Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:22:24.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

508 A Multi-Institutional Look at Single-Patient Expanded Access Submissions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2024

Misty Gravelin
Affiliation:
University of Michigan - Michigan Medicine
Laurie Rigan
Affiliation:
University of Michigan - Michigan Medicine
Joan E Adamo
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Sharon Ellison
Affiliation:
Duke University
Erika Segear
Affiliation:
Duke University
Amanda Parrish
Affiliation:
Duke University
Christine Deeter
Affiliation:
Duke University
Jennifer Hamill
Affiliation:
Duke University
Erik Soliz
Affiliation:
University of Texas Southwestern
Ahamed Idris
Affiliation:
University of Texas Southwestern
George A Mashour
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Kevin J Weatherwax
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Physicians can request the clinical use of investigational products for their patients through an FDA pathway called Expanded Access (EA). Most evaluations of EA focus on the FDA submission only. We sought to evaluate these requests through the full academic medical center process. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Through the Transforming Expanded Access to Maximize Support and Study grant, we reviewed regulatory records for single-patient EA requests at four institutions (Duke University, University of Rochester, University of Michigan, and University of Texas Southwestern) which occurred between June 1, 2021 and February 28, 2023. Key data was collected, including the investigational product requested, submission and approval dates, urgency of request, and indication for treatment. Descriptive statistics were performed with Microsoft Excel. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 405 EA requests were identified, of which 319 (78.8%) were for drugs, 59 (14.6%) for biologics, and 27 (6.7%) for medical devices. The majority were characterized as non-emergency (60.7%), but the proportion of emergency to non-emergency cases varied considerably when stratified by year, with a peak in emergency cases in 2020. The most common products included therapies for COVID-19 and Mpox. Median time to obtain all approvals for treatment was 7 days for emergency cases and 28 days for non-emergency. The FDA review took the least time, with a median of 1 day in non-emergency cases. Full board approval from an institutional review board in non-emergency cases was 7 days. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: These results generally align with previous reports on EA submissions received by the FDA. The timelines for the EA process represent an important benchmark both for treatment planning and institutional improvement.

Type
Regulatory Science
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. The Association for Clinical and Translational Science