ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026
An Industry Perspective on Compassionate Use in Europe: A Call for Change.
Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptions for patients to receive unauthorised medicines through compassionate use (CU) in Europe vary greatly. There are two CU pathways: cohort programmes, regulated uniformly by the Regulation across EU member states, and individual patient requests (IPRs) governed by the Directive. The latter allows member states to determine their own laws, resulting in heterogeneous regulatory requirements and challenges in operationalization. Consequently, patients may experience delays in accessing CU medicines depending on their country of residence. To compare CU availability across European countries and formulate recommendations for improvement, we analyzed 8,934 patient requests from 30 European countries.
methodsAn exploratory post-hoc analysis was conducted using pooled collaborative data from 8,934 patient requests provided by Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi, tracked from January 1, 2020 to April 30, 2023 across 30 countries. All requests with complete dates for submission, company approval, relevant Ethics Committees or Health Authorities, and shipment dates were included.
resultsWhile internal company CU approval steps were found to be similar with a median approval time of 5 days (median interquartile range (IQR) of 1 (0-6) for cohorts; median IQR 4 (1-8) for IPRs), the time from company approval until shipment varied between cohort requests (median IQR 5 (1-16) days) and IPRs (median IQR 8 (1-22) days). Challenges experienced included differences in the use of CU terminologies, scope, settings, regulatory, and operational requirements.
conclusionOur findings indicate that differing national requirements across Europe lead to operational challenges and inter-country variability in CU implementation posing operational challenges for stakeholders, highlighting the need for improved harmonization.
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.