A survey of pediatric hematologists/oncologists' perspectives on single patient Expanded Access and Right to Try.

Medicine access @ point of care Pub Date : 2021-04-19 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23992026211005991
Carolyn Riley Chapman, Hayley M Belli, Danielle Leach, Lesha D Shah, Alison Bateman-House
{"title":"A survey of pediatric hematologists/oncologists' perspectives on single patient Expanded Access and Right to Try.","authors":"Carolyn Riley Chapman, Hayley M Belli, Danielle Leach, Lesha D Shah, Alison Bateman-House","doi":"10.1177/23992026211005991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Physicians in the United States play an essential role guiding patients through single patient pre-approval access (PAA) to investigational medical products via either the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Expanded Access (EA) or the federal Right To Try (RTT) pathways. In this study, we sought to better understand pediatric hematologist/oncologists' attitudes about seeking PAA, on behalf of single patients, to investigational drugs outside of clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was developed and sent to pediatric hematologist/oncologists via St. Baldrick's Foundation's email distribution list.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 73 respondents (10.1% of those who received the survey), 56 met eligibility criteria and are included in the analysis. Over 80% (<i>n</i> = 46) had prior experience with single patient PAA. Respondents were most concerned about the unknown risks and benefits of investigational drugs and financial implications of PAA for patients. One hundred percent and 91.1% of respondents indicated a willingness to support patients through EA and RTT pathways, respectively. When asked about their most recent experience with PAA, 40 out of 46 indicated that they used the FDA's EA pathway to seek PAA and 4 out of 46 indicated that they used the RTT pathway. Of 44 respondents who had used the EA or RTT pathway, 43 indicated that the biotechnology or pharmaceutical company they solicited granted access to the requested product.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Survey results support other findings suggesting a need for additional physician support and education about PAA and that physicians may have unequal access to information about investigational drugs and concerns about financial implications of PAA for their patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":74158,"journal":{"name":"Medicine access @ point of care","volume":" ","pages":"23992026211005991"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/76/62/10.1177_23992026211005991.PMC9413614.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine access @ point of care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23992026211005991","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Physicians in the United States play an essential role guiding patients through single patient pre-approval access (PAA) to investigational medical products via either the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Expanded Access (EA) or the federal Right To Try (RTT) pathways. In this study, we sought to better understand pediatric hematologist/oncologists' attitudes about seeking PAA, on behalf of single patients, to investigational drugs outside of clinical trials.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was developed and sent to pediatric hematologist/oncologists via St. Baldrick's Foundation's email distribution list.

Results: Of 73 respondents (10.1% of those who received the survey), 56 met eligibility criteria and are included in the analysis. Over 80% (n = 46) had prior experience with single patient PAA. Respondents were most concerned about the unknown risks and benefits of investigational drugs and financial implications of PAA for patients. One hundred percent and 91.1% of respondents indicated a willingness to support patients through EA and RTT pathways, respectively. When asked about their most recent experience with PAA, 40 out of 46 indicated that they used the FDA's EA pathway to seek PAA and 4 out of 46 indicated that they used the RTT pathway. Of 44 respondents who had used the EA or RTT pathway, 43 indicated that the biotechnology or pharmaceutical company they solicited granted access to the requested product.

Conclusion: Survey results support other findings suggesting a need for additional physician support and education about PAA and that physicians may have unequal access to information about investigational drugs and concerns about financial implications of PAA for their patients.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿科血液科/肿瘤科医生对单个患者 "扩大准入 "和 "试用权 "的看法调查。
导言:在美国,医生在指导患者通过食品药品管理局 (FDA) 的扩大准入 (EA) 或联邦试用权 (RTT) 途径获得单个患者批准前准入 (PAA) 研究性医疗产品方面发挥着重要作用。在这项研究中,我们试图更好地了解儿科血液/肿瘤专家对代表单个患者申请临床试验以外的试验用药批准的态度:我们制定了一项横向调查,并通过圣鲍德里克基金会的电子邮件发送名单发送给儿科血液/肿瘤专家:在 73 位受访者(占收到调查表人数的 10.1%)中,有 56 位符合资格标准,并纳入了分析。超过 80% 的受访者(n = 46)曾有过单个患者 PAA 的经历。受访者最关心的是研究药物的未知风险和益处以及 PAA 对患者的财务影响。分别有 100% 和 91.1% 的受访者表示愿意通过 EA 和 RTT 途径为患者提供支持。当被问及他们最近使用 PAA 的经历时,46 位受访者中有 40 位表示他们使用过 FDA 的 EA 途径寻求 PAA,46 位受访者中有 4 位表示他们使用过 RTT 途径。在 44 位使用过 EA 或 RTT 途径的受访者中,43 位表示他们请求的生物技术或制药公司批准了对所申请产品的准入:调查结果表明,医生需要获得更多有关 PAA 的支持和教育,而且医生可能无法平等地获得有关研究药物的信息,并担心 PAA 会给患者带来经济影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
A structural equation modeling of supply chain strategies for artemisinin-based combination therapies in Uganda. Antibiotic consumption at community pharmacies: A multicenter repeated prevalence surveillance using WHO methodology. Assessment of proton-pump inhibitor use at a tertiary teaching hospital in Nigeria. Point-of-care high-sensitivity assay on PATHFAST as the backup in the emergency room. Medicine quality in high-income countries: The obstacles to comparative prevalence studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1