Search

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.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The FDA allows physicians to request clinical use of investigational drugs, biologics, and devices for patients with no satisfactory treatment options through a pathway called Expanded Access (EA). TEAMSS (Transforming Expanded Access to Maximize Support and Study) sought to examine single-patient cases to better characterize these patients. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We prospectively collected data on requests for single-patient EA at any one of the four collaborating TEAMSS institutions (Duke University, University of Rochester, University of Michigan, and University of Texas Southwestern) between September 1, 2021 and February 28, 2023. Regulatory and health records were reviewed for past cases that occurred between June 1, 2018 and August 31, 2021. Descriptive statistics were performed on data from the submission process, the patient demographics, the indication for treatment, and patient health status over time. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The patient population was representative with respect to the largest racial groups (69.3% White / 13.0% Black or African American) and legal sex (51.3% male / 48.7% female). All ages were represented, with overrepresentation of those 60-70 years old (16.8%) and under 10 (14.8%). Patients were most often treated for infectious diseases (44.2%) or oncologic conditions (39.0%). Those who received more than one dose stayed on treatment for 76 days (median) and up to 1427 days (maximum). At the end of study, 53.9% had completed treatment as planned, moved to commercial product, or continued treatment. Death, disease progression, or failure to respond occurred for 31.9% of patients. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The population that receives Expanded access treatments is heterogeneous in both demographics and medical conditions. Some successful treatments are continued for years. Many patients complete their treatment, and a minority experience death or disease progression during treatment.

Expanded access (EA) provides a pathway for the clinical use of investigational products (drugs, biologics, and medical devices) for patients who are without satisfactory therapeutic options and for whom a clinical trial is not available. Academic medical centers (AMCs) are likely to encounter EA requests, but it is unknown what support is available at these institutions for physicians seeking EA for patients. Methods: A landscape assessment was conducted at AMCs, focused on those within the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium. Results: Forty-seven responses were evaluated including 42 CTSA hubs. The large majority (43 of 47 respondents) reported using single-patient EA, while 37 reported multi-patient industry sponsored EA and 37 reported multi-patient investigator-initiated EA. Only half reported central tracking of EA requests. Support was available at 89% of sites for single-patient EA but less often for multi-patient EA. Types of support varied and were focused largely on the initial submission to the FDA. Conclusion: Use of and support for EA is widespread at AMCs, with support focused on single-patient requests. Gaps in support are common for activities after initial submission, such as FDA reporting and data collection.