitoring can be done remotely instead of performing on-site visits for source data verification.
In other countries, EAPs can be administered through open-label Phase III trials, cohort patient programs, or named-patient
programs. In those capacities, it is the pharmaceutical company's primary role to supply the drug, and it is the physician's
responsibility (and decision) to enroll patients.
Unlike a standard clinical trial, an EAP involves an unknown number of patients and sites—which can make it a challenge to
plan for adequate production of drug supply, especially before the product has been fully commercialized. Inadequate supply
in the face of high demand could adversely affect the good will the company hopes to generate.
Another potentially significant area of difference is medication cost. In Phase III trials, the sponsor provides the medication.
In certain types of EAPs, in countries such as France or the United Kingdom (but not typically in the United States), the
treatment cost may be covered by a national or private insurance system, and the manufacturer has the option to charge a fee
for the drug. Charging payers for the product enables the company to recover some manufacturing, research, development, and
handling costs, particularly in the case of new biotechnology products.