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.

Com­mu­ni­cat­ing the val­ue of pre­ci­sion med­i­cine

By Natasha Cowan, Content Marketing Manager at Blue Latitude Health.
Many stakeholders are confused by novel precision medicines, including patients and healthcare professionals. So, how can industry help them to navigate this complexity?

Precision medicine represents a new paradigm in healthcare. It embodies the shift from treating many patients with the same therapy, to having the tools to identify the best treatment for every patient.

Spe­cial re­port: Twen­ty ex­tra­or­di­nary women in bio­phar­ma R&D who worked their way to the top

What differentiates a woman leader in biopharma R&D from a man?

Not much, except there are fewer of them in senior posts. Data suggest women are not more risk-averse, family-oriented or less confident than their male counterparts — indeed the differences between the two sexes are negligible. But a glance at the top R&D positions in Big Pharma leaves little doubt that upward migration in the executive ranks of biopharma R&D is tough.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

GSK's asth­ma bi­o­log­ic Nu­cala scores in rare blood dis­or­der study

GlaxoSmithKline’s asthma drug Nucala, which received a resounding FDA rejection for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) last year, has shown promise in a rare blood disorder.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Mer­ck buys a fledg­ling neu­rode­gen­er­a­tive biotech spawned by an old GSK dis­cov­ery al­liance. What’s up with that?

Avalon Ventures chief Jay Lichter has a well-known yen for drug development programs picked up in academia. And what he found in Haoxing Xu’s lab at the University of Michigan pricked his interest enough to launch one of his umbrella biotechs in San Diego.
Xu’s work laid the foundation for Avalon to launch Calporta, which has been working on finding small molecule agonists of TRPML1 (transient receptor potential cation channel, mucolipin subfamily, member 1) for lysosomal storage disorders. And that pathway, they believe, points to new approaches on major market neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s, ALS and Alzheimer’s.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA slaps a hold on an AML tri­al as Mark­er scraps a fail­ing ovar­i­an can­cer pro­gram, sink­ing shares

The FDA has placed a hold on a Phase II AML trial from the small immuno-oncology biotech Marker Therapeutics. Marker disclosed the issue two weeks after responding to FDA concerns, adding it to the Q3 release Tuesday. The company also announced it was scrapping a Phase II ovarian cancer program it determined was unlikely to succeed.

The agency’s concern centers around two reagents used in manufacturing for their trial for acute myeloid leukemia patients who have received a stem cell transplant. The reagents are from third parties and not present in the final product, Marker said.

Eli Lil­ly-backed biotech grabs $100M to dis­patch an­ti­body-oligonu­cleotide con­ju­gates af­ter mus­cu­lar dy­s­tro­phy

Hold up your hand. Make a fist. Now open it. And again.

If you can do it fully and with ease, then the proteins in your hand are likely working properly. If you can’t then they may not be. In people with myotonic muscular dystrophy, something more atomic is going on.

In those folks, the problem is RNA. Certain base pairs repeat far beyond normal, up to 11,000 superfluous letters in some cases. The extended strands form “clumps.” Proteins misform and can’t function properly. They often allow one movement but not the reverse, a condition called myotonia that gives the dystrophy its name.

As­traZeneca sets stage for mar­ket­ing ap­pli­ca­tion with promis­ing piv­otal lu­pus drug da­ta

After fumbling in its first late-stage lupus study, AstraZeneca disclosed that a second pivotal trial testing its experimental drug, anifrolumab, had met the main goal, in August. Earlier this week, the British drugmaker broke out the numbers from its successful study.

Last year, anifrolumab failed to meet the main goal of diminishing disease activity in the 460-patient TULIP I study, a 52-week trial that tested two doses of the drug versus a placebo. But in the 373-patient TULIP II study, the higher dose (300 mg) was compared to patients given a placebo — patients in both arms were on baseline standard care.

FDA Vas­cepa re­view spot­lights new safe­ty sig­nals, pos­si­ble min­er­al oil spoil­er as Amarin hunts a block­buster ap­proval

An in-house FDA review of Amarin’s Vascepa raises a set of hurdles the biotech will have to clear if the biotech expects to get the long-awaited FDA approval that could set it on a path to superstar status. But it appears that Amarin has survived another potential setback without introducing a major new threat to its prospects.

The stakes don’t get much higher, with analysts saying a win this week for Amarin could lead to billions in new sales — provided the agency stamps it with an OK. And investors liked what they say in the FDA review this morning, bumping the stock $AMRN 17%.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA puts Sol­id Bio’s lead gene ther­a­py pro­gram on hold — again — af­ter an­oth­er pa­tient is hurt by SGT-001

Solid Biosciences continues to be plagued by safety issues.

Close to 18 months after the gene therapy biotech was able to quickly shed an FDA hold on their lead Duchenne muscular dystrophy program for SGT-001, regulators have stepped back in to force another halt after another patient was hit hard by a set of serious adverse events remarkably similar to the first set.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.