Abstract
In recent years, a range of initiatives have been introduced to provide patients with access to medicines outside of traditional regulatory and/or funding channels; we term these processes “accelerated access to medicines.” These generally take 1 of 3 forms: those that provide access by making existing regulatory and funding processes more efficient, those that provide access despite uncertainties surrounding safety or efficacy, and those that provide access despite uncertainties surrounding cost-effectiveness. These latter 2 types are the subject of intense debate, as they generally require us to suspend or override accepted standards of evidence of safety, effectiveness, and/or cost-effectiveness. Ethical analysis provides valuable insights into these debates and highlights the risks and benefits that may accrue as a consequence of different accelerated access schemes. In this article, we use the principle-based approach to ethical analysis described by Beauchamp and Childress (sometimes called the “four principles approach” because it frames analysis by reference to beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice) to analyze initiatives that provide accelerated access to medicines. We identify a number of ethical issues that may arise in the context of accelerated access initiatives, including potential patient harms, impacts on patient autonomy and informed consent, and effects on research and regulatory systems. The complex ethical issues at play emphasize that there is no single answer to questions as to whether such schemes are “ethical”; rather, ethical principles will need balancing, context will be critically important, and discussion among the various stakeholder groups will be needed to reach an “ethically good” outcome.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bateman-House A, Kimberly L, Redman B, Dubler N, Caplan A. Right-to-try laws: hope, hype, and unintended consequences. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:796.
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Development of New Medicines. http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/new-medicines/pages/default.aspx. Accessed September 1, 2016.
Sansom L, Delaat W, Horvath J. Review of medicines and medical devices regulation: report on the regulatory framework for medicines and medical devices. Canberra: Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australian Government Department of Health, 2015.
Deloitte Access Economics Report. Access to Cancer Medicines in Australia. Medicines Australia Oncology Industry Taskforce. http://medicinesaustralia.com.au/issues-information/oncology-industry-taskforce/. Published 2013. Accessed September 27, 2016.
Finkelstein P. Expanded access to investigational drugs: what physicians and the public need to know about FDA and corporate processes. AMA J Ethics. 2015;17:1142–1146.
Gallego G, Taylor SJ, Brien J-aE. Provision of pharmaceuticals in Australian hospitals: equity of access? Pharmacy World Sci. 2007;29:47–50.
Urbinati D, Toumi M. Early access programmes (EAPS): review of non-European system. Value Health. 2012;15:A308–A308.
Urbinati D, Toumi M. Early access programmes (EAPS): review of the European system. Value Health. 2012;15:A315–A315.
US Food and Drug Administration. Fast track, breakthrough therapy, accelerated approval, priority review. http://www.fda.gov/forpatients/approvals/fast/ucm20041766.htm. Published 2015. Accessed July 5, 2016.
Hoekman J, Boon WPC, Bouvy JC, Ebbers HC, de Jong JP, De Bruin ML. Use of the conditional marketing authorization pathway for oncology medicines in Europe. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;98:534–541.
Boon WPC, Moors EHM, Meijer A, Schellekens H. Conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances as regulatory instruments for stimulating responsible drug innovation in Europe. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88:848–853.
Australian Senate Community Affairs References Committee. Availability of new, innovative and specialist cancer drugs in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government, 2015.
Macaulay R. The cancer drugs fund: a systematic analysis of the requirements for inclusion on the English national list of drugs for priority funding. Value Health. 2014;17:A659.
Medicare Australia: late stage metastatic breast cancer. http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/patients/late-breast-cancer.jsp. Published 2015. Accessed September 27, 2015.
Medicare Australia: Life Saving Drugs Program (LSDP). http://www.health.gov.au/LSDP. Published 2016. Accessed September 27, 2016.
Lu CY, Lupton C, Rakowsky S, Babar Z-U-D, Ross-Degnan D, Wagner AK. Patient access schemes in Asia-Pacific markets: current experience and future potential. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2015;8:6–6.
CMS. Guidance for the public, industry, and CMS staff: coverage with evidence development. https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/medicare-coverage-document-details.aspx?MCDId=27. Accessed September 27, 2015.
Hints and tips for companies considering a Patient Access Scheme (PAS) proposal in England. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217037/PAS-Good-Practice-Guidance.pdf. Published 2015. Accessed September 27, 2015.
Australian Government Department of Health Framework for the introduction of a Managed Entry Scheme for submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/publication/factsheets/shared/framework-for-introduction-of-managed-entry-scheme-for-PBAC-submissions. Published 2015. Accessed September 27, 2015.
van de Vooren K, Curto A, Freemantle N, Garattini L. Market-access agreements for anti-cancer drugs. J R Soc Med. 2015;108:166–170.
Morel T, Arickx F, Befrits G, et al. Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:198–212.
Crizotinib (Xalkori®) Managed Entry Scheme for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: information for patients. PBS News. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/news/2015/08/crizotinib-xalkori-managed-entry-scheme-info-2015-08. Published 2015. Accessed September 27, 2015.
Australian Government Department of Health. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Pembrolizumab—information for patients. PBS News. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/news/2015/09/pembrolizumab-keytruda-mes-pbs-patient-info. Published 2015. Accessed July 29, 2016.
Australian Government Department of Health. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Trametinib (Mekinist®) Managed Entry Scheme for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—information for patients. PBS News. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/news/2015/08/trametinib-managed-entry-scheme-info-2015-08. Published 2015. Accessed July 29, 2016.
Mason M. Lawmaker to retry “right-to-try” bill to let gravely ill access experimental drugs. LA Times, January 13, 2016.
European Medicines Agency. Adaptive pathways. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000601.jsp. Published 2016. Accessed July 5, 2016.
Mixter B. FDA head cites concerns with cures bill. Bloomberg BNA. http://www.bna.com/fda-head-cites-b57982070805/. Published May 6, 2016. Accessed July 5, 2016.
Australian Government Department of Health. Expert review of medicines and medical devices. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Expert-Review-of-Medicines-and-Medical-Devices-Regulation. Accessed July 5, 2016.
Accelerated Access Review. 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/accelerated-access-review. Accessed July 5, 2016.
European Public Health Alliance. Scientists voice concerns over adaptive pathways. http://epha.org/scientists-voice-concerns-about-adaptive-pathways/. Accessed July 5, 2016.
“Adaptive Licensing” or “Adaptive Pathways”: Deregulation Under the Guise of Earlier Access. Brussels: Health Action International (HAI), The International Society of Drug Bulletins (ISDB), The Medicines in Europe Forum (MiEF), The Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, WEMOS; October 16, 2015.
Sarpatwari A, Kesselheim AS. The 21st Century Cures Act: opportunities and challenges. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;98:575–577.
Nather D, Kaplan S. STAT News: public wary of faster approvals of new drugs, STAT-Harvard poll finds 2016; https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/11/stat-harvard-poll-drug-approvals/. Accessed July 5, 2016.
Kerridge IH, Lowe M, Stewart C. Ethics and Law for the Health Professions. Vol 4. Annandale, New South Wales, Australia: Federation Press; 2013.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Vol 7. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.
McKie J, Richardson J. The rule of rescue. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:2407–2419.
Caplan A, Moch K. Health affairs blog: rescue me: the challenge of compassionate use in the social media era. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/08/27/rescue-me-the-challenge-of-compassionate-use-in-the-social-media-era/. Published 2014. Accessed July 13, 2016.
FDA Commissioner announces Avastin decision: Drug not shown to be safe and effective in breast cancer patients. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm280536.htm. Published 2011. Accessed September 27, 2016.
Lewis JRR, Kerridge I, Lipworth W. Coverage with evidence development and managed entry in the funding of personalized medicine: practical and ethical challenges for oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:4112.
FDA begins process to remove breast cancer indication from Avastin label: Drug not shown to be safe and effective in breast cancer patients. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm237172.htm. Accessed July 6, 2016.
Saluja S, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU, Bor D, McCormick D. Unsafe drugs were prescribed more than one hundred million times in the United States before being recalled. Int J Health Serv. 2016;46:523–530.
Dyer O. FDA fails to monitor fast tracked drugs after approval, says US watchdog. BMJ. 2016;532:i371.
Buzyn A, Blay J-Y, Hoog-Labouret N, et al. Equal access to innovative therapies and precision cancer care. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13:385–393.
Horstmann E, McCabe MS, Grochow L, et al. Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:895–904.
Kim C, Prasad V. Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: an analysis of 5 years of US Food and Drug Administration approvals. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1992.
Dresser R. “Right to Try” laws: the gap between experts and advocates. Hastings Center Rep. 2015;45:9–10.
Darrow JJ, Sarpatwari A, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. Practical, legal, and ethical issues in expanded access to investigational drugs. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:279–286.
Joppi R, Gerardi C, Bertele V, Garattini S. Letting post-marketing bridge the evidence gap: the case of orphan drugs. BMJ. 2016;353:i2978.
Sharma A, Jacob A, Tandon M, Kumar D. Orphan drug: development trends and strategies. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2010;2:290–299.
Vitry A, Roughead E. Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals in Australia. Health Policy. 2014;117:345–352.
Chustecka Z. High price of cancer drugs is harming patients. Medscape Medical News, May 1, 2013.
The Global Use of Medicines: Outlook through 2017. IMS Institution, 2013.
Manning J. Priority-setting processes for medicines: the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. J Law Med. 2011;18:439.
NHS Choices: The NHS in England. http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx. Accessed July 6, 2016.
Cancer drugs fund “is not sustainable” after exceeding its budget by 50% to help 74,000 patients receive life-saving treatments not approved by NHS watchdog. Daily Mail UK, September 18, 2015.
Mayor S. New “managed access” process for Cancer Drugs Fund to go ahead, NHS England confirms. BMJ. 2016;352:i1208.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pace, J., Ghinea, N., Kerridge, I. et al. Accelerated Access to Medicines: An Ethical Analysis. Ther Innov Regul Sci 51, 157–163 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479016674043
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479016674043