Skip to main content
Log in

Improving Expanded Access in the United States: The Role of the Institutional Review Board

  • Special Section — Research Ethics
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The FDA allows patients with a serious or immediately life-threatening illness to use investigational medical products outside of clinical trials through its “expanded access” program. In response to criticism that the process to apply for expanded access is too onerous, numerous changes have been made over the last few years. These have been largely focused on the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, while institutional review boards (IRBs)—which must approve expanded access protocols, except in emergencies when there is not time to do so—have remained relatively unstudied. We conducted a pilot study to review a sample of publicly available IRB policies from the United States to investigate how these entities handle expanded access.

Methods

We performed an online search to find publicly available policies for IRBs operating in the United States, utilizing a convenience sampling strategy, selecting the first 100 eligible policies we identified.

Results

Of the 95 policies reviewed, the majority (92.6%, n = 88) contained language referencing nonemergency expanded access and/or expanded access for emergency requests for a single patient. Of these 88 policies, 11.4% (n = 19) did not explicitly specify detailed procedures for handling nonemergency single-patient expanded access requests. Of the 88 policies that mentioned expanded access in nonemergency situations, 11.5% did not explicitly specify whether full IRB review was required, as was the rule at that time. There was considerable variation in other aspects of these policies, including charging patients for use of investigational products and the use of data from expanded access.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of our pilot, IRB policies on expanded access vary considerably. It is often difficult to find, interpret, and understand IRB policies on expanded access. Further research is needed to determine if and to what extent this negatively impacts patient access to investigational products outside of clinical trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 21 CFR Part 312.305. US Food & Drug Administration. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=312.305. Updated April 1, 2017. Accessed September 13, 2017.

  2. Investigational new drugs: FDA has taken steps to improve the expanded access program but should further clarify how adverse events data are used. US Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-564. Published July 11, 2017. Accessed November 10, 2017.

  3. Expanded access to investigational drugs for treatment use—questions and answers, guidance for industry. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm351261.pdf. Published June 2016. Updated October 2017. Accessed September 15, 2017.

  4. Gottlieb S. Expanded access: FDA describes efforts to ease application process. FDA Voice. https://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/2017/10/expanded-access-fda-describes-efforts-to-ease-application-process/. Published October 3, 2017. Accessed November 10, 2017.

  5. Jarow JP, Lemery S, Bugin K. Expanded access of investigational drugs: the experience of the center of drug evaluation and research over a 10-year period. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016;50:705–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bateman-House A. How to try an experimental drug when you don’t qualify for a clinical trial. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisonbatemanhouse/2017/08/08/how-to-try-an-experimental-drug-when-you-dont-qualify-for-a-clinical-trial/#dcb828a65026. Published August 8, 2017. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  7. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 21 CFR Part 56.104. US Food & Drug Administration. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=56.104&SearchTerm=emergency%20use. Updated April 1, 2017. Accessed September 15, 2017.

  8. Everyone deserves the right to try: empowering the terminally ill to take control of their treatment. Goldwater Institute. http://goldwaterinstitute.org/en/work/topics/healthcare/right-to-try/everyone-deserves-right-try-empowering-terminally-/. Published February 11, 2014. Accessed September 15, 2017.

  9. Brennan Z. FDA looks to revitalized compassionate use program with simplified form, final guidance. Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. http://raps.org/Regulatory-Focus/News/2016/06/02/25048/FDA-Looks-to-Revitalize-Expaded-Access-Program-With-Simplified-Form-Final-Guidance/. Published June 2, 2016. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  10. Brennan Z. FDA official dispels “100 hours” myth on time it takes to fill out compassionate use form. Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. http://www.raps.org/Regulatory-Focus/News/2016/05/17/24960/FDA-Official-Dispels-’100-Hours’-Myth-on-Time-it-Takes-to-Fill-Out-Compassionate-Use-Form/. Published May 17, 2016. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  11. Clinical Trials Registration and Results Information Submission: a rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 09/21/2016. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/21/2016-22129/clinical-trials-registration-and-results-information-submission. Published September 21, 2016. Accessed September 8, 2017.

  12. H.R.34: 21st Century Cures Act. United States Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6/text?format=xml. Updated December 13, 2016. Accessed September 13, 2017.

  13. Expanded Access Navigator. Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration. http://navigator.reaganudall.org. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  14. H.R.2430: FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017. United States Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2430?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr2430%22%5D%7D&r=1. Updated August 18, 2017. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  15. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 45 CFR Part 46. US Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html. Updated July 2017. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  16. Borysowski J, Ehni H, Gorski A. Ethics review in compassionate use. BMC Med. 2017;15:136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Investigational drugs & devices in research. Tulane University Human Subjects Research Protection Program Standard Operating Procedures. http://www2.tulane.edu/asvpr/irb/upload/7-Investigational-Drugs.pdf. Updated July 11, 2014. Accessed September 15, 2017.

  18. Single patient emergency use. University of Washington Human Subjects Division. https://www.washington.edu/research/hsd/single-patient-emergency-use/. Updated 2017. Accessed September 15, 2017.

  19. Exemption to the requirement for prior IRB approval for emergency use of investigational drugs, biologics, or devices. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects Policies and Procedures. https://irb.research.chop.edu/sites/default/files/documents/IRBSOP802.pdf. Updated May 29, 2016. Accessed September 15, 2017.

  20. Institutional review board standard operating policies. University of Pennsylvania, The Institutional Review Board. http://www.upenn.edu/IRB/sites/default/files/UpennIRB%20SOP%20v8.1-5.2.2016-CLEAN.pdf. Updated May 2, 2016. Accessed September 15, 2017.

  21. Operations manual: studies regulated by the FDA and use of investigational articles. University of Michigan Research Ethics & Compliance. http://research-compliance.umich.edu/operations-manual-studies-regulated-fda-and-use-investigational-articles#expanded. Updated 2017. Accessed September 15, 2017.

  22. Standard operating procedures. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Human Subjects Research Protection Program. http://research.unc.edu/files/2012/11/CCM3_037329.pdf. Updated June 21, 2012. Accessed September 15, 2017.

  23. Charging for investigational drugs under an IND: questions and answers, guidance for industry. US Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm351264.pdf. Published June 2016. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  24. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) and policies: Expanded Access Program (EAP) for drugs. University of Kentucky Office of Research Integrity. http://www.research.uky.edu/ori/SOPs_Policies/C3-0300-Expanded_Access_Program-for-Drugs.pdf. Updated July 20, 2011. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  25. CS/CS/HB 269: Experimental treatments for terminal conditions. Florida House of Representatives. http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/sections/bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=53290. Updated June 11, 2015. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  26. Guidance for research terms on “Right to Try” Act. University of Miami Human Subjects Research Office. http://hsro.med.miami.edu/documents/Guidance_for_Research_Teams_on_Right_to_Try_Act.pdf. Published June 10, 2016. Accessed September 5, 2017.

  27. Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) policies and procedures. University of Southern California Office for the Protection of Research Subjects. https://oprs.usc.edu/policies-and-procedures/. Updated 2017. Accessed September 5, 2017.

  28. Single patient IND/emergency use of a test article. Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Office for Human Research Studies. http://www.dfhcc.harvard.edu/research/clinical-research-support/office-for-human-research-studies/single-patient-ind-emergency-use-of-a-test-article/. Updated August 14, 2017. Accessed September 15, 2017.

  29. A guide for researchers. Western Institutional Review Board. http://www.wirb.com/Documents/Guide%20for%20Researchers.pdf. Updated August 17, 2017. Accessed September 15, 2017.

  30. The Belmont Report, Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Human Research Protections. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html. Published April 18, 1979. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  31. Cohen E. Company denies drug to dying child. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/health/cohen-josh/index.html. Published March 11, 2014. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  32. Mullin E. Ovarian cancer survivor Andrea Sloan seeks compassionate use exemption from BioMarin to save her life. FierceBiotech. http://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/ovarian-cancer-survivor-andrea-sloan-seeks-compassionate-use-exemption-from-biomarin-to. Published August 30, 2013. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  33. Redman BK, Bateman-House AS. Institutional review boards as arbiters of expanded access to unapproved drugs: time for a change? Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016;50:515–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. H.R.2430: FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017. United States Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2430?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr2430%22%5D%7D&r=1. Updated August 18, 2017. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  35. Wechsler J. Central vs. local: rethinking IRBs. Applied Clinical Trials. http://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/central-vs-local-rethinking-irbs. Published February 1, 2007. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  36. Compassionate use access. Change.org. https://www.change.org/campaigns/compassionate-use. Updated 2017. Accessed September 14, 2017.

  37. WCG Foundation. http://wcgfoundation.org. Updated 2017. Accessed September 15, 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly McBride Folkers MA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Folkers, K.M., Bateman-House, A. Improving Expanded Access in the United States: The Role of the Institutional Review Board. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 285–293 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018759661

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018759661

Keywords

Navigation