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
13 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