Background'Compassionate use' programmes allow medicinal products that are not authorised, but are in the development process, to be made available to patients with a severe disease who have no other satisfactory treatment available to them. We sought to understand how such programmes are regulated in ten European Union countries.MethodsThe European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) conducted a comprehensive survey on clinical research regulatory requirements, including questions on regulations of 'compassionate use' programmes. Ten European countries, covering approximately 70% of the EU population, were included in the survey (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK).ResultsEuropean Regulation 726/2004/EC is clear on the intentions of 'compassionate use' programmes and aimed to harmonise them in the European Union. The survey reveals that different countries have adopted different requirements and that 'compassionate use' is not interpreted in the same way across Europe. Four of the ten countries surveyed have no formal regulatory system for the programmes. We discuss the need for 'compassionate use' programmes and their regulation where protection of patients is paramount.Conclusions'Compassionate use' is a misleading term and should be replaced with 'expanded access'. There is a need for expanded access programmes in order to serve the interests of seriously ill patients who have no other treatment options. To protect these patients, European legislation needs to be more explicit and informative with regard to the regulatory requirements, restrictions, and responsibilities in expanded access programmes.

No abstract

PURPOSE We previously reported that enzalutamide improved overall survival when added to standard of care in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Here, we report its effects on aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL). METHODS HRQL was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality-of-life questionnaire and QLM-PR25 at weeks 0, 4, 12, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Scores from week 4 to 156 were analyzed with repeated measures modeling to calculate group means and differences. Deterioration-free survival was from random assignment until the earliest of death, clinical progression, discontinuation of study treatment, or a worsening of 10 points or more from baseline in fatigue, physical function, cognitive function, or overall health and quality of life (OHQL). HRQL scores range from 0 (lowest possible) to 100 (highest possible). RESULTS HRQL was assessed in 1,042 of 1,125 participants (93%). Differences in means favored control over enzalutamide for fatigue (5.2, 95% CI, 3.6 to 6.9; P < .001), cognitive function (4.0, 95% CI, 2.5 to 5.5; P < .001), and physical function (2.6, 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.9; P < .001), but not OHQL (1.2, 95% CI, −0.2 to 2.7; P = .1). Deterioration-free survival rates at 3 years, and log-rank P values comparing the whole distributions, favored enzalutamide over control for OHQL (31% v 17%; P < .0001), cognitive function (31% v 20%; P = .001), and physical function (31% v 22%; P < .001), but not fatigue (24% v 18%; P = .16). The effects of enzalutamide on HRQL were independent of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION Enzalutamide was associated with worsening of self-reported fatigue, cognitive function, and physical function, but not OHQL. Enzalutamide was associated with improved deterioration-free survival for OHQL, physical function, and cognitive function because delays in disease progression outweighed early deteriorations in these aspects of HRQL.