Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach

Last updated
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach
Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Full case nameAbigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, et al v. Andrew C. von Eschenbach
ArguedOctober 21, 2005
RearguedMarch 1, 2007
DecidedAugust 7, 2007
Citation(s) 495 F.3d 695
Case history
Prior history2004 WL 3777340 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2004); 445 F.3d 470 (D.C. Cir. May 2, 2006).
Subsequent history Cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1159(2008).
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Douglas H. Ginsburg, David B. Sentelle, Karen L. Henderson, A. Raymond Randolph, Judith Ann Wilson Rogers, David S. Tatel, Merrick B. Garland, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas B. Griffith, Brett Kavanaugh (en banc)
Case opinions
MajorityGriffith, joined by Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Kavanaugh
DissentRogers, joined by Ginsburg

Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach, 495 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 2007), [1] cert denied, 552 U.S. 1159 (2008) was resolved in early 2008 when the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the appeal. Their refusal left standing the appellate court decision, which said that patients have no right to "a potentially toxic drug with no proven therapeutic benefit." [1] [2]

Contents

Background

Abigail Burroughs was a college student diagnosed with head and neck cancer. During the later phases of her treatment, Abigail's father, Frank Burroughs, formed an organization, the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs and sued the FDA for access to Erbitux. At that time, Erbitux was available experimentally only for patients participating in colon cancer clinical trials. The argument made by the Abigail Alliance in court was that terminal cancer patients have a constitutionally protected right to access to experimental medications before the FDA approves them. Specifically, the Abigail Alliance argued that the FDA should license drugs for use by terminally ill patients with "desperate diagnoses," after they have completed Phase I testing. [3] If successful, the suit would have eliminated FDA prohibitions on selling unapproved drugs, and left the decision entirely in the hands of drug manufacturers.

From its inception, the US Government has charged the FDA with a mission of overseeing testing of new drugs. Challenges to this core definition, as in the Abigail Alliance court case, would likely require broad changes to the FDA's operating mandate. [4]

Implementing the changes proposed by the Abigail Alliance would have exposed some terminally ill patients to treatments which would ultimately not be approved because of inefficacy and toxicity. The expected success rate of cancer drugs at the Phase I stage of clinical testing is 6%.

If the Abigail Alliance had been successful in court, the suit would have radically altered the conduct of clinical cancer research, by providing almost unfettered legal access to experimental drugs by terminally ill patients, who would then have little incentive to enter Phase II and Phase III clinical trials, which are used to determine side effects and efficacy of new drugs.[ citation needed ] While eligibility factors and geography may limit the ability of some terminally ill patients to access new drugs through clinical trials, those trials also protect patients by collecting safety and efficacy data on new drugs under controlled circumstances.

The von Eschenbach referred to in the case is Andrew von Eschenbach, Commissioner of the FDA from 2006 to 2009, and later a Director at BioTime, a biotechnology company. [5]

Progression of the case

In May 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the Abigail Alliance and found that the US Constitution protects the right of terminally ill patients to access treatments that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. [6]

The FDA requested that the Court of Appeals rehear the case. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals in advance of the March 1 hearing, supporting the FDA's position. ASCO proposed that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to access unapproved medications, and that the court case threatens the cancer clinical trial enterprise. [7]

On March 1, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reheard the case en banc. [1] On August 7, 2007, the Court issued an 8-2 decision against the Abigail Alliance, reversing the previous panel decision, thereby upholding the previous court decision that found no constitutional right to unapproved drugs by terminally ill patients. [1] Judge Judith Rogers and Chief judge Douglas Ginsburg dissented. [1]

Frank Burroughs, Abigail's father, vowed to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court, [8] but the Supreme Court declined to accept the case, which effectively ended the case with the existing FDA regulations intact. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

ImClone Systems Incorporated was a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to developing biologic medicines in the area of oncology. It was founded in 1984 and had its corporate headquarters in Bridgewater, New Jersey, and its research headquarters in New York City. On October 6, 2008, it accepted a $6.5 billion acquisition offer from Eli Lilly and Company, and became a fully-owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company on November 24, 2008. Prior to the acquisition, it was traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the symbol IMCL. Imclone lost its separate identity in 2014 when its former ImClone research and manufacturing sites were renamed Eli Lilly and Company.

The Burzynski Clinic is a controversial clinic offering an unproven cancer treatment. It was founded in 1976 and is located in Texas, United States. It is best known for the controversial "antineoplaston therapy" devised by the clinic's founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s. Antineoplaston is Burzynski's term for a group of urine-derived peptides, peptide derivatives, and mixtures that Burzynski named to use in his cancer treatment. There is no accepted scientific evidence of benefit from antineoplaston combinations for various diseases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Investigational New Drug</span>

The United States Food and Drug Administration's Investigational New Drug (IND) program is the means by which a pharmaceutical company obtains permission to start human clinical trials and to ship an experimental drug across state lines before a marketing application for the drug has been approved. Regulations are primarily at 21 CFR 312. Similar procedures are followed in the European Union, Japan, and Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Off-label use</span> Use of pharmaceuticals for conditions different from that for which they were approved

Off-label use is the use of pharmaceutical drugs for an unapproved indication or in an unapproved age group, dosage, or route of administration. Both prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs (OTCs) can be used in off-label ways, although most studies of off-label use focus on prescription drugs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cetuximab</span> Pharmaceutical drug

Cetuximab, sold under the brand name Erbitux, is an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor medication used for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and head and neck cancer. Cetuximab is a chimeric (mouse/human) monoclonal antibody given by intravenous infusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew von Eschenbach</span>

Andrew C. von Eschenbach was the Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration from 2006 to 2009. He became acting Commissioner on September 26, 2005, after the resignation of his predecessor Lester Crawford, and was confirmed as Commissioner by the Senate on December 7, 2006. He was previously the 12th director of the National Cancer Institute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sorafenib</span> Chemical compound

Sorafenib, sold under the brand name Nexavar, is a kinase inhibitor drug approved for the treatment of primary kidney cancer, advanced primary liver cancer, FLT3-ITD positive AML and radioactive iodine resistant advanced thyroid carcinoma.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sunitinib</span> Cancer medication

Sunitinib, sold under the brand name Sutent, is a medication used to treat cancer. It is a small-molecule, multi-targeted receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitor that was approved by the FDA for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) on January 26, 2006. Sunitinib was the first cancer drug simultaneously approved for two different indications.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Washington Legal Foundation</span>

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) is a non-profit legal organization located at 2007-2009 Massachusetts Avenue NW, on Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1977, the Foundation's stated goal is "to defend and promote the principles of freedom and justice." The organization promotes pro-business and free-market positions and is widely perceived as conservative. WLF addresses a range of legal matters, including commercial free speech, corporate criminal liability, environmental regulation, food and drug law, health care, and intellectual property.

Panitumumab, sold under the brand name Vectibix, is a fully human monoclonal antibody specific to the epidermal growth factor receptor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">KRAS</span> Protein-coding gene in the species Homo sapiens

KRAS is a gene that provides instructions for making a protein called K-Ras, a part of the RAS/MAPK pathway. The protein relays signals from outside the cell to the cell's nucleus. These signals instruct the cell to grow and divide (proliferate) or to mature and take on specialized functions (differentiate). It is called KRAS because it was first identified as a viral oncogene in the KirstenRAt Sarcoma virus. The oncogene identified was derived from a cellular genome, so KRAS, when found in a cellular genome, is called a proto-oncogene.

Expanded access or compassionate use is the use of an unapproved drug or medical device under special forms of investigational new drug applications (IND) or IDE application for devices, outside of a clinical trial, by people with serious or life-threatening conditions who do not meet the enrollment criteria for the clinical trial in progress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ARIAD Pharmaceuticals</span> Defunct oncology company

ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was an American oncology company, now part of Takeda Oncology, which was founded in 1991 by Harvey J. Berger, M.D. and headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ARIAD engaged in the discovery, development, and commercialization of medicines for cancer patients.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas B. Griffith</span> American judge

Thomas Beall Griffith is an American lawyer and jurist who was a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2005 to 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lenvatinib</span>

Lenvatinib, sold under the brand name Lenvima among others, is an anti-cancer medication for the treatment of certain kinds of thyroid cancer and for other cancers as well. It was developed by Eisai Co. and acts as a multiple kinase inhibitor against the VEGFR1, VEGFR2 and VEGFR3 kinases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pembrolizumab</span> Pharmaceutical drug used in cancer treatment

Pembrolizumab, sold under the brand name Keytruda, is a humanized antibody used in cancer immunotherapy that treats melanoma, lung cancer, head and neck cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma, stomach cancer, cervical cancer, and certain types of breast cancer. It is given by slow injection into a vein.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brincidofovir</span> Antiviral drug

Brincidofovir, sold under the brand name Tembexa, is an antiviral drug used to treat smallpox. Brincidofovir is a prodrug of cidofovir. Conjugated to a lipid, the compound is designed to release cidofovir intracellularly, allowing for higher intracellular and lower plasma concentrations of cidofovir, effectively increasing its activity against dsDNA viruses, as well as oral bioavailability.

<i>United States v. Regenerative Sciences, LLC</i>

United States of America v. Regenerative Sciences, LLC, 741 F.3d 1314, was a decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit filed on February 4, 2014 concerning more than minimally manipulated cell therapies and whether they are considered part of medical practice or a drug, the latter subjecting it to regulation under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Regenerative Sciences LLC marketed a therapy procedure called Regenexx-C for the treatment of arthritis and orthopedic injury that involved extraction and culture of mesenchymal stem cells from the same patient which were later reinjected. In 2008, The FDA notified Regenerative Sciences LLC that the procedure may not be in compliance with their regulation using an Untitled Letter, which began a series of suits and counter suits, leading to the 2014 decision upholding the FDA’s regulation of more than minimally manipulated stem cell therapies.

Right-to-try laws are U.S. state laws and a federal law that were created with the intent of allowing terminally ill patients access to experimental therapies that have completed Phase I testing but have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Prior to the passage of right to try laws, patients needed FDA approval to use experimental drugs. As of 2018, 41 U.S. states had passed right to try laws. The framers of these laws argue that this allows for individualized treatments that are not permitted under the FDA's current regulatory scheme. The value of these laws was questioned on multiple grounds, including the fact that pharmaceutical manufacturers would have no obligation to provide the therapies being sought. A federal right to try law was passed in May 2018. Since the signing of the bill thousands of patients have been able to use the experimental therapies. According to Scott Gottlieb, who served as commissioner of the FDA under President Donald Trump, the FDA had already approved 99% of patient requests for access to experimental drugs, either immediately over the phone or within a few days, prior to the passage of right to try legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017</span> United States Law

The Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, also known as the Right to Try Act, is a United States federal law which allows experimental drugs to be administered to terminally ill patients who have exhausted all approved treatment options and are unable to participate in clinical drug trials. All eligible drugs must have undergone the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Phase I (safety) testing. The law seeks to increase access to experimental drugs by allowing patients, through their physicians, to request experimental medicines directly from drug manufacturers without involving the FDA. The FDA's expanded access program exists in parallel to the Right to Try Act. There is no legal obligation for drug manufacturers to provide their investigational products to patient who seek them.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach, 495F.3d695 (D.C. Cir.2007).
  2. 1 2 "No right to experimental drugs for dying patients: Supreme Court - Yahoo! News" . Retrieved 2008-01-14.[ dead link ]
  3. ↑ Archived 2007-02-21 at the Wayback Machine Abigal Alliance Citizen Petition to FDA
  4. ↑ Jacobson P, Parmet W (2007). "A new era of unapproved drugs: the case of Abigail Alliance v Von Eschenbach". JAMA. 297 (2): 205–8. doi:10.1001/jama.297.2.205. PMID   17213404.
  5. ↑ "BioTime, Inc. Appoints Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D. to its Board of Directors". BusinessWire Press Release. November 9, 2011.
  6. ↑ Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach, 445F.3d470 (D.C. Cir.2006).
  7. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-06-14. Retrieved 2007-04-07.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Amicus brief by ASCO, filed February 2007
  8. ↑ Pollack, Andrew (August 8, 2007). "Court Rejects the Right to Use Drugs Being Tested". The New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.