2015
DOI: 10.7326/m15-0148
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Right-to-Try Laws: Hope, Hype, and Unintended Consequences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There is no guarantee that the product sought will be effective and/or safe, much less that it will be effective and/or safe for the particular patient, and these individual INDs are not purposed to collect data on the drug. [7][8][9][10] The FDA's consideration of an expanded-access application generally comes only after the commercial sponsor has agreed to provide the investigational drug. The FDA cannot require the commercial sponsor to provide its investigational drug for expanded access use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is no guarantee that the product sought will be effective and/or safe, much less that it will be effective and/or safe for the particular patient, and these individual INDs are not purposed to collect data on the drug. [7][8][9][10] The FDA's consideration of an expanded-access application generally comes only after the commercial sponsor has agreed to provide the investigational drug. The FDA cannot require the commercial sponsor to provide its investigational drug for expanded access use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there are credible arguments in favor of increasing patient access to medical interventions that are still undergoing testing, ethicists and policy makers have warned that unscrupulous businesses may take advantage of such deregulation to market their products directly to consumers under the guise of a 'right-to-try'. Even well-intentioned companies and researchers may have a difficult time conveying to interested patients the likely efficacy of these products [25,42]. As our exploration of crowdfunding campaigns for unproven stem cell interventions shows, those seeking these products are influenced by scientific-and research-based markers of legitimacy, prone to overstating the proven efficacy of these products, and likely to misunderstand their role in the process of legitimate scientific research.…”
Section: Future Perspectivementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other ethical issues surround compassionate access to investigational products that CompAC does not, and was not created to, address, including whether it is ever ethical to provide agents with a very small chance of benefit to very sick patients, 20 and the likelihood of therapeutic misestimation, in which patients with life-threatening illnesses may be more inclined to believe in the potential benefit of an agent than meager evidence supports. 21…”
Section: Problems With the Compac Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%