Folkers Kelly McBride, Bateman-House Alison
1 Division of Medical Ethics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018 May;52(3):285-293. doi: 10.1177/2168479018759661.
The FDA allows patients with a serious or immediately life-threatening illness to use investigational medical products outside of clinical trials through its "expanded access" program. In response to criticism that the process to apply for expanded access is too onerous, numerous changes have been made over the last few years. These have been largely focused on the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, while institutional review boards (IRBs)-which must approve expanded access protocols, except in emergencies when there is not time to do so-have remained relatively unstudied. We conducted a pilot study to review a sample of publicly available IRB policies from the United States to investigate how these entities handle expanded access.
We performed an online search to find publicly available policies for IRBs operating in the United States, utilizing a convenience sampling strategy, selecting the first 100 eligible policies we identified.
Of the 95 policies reviewed, the majority (92.6%, n = 88) contained language referencing nonemergency expanded access and/or expanded access for emergency requests for a single patient. Of these 88 policies, 11.4% (n = 19) did not explicitly specify detailed procedures for handling nonemergency single-patient expanded access requests. Of the 88 policies that mentioned expanded access in nonemergency situations, 11.5% did not explicitly specify whether full IRB review was required, as was the rule at that time. There was considerable variation in other aspects of these policies, including charging patients for use of investigational products and the use of data from expanded access.
Based on the findings of our pilot, IRB policies on expanded access vary considerably. It is often difficult to find, interpret, and understand IRB policies on expanded access. Further research is needed to determine if and to what extent this negatively impacts patient access to investigational products outside of clinical trials.
美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)允许患有严重疾病或危及生命疾病的患者通过其“扩大准入”计划在临床试验之外使用研究性医疗产品。针对有关申请扩大准入程序过于繁琐的批评,过去几年已进行了多项改革。这些改革主要集中在FDA和制药行业,而机构审查委员会(IRB)——除紧急情况来不及审批外,必须批准扩大准入方案——相对而言仍未得到充分研究。我们开展了一项试点研究,回顾美国公开可用的IRB政策样本,以调查这些机构如何处理扩大准入问题。
我们进行了在线搜索,利用便利抽样策略查找美国境内IRB的公开可用政策,选取我们找到的前100项符合条件的政策。
在审查的95项政策中,大多数(92.6%,n = 88)包含提及非紧急扩大准入和/或针对单个患者紧急请求的扩大准入的措辞。在这88项政策中,11.4%(n = 19)未明确规定处理非紧急单个患者扩大准入请求的详细程序。在88项提及非紧急情况下扩大准入的政策中,11.5%未明确规定是否需要IRB进行全面审查,而当时这是规定要求。这些政策在其他方面也存在很大差异,包括向患者收取使用研究性产品的费用以及扩大准入数据的使用。
根据我们试点研究的结果,IRB关于扩大准入的政策差异很大。通常很难找到、解释和理解IRB关于扩大准入的政策。需要进一步研究以确定这是否以及在多大程度上对患者在临床试验之外获取研究性产品产生负面影响。