participated in the conceptualization of this project, drafted portions of the manuscript, and contributed feedback to subsequent drafts; Dr Bluebond-Langner participated in the conceptualization of this project and contributed feedback to subsequent drafts; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

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. In conditions of scarcity, prioritization approaches should minimize harm, maximize benefit, and promote fairness. To promote continued data collection, patients seeking access to unproven COVID-19 drugs should receive lower priority for allocation when they decline to participate in clinical trials, either of the requested drug or other investigational products, offering a comparable balance of risks and benefits; special attention should be paid to concerns of voluntariness and distrust. In addition, institutional treatment protocols that can contribute more robust real world data should be preferred to single patient requests for access, with priority for inclusion based on traditional clinical allocation criteria relying on available evidence. Fairness demands distribution of these protocols across a diverse range of sites, particularly those serving marginalized populations, among other protections.

Introduction: Physicians in the United States play an essential role guiding patients through single patient pre-approval access (PAA) to investigational medical products via either the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s Expanded Access (EA) or the federal Right To Try (RTT) pathways. In this study, we sought to better understand pediatric hematologist/oncologists’ attitudes about seeking PAA, on behalf of single patients, to investigational drugs outside of clinical trials. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was developed and sent to pediatric hematologist/oncologists via St. Baldrick’s Foundation’s email distribution list. Results: Of 73 respondents (10.1% of those who received the survey), 56 met eligibility criteria and are included in the analysis. Over 80% ( n = 46) had prior experience with single patient PAA. Respondents were most concerned about the unknown risks and benefits of investigational drugs and financial implications of PAA for patients. One hundred percent and 91.1% of respondents indicated a willingness to support patients through EA and RTT pathways, respectively. When asked about their most recent experience with PAA, 40 out of 46 indicated that they used the FDA’s EA pathway to seek PAA and 4 out of 46 indicated that they used the RTT pathway. Of 44 respondents who had used the EA or RTT pathway, 43 indicated that the biotechnology or pharmaceutical company they solicited granted access to the requested product. Conclusion: Survey results support other findings suggesting a need for additional physician support and education about PAA and that physicians may have unequal access to information about investigational drugs and concerns about financial implications of PAA for their patients.

Transgender and gender-nonconforming (TGNC) youth who suffer from gender dysphoria are at a substantially elevated risk of numerous adverse physical and psychosocial outcomes compared with their cisgender peers. Innovative treatment options used to support and affirm an individual’s preferred gender identity can help resolve gender dysphoria and avoid many negative sequelae of nontreatment. Yet, despite advances in these relatively novel treatment options, which appear to be highly effective in addressing gender dysphoria and mitigating associated adverse outcomes, ethical challenges abound in ensuring that young patients receive appropriate, safe, affordable treatment and that access to this treatment is fair and equitable. Ethical considerations in gender-affirming care for TGNC youth span concerns about meeting the obligations to maximize treatment benefit to patients (beneficence), minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), supporting autonomy for pediatric patients during a time of rapid development, and addressing justice, including equitable access to care for TGNC youth. Moreover, although available data describing the use of gender-affirming treatment options are encouraging, and the risks of not treating TGNC youth with gender dysphoria are evident, little is known about the long-term effects of both hormonal and surgical interventions in this population. To support ethical decision-making about treatment options, we encourage the development of a comprehensive registry in the United States to track long-term patient outcomes. In the meantime, providers who work with TGNC youth and their families should endeavor to offer ethically sound, patient-centered, gender-affirming care based on the best currently available evidence.

Men's mental health should be recognized as a social issue as much as a medical issue, with special attention paid to problems such as unemployment, familial disruption, and substance abuse. These problems, and especially those of major societal impact including violence and suicide which are much more frequently the product of male youth and men, should have more male-tailored options for service provision that respond to men's mental health needs.