Pa­tients of­ten de­mand ex­per­i­men­tal drugs that prove in­ef­fec­tive — re­port

A new pa­per by a team of FDA of­fi­cials finds that on­ly about 30% of drugs re­quest­ed for ex­pand­ed ac­cess go on to be ap­proved by the agency.

“Ex­pand­ed ac­cess pro­vides just that: ac­cess. There is no guar­an­tee that the prod­uct sought will be ef­fec­tive and/or safe, much less that it will be ef­fec­tive and/or safe for the par­tic­u­lar pa­tient,” the au­thors write.

Back­ground

In re­cent years, the de­bate over pa­tient ac­cess to un­ap­proved drugs has risen to the na­tion­al stage. So called “right-to-try” laws, al­so known as right-to-ask laws, seek to by­pass FDA to pro­vide ac­cess to un­ap­proved drugs and have been en­act­ed in 37 states. In Au­gust, the US Sen­ate passed a bill that would ex­pand right-to-try na­tion­wide, though the House has yet to con­sid­er the bill.

The de­bate fo­cus­es on a pa­tient’s right to ac­cess un­ap­proved drugs to treat se­ri­ous or life-threat­en­ing dis­eases out­side of a clin­i­cal tri­al. Pro­po­nents of right-to-try have ar­gued that FDA is a bar­ri­er to pa­tient ac­cess, while FDA has coun­tered that it ap­proves near­ly all re­quests for ac­cess it re­ceives.

Un­der FDA’s ex­pand­ed ac­cess pro­gram, physi­cians can re­quest ac­cess to a drug for in­di­vid­ual pa­tients or a group of pa­tients un­der an ex­pand­ed ac­cess in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al new drug ap­pli­ca­tion (IND) or via a new pro­to­col un­der an ex­ist­ing IND.

While FDA main­tains that clin­i­cal tri­als are the best op­tion for pa­tients to get ac­cess to un­ap­proved drugs, the agency ac­knowl­edges that it’s not al­ways pos­si­ble for a pa­tient to en­roll in a clin­i­cal tri­al.

FDA has al­so said that in most cas­es phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies de­ny re­quests for ex­pand­ed ac­cess, of­ten cit­ing sup­ply or safe­ty con­cerns. Right-to-try pro­po­nents have coun­tered that drug­mak­ers turn down such re­quests out of fear that ad­verse events that oc­cur be­cause of ex­pand­ed ac­cess use could de­rail their de­vel­op­ment pro­grams or open the com­pa­ny up to oth­er li­a­bil­i­ty is­sues.

Ex­pand­ed Ac­cess and Ap­proval

Ac­cord­ing to the au­thors, FDA re­ceived 6,054 unique ex­pand­ed ac­cess re­quests be­tween FY2010 and FY2014. Af­ter ex­clud­ing ex­pand­ed ac­cess re­quests for mul­ti­ple pa­tients and clean­ing the re­sults for du­pli­cate and “non­sub­mit­ted” INDs, the au­thors were left with 5,394 unique re­quests, 5,298 of which were al­lowed to pro­ceed.

Of those, the au­thors were able to iden­ti­fy 408 unique drugs and fixed-dose com­bi­na­tions.

By 30 Sep­tem­ber 2015, 122 (30%) of those drugs had been ap­proved by the agency for at least one in­di­ca­tion, though not nec­es­sar­i­ly for the in­di­ca­tions sought in ex­pand­ed ac­cess re­quests.

Six of the top ten most-re­quest­ed drugs went on to be ap­proved, though the pa­per does not men­tion the names of those drugs be­cause of con­fi­den­tial­i­ty rea­sons.

Look­ing at it from an­oth­er di­rec­tion, 3,365 of the 5,298 re­quests were for drugs that lat­er went on to be ap­proved, with a hand­ful of drugs ac­count­ing for a large pro­por­tion of those re­quests.

The au­thors al­so found lit­tle ev­i­dence to sup­port the ar­gu­ment that ad­verse events that oc­cur as a re­sult of ex­pand­ed ac­cess treat­ment can jeop­ar­dize a drug de­vel­op­ment pro­gram.

“Over the last decade, span­ning al­most 11,000 ex­pand­ed ac­cess re­quests, there were on­ly 2 in­stances in which a clin­i­cal hold was placed on com­mer­cial drug de­vel­op­ment due to ad­verse events oc­cur­ring un­der ex­pand­ed ac­cess. In both in­stances the de­vel­op­ment of the drugs con­tin­ued af­ter these is­sues were ad­dressed and the holds were lift­ed,” the au­thors write.

And the au­thors cast doubt on the ar­gu­ment that li­a­bil­i­ty con­cerns keep drug­mak­ers from pro­vid­ing ex­pand­ed ac­cess to their prod­ucts. A search of three le­gal data­bas­es, Google Schol­ar and HeinOn­line turned up no re­sults for prod­uct li­a­bil­i­ty suits against drug­mak­ers for per­son­al in­juries as a re­sult of ex­pand­ed ac­cess treat­ment.


First pub­lished here. Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus is the flag­ship on­line pub­li­ca­tion of the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety (RAPS), the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care and re­lat­ed prod­ucts, in­clud­ing med­ical de­vices, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, bi­o­log­ics and nu­tri­tion­al prod­ucts. Email news@raps.org for more in­for­ma­tion.

Mov­ing Out of the Clin­ic with Dig­i­tal Tools: Mo­bile Spirom­e­try Dur­ing COVID-19 & Be­yond

An important technology in assessing lung function, spirometry offers crucial data for the diagnosis and monitoring of pulmonary system diseases, as well as the ongoing measurement of treatment efficacy. But trends in the healthcare industry and new challenges introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic are causing professionals in clinical practice and research to reevaluate spirometry’s deployment methods and best practices.

Paul Hudson (Getty Images)

Sanofi, Glax­o­SmithK­line jump back in­to the PhI­II race for a Covid vac­cine — as the win­ners con­gre­gate be­hind the fin­ish line

Sanofi got out early in the race to develop a vaccine using more of a traditional approach, then derailed late last year as their candidate failed to work in older people. Now, after likely missing the bus for the bulk of the world’s affluent nations, they’re back from that embarrassing collapse with a second attempt using GSK’s adjuvant that may get them back on track — with a potential Q4 launch that the rest of the world will be paying close attention to.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 105,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

SCO­TUS de­clines to re­view En­brel biosim­i­lar case, tee­ing up 30+ years of ex­clu­siv­i­ty and $20B more for Am­gen’s block­buster

As the House Oversight Committee is set to grill AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez on Tuesday over tactics to block competition for its best-selling drug of all time, another decision on Capitol Hill on Monday opened the door for billions more in Amgen profits over the next eight years.

The Supreme Court on Monday denied Novartis subsidiary Sandoz’s petition to review a Federal Circuit’s July 2020 decision concerning its biosimilar Erelzi (etanercept-szzs), which FDA approved in 2016 as a biosimilar to Amgen’s Enbrel (etanercept). Samsung’s Enbrel biosimilar Eticovo also won approval in 2019 and remains sidelined.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 105,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

No­var­tis' En­tresto takes its 2nd fail­ure of the week­end at ACC, show­ing no ben­e­fit in most dire heart fail­ure pa­tients

Novartis’ Entresto started the ACC weekend off rough with a trial flop in heart attack patients, slowing the drug’s push into earlier patients. Now, an NIH-sponsored study is casting doubt on Entresto’s use in the most severe heart failure patients, another black mark on the increasingly controversial drug’s record.

Entresto, a combination of sacubitril and valsartan, could not beat out valsartan alone in an outcomes head-to-head for severe heart failure patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), according to data presented Monday at the virtual American College of Cardiology meeting.

How to man­u­fac­ture Covid-19 vac­cines with­out the help of J&J, Pfiz­er or Mod­er­na? Bi­ol­yse sees the dif­fi­cul­ties up close

When Biolyse, an Ontario-based manufacturer of sterile injectables, forged a deal with Bolivia last week to manufacture up to 50 million J&J Covid-19 vaccine doses, the agreement kicked off what will prove to be a test case for how difficult the system of compulsory licenses is to navigate.

The first problem: When Biolyse asked J&J, via a March letter, to license its Covid-19 vaccine, manufacture it in Canada and pay 5% royalties on shipments to needy, low-income countries, J&J rejected the offer, refusing to negotiate. J&J also did not respond to a request for comment.

Tim Mayleben (L) and Sheldon Koenig (Esperion)

On the heels of a sting­ing Q1 set­back, Es­pe­ri­on's long­time cham­pi­on is ex­it­ing the helm and turn­ing the wheel over to a mar­ket­ing pro

Just days after getting stung by criticism from a badly disappointed group of analysts, there’s a big change happening today at the helm of Esperion $ESPR.

Longtime CEO Tim Mayleben, who championed the company for 9 years from early clinical through a lengthy late-stage drive to successfully get their cholesterol drug approved for a significant niche of patients in the US, is out of the C suite, effective immediately. Sheldon Koenig — hired at the end of 2020 with a resume replete with Big Pharma CV sales experience —  is stepping into his place, promising to right a badly listing commercial ship that’s been battered by market forces.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 105,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Matt Gline (L) and Vivek Ramaswamy

In­sid­er ac­count of Roivan­t's SPAC deal — and that $7.3B val­u­a­tion — re­veals a few se­crets as Matt Gline po­si­tions the com­pa­ny as the new ‘Big Phar­ma’

It was Oct. 7, 2020, and Matt Gline wasn’t wasting any time.

The CEO of Roivant had word that KKR vet Jim Momtazee’s SPAC had priced late the night before, triggering a green light for anyone interested in pursuing a big check for future operations and riding the financial instrument to Nasdaq. So he wrote a quick email congratulating Momtazee, whom he knew, for the launch.

Oh, and maybe Momtazee would like to schedule something with Gline and his executive chairman, Roivant founder Vivek Ramaswamy, to chat about Roivant and its business?

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Re­gen­eron's Evkeeza shows promise in curb­ing high triglyc­erides, but will ge­net­ic dis­par­i­ties lim­it use?

When Regeneron scored an early approval for lipid lowering antibody Evkeeza back in February, the drugmaker cracked open a new pathway to lower abnormally high cholesterol levels. Now, Regeneron is chasing high triglycerides as well with some promising mid-stage data — but will genetic restrictions limit the drug’s use?

Regeneron’s Evkeeza (evinacumab) cut median triglyceride levels by more than 800 mg/dL (57%) in patients with a rare disorder causing abnormally high triglyceride levels compared with an overall increase of 50 mg/dL (1.8%) in participants on placebo, according to Phase II data presented Sunday at the virtual American College of Cardiology meeting.

Pascal Soriot, AstraZeneca CEO (AP Images)

As­traZeneca's Farx­i­ga missed big on Covid-19 study, but it's tak­ing SGLT2 safe­ty da­ta as a sil­ver lin­ing

AstraZeneca hasn’t seen many setbacks in recent months for SGLT2 inhibitor Farxiga, which broke ground in heart failure and kidney disease regardless of diabetes diagnosis. But the British drugmaker had to admit defeat in taking Farxiga into Covid-19. However, follow-up results add a bit of a silver lining to that trial’s safety data.

Of hospitalized Covid-19 patients dosed with AstraZeneca’s Farxiga, 11.2% experienced an organ failure or died after 30 days of therapy compared with 13.8% of those given placebo, according to follow-up data from the DARE-19 study revealed Sunday at the virtual American College of Cardiology meeting.