An analysis of common ethical justifications for compassionate use programs for experimental drugs
Tóm tắt
When a new intervention or drug is developed, this has to pass through various phases of clinical testing before it achieves market approval, which can take many years. This raises an issue for drugs which could benefit terminally ill patients. These patients might set their hopes on the experimental drug but are unable to wait since they are likely to pass away before the drug is available. As a means of nevertheless getting access to experimental drug, many seriously ill and terminally ill patients are therefore very willing to participate in randomised controlled trials. However, only very few terminally ill patients are able to actually participate, and those that do participate are at risk of participating solely as a way of getting experimental drugs. Currently, there are, however, ways of getting access to drugs that have not (yet) gained market approval. One such mean is via expanded access or compassionate use programs where terminally ill patients receive experimental new drugs that are not yet market approved. In this paper, I examine some of the common justifications for such programs. The most frequently voiced justifications for compassionate use or expanded access programs could be put in one of three categories. First, there are justifications of justice, where compassionate use programs could be seen as a just or fair way to distribute experimental new drugs to patients who are denied access to RCT’s through no fault of their own. Second, such programs could be justified by reference to the ethical principle of beneficence where it could be claimed that terminally ill patients stand to benefit greatly at very little risk (as they are already dying). Third, there are considerations of autonomy where, it is claimed, patients should be able to exercise their autonomy and have access to such drugs if that is there free choice and they are fully aware of the risks associated with that choice. In this paper, I argue currently all justifications are potentially problematic. If they truly form the basis for justification, compassionate use programs should be designed to maximize justice, beneficence and autonomy.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Kaitin K. Deconstructing the drug development process: the new face of innovation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87:356–61.
Geffen N. Anything to stay alive: the challenges of a campaign for an experimental drug. Dev World Bioeth. 2016;16:45–54.
Kodish E, Lantos JD, Siegler M. The ethics of randomization. CA-Cancer J Clin. 1991;41:180–6.
Zettler PJ. Compassionate use of experimental therapies: who should decide? EMBO Molec Med. 2015; Open access. doi:10.15252/emmm.201505262
Schuklenk U. Access to unapproved medical interventions in cases of catastrophic illness. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14:20–2.
Whitfield K, Huemer KH, Winter D, Thirstrup S, Libersa C, Barraud B, Kubiak C, et al. Compassionate use of interventions: results of a European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) survey of ten European countries. Trials. 2010;11:Online only
Iudicello A, Alberghini L, Benini G, Mosconi P. Expanded access programme: looking for a common definition. Trials. 2016;17:21–30.
Online available at http://www.abigail-alliance.org/story.php. Last accessed 15 Sept 2016
Online available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/07/17/josh-hardy-going-home-after-getting-chimerix-anti-viral-drug/. Last accessed 15 Sept 2016
Mackey TK, Schoenfeld VJ. Getting ‘social’ to access experimental and potentially life-saving treatment: an assessment of the policy and online patient advocacy environment for expanded access. BMC Medicine. 2016;14:17–26.
Website to be found at www.mytomorrows.com. Last accessed 15 Sept 2016
Zettler PJ, Greely HT. The strange allure of state ‘Right-to-Try’ laws. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1885–6.
Bateman-House A, Kimberly L, Redman B, Dubler N, Caplan AA. Right-to-Try laws: hope, hype, and unintended consequences. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:796–7.
Owen P. Clinical practice and medical research: bridging the divide between the two cultures. Brit J Gen Pract. 1995;45:557–60.
Hollebecque A, Postel-Vinay S, Verweij J, Demetri GD, Flaherty KT, Bedard P, Soria JC. Modifying phase I methodology to facilitate enrolment of molecularly selected patients. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1515–20.
Karavasilis V, Digue L, Arkenau T, Eaton D, Stapleton S, de Bono J, Judson I, Kaye S. Identification of factors limiting patient recruitment into phase I trials: a study from the Royal Marsden Hospital. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:978–82.
Available online at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/05/its-time-to-sell-tickets-for-places-on-life-saving-medical-trial/. Last accessed 15 Sept 2016
Can be found online at http://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Other/ExpandedAccess/ucm20041768.htm. Last accessed 15 Sept 2016
Caplan AA, Ray A. The ethical challenges of compassionate use. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc. 2016;315:979–80.
Prowell TM, Theoret MR, Pazdur R. Seamless oncology-drug development. New Eng J Med. 2016;374:2001–3.
Iasonos A, O’Quigley J. Early phase clinical trials-are dose expansion cohorts needed? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:626–8.
Collette L, Tombal B. N-of-1 trials in oncology. The Lancet Oncology. 2015;16:885–6.
Ananthakrishnan R, Menon S. Design of oncology clinical trials: a review. CRC Cr Rev Oncol-Hem. 2013;88:144–53.
Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides J, Rosenthal J. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:40–51.
DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG. Economics of new oncology drug development. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:209–16.
Greenfield S, Kravitz R, Duan N, Kaplan SH. Heterogeneity of treatment effects: implications for guidelines, payment, and quality assessment. Am J Med. 2007;120:3–9.
Wertheimer A. Exploitation in clinical research. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler D, editors. The oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 201–10.
Amorosa V, Tebas P. Is it time to rethink the expanded-access programs for HIV infection? J Infect Dis. 2007;196:974–7.
Jacob JA. Questions of safety and fairness raised as right-to-try movement gains steam. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc. 2015;314:758.
Kim T, Lurie P, Pazdur R. US Food and Drug Administration efforts to facilitate the use of expanded access programs. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1–2.
Darrow JJ, Sarpatwari A, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. Practical, legal, and ethical issues in expanded access to investigational drugs. New Engl J Med. 2015;373:279–86.
Falit BP, Gross CP. Access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc. 2008;300:2793–5.
Walker MJ, Rogers WA, Entwistle V. Ethical justifications for access to unapproved medical interventions: an argument for (limited) patient obligations. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14:3–15.
Dresser R. ‘Right to Try’ laws: the gap between experts and advocates. Hastings Cent Rep. 2015;45:9–10.
Yang TY, Chen B, Bennet C. ‘Right-to-Try’ legislation: progress or peril? J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2597–9.
Rosenblatt M, Kuhlik B. Principles and challenges in access to experimental medicines. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc. 2015;313:2023–4.
Schuklenk U. Future infectious disease outbreaks: ethics of emergency access to unregistered medical interventions and clinical trial designs’. Dev World Bioeth. 2016;16:2–3.
Agrawal M, Grady C, Fairclough DL, Merolla DM, Maynard K, Emanuel EJ. Patients’ decision-making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4479–84.
Feinberg J. Harm to self: the moral limits of the criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.
Agar M, Ko DN, Sheehan C, Chapman M, Currow DC. Informed consent in palliative care clinical trials: challenging but possible. J Palliat Med. 2013;16:485–91.
Jansen LA. Two concepts of therapeutic optimism. J Med Ethic. 2011;37:563–6.
Miller FG, Joffe S. Benefit in phase 1 oncology trials: therapeutic misconception or reasonable treatment option? Clin Trials. 2008;5:617–23.
Lewis JRR, Lipworth W, Kerridge I, Doran E. Dilemmas in the compassionate supply of investigational cancer drugs. Intern Med J. 2014;44:841–5.
Caplan AA, William F, Connolly Mitty V, Bateman-House A. Should patients in need be given access to experimental drugs? Expert Opin Pharmaco. 2015;16:1275–9.