Right-to-try law

Last updated

Right-to-try laws are United States state laws and a federal law that were created with the intent of allowing terminally ill patients access to experimental therapies (drugs, biologics, devices) 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. [1] 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. [2] A federal right to try law was passed in May 2018. Very little data is available about the number of patients who have used the right-to-try pathway, but available sources indicate that since the signing of the bill only a handful of patients have used this pathway to access experimental therapies, as most physicians and sponsors prefer the more traditional, FDA approved, Expanded Access route. [3] 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. [4]

Contents

States with right-to-try laws

State right-to-try laws by jurisdiction .mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{} Right-to-try law No right-to-try law Right to Try Law by State.svg
State right-to-try laws by jurisdiction
  Right-to-try law
  No right-to-try law

In May 2014, Colorado became the first state to pass a right-to-try law. [6] As of August 2018, 41 states had enacted such laws: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. [5] [7] [8] [9]

In April 2022, Arizona enacted an expanded version of its right-to-try law. [10] [11]

In May 2023, Montana passed a bill expanding the Right to Try Act, giving patients to access experimental therapeutics that have passed Phase I clinical trials but are not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). [12] [13]

Federal right-to-try law

In January 2017, a federal right to try bill was introduced in the Senate by Republican Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. [14] Johnson was able to pass his bill in the Senate on August 3, 2017, in a unanimous consent motion. [15] Johnson had threatened to hold up a Senate vote on the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (FDARA), a must-pass piece of legislation that allows the FDA to operate, if an amendment on right to try was not added to that bill. Johnson agreed to drop a hold on FDARA in exchange for a unanimous consent motion. [16] A companion House bill was introduced in February 2017; the following month it was referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. [17] On March 21, 2018, the House of Representatives passed a right to try bill, sending it to the Senate for consideration. [18] On May 22, the Senate passed S.204, the 'Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act', and sent it to President Trump who signed it on May 30, 2018, creating a uniform system for terminal patients seeking access to investigational treatments. [19]

Proponents

The chief advocate of right-to-try laws is the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Arizona, which created the model act on which the state laws are based. [20] Kurt Altman, national policy adviser for the institute, has said that right-to-try laws return control of medical decisions "back to a local level". [21] Other proponents include patients and their families, as well as patient advocate groups. [22] Supporters of these laws sometimes describe them as "Dallas Buyers Club" bills, a reference to a movie about an American man with AIDS who smuggled unapproved treatments from foreign countries to fellow patients. [2] Some have likened the efforts of terminally ill patients to procure unapproved drugs in development to those of ACT-UP and other AIDS organizations of the 1980s. [23]

One ethical argument for the right to try unapproved treatments is that if patients have the right to die through physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, they should also be afforded the right to try. [24]

In 2016, Houston oncologist Dr. Ebrahim Delpassand testified to a US Senate committee that he treated 78 patients for neuroendocrine cancer with LU-177 octreotate under the Texas Right to Try law, after the FDA refused permission to include those patients in the clinical trial that he was running. [25] [26] However, the drug's manufacturer, Advanced Accelerator Applications, has made this drug available through an expanded access program for patients with neuroendocrine tumors, so it is disputed whether this is a substantiated case of a right to try law being used to gain patients access to an investigational product. [27] State legislators in Texas and North Carolina have introduced bills that would expand state right-to-try laws to include stem cell and tissue based regenerative therapies currently in development and to allow patients with serious, chronic illness to use the right-to-try pathway. [28] [29]

Critics

Bioethicists and other scholars have questioned the extent to which right-to-try laws will actually benefit patients. Jonathan Darrow, Arthur Caplan, Alta Charo, Rebecca Dresser, Alison Bateman-House and others have pointed out that the laws do not require physicians to prescribe experimental therapies, do not require insurance companies to pay for them, and do not require manufacturers to provide them. [30] [31] Because the laws do not actually provide a right to receive experimental therapies, they could be considered toothless legislation that offers only false hope to dying people. [32] [33] Even if the laws work as intended, they would be problematic to critics. Because the laws require only that drugs have completed the first of three phases of clinical testing, there is no data on the efficacy of the drugs, especially in very sick people. There is also no safety data on how they would affect very sick people. This makes informed consent on the part of the patient more difficult. Informed consent entails knowledge of the pros and cons of a proposed treatment, then a decision made in light of those pros and cons. [34] Some states' right-to-try laws also put patients at risk of losing hospice or home health care, [35] and the costs surrounding treatment can be prohibitive, something right-to-try laws do not fix. Bioethicist Alta Charo called the laws "a simplistic way of going after much more complicated issues." [36]

Medical and health experts have also voiced concerns. If the laws were to grant patients access to unapproved drugs, they could hasten death or cause increased suffering. [37] Peter Temin wrote that "there is always a chance that any given drug will fail to cure a condition or will induce an adverse reaction," such as becoming sick, or sicker, or even dying. [38] Drugs that are not fully studied may lead to more adverse reactions in patients. The laws reduce FDA oversight of drug regulation. [39] Another criticism is that state right-to-try laws may be unconstitutional, because they involve states regulating medicine despite federal legislation that regulates the interstate marketing of medicine. [40] Various authors have predicted that right-to-try laws would be struck down if they were taken to court. [41] [42] A 2014 paper in JAMA Internal Medicine argued that right to try laws "seem likely to be futile." [43]

In April 2017, oncologist David Gorski wrote in Science-Based Medicine that the right-to-try law is harmful to society as it is popular with the public who do not understand how the FDA works, Gorski calls this "placebo legislation. They make lawmakers feel good, but they do nothing concrete to help actual patients." Gorski states that right-to-try laws enable "cancer quack" like the Burzynski Clinic to operate for years. "It's also important to remember that the real purpose of right-to-try laws is not to help patients, but to neuter the FDA's ability to regulate certain drugs, consistent with the source of this legislation." Gorski further states that these laws "rest on a fantasy... of false hope ... that is rooted in libertarian politics ... that claims that deregulation is the cure for everything." [44]

In January 2019 Jann Bellamy added that the right-to-try does not ensure "that only patients who have no other treatment options receive access; that costs are appropriate; that informed consent is legally and ethically sound; and that the proposed treatment plan offers a favorable risk/benefit profile for the patient." Additionally, "there is no regulatory infrastructure spelling out just how patients and physicians should go about accessing investigational drugs or how drug companies should respond." [45] Harriet Hall, MD expressed concerns that patients may not completely comprehend the risks involved in taking medications available under the right-to-try law, nor understand the low probability of success, especially patients who were not healthy enough to qualify to participate in clinical trials. [46] She states these patients may have other medical conditions that could make them more vulnerable to complications from experimental treatments. [46]

Further developments

When President Trump signed the legislation into law in May 2018 he said, "We will be saving—I don't even want to say thousands, because I think it's going to be much more. Thousands and thousands. Hundreds of thousands. We're going to be saving tremendous numbers of lives." [47] Following the passage of the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act, as of June 2019 only two patients have received access to experimental medical products through the federal right to try pathway. In February 2019, one of the namesakes of the federal law, Matt Bellina, who has ALS, said that he gained access to an experimental treatment through the drug company Brainstorm. However Brainstorm said that they would not be accepting any other patients for trials. [48] Frank Mongiello, who also has ALS, still has not found access to a treatment program. In an interview his wife said, "We had a lot of hope that if the right to try was passed it would give an incentive for the drug companies to make available the drugs. But now it doesn't seem as though the drug companies are giving away their drugs either." [49]

Natalie Harp, who was invited onto the stage by President Trump while he was speaking in June 2019, at a Faith and Freedom Coalition conference, a coalition of conservative evangelical Christians, said that the legislation saved her life. Harp, who states she was diagnosed with Stage 2 cancer and left housebound by a medical error one year after the bill passed, declared the legislation saved her life and she praised the Trump administration's fight for healthcare. [50] [51] [52] Harp's claims were called into question by former FDA official Peter Lurie and Simon Fraser University professor of health sciences Jeremy Snyder. [53] [54] Snyder noted that Harp had been given "an FDA-approved immunotherapy drug for an unapproved use", which had been allowed prior to Right to Try. [55] [54]

The federal Right to Try law does require that sponsors report an annual summary to the FDA of uses, including reporting serious adverse events, number of doses used, number of patients dosed, and the intended use of the product. [14] A proposed guidance document for the reporting requirements was released in summer of 2020; [56] the final guidance has not been released. Until that guidance is released, the usage of right to try will be uncertain. According to available records, very few patients accessed unapproved medical products through Right to Try until recently. [57] In February 2021, NeuroRX's CEO Jonathan Javitt gave an interview indicating their drug, aviptadil, had been used in over 500 patients with COVID-19, after the phase IIb/III trial failed to show significant benefit. FDA rejected the application for Emergency Use Authorization, [58] prompting Javitts and NeuroRX to allow use of aviptadil as a possible "hail mary" drug for severely ill COVID-19 patients. [59]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Burzynski Clinic is a clinic selling an unproven cancer treatment, which has been characterized as harmful quackery. It was founded in 1976 and is located in Houston, Texas, in the United States. It offers a form of chemotherapy originally called "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. There is no accepted scientific evidence of benefit from antineoplaston combinations for various diseases, and the Clinic's claimed successes have not been replicated by independent researchers. The therapy has been rebranded in various ways over the years to mirror fashions in medicine, for example as a kind of "immunotherapy". The therapy is administered through the ruse of running a large numbers of clinical trials, which long-time Burzynski lawyer Richard Jaffe has described as "a joke".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Investigational New Drug</span> USFDA program and prodecures

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 due to regulatory harmonization efforts by the International Council for Harmonisation.

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">Association of American Physicians and Surgeons</span> Conservative political advocacy organization

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association that promotes conspiracy theories and medical misinformation, such as HIV/AIDS denialism, the abortion–breast cancer hypothesis, and vaccine and autism connections, through its official publication, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. The association was founded in 1943 to oppose a government attempt to nationalize health care. The group has included notable members, including American Republican politicians Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Tom Price.

714-X, also referred to as 714X or trimethylbicyclonitramineoheptane chloride, is a mixture of substances manufactured by CERBE Distribution Inc and sold as an alternative medical treatment which is claimed to cure cancer, multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia and other diseases. There is no scientific evidence that 714-X is effective in treating any kind of cancer, and its marketing is considered health fraud in the US.

Clinical research is a branch of medical research that involves people and aims to determine the effectiveness (efficacy) and safety of medications, devices, diagnostic products, and treatment regimens intended for improving human health. These research procedures are designed for the prevention, treatment, diagnosis or understanding of disease symptoms.

Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach, 495 F.3d 695, 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."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prescription Drug User Fee Act</span> Legislation in the United States

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was a law passed by the United States Congress in 1992 which allowed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to collect fees from drug manufacturers to fund the new drug approval process. The Act provided that the FDA was entitled to collect a substantial application fee from drug manufacturers at the time a New Drug Application (NDA) or Biologics License Application (BLA) was submitted, with those funds designated for use only in Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) drug approval activities. In order to continue collecting such fees, the FDA is required to meet certain performance benchmarks, primarily related to the speed of certain activities within the NDA review process.

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.

An experimental drug is a medicinal product that has not yet received approval from governmental regulatory authorities for routine use in human or veterinary medicine. A medicinal product may be approved for use in one disease or condition but still be considered experimental for other diseases or conditions.

A glossary of terms used in clinical research.

An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States is an authorization granted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as added to and amended by various Acts of Congress, including by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (PAHPRA), as codified by 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, to allow the use of a drug prior to approval. It does not constitute approval of the drug in the full statutory meaning of the term, but instead authorizes the FDA to facilitate availability of an unapproved product, or an unapproved use of an approved product, during a declared state of emergency from one of several agencies or of a "material threat" by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medical cannabis in the United States</span>

In the United States, the use of cannabis for medical purposes is legal in 38 states, four out of five permanently inhabited U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia, as of March 2023. Ten other states have more restrictive laws limiting THC content, for the purpose of allowing access to products that are rich in cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive component of cannabis. There is significant variation in medical cannabis laws from state to state, including how it is produced and distributed, how it can be consumed, and what medical conditions it can be used for.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997</span> US law

The United States Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This act is related to the regulation of food, drugs, devices, and biological products by the FDA. These changes were made in order to recognize the changes in the way the FDA would be operating in the 21st century. The main focus of this is the acknowledgment in the advancement of technological, trade, and public health complexities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nivolumab</span> Anticancer medication

Nivolumab, sold under the brand name Opdivo, is an anti-cancer medication used to treat a number of types of cancer. This includes melanoma, lung cancer, malignant pleural mesothelioma, renal cell carcinoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, head and neck cancer, urothelial carcinoma, colon cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, liver cancer, gastric cancer, and esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. It is administered intravenously.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eric Brakey</span> American politician (born 1988)

Eric Brakey is the current Executive Director of the Free State Project, and an American politician, serving in his third term as a Maine state senator.

<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.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aid Access</span> Abortion services provider

Aid Access is a nonprofit organization that provides access to medication abortion by mail to the United States and worldwide. It describes its work as a harm reduction strategy designed to provide safe access to mifepristone and misoprostol for those able to become pregnant in the United States who may not otherwise have access to abortion or miscarriage management services. People are able to manage their own abortion with remote access to a physician and a help-desk for any questions. The website is available in English, Spanish, and Dutch.

Stem cell tourism, a form of medical tourism, is the internet based-industry in which stem cell procedures are advertised to the public as a proven cure. In the majority of cases, it leads to patients and families traveling abroad to obtain procedures that are not proven, nor part of a clinical trial approved by an authority like the Food and Drug Administration in the United States. These procedures have not gone through the vetting process of clinical research and they lack rigorous scientific support. Although for the general public, this advertising in glossy websites, may sound authoritative, for translational doctors and scientists this leads to the exploitation of vulnerable patients. These procedures lack the reproducibility, the rigor that is required for successful development of new effective medications. Although the term may imply traveling overseas, in recent years, there has been an explosion of "stem cell clinics' in the US which has been well documented. These activities are highly profitable for the clinic but no benefit for the patients, sometimes experiencing complications like spinal tumors, death, or financial ruin, all of which are documented in the scientific literature. There is a great deal of interest in educating the public and patients, families and doctors who deal with patients requesting stem cells clinics. In recent years, the FDA has become more active in overseeing stem cell clinics, taking a number of concrete steps including sending warning letters, putting out advisories, and in two cases filing suit in federal court to impose permanent injunctions on specific clinic firms.

References

  1. ↑ "Right To Try For Individualized Treatments (Right To Try 2.0)" . Retrieved September 21, 2022.
  2. 1 2 Turkowitz, Julie (January 10, 2015). "Patients Seek 'Right to Try' New Drugs" . New York Times. Retrieved August 14, 2015.
  3. ↑ "Expanded Access and Right to Try: Alternative Paths to Experimental Treatments for Metastatic Breast Cancer".
  4. ↑ "Fact check: Trump makes more than 20 false claims at Cincinnati rally". CNN. Retrieved August 3, 2019.
  5. 1 2 "In Your State Right to Try – Movement for Terminal Patients". Goldwater Institute . Retrieved March 13, 2018. Those states not showing adoption (by image inspection) – Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware
  6. ↑ "'Right to Try' Law Gives Terminal Patients Access to Drugs Not Approved by FDA". PBS NewsHour (Transcript of television program). NewsHour Productions LLC. June 21, 2014. Retrieved March 13, 2018. This May, Colorado's Democratic governor signed the nation's first 'right to try' bill.
  7. ↑ "Oregon 24th state to enact 'Right to Try' law" (Press release). Goldwater Institute. August 13, 2015. Archived from the original on August 16, 2015 – via KTVZ.com.
  8. ↑ Tenth Amendment Center Blog | Signed by the Governor: South Carolina Right to Try Act Rejects Some FDA Restrictions on Terminal Patients
  9. ↑ California Becomes 32nd State to Pass "Right to Try" Law for Terminally Ill – Hit & Run : Reason.com
  10. ↑ Joyce, Tom (April 27, 2022). "Arizona expands right to try". The Center Square . Retrieved April 30, 2022.
  11. ↑ Nerozzi, Timothy H.J. (April 27, 2022). "Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signs 'Right To Try 2.0' into law". Fox News . Retrieved April 30, 2022.
  12. ↑ "SB 422: Expand eligibility for the Right to Try Act | 2023 Montana Capitol Tracker". Montana Free Press. Retrieved 2024-10-28.
  13. ↑ "Governor of Montana Approves Bill Expanding Patient Access to Experimental Treatments - a4li.org". a4li.org. 2023-05-12. Retrieved 2024-10-28.
  14. 1 2 "S.204 – Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017". 115th U.S. Congress, 1st session.
  15. ↑ "Senate Passes 'Right to Try' Bill". Regulatory Affairs Professional Society.
  16. ↑ "Johnson Agrees To Drop Hold On FDARA In Exchange For Vote On Revised Right-To-Try Bill". Inside Health Policy.
  17. ↑ "H.R.878". 115th U.S. Congress, 1st session. Retrieved March 17, 2017.
  18. ↑ Karlin-Smith, Sarah (March 21, 2018). "House passes right-to-try bill on second try". Politico. Retrieved May 11, 2018.
  19. ↑ Malloy, Allie (2018-05-30). "Trump signs 'Right to Try Act' aimed at helping terminally ill patients seek drug treatments". CNN. Retrieved 2018-05-25.
  20. ↑ "Goldwater Institute Right to Try Model Legislation" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 15, 2016. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  21. ↑ Monir, M (February 19, 2015). "States Move to Give Terminally Ill 'Right-to-Try' Drugs". USA Today. Retrieved August 14, 2015.
  22. ↑ Harada, T (May 9, 2014). "Afflicted Have the Right to Try". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  23. ↑ Andriote, J-M. "Who Decides? 'Right-to-Try' Law's Unacknowledged, Deep Roots in AIDS Activism". Huffington Post. No. May 22, 2014. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  24. ↑ Cohen-Kurzrock, J (May 24, 2016). "Health policy: The right to try is embodied in the right to die". Nature Reviews. Retrieved November 20, 2016.
  25. ↑ "Statement of Sen. Johnson of Wisconsin". The Congressional Record. 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2017-02-10.
  26. ↑ McCormack, Kevin (December 19, 2016). "'Right To Try' laws called 'Right To Beg' by Stem Cell Advocates". The Stem Cellar, The Official Blog of CIRM, California's Stem Cell Agency. Retrieved 2017-02-10.
  27. ↑ "Expanded Access Protocol for Therapeutic Use of 177Lu-DOTA0-Tyr3-Octreotate in Patients With Inoperable, Somatostatin Receptor Positive, Midgut Carcinoid Tumors, Progressive Under Somatostatin Analogue Therapy". ClinicalTrials.gov. 2017-02-17. Retrieved 2017-03-17.
  28. ↑ "HB 805 – Parker" . Retrieved 2019-05-01.
  29. ↑ "NC HB934" . Retrieved 2019-05-01.
  30. ↑ Dennis, B, Eunjung Cha, A (May 15, 2014). "'Right to Try' Laws Spur Debate Over Dying Patients' Access to Experimental Drugs". Washington Post. Retrieved August 14, 2015.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  31. ↑ Darrow, J; et al. (January 15, 2015). "Practical, Legal, and Ethical Issues in Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs". New England Journal of Medicine. 372 (3): 279–286. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhle1409465 . PMID   25587952.
  32. ↑ Yang, Y.Tony; Chen, Brian K. (2015). ""Right-to-Try" Legislation: Progress or Peril?". Journal of Clinical Oncology. 24 (33): 2597–2599. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.8057. PMID   26195722.
  33. ↑ Zuckerman, Diana. "Right to Try National Law Would Exploit False Hope". National Center of Health Research. Retrieved December 26, 2019.
  34. ↑ Bateman-House, A; et al. (September 17, 2015). "Right-to-Try Laws: Hope, Hype, and Unintended Consequences". Annals of Internal Medicine. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  35. ↑ Kearns, L, Caplan, A (April 29, 2015). "Right-to-Try Legislation Punishing". Albany Times Union. Retrieved February 19, 2016.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  36. ↑ Leonard, K (November 18, 2014). "Seeking the Right to Try". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved August 14, 2015.
  37. ↑ Gorski, D (July 21, 2014). "The False Hope of 'Right to Try' Metastasizes to Michigan". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  38. ↑ Temin, P. Taking Your Medicine: Drug Regulation in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 1–2.
  39. ↑ Silverman, E (October 12, 2015). "'Right to Try' Laws Wrong to Skirt FDA". Boston Globe. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  40. ↑ Yang, T; et al. (July 20, 2015). "'Right to Try' Legislation: Progress or Peril?". Journal of Clinical Oncology. 33 (24): 2597–2599. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.8057. PMID   26195722 . Retrieved January 6, 2021.
  41. ↑ Adriance, S (December 4, 2014). "Fighting for the 'Right to Try' Unapproved Drugs: Law as Persuasion". Yale Law Journal. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  42. ↑ Farber, D; et al. (May 22, 2015). "How State Right-to-Try Laws Create False Expectations". Health Affairs Blog. doi:10.1377/forefront.20150522.047884.
  43. ↑ Zettler, P, Greely, H (December 1, 2014). "The Strange Allure of State 'Right-to-Try' Laws". JAMA Internal Medicine. Retrieved February 19, 2016.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  44. ↑ Gorski, David. "The cruel sham that is right-to-try raises its ugly head at the federal level again". Science-Based Medicine. Archived from the original on 31 May 2018. Retrieved 31 May 2018.
  45. ↑ Bellamy, Jann. ""Right to try" laws create tremendous legal uncertainties; FDA expanded access preferable". Science-Based Medicine . Retrieved 2019-02-27.
  46. 1 2 Hall, Harriet. "Health Freedom, Right to Try, and Informed Consent". Skeptic. Retrieved 26 December 2019.
  47. ↑ Hamblin, James. "The Disingenuousness of 'Right to Try'". The Atlantic. Retrieved August 3, 2019.
  48. ↑ Florko, Nicholas (February 5, 2019). "Prominent 'right-to-try' advocate is getting treatment under the new law". STAT News. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  49. ↑ Florko, Nicholas (January 29, 2019). "A year after Trump touted 'right to try,' patients still aren't getting treatment". STAT News. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  50. ↑ O'Reilly, Andrew (26 June 2019). "Millennial fighting cancer thanks Trump for 'Right to Try' during faith conference appearance". Fox News.
  51. ↑ March, Raymond (24 June 2019). "Right-to-Try Legislation Helps Patient Battling Bone Cancer". FDAReview.org. Independent Institute.
  52. ↑ This is also known as off-label use, which is not uncommon.
  53. ↑ Wan, William (August 25, 2020). "Natalie Harp said Trump saved her life. Experts doubt that's true". The Washington Post . Retrieved July 6, 2024.
  54. 1 2 Pavia, Will (2024-07-06). "Meet Trump's 'human printer' who claims he saved her from dying of cancer". The Times . Archived from the original on 24 May 2024. Retrieved 2024-07-06.
  55. ↑ Snyder, Jeremy (November 15, 2019). "Trump brags that he's helping patients access medical 'miracles.' He isn't". The Washington Post . Retrieved July 6, 2024.
  56. ↑ "Annual Summary Reporting Requirements Under the Right to Try Act". Federal Register. 2020-07-24. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  57. ↑ "Right to Try: A 'well-intentioned' but 'misguided' law". www.healio.com. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  58. ↑ "Relief Therapeutics stock plunges after FDA rejects COVID-19 emergency approval". Reuters. 2020-12-30. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
  59. ↑ "NeuroRx chief lines up Hail Mary for once-rejected Covid-19 drug". Endpoints News. Retrieved 2021-04-19.
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.