ArticlePatient preference and adherence2024
A Qualitative Interview Study on Expanded Access Clinical Trials for Compassionate Use in Japan.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in Implementing Revocation of Oncology Drugs Under Conditional Early Approval in Japan: Regulatory Insights From Comparisons With FDA/EMA.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Early access disparities in innovative therapies across the US, EU, China, and Japan.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: An expanded access clinical trials (EACTs) provides exceptional patient access to investigational new drugs for life-threatening diseases for which no effective treatment exists. Based on public information, we have studied EACTs since 2016, when the EACT system was launched in Japan. In this study, we investigated the reality of EACTs by interviewing pharmaceutical companies and clarifying how they view them. Patients and Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 pharmaceutical companies developing new drugs. This study aims to clarify the status of EACTs, so we selected pharmaceutical companies that develop innovative drugs for which they may perform EACTs (however, experience in conducting EACTs was optional). Results: All those surveyed were aware of EACTs. Twelve access clinical trials were conducted, and the EACT implementation rate for pivotal clinical trials was 2.5%. The most common reason for implementing an EACT was "requests from physicians and medical institutions" (nine companies, 90.0%), and the most common reason for not implementing an EACT was "the applicability of the system" (five companies). Improvements to EACTs were identified by eight companies (80.0%); financial assistance by six companies (60.0%); reducing the scope of data to be collected and simplifying the procedure by six companies (60.0%). Seven companies (70.0%) responded that a Single Patient Investigational New Drug Application should be conducted, suggesting that the system should be revised. Conclusion: An interview survey of ten pharmaceutical companies developing new drugs in Japan regarding expanded access clinical trials indicated that there were issues with the system. Many wished to improve the system by establishing a single patient access system, supporting resources, and simplifying procedures. Based on our interviews with 10 Japanese pharmaceutical companies, it was found that the system needed to be improved by introducing a single patient access system, providing supporting resources, and simplifying procedures. In Japan, about eight years have passed since EACT was established, and it appears a revision of the EACT legislation is due.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.