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

Author:

Bunnik Eline M.ORCID,Aarts Nikkie

Abstract

AbstractTreating 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.

Funder

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy,Health(social science)

Reference27 articles.

1. Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM). Annual Report 2018. https://www.ansm.sante.fr/var/ansm_site/storage/original/application/4a4914f30cd19e61213177e4d06fd1e4.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2020.

2. Bateman-House, A. 2016. How a physician can work with a not yet approved drug through compassionate use. The Health Care Blog, April 17. https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2016/04/17/far-from-evidence-based-prescribing-the-world-of-compassionate-use/. Accessed January 13, 2021.

3. Bateman-House, A., and C.T. Robertson. 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(3): 321–322.

4. Borysowski, J., H.-J. Ehni, and A. Górski. 2017. Ethics review in compassionate use. BMC Medicine 15(1): 136.

5. Bradley, E.H., L.A. Curry, and K.J. Devers. 2007. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research 42(4): 1758–1772.

Cited by 11 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3