CEO Executive AssistantPharma CEO compassionate use expanded access time management involves one of the most ethically and operationally complex obligations in pharmaceutical development. Providing investigational drugs to seriously ill patients who cannot access clinical trials sits at the intersection of scientific responsibility (maintaining the integrity of the clinical evidence program), ethical obligation (responding to patients in urgent need), regulatory compliance (meeting FDA expanded access requirements), and patient advocacy pressure (managing the expectations of patients, families, and advocacy groups who are seeking access to potentially life-saving treatments).
CEOs of companies with promising investigational therapies for serious or life-threatening conditions will receive expanded access requests throughout the clinical development program, often beginning in Phase 1 before substantial safety data is available. Managing these requests well requires a governance framework, explicit policies, and direct CEO involvement in the decisions that cannot be made at the operational level alone.
The Individual Patient IND Framework
The FDA’s individual patient expanded access pathway (commonly called a compassionate use IND or emergency IND) allows a company to provide an investigational drug to a specific patient outside of a clinical trial when the patient has a serious or life-threatening condition, there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy, the potential benefit justifies the potential risks, and the provision of the drug will not interfere with clinical trials.
The individual patient IND process involves: the treating physician submitting an IND application to FDA, obtaining the company’s agreement to provide the drug and any required safety information, FDA authorization (typically within days for emergency cases), and IRB approval at the treating institution. The company’s cooperation is essential because the treating physician cannot administer the drug without both FDA authorization and the company’s agreement to provide it.
The CEO must establish explicit governance for individual patient IND requests because the decisions involved are not routine operational matters. Each request involves: an assessment of whether the patient’s clinical situation meets the criteria for expanded access (serious or life-threatening condition, no adequate alternatives), an assessment of whether the company’s current safety data is sufficient to characterize the risk-benefit profile for this patient, a judgment about whether providing the drug will affect the clinical trial program (enrollment, dose administration, or protocol integrity), and a manufacturing and logistics assessment of whether the company can supply the drug for individual patient use.
Governing Access Program Capacity
The cumulative demand for expanded access across multiple individual patients can create manufacturing capacity constraints that affect both the expanded access program and the ongoing clinical trials. A company manufacturing Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical supply at limited scale may not have the manufacturing capacity to supply both trial patients and an expanded access patient population of significant size.
The CEO must establish an explicit access program capacity policy: how many patients can the company support in expanded access simultaneously, what is the priority framework for allocating limited supply between clinical trial patients and expanded access patients, and at what point does expanded access enrollment need to be paused to protect clinical trial supply.
This capacity governance is the CEO’s decision, not the medical team’s. It involves capital allocation (should the company invest in expanded manufacturing capacity to support a larger expanded access population?), regulatory strategy (FDA’s guidelines on expanded access encourage companies to establish broad access programs but acknowledge supply constraints as a legitimate basis for limiting access), and commercial strategy (companies with commercial competitors for the same indication may face disadvantages if expanded access patients who could be enrolled in trials instead receive commercial competitors after the trial period).
The CEO who leaves access capacity governance to the operations or medical team without explicit executive-level policy will find that the decisions made are inconsistent, create patient advocacy conflicts, and may inadvertently create FDA compliance issues when patients are denied access without adequate documentation of the basis for denial.
Right-to-Try Compliance
The Right to Try Act, enacted in 2018, created an alternative pathway for patients with life-threatening conditions to access investigational drugs outside of FDA’s expanded access framework. Under Right to Try, a manufacturer may (but is not required to) provide an investigational drug to an eligible patient without an individual patient IND if the patient has exhausted approved treatment options, the drug has completed Phase 1 clinical trials, the drug is under active clinical development (an IND is in place), and the manufacturer agrees to provide the drug.
The Right to Try framework has been used less frequently than initially anticipated, partly because many companies have been reluctant to provide drugs under Right to Try (given limited liability protections and concerns about data integrity), and partly because FDA’s expanded access pathway is actually more streamlined than its reputation suggests (FDA approves the vast majority of expanded access applications within days).
The CEO must establish a clear Right to Try policy that is consistent with the company’s expanded access policy, addresses the liability and data integrity concerns associated with Right to Try, and is communicated clearly to the company’s medical affairs and legal teams who will receive Right to Try inquiries.
FDA’s expanded access program guidance provides the comprehensive framework for both individual patient IND and Right to Try pathways that the CEO’s access program governance must address.
Safety Data Collection Requirements for Expanded Access
Patients receiving investigational drugs through expanded access must be monitored for adverse events, and serious adverse events must be reported to FDA under the same expedited reporting timelines that apply to clinical trial adverse events. This pharmacovigilance obligation for expanded access patients is a regulatory compliance requirement that the CEO must ensure is resourced and functioning.
Pharmacovigilance for expanded access patients is operationally more challenging than for clinical trial patients because treating physicians who are managing expanded access patients outside of clinical trials do not have the same reporting infrastructure (research coordinators, safety reporting systems) that clinical trial sites have. The company must work with treating physicians to establish adverse event reporting processes that will produce the safety data required by FDA.
The CEO’s governance of expanded access pharmacovigilance should include: ensuring that expanded access patients are included in the company’s safety monitoring review processes, that the pharmacovigilance team is adequately resourced to manage both clinical trial and expanded access safety reporting, and that the safety database is designed to accommodate expanded access cases as a distinct population that can be analyzed separately from the clinical trial population.
Patient Advocacy Pressure Management
Patient advocacy organizations for serious and life-threatening conditions, particularly rare diseases and conditions with rapidly progressive natural histories, are often the primary source of expanded access requests. Advocacy organizations connect patients with clinical programs, communicate the availability of expanded access to their communities, and sometimes organize coordinated advocacy campaigns when companies decline expanded access requests.
The CEO must invest time in managing patient advocacy relationships around expanded access with transparency and respect. Advocacy organizations that understand the scientific and manufacturing constraints on expanded access, that trust the company is making access decisions in good faith, and that have a direct communication channel with senior company leadership when concerns arise are far more likely to be constructive partners than adversarial critics.
The CEO should not leave patient advocacy communication around access decisions entirely to the corporate affairs or patient relations team. For advocacy organizations with significant influence in the relevant disease community, direct CEO engagement around access policy and specific significant access requests is appropriate and expected.
For broader context on how CEOs manage patient advocacy relationships in rare disease contexts, how rare pediatric disease pharma CEOs manage time covers the patient community engagement framework that informs access program management.
Individual vs. Intermediate vs. Treatment IND Programs
FDA’s expanded access framework includes three distinct program types based on patient population size. Individual patient programs cover single patients or small numbers of patients. Intermediate-size patient population programs cover a larger group, typically when multiple patients have the same condition and the clinical evidence base is sufficient to characterize the risk-benefit profile for that population. Treatment INDs cover large patient populations during the period between completion of successful Phase 3 trials and FDA approval.
The CEO must understand when the company’s expanded access situation warrants escalation from individual patient access to an intermediate or treatment IND program. The decision to open an intermediate-size program is a manufacturing capacity and regulatory strategy decision: it signals to FDA that the company is committed to broad access before approval, which has implications for the approval timeline (FDA may accelerate review for drugs that are broadly accessible through intermediate IND) and for the manufacturing scale-up investment required.
Managing Access Decisions When the Risk-Benefit Profile Is Uncertain
The most challenging expanded access governance situations involve requests for access to drugs that are very early in clinical development, where the safety profile is incompletely characterized, and where the potential benefit for the individual patient must be weighed against uncertain risks.
The CEO must invest time in these difficult cases personally, in consultation with the CMO and the company’s independent safety experts. The decision about whether to provide an investigational drug at Phase 1 with limited safety data to a patient with a life-threatening condition and no alternatives is genuinely difficult: the potential benefit may be real, but the risk of harm from an inadequately characterized drug is also real.
The CEO should not make these decisions alone or informally. They should be governed through a formal access review process that includes medical leadership, regulatory counsel, and ideally an independent ethics review capability, with explicit documentation of the decision and rationale.
Conclusion: Pharma CEO Compassionate Use Expanded Access Time Management as Ethical Leadership
Pharma CEO compassionate use expanded access time management is, at its core, ethical leadership. The governance framework the CEO establishes for expanded access reflects the organization’s values: how it weighs scientific integrity against individual patient need, how it allocates limited manufacturing capacity between trial patients and access patients, and how it engages with patients and advocacy organizations who are navigating the most difficult experiences of their lives.
CEOs who invest direct time in expanded access governance build organizations that make these difficult decisions consistently, transparently, and with the patient’s wellbeing genuinely at the center of the process. That standard of decision-making builds trust with patient communities, advocacy organizations, and FDA that is the foundation of the company’s long-term regulatory and commercial credibility.
Related Reading
For further context, explore Time Management for Animal Health Pharma CEOs and Biologics CEO Time Management: Navigating Manufacturing Complexity.