Suppr超能文献

公平性以及从早期药品获取计划中受益的能力。

Equity and capacity to benefit from early access to medicines schemes.

作者信息

Edwards Sarah J L, Aliu Paul, Brierley Joe, Holm Søren, Pitts Peter J

机构信息

Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, New York, NY, 10024, USA.

出版信息

Int J Equity Health. 2025 Apr 10;24(1):100. doi: 10.1186/s12939-025-02416-3.

Abstract

Many diseases, especially rare ones, have not gained the attention or support needed to attract dedicated research interest to be able to develop successful medicines. There is, thus, a significant unmet clinical need, not all of which is (or indeed can be) addressed through the evaluation of investigational treatments introduced within the confines of clinical trials. People with severe life-threatening conditions who are not eligible to participate in any ongoing clinical trials may be able to try investigational medicines through schemes facilitating early use of or expanded access to innovative medicines. Here, we focus on the issue of equity in such programmes. Standard metrics of clinical need which inform operational decisions about equity in resource allocation primarily rely on social goods which have already been evaluated, providing evidence to support the standard assessment of patient 'capacity to benefit' from given medical interventions. Notions of equity have only relatively recently been discussed within research and innovation generally and within the ethics of clinical trials in particular. Considerations of equity, however, require an overview of all these different patient pathways. We suggest that a new formal method to assess eligibility for early use of or expanded access to innovative medicines be used to capture both the severity of the condition and capacity for scientific or social value alongside clinical trials.

摘要

许多疾病,尤其是罕见病,尚未获得吸引专门研究兴趣以开发成功药物所需的关注或支持。因此,存在重大的未满足临床需求,并非所有这些需求都能(或实际上可以)通过评估在临床试验范围内引入的研究性治疗方法来解决。患有严重危及生命疾病且无资格参与任何正在进行的临床试验的患者,或许能够通过促进早期使用或扩大获取创新药物的计划来尝试研究性药物。在此,我们关注此类计划中的公平性问题。为资源分配公平性方面的运营决策提供依据的临床需求标准指标,主要依赖于已经评估过的社会资源,这些资源为支持对患者从特定医疗干预中“获益能力”的标准评估提供了证据。公平性概念只是在最近才在一般研究与创新领域,尤其是在临床试验伦理中得到讨论。然而,对公平性的考量需要对所有这些不同的患者路径进行全面审视。我们建议使用一种新的正式方法来评估早期使用或扩大获取创新药物的资格,以便在临床试验之外同时考量疾病的严重程度以及科学或社会价值的潜力。

相似文献

3
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
10
Critical Care Network in the State of Qatar.卡塔尔国重症监护网络。
Qatar Med J. 2019 Nov 7;2019(2):2. doi: 10.5339/qmj.2019.qccc.2. eCollection 2019.

本文引用的文献

1
How Should Critical Medications Be Rationed During Shortages?紧缺状态下,如何配给关键性药物?
AMA J Ethics. 2024 Apr 1;26(4):E334-340. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2024.334.
6
Devil in the Details: Physician Duties and Expanded Access.细节中的魔鬼:医生的职责和扩大的可及性。
J Law Med Ethics. 2023;51(1):181-184. doi: 10.1017/jme.2023.54. Epub 2023 May 25.
9
An approach to data collection in compassionate use/managed access.同情用药/拓展性准入中的数据收集方法。
Front Pharmacol. 2022 Dec 20;13:1095860. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1095860. eCollection 2022.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验