Drugs addressing unmet medical needs can change the lives of millions. Developing and validating new drugs can, however, take many years. To streamline the assessment of new drugs, regulatory agencies have long established shortened review pathways. Among these programs, Accelerated Approval (AA) has recently come under scrutiny due to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to authorize Aducanumab, the first Alzheimer's disease drug. This decision attracted fierce criticism due to the allegedly insufficient evidence about the safety (...) and efficacy of the drug. While considerable scholarly attention has been devoted to this case, the ethical aspects of the AA regulatory pathway have so far remained relatively unexplored. In this paper, we set out to fill this gap. We illustrate six conditions that should be met for AA to be ethically acceptable: moral solicitude, evidence, risk mitigation, impartiality, sustainability, and transparency. We discuss such conditions and suggest practical steps to implement them in regulatory and oversight processes. Taken together, our six conditions represent a benchmark for assessing the ethical validity of AA processes and decisions. (shrink)

Legal challenges to the FDA’s approval of mifepristone have destabilized patients’ ability to access controversial medicines like medication abortion. We argue that federal courts’ receptiveness to this litigation undermines the coherence and integrity of prescription drug regulation in the U.S.

The role of mechanistic evidence tends to be under-appreciated in current evidencebased medicine (EBM), which focusses on clinical studies, tending to restrict attention to randomized controlled studies (RCTs) when they are available. The EBM+ programme seeks to redress this imbalance, by suggesting methods for evaluating mechanistic studies alongside clinical studies. Drug approval is a problematic case for the view that mechanistic evidence should be taken into account, because RCTs are almost always available. Nevertheless, we argue that mechanistic evidence (...) is central to all the key tasks in the drug approval process: in drug discovery and development; assessing pharmaceutical quality; devising dosage regimens; assessing efficacy, harms, external validity, and cost-effectiveness; evaluating adherence; and extending product licences. We recommend that, when preparing for meetings in which any aspect of drug approval is to be discussed, mechanistic evidence should be systematically analysed and presented to the committee members alongside analyses of clinical studies. (shrink)

Do terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other available, government-approved treatment options have a constitutional right to experimental treatment that may prolong their lives? On May 2, 2006, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a startling opinion, Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Von Eschenbach, held “Yes.” The plaintiffs, Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs and Washington Legal Foundation, sought to enjoin the Food and (...) class='Hi'>Drug Administration from refusing to allow the sale of investigational new drugs that had not yet received FDA approval. The terminally ill plaintiffs contended that they quite literally could not wait that long for the drugs. With no other treatment options available, the plaintiffs urged the court to recognize a fundamental, constitutional right to take potentially life-saving or life-prolonging drugs, even though the treatment had not been fully tested through human trials for safety and effectiveness and could not be legally marketed to the public. (shrink)

Allocating access to unapproved COVID-19 drugs available via Pre-Approval Access pathways or Emergency Use Authorization raises unique challenges at the intersection of clinical care and research....

ZusammenfassungDie Arzneimittelzulassung und der Aufnahmeprozess zur Kostenerstattung sollen die Entwicklung und Vermarktung von pharmazeutischen Innovationen mit Patientennutzen nicht behindern, zugleich aber die Wirtschaftlichkeit der Arzneimittelversorgung für die Kostenträger nicht gefährden. Eine Anpassung der Verfahren an die Merkmale personalisierter Arzneimittel erscheint notwendig. Dabei ist allerdings zu fragen, ob eine ungerechtfertigte Privilegierung erfolgt. In den USA und in der EU werden die jeweiligen Zulassungsverfahren für Arzneimittel und Tests schrittweise angepasst und integriert. Zulassung und Erstattungsentscheidungen sollen koordiniert werden. Eine Privilegierung, wie bei Arzneimitteln (...) für seltene Indikationen, findet jedoch für personalisierte Medizin nicht statt. Es bestehen keine unzumutbaren Hürden für die Hersteller. Zurückhaltung bei der Entwicklung innovativer Produkte wäre deshalb nicht gerechtfertigt. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: Ethical Issues in Drug Testing, Approval and Pricing: The Clot‐Dissolving Drugs. By Baruch Brody.

It is a tale of two Pfizers. In 2018 they abandoned research into the leading cause of dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) (Hawkes 2018). In 2021, they developed the first vaccine for Covid-19 to re...

Biotechnological advance is speeding the development of drugs. The approval processes for new drugs will inevitably involve a regulatory agency in making political-economic and scientific choices. Interests of specific patients and the public in general are to be considered, and enormous stakes are involved for companies concerned. A medical regulatory authority must be at once insulated from and responsive to many different mixes of singular and general interests and pressures. Access to new drugs can be spurred by the press (...) of patient advocacy groups, but if there are well organized groups to monitor the testing and approval process for such as AIDS or cancer drugs there is often no similar group to represent patient needs. If there is no organized patient advocacy group, compassionate responsibility by a medical regulatory authority is indeed called for. Delay in the approval of new drugs for fighting severe blood infections raises the question of how to insure the compassionate responsibility of a regulatory authority. (shrink)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's rationale for supporting the development and approval of BiDil for heart failure specifically in black patients was based on under-powered, post hoc subgroup analyses of two relatively old trials , which were further complicated by substantial covariate imbalances between racial groups. Indeed, the only statistically significant difference observed between black and white patients was found without any adjustment for potential confounders in samples that were unlikely to have been adequately randomized. Meanwhile, because (...) the accepted baseline therapy for heart failure has substantially improved since these trials took place, their results cannot be combined with data from the more recent trial amongst black patients alone. There is therefore little scientific evidence to support the approval of BiDil only for use in black patients, and the FDA's rationale fails to consider the ethical consequences of recognizing racial categories as valid markers of innate biological difference, and permitting the development of group-specific therapies that are subject to commercial incentives rather than scientific evidence or therapeutic imperatives. This paper reviews the limitations in the scientific evidence used to support the approval of BiDil only for use in black patients; calls for further analysis of the V-HeFT I and II data which might clarify whether responses to H-I vary by race; and evaluates the consequences of commercial incentives to develop racialized medicines. We recommend that the FDA revise the procedures they use to examine applications for race-based therapies to ensure that these are based on robust scientific claims and do not undermine the aims of the 1992 Revitalization Act. (shrink)

The US Food and Drug Administration’s controversial decision to grant accelerated approval to aducanumab (Aduhelm), a therapy for Alzheimer’s disease, has motivated multiple policy reforms. Drawing a case series of other drugs granted accelerated approval and interviews of senior FDA officials, I argue that reform should be informed but not defined by aducanumab. Rather, structural reforms are needed to reshape FDA’s core priorities and restore the regulatory system’s commitment to scientific rigor.

The FDA's new table of surrogate endpoints used for drug approvals is an important step forward for overseeing the use of biomarkers in clinical trials. Nevertheless, we present several ways in which the table can be improved.

Drug regulation is fraught with inductive risk. Regulators must make a prediction about whether or not an experimental pharmaceutical will be effective and relatively safe when used by typical patients, and such predictions are based on a complex, indeterminate, and incomplete evidential basis. Such inductive risk has important practical consequences. If regulators reject an experimental drug when it in fact has a favourable benefit/harm profile, then a valuable intervention is denied to the public and a company’s material interests (...) are needlessly thwarted. Conversely, if regulators approve an experimental drug when it in fact has an unfavourable benefit/harm profile, then resources are wasted, people are needlessly harmed, and other potentially more effective treatments are underutilized. Given that such regulatory decisions have these practical consequences, non-epistemic values about the relative importance of these consequences impact the way such regulatory decisions are made (similar to the analysis of laboratory studies on the toxic effects of dioxins presented in Douglas [2000]). To balance the competing demands of the pertinent non-epistemic values, regulators must perform what I call an “inductive risk calculus.” At least in the American context this inductive risk calculus is not well-managed. (shrink)

The current strategy of searching for an effective treatment for COVID-19 relies mainly on repurposing existing therapies developed to target other diseases. Conflicting results have emerged in regard to the efficacy of several tested compounds but later results were negative. The number of conducted and ongoing trials and the urgent need for a treatment pose the risk that false-positive results will be incorrectly interpreted as evidence for treatments’ efficacy and a ground for drug approval. Our purpose is twofold. (...) First, we show that the number of drug-repurposing trials can explain the false-positive results. Second, we assess the evidence for treatments’ efficacy from the perspective of evidential pluralism and argue that considering mechanistic evidence is particularly needed in cases when the evidence from clinical trials is conflicting or of low quality. Our analysis is an application of the program of Evidence Based Medicine Plus to the drug repurposing trials for COVID. Our study shows that if decision-makers applied EBM+, authorizing the use of ineffective treatments would be less likely. We analyze the example of trials assessing the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 and mechanistic evidence in favor of and against its therapeutic power to draw a lesson for decision-makers and drug agencies on how excessive hypothesis testing can lead to spurious findings and how studying negative mechanistic evidence can be helpful in discriminating genuine from spurious results. (shrink)

We use the format of a hypothetical case study to review issues related to pharmaceutical product approval and physician prescribing practices. In this case, a new FDA-approved drug is recommended for a patient who subsequently experiences an adverse event that may or may not be related to the prescription. This case raises a number of ethical and legal considerations physicians routinely face when deciding whether to recommend such drugs for their patients. Despite the need for ongoing observation by (...) the regulatory apparatus, physicians should be cognizant of the limitations of the drug approval system and the post-approval prescription drug surveillance system. We discuss physicians’ ethical obligations when faced with a newly approved drug, including seeking out independent sources of learning, reporting adverse effects, and notifying patients about limitations in available knowledge about therapeutic recommendations. (shrink)

To help academic and non-profit investigators interested in drug repurposing navigate regulatory approval processes, we compared pathways for repurposed drugs to obtain approval at EMA, UK MHRA, and the US FDA. Though we found no pathways specifically for repurposed drugs, pathways to market are available in all repurposing scenarios.

Drugs are much more expensive whilst they are subject to patent protection than once patents expire: patented drugs make up only 20% of NHS drugs prescriptions, but consume 80% of the total NHS drugs bill. This article argues that, given the relatively uncontroversial assumption that we should save the greater number in cases where all are equally deserving and we cannot save both groups, it is more difficult than is usually thought to justify why publicly funded healthcare systems should pay (...) for patented treatments. The claim to medical treatment of those who will be sick with a given condition once the patent runs out is just as strong as those who are sick with it now, but we will be able to treat more people with the same unit of resource in the future. Hence, when resource constraints entail that both cannot be funded, publicly funded healthcare systems ought to wait until patents expire before approving drugs for general use in the publicly funded system. (shrink)

In “Missing the Forest for the Trees: Aduhelm, Accelerated Approvals & the Agency,” Dr. Matthew Herder argues that agency capture and politicized discretion drive delays in confirmatory trials of accelerated approval drugs amongst other concerns at US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In highlighting this important problem and offering nuanced insight into agency workings based in part on interviews with twenty-three unnamed FDA officials and a three-drug case study, Dr. Herder suggests two innovative solutions. However, amidst broader (...) debates balancing agency expertise, data, and delegation, these proposed policy solutions would benefit from more corroborative evidence and consideration of institutional advantages within constitutional limits. (shrink)

This paper looks at some of the ethical concerns regarding a recent application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval of the sale of HIV tests over-the-counter directly to consumers. The concept of at-home HIV testing is not new, but OraSure Technologies Inc., a U.S. manufacturer of rapid HIV tests, is now seeking FDA approval to take at-home testing one step further to enable consumers to test themselves and interpret the results without the assistance of (...) an outside party. This paper reviews some of the purported benefits and potential risks of at-home HIV testing, and looks at the way one Canadian company is attempting to address the potential risks. In doing so, this paper brings to the fore concerns regarding corporate involvement in the regulatory approval of biotech products. (shrink)

Regulators rely on clinical trials for drug approval and labeling decisions. Health systems and clinicians rely on the evidence from trials to determine treatment, and patients rely on it to decide which courses of care to undertake. Many of these stakeholders presume that the careful review of individual studies is enough to address the ethical and scientific questions that arise in clinical trials. In what follows, however, we demonstrate that explicit consideration of trial portfolios—series of trials that are (...) interrelated by a common set of objectives—is crucial. the ethical acceptability and evidentiary probity of individual trials can change depending on the characteristics of the portfolios in which they are embedded. Second, how trial portfolios are composed, how well they are coordinated, and how efficiently they use information determines the balance of risks and benefits they present as well as their different prospects for generating socially valuable information; these three factors also raise distinct questions of justice. (shrink)

ABSTRACTIn April of 2000, Diana Levine went to a clinic in Vermont suffering from a migraine headache. She was given the drug Demerol for the migraine symptoms and Phenergan for nausea. Complications with the administration of Phenergan ultimately resulted in Ms. Levine contracting gangrene, necessitating the amputation of her right arm. Ms. Levine sued the drug maker, Wyeth Pharmaceutical, in state court and prevailed. The lower court's decision was appealed by Wyeth to the state supreme court where the (...) ruling was confirmed. Wyeth next appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which, to the surprise of many observers, affirmed the judgment of the state supreme court. At issue was the fundamental question of the ability of consumers to obtain redress against negligent manufacturers in state courts. Wyeth's arguments to the Court were based upon preemption: Foodand Drug Administration approval of a drug preempts the ability of injured consumers like Ms. Levine to recover in state courts despite years of precedent to the contrary. Ability to recover damages in state courts represents, perhaps, the most important safety net available to consumers injured by defective products. A ruling by the Supreme Court that FDA‐approved labeling of pharmaceuticals preempts the reach of the state courts would have severely compromised the balance of power between consumers and producers. (shrink)

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the devastating and most prevailing underlying cause for age-associated dementia, has no effective disease-modifying treatment. The last approved drug for the relief of AD symptoms was in 2003. The recent approval of sodium oligomannate (GV-971, 2019) in China and the human antibody aducanumab in the USA (ADUHELM, 2021) therefore represent significant breakthroughs, albeit ones that are fraught with controversy. Here, we explore potential scientific ethics issues associated with GV-971 and aducanumab’s development and approval. While (...) these issues may be belied by socioeconomic and political complexities in the heady business of commercial drug development, they are of fundamental importance to scientific integrity and ultimately, welfare of patients. We posit that the push for approval of both AD drugs based on incomplete research and unconvincing marginal effectiveness is ethically unsound. Regardless of how both these drugs shall perform in the market for the years to come, the scientific ethics issues and potentially questionable research practices should therefore be duly noted and lessons learned. (shrink)

In September 2012, news broke of a developing drug disaster in the United States. Health authorities had linked a fungal meningitis outbreak to a contaminated steroid made by a company called the New England Compounding Center. The contaminated steroid was a compounded drug that had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, differing from three others that had been approved in that it lacked preservatives present in those agents. Factory inspections revealed unsanitary conditions at NECC's (...) drug production facility. By the time the source of the outbreak was identified, an estimated fourteen thousand people had been injected with the drug. As of December 2012, thirty‐nine had died of meningitis, and hundreds more had been diagnosed with meningitis and other drug‐related conditions. Many factors contributed to this disaster. One was a 2002 Supreme Court decision holding that a law prohibiting providers of compounded drugs from promoting their products through advertising and other means impermissibly restricted commercial speech. (shrink)

Marion Lee Sanders,1 Anthony James Langone2 1Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 2Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA: Transplantation is the preferred treatment option for individuals with end-stage renal disease. Individuals who undergo transplantation must chronically be maintained on an immunosuppression regimen for rejection prophylaxis to help ensure graft survival. Current rejection prophylaxis consists of using a combination of calcineurin inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors, antimetabolite (...) agents, and/or corticosteroids. These agents have collectively improved the short-term outcomes of renal transplantation, but improvements in late/chronic graft loss and recipient survival have lagged significantly behind challenging the field of transplantation to develop novel prophylactic agents. There have been several clinical trials conducted within the last 5 years in an attempt to bring such novel agents to the commercial market. These trials have resulted in the US Food and Drug Administration approval of extended-release tacrolimus, as well as belatacept, which has the potential to replace calcineurin inhibitors for rejection prophylaxis. Other trials have focused on the development of novel calcineurin inhibitors, costimulation blockade, kinase inhibitors, and inhibitors of leukocyte migration. While these later agents have not been FDA-approved for use in transplantation, they remain noteworthy, as these agents explore pathways not previously targeted for allograft-rejection prophylaxis. The purpose of this review was to consolidate available clinical trial data with regard to the recent developments in rejection prophylaxis in kidney transplantation. Keywords: rejection, prophylaxis, immunosuppression, transplantation. (shrink)

The discovery and development of new therapeutics has always been central to improving health worldwide. However, there is ongoing concern regarding the current state of medical innovation. Output from the pharmaceutical industry has been criticized for not being “transformative,” that is, offering substantial improvements in patient outcomes over existing therapeutics. While the cost of drug development continues to rise, breakthrough therapies remain elusive and one half of Phase 3 studies fail. Venture capital, a traditional source of funding for new (...) breakthrough biomedical innovations, has decreased investment by 30% in the biotechnology and medical device sectors from 2007 to 2013. Stakeholders question whether the new drugs approved each year by the FDA —many criticized as marginal improvements over existing therapies — justify the enormous investment. (shrink)

I first became aware of bioethics in the spring of 1980. I had spent a thirty‐six‐hour shift shadowing a medical resident, and I was struck that many of the resident's decisions had ethical dimensions. The next day, I came across the Hastings Center Report, and I realized I wanted to explore ethical issues I found implicit in clinical care, even though I still wanted to become a pediatrician. In September 2019, when I attended my first meeting of the U.S. Food (...) and Drug Administration's Pediatric Advisory Committee, as a pediatric pulmonologist, I had the same sense of awe and curiosity that I had forty years ago. What had appeared initially as somewhat technical decisions about the regulation of drug labeling was suffused with ethical questions. The committee was asked to discuss possible changes to the labeling of two previously approved drugs. (shrink)

The term “off-label drug use” refers to drugs that have not yet acquired “approved” status or drugs that have acquired “approved” status but are used with a different dosage, route, or administration method other than that for which the drug has been approved. In New Zealand, the Medicines Act 1981 specifically allows for off-label drug use. However, this authority is limited by the Health and Disability Commissioner Regulations 1996 and the common law, which require that off-label (...) class='Hi'>drug use is of an acceptable standard, that the patient should be fully informed, and that the patient should give informed consent. Off-label drug use is an important issue because the current law provides medical practitioners very wide discretionary power, without providing clarification for what is required of the practitioner in exercising his or her discretion in prescribing off-label. This paper discusses possible solutions to this issue, for example, establishing protocol for off-label use, an electronic database of off-label use, and the amendment of legal provisions. (shrink)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a fast-developing viral pandemic spreading across the globe. Due to lack of availability of proven medicines against COVID-19, physicians have resorted to treatments through large trials of investigational drugs with poor evidence or those used for similar diseases. Large trials randomize 100–500+ patients at multiple hospitals in different countries to either receive these drugs or standard treatment. In order to expedite the process, some regulatory agencies had also given permission to use drugs approved for other (...) diseases, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy in COVID-19. In this review, we highlight the potential ethical issues that should be addressed during the use of investigational drugs with little prior evidence as a treatment options during a pandemic. We discuss the impact of design of randomized clinical trials using LOTUS trial as an example and that of off-label use of drugs like chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HQ) on the safety of patients during COVID-19. We conclude that the adaptive randomized clinical trial designs offer a flexible and efficient approach, enabling patients to quickly switch to successful treatments, while minimizing the number of patients on standard of care. Randomized clinical trial design should consider blinding of investigators and only representative patients who can provide consent should be included. We also conclude the emergency approvals of drugs should be carefully issued and off-label use should be restricted in pandemics. Streamlined regulatory guidelines for emergency drug use in a pandemic can also help in providing benefit and minimizing harm to patients in the future. (shrink)

Drug regulatory bodies aim to ensure that patients have access to safe and effective drugs; however, no matter the quality of pre-licensure studies, uncertainty will remain regarding the safety and effectiveness of newly approved drugs until a large and diverse population uses those drugs. Recent analyses of Canada’s post-market drug surveillance system have found that Canada is not keeping pace with international requirements for PMDS, and have noted that efforts must be improved to monitor and address the safety (...) and effectiveness of approved drugs among vulnerable populations. Given the uncertainty that exists when drugs enter the market, some have suggested that the precautionary principle is relevant to guiding decision-making in this context. This paper responds to recommendations that the Canadian PMDS system should be responsive to the health needs of vulnerable populations by assessing the utility of deploying the precautionary principle to guide a post-market strategy for vulnerable populations. (shrink)

Assume this hypothetical situation: an American pharmaceutical company, Maxwell Fisch Pharmaceuticals, Inc., wishes to perform clinical trials involving a new antipsychotic medication, Klezac. Klezac is in its third phase of the clinical stage of the drug research process. Once the testing is complete, Maxwell plans to submit a New Drug Application, the official request to begin marketing Klezac, to the Food and Drug Administration. The new drug is expected to receive FDA approval in 2 or (...) more years. The company decides to shift its research and development activities to Z, a small, developing country. In doing so, Maxwell is following the course taken by numerous other drug companies who wish to take advantage of faster governmental approval in foreign sites and ensuing cheaper research costs. (shrink)

The Food and Drug Administration authorizes the marketing of a drug only for uses that the manufacturer has demonstrated to be safe and effective, based on evidence from at least two clinical trials. However, the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine, so physicians may prescribe drugs in any manner they choose. Prescribing drugs in ways that deviate from the uses specified in the FDA-approved drug label, package insert, and marketing authorization is referred to as off-label (...) prescribing. This occurs when physicians prescribe a drug for a therapeutic purpose other than the one approved by the FDA; treat patients in a different age cohort or gender than the population on which it was tested; or prescribe a different dose, for a different duration of use, or a different mode of administration than indicated on the label. (shrink)

Malaria is a disease of developing countries whose local health services do not have the time, resources or personnel to mount studies of drugs or vaccines without the collaboration and technology of western investigators. This investigative collaboration requires a unique bridging of cultural differences with respect to human investigation. The following debate, sponsored by The Institute of Medicine and The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, raises questions concerning the conduct of trans-cultural clinical malaria research. Specific questions are raised (...) about the difficulties of informed consent in different cultural settings and whether there is any role for community involvement. Discussants debate whether drug and vaccine trials not approved in an industrialised country are ever defensible if performed in a third-world setting. Potential conflicting priorities between investigators are discussed and ideas regarding conflict resolution are offered. (shrink)

The history of drug/vaccine development has included major advances guided primarily by risk/benefit analyses concerning the innovative agent, not by evidence-based clinical trials (Phase I–IV). Because the approval for new drugs is hindered under the present process, the system requires restructuring. The Phase I/II study period should be more flexible, using the “environment of knowledge” about the new agent, plus risk/benefit assessments. Phase III, as presently constructed, does not add new adverse events data, it provides a narrower profile (...) of drug efficacy than properly done Phase II studies, and placebo-controlled trials continue to raise unresolved ethical and social issues. Phase III studies should be abandoned for most drugs, and substituted with properly powered Phase II doseranging studies plus careful post-marketing surveillance. Phase III should be a penalty for poor drug development, not a regulatory requirement. (shrink)

Antibiotic use triggers evolutionary and ecological responses from bacteria, leading to antibiotic resistance and harmful patient outcomes. Two complementary strategies support long-term antibiotic effectiveness: conservation of existing therapies and production of novel antibiotics. Conservation encompasses infection control, antibiotic stewardship, and other public health interventions to prevent infection, which reduce antibiotic demand. Production of new antibiotics allows physicians to replace existing drugs rendered less effective by resistance.In recent years, physicians and policymakers have raised concerns about the pipeline for new antibiotics, pointing (...) to a decline in the number of antibiotics approved since the 1980s. This trend has been attributed to high research and development costs, low reimbursement for antibiotics, and regulatory standards for review and approval. Professional societies and researchers around the world have called for renewed emphasis on antimicrobial stewardship, while also supporting antibiotic research and development through grants, changes to intellectual property laws to extend market exclusivity periods, and modification of premarket testing regulations to reduce antibiotic development time and expenses. (shrink)

Drug repurposing is a strategy of identifying new potential uses for already existing drugs. Many researchers adopted this method to identify treatment or prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite the considerable number of repurposed drugs that were evaluated, only some of them were labeled for new indications. In this article, we present the case of amantadine, a drug commonly used in neurology that attracted new attention during the COVID-19 outbreak. This example illustrates some of the ethical challenges (...) associated with the launch of clinical trials to evaluate already approved drugs. In our discussion, we follow the ethics framework for prioritization of COVID-19 clinical trials proposed by Michelle N Meyer and colleagues (2021). We focus on four criteria: social value, scientific validity, feasibility, and consolidation/collaboration. We claim that launching amantadine trials was ethically justified. Although the scientific value was anticipated to be low, unusually, the social value was expected to be high. This was because of significant social interest in the drug. In our view, this strongly supports the need for evidence to justify why the drug should not be prescribed or privately accessed by interested parties. Otherwise, a lack of evidence-based argument could enhance its uncontrolled use. With this paper, we join the discussion on the lessons learned from the pandemic. Our findings will help to improve future efforts to decide on the launch of clinical trials on approved drugs when dealing with the widespread off-label use of the drug. (shrink)

Drug Safety Communications are used by the Food and Drug Administration to inform health care providers, patients, caregivers, and the general public about safety issues related to FDA-approved drugs. To assess patient knowledge of the messaging contained in DSCs related to the sleep aids zolpidem and eszopiclone, we conducted a large, cross-sectional patient survey of 1,982 commercially insured patients selected by stratified random sampling from the Optum Research Database who had filled at least two prescriptions for either zolpidem (...) or eszopiclone between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. Among the 594 respondents, two-thirds reported hearing generally about drug safety information prior to starting a new drug, with the remaining one-third “rarely” or “never” hearing such information. Providers and pharmacists were primary sources of drug safety information. Two-thirds of zolpidem users and half of eszopiclone users reported having heard about the related DSC messages, ability to accurately identify the major factual messages was limited. Respondents reacted to new drug safety information about their sleep aids by reporting that they would want to learn about alternative ways to help them sleep and seek out more information about the safety of their specific sleeping pill. Opportunities may exist for the FDA to work with providers and pharmacies to help ensure the DSC information is more widely received and is more fully understood by those taking the affected medications. (shrink)

The article by Gustavsson et al 1 addresses the important question how to handle new medications with focus on drug candidates that reduce Aβ or tau in the brain, for individuals with Alzheimer’s disease, where the need for a disease-modifying drug is enormous. There are several ethical issues to deal with. The challenges and ethical implications associated with whom should be eligible for treatment are thoroughly discussed in the article. Should treatment only be available to those with mild (...) symptoms and/or to those with no symptoms but with risk for AD? Where do we draw the line between who will be eligible for treatment and who will not? Who will be responsible for the prioritisation? There are many ethical problems with both population screening and screening of those with high risk well discussed in the article. Indeed, the first immunotherapy drug Aducanumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in …. (shrink)

The Food and Drug Administration, as a matter of long-standing policy, does not inform the public of instances whereby applications for new drugs or new indications for existing drugs have been rejected by the agency or withdrawn from consideration, nor does it disclose the agency’s analyses of the data submitted with such applications. This lack of transparency is unjustified and prevents patients, researchers, and healthcare providers from gaining insight into why a drug’s application was not approved. The FDA’s (...) policy is particularly troubling in cases where the agency has found a currently marketed drug to be ineffective or unsafe for a newly proposed indication. Disclosure of the FDA’s findings in such cases would promote public health by encouraging healthcare providers to avoid prescribing drugs for unapproved uses that the agency has deemed to be potentially dangerous or ineffective. The FDA’s counterpart agencies in Europe and Canada have demonstrated the feasibility of disclosing information on rejected and withdrawn drug marketing applications. The FDA should follow suit and allow the American public to know when a drug is deemed unsafe or ineffective for a certain use. (shrink)

Drug-resistant tuberculosis has a high mortality rate. Most medicines used to treat it are poorly tested and have terrible side effects. Activists have campaigned for patients with drug-resistant TB to have access to experimental drugs, particularly one called bedaquiline, before these have been approved by regulatory authorities such as the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the Medicines Control Council in South Africa. Some activists have also campaigned for bedaquiline to be approved by regulatory (...) authorities before testing of the drug is completed. These campaigns raise ethical concerns about whether patients should be offered experimental, unapproved, medicines for the treatment of life-threatening illnesses, and if authorities should approve drugs for life-threatening illnesses when vital questions about safety and efficacy remain outstanding. (shrink)

BackgroundThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration traditionally has kept confidential significant amounts of information relevant to the approval or non-approval of specific drugs, devices, and biologics and about the regulatory status of such medical products in FDA’s pipeline.ObjectiveTo develop practical recommendations for FDA to improve its transparency to the public that FDA could implement by rulemaking or other regulatory processes without further congressional authorization. These recommendations would build on the work of FDA’s Transparency Task Force in 2010.MethodsIn (...) 2016-2017, we convened a team of academic faculty from Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Yale Medical School, Yale Law School, and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to develop recommendations through an iterative process of reviewing FDA’s practices, considering the legal and policy constraints on FDA in expanding transparency, and obtaining insights from independent observers of FDA.ResultsThe team developed 18 specific recommendations for improving FDA’s transparency to the public. FDA could adopt all these recommendations without further congressional action.FundingThe development of the Blueprint for Transparency at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. (shrink)

The Vioxx drug recall and other cases of withdrawals of approved pharmaceutical products as a result of reports of serious harm to users indicate that there are many problems associated with the process of getting these products to the end user the ordinary person in the street. The problems include those related to drug/medical device research and development, clinical trials, presentation and publication of research results, approval by regulatory authorities, preparation of clinical practice guidelines, marketing of products (...) by commercial companies and post-marketing surveillance. This article discusses threats to the integrity of each of these processes and argues that the steady stream of drug recalls indicates the existence of a systemic problem. It concludes with a discussion of possible solutions to these problems. (shrink)

This article examines the regulation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with particular focus on products approved for marketing in the United Kingdom, while denied marketing approval in the United States on safety grounds, and then subsequently withdrawn from the UK market on those grounds. Using international comparison of regulatory data never before accessed outside government and companies, together with interviews with relevant industry scientists and regulators, the article demonstrates the importance of regulatory expectations, deficits and paradigms. It is argued both (...) that these sociological concepts can be enriched by their application to detailed comparative case study of regulatory science, and that they provide an important policy-relevant framework with which to understand discrepant drug regulatory processes in a sociohistorical context. It is found that regulatory expectations and paradigms may be regarded as mediating factors between political culture and structural interests, on the one hand, and the outcomes of regulatory science, on the other. (shrink)

Lithuania’s legislation, establishing criminal liability for illegal disposition of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, uses two different terms while identifying the subject matter for criminal deeds: “narcotic and psychotropic substances” and “plants, incorporated into the lists of controlled substances.” The legislation in article 269 of the Lithuanian criminal code explains that narcotic and psychotropic substances, indicated in the respective chapter of the Lithuanian criminal code, shall be those substances that are included in the lists of narcotic and psychotropic substances as (...) approved by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Lithuania. Plants having narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are not introduced into this definition although the exception of the coca bush is enumerated in the lists of controlled substances. This described present position brings in a certain intricacy when deciding when a perpetrator should be punished only for illegal cultivation of plants and when he should be punished also for other illegal acts with narcotic and psychotropic substances. (shrink)

There are not many public health issues where views are as extremely polarized as those concerning vaccination policies. Ever since its Fast Track approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2006, Merck's human papilloma virus vaccine Gardasil has been sparking controversy. Initially, the criticism has been focused at Merck, due to their overly aggressive marketing strategies and lobbying campaigns. According to a 2007 editorial in Nature Biotechnology, Surrounded by a chorus of disapproval, Merck cracked. As Nature (...) Biotechnology went to press, the company announced a cessation of all efforts to lobby for US state laws requiring compulsory vaccination. Subsequently, questions have been raised whether it was appropriate for vaccine manufacturers to partake in public health policies when their conflicts of interests were so obvious. Some of their advertising campaign slogans, such as cervical cancer kills x women per year and your daughter could become one less life affected by cervical cancer, seemed more designed to promote fear rather than evidence-based decision making about the potential benefits of the vaccine versus any risks. (shrink)

When a new intervention or drug is developed, this has to pass through various phases of clinical testing before it achieves market approval, which can take many years. This raises an issue for drugs which could benefit terminally ill patients. These patients might set their hopes on the experimental drug but are unable to wait since they are likely to pass away before the drug is available. As a means of nevertheless getting access to experimental (...) class='Hi'>drug, many seriously ill and terminally ill patients are therefore very willing to participate in randomised controlled trials. However, only very few terminally ill patients are able to actually participate, and those that do participate are at risk of participating solely as a way of getting experimental drugs. Currently, there are, however, ways of getting access to drugs that have not gained market approval. One such mean is via expanded access or compassionate use programs where terminally ill patients receive experimental new drugs that are not yet market approved. In this paper, I examine some of the common justifications for such programs. The most frequently voiced justifications for compassionate use or expanded access programs could be put in one of three categories. First, there are justifications of justice, where compassionate use programs could be seen as a just or fair way to distribute experimental new drugs to patients who are denied access to RCT’s through no fault of their own. Second, such programs could be justified by reference to the ethical principle of beneficence where it could be claimed that terminally ill patients stand to benefit greatly at very little risk. Third, there are considerations of autonomy where, it is claimed, patients should be able to exercise their autonomy and have access to such drugs if that is there free choice and they are fully aware of the risks associated with that choice. In this paper, I argue currently all justifications are potentially problematic. If they truly form the basis for justification, compassionate use programs should be designed to maximize justice, beneficence and autonomy. (shrink)