The Role of Physicians in Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs: A Mixed-Methods Study of Physicians’ Views and Experiences in The Netherlands

被引:0
作者
Eline M. Bunnik
Nikkie Aarts
机构
[1] Erasmus MC,Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine
[2] University Medical Centre Rotterdam,undefined
来源
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | 2021年 / 18卷
关键词
Expanded access; Compassionate use; Physicians’ attitudes; Clinical decision-making; Mixed methods; Ethical issues; Moral responsibilities;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Treating physicians have key roles to play in expanded access to investigational drugs, by identifying investigational treatment options, assessing the balance of risks and potential benefits, informing their patients, and applying to the regulatory authorities. This study is the first to explore physicians’ experiences and moral views, with the aim of understanding the conditions under which doctors decide to pursue expanded access for their patients and the obstacles and facilitators they encounter in the Netherlands. In this mixed-methods study, semi-structured interviews (n = 14) and a questionnaire (n = 90) were conducted with medical specialists across the country and analysed thematically. Typically, our respondents pursue expanded access in “back against the wall” situations and broadly support its classic requirements. They indicate practical hurdles related to reimbursement, the amount of time and effort required for the application, and unfamiliarity with the regulatory process. Some physicians are morally opposed to expanded access, with an appeal to safety risks, lack of evidence, and “false hope.” Some of these moral concerns and practical obstacles may be essential targets for change, if expanded access to unapproved drugs is to become available for wider groups of patients for whom standard treatment options are not—or no longer—available, on a more consistent and equal basis.
引用
收藏
页码:319 / 334
页数:15
相关论文
共 75 条
  • [1] Bateman-House A(2018)The federal Right to Try Act of 2017: A wrong turn for access to investigational drugs and the path forward Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 178 321-322
  • [2] Robertson CT(2017)Ethics review in compassionate use BMC Medicine 15 136-1772
  • [3] Borysowski J(2007)Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory Health Services Research 42 1758-286
  • [4] Ehni H-J(2019)What do patients with unmet medical needs want? A qualitative study of patients’ views and experiences with expanded access to unapproved, investigational treatments in the Netherlands BMC Medical Ethics 20 80-343
  • [5] Górski A(2015)Practical, legal, and ethical issues in expanded access to investigational drugs The New England Journal of Medicine 372 279-10
  • [6] Bradley EH(2013)Temporary authorization for use: Does the French patient access programme for unlicensed medicines impact market access after formal licensing? PharmacoEconomics 31 335-2795
  • [7] Curry LA(2015)“Right to Try” laws: The gap between experts and advocates The Hastings Center Report 45 9-162
  • [8] Devers KJ(2008)Access to experimental drugs for terminally ill patients Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 300 2793-532
  • [9] Bunnik EM(2018)Expanded access to investigational drugs: Balancing patient safety with potential therapeutic benefits Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs 27 155-709
  • [10] Aarts N(2015)Access to investigational drugs: FDA expanded access programs or “Right-to-Try” legislation? Clinical and Translational Science 8 526-309