ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2026
Factors influencing pharmaceutical companies' decisions to pursue compassionate use programs in the EU: a qualitative study in The Netherlands.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 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
Background: Access to unauthorized medicines in the EU is legally restricted, except in certain cases such as clinical trials, magistral preparations, hospital exemptions, and early access programs, including compassionate use programs (CUPs) and named patient use (NPU). CUPs, regulated under Article 83 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, are intended for a group of patients with an unmet medical need. Despite this EU-wide regulation, the implementation of CUPs varies among member states, and the factors driving pharmaceutical companies to pursue them are poorly understood. Methods: This study conducted semi-structured interviews with pharmaceutical companies that had applied for CUPs in the Netherlands, as well as those with potentially eligible medicines that had not pursued CUPs. The interviews explored the decision-making processes and factors influencing CUP applications. Transcripts were analyzed using Atlas.ti software, with coding categories derived from the interview guide and emerging themes. Results: Ten interviews were conducted. Factors influencing CUP applications were classified into four categories: regulatory, medical, operational, and financial. Regulatory factors included recommendations from the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate (IGJ) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), concerns about post-marketing authorization uncertainties, and timelines for CUP approval. Medical factors involved unmet medical needs, patient numbers, and the alignment of CUP indications with authorized indications. Operational factors included prior experience with CUPs, supply availability, and the appeal of NPU due to faster approval times. Financial factors centered on reimbursement expectations and decisions by company headquarters on the free provision of medicines. Conclusion: The decision to pursue CUPs is influenced by multiple factors, with regulatory uncertainties and operational complexities playing significant roles. Improving clarity concerning CUP regulations, particularly data collection and the post-marketing phase, could encourage more pharmaceutical companies to apply for CUPs, which would provide patients with earlier access to potentially promising treatments.
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.