OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The FDA allows physicians to request clinical use of investigational drugs, biologics, and devices for patients with no satisfactory treatment options through a pathway called Expanded Access (EA). TEAMSS (Transforming Expanded Access to Maximize Support and Study) sought to examine single-patient cases to better characterize these patients. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We prospectively collected data on requests for single-patient EA at any one of the four collaborating TEAMSS institutions (Duke University, University of Rochester, University of Michigan, and University of Texas Southwestern) between September 1, 2021 and February 28, 2023. Regulatory and health records were reviewed for past cases that occurred between June 1, 2018 and August 31, 2021. Descriptive statistics were performed on data from the submission process, the patient demographics, the indication for treatment, and patient health status over time. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The patient population was representative with respect to the largest racial groups (69.3% White / 13.0% Black or African American) and legal sex (51.3% male / 48.7% female). All ages were represented, with overrepresentation of those 60-70 years old (16.8%) and under 10 (14.8%). Patients were most often treated for infectious diseases (44.2%) or oncologic conditions (39.0%). Those who received more than one dose stayed on treatment for 76 days (median) and up to 1427 days (maximum). At the end of study, 53.9% had completed treatment as planned, moved to commercial product, or continued treatment. Death, disease progression, or failure to respond occurred for 31.9% of patients. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The population that receives Expanded access treatments is heterogeneous in both demographics and medical conditions. Some successful treatments are continued for years. Many patients complete their treatment, and a minority experience death or disease progression during treatment.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Physicians can request the clinical use of investigational products for their patients through an FDA pathway called Expanded Access (EA). Most evaluations of EA focus on the FDA submission only. We sought to evaluate these requests through the full academic medical center process. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Through the Transforming Expanded Access to Maximize Support and Study grant, we reviewed regulatory records for single-patient EA requests at four institutions (Duke University, University of Rochester, University of Michigan, and University of Texas Southwestern) which occurred between June 1, 2021 and February 28, 2023. Key data was collected, including the investigational product requested, submission and approval dates, urgency of request, and indication for treatment. Descriptive statistics were performed with Microsoft Excel. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 405 EA requests were identified, of which 319 (78.8%) were for drugs, 59 (14.6%) for biologics, and 27 (6.7%) for medical devices. The majority were characterized as non-emergency (60.7%), but the proportion of emergency to non-emergency cases varied considerably when stratified by year, with a peak in emergency cases in 2020. The most common products included therapies for COVID-19 and Mpox. Median time to obtain all approvals for treatment was 7 days for emergency cases and 28 days for non-emergency. The FDA review took the least time, with a median of 1 day in non-emergency cases. Full board approval from an institutional review board in non-emergency cases was 7 days. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: These results generally align with previous reports on EA submissions received by the FDA. The timelines for the EA process represent an important benchmark both for treatment planning and institutional improvement.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Lack of diversity within clinical trials is well known, but there is little data on the use of investigational products through other pathways, such as expanded access. This project sought to determine the demographic diversity of patients benefiting from expanded access at Michigan Medicine. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Previous quality improvement reviews provided the list of 271 patients for whom a single-patient, expanded access request had been approved by the FDA and University of Michigan IRBMED between 2005 and 2021. Demographic information was collected through the EMERSE tool, including age, legal sex, race, ethnicity, and zip code. These data were cross-referenced with available regulatory documentation on product requested, treatment area, and date of request. Descriptive statistics were performed using Excel. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Patients who were approved to use an investigational product through expanded access at Michigan Medicine showed a wide geographic distribution, including 48 Michigan counties, 20 states, and 1 province. All age groups were served, with those between 30-49 underrepresented and those under 10 and over 60 overrepresented. Race data generally followed the proportions of the Michigan state census, including 76% white and 14% black or African American (expected: 79% and 14%) and 48% female (expected: 50%). On further breakdown, populations differed by specialty and county. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The distribution of Michigan Medicine patients with approved expanded access requests was similar to the population of Michigan with respect to age, sex, and race. Further research is needed to determine if this reflects equitable use or if these results are generalizable to other institutions.

Expanded access (EA) provides a pathway for the clinical use of investigational products (drugs, biologics, and medical devices) for patients who are without satisfactory therapeutic options and for whom a clinical trial is not available. Academic medical centers (AMCs) are likely to encounter EA requests, but it is unknown what support is available at these institutions for physicians seeking EA for patients. Methods: A landscape assessment was conducted at AMCs, focused on those within the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium. Results: Forty-seven responses were evaluated including 42 CTSA hubs. The large majority (43 of 47 respondents) reported using single-patient EA, while 37 reported multi-patient industry sponsored EA and 37 reported multi-patient investigator-initiated EA. Only half reported central tracking of EA requests. Support was available at 89% of sites for single-patient EA but less often for multi-patient EA. Types of support varied and were focused largely on the initial submission to the FDA. Conclusion: Use of and support for EA is widespread at AMCs, with support focused on single-patient requests. Gaps in support are common for activities after initial submission, such as FDA reporting and data collection.

Retrospective case studies of initiatives supported by the National Institutes of Health’s Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs can be used to identify facilitators and barriers of translational science. This case study investigates how a CTSA Expanded Access program adapted to changing FDA guidance issued in 2020 to support clinicians’ treatment of COVID-19 patients in Michigan. We studied how this program changed throughout the pandemic to support physicians’ requests for remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and other uses of unapproved drugs and novel medical devices. A protocol for retrospective translational science case studies of health interventions developed by CTSA evaluators was used for this case study. Data collection methods included seven interviews and a review of institutional data, peer-reviewed publications, news stories, and other public records. The barriers identified include evolving guidance, misalignment of organizational operations, and the complexity of the research infrastructure. The facilitators of translation include collaboration between research and care teams, increasing engagement with a broad network of supporters, and ongoing professional development for research staff. The findings of this case study can be used to inform future investigations of the principles underlying the translational process.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Expanded Access is an avenue for patients with no available treatment options to access investigational drugs and devices for clinical therapy. This process requires physicians treating these patients to submit requests to the FDA and the local IRB, processes which are typically unfamiliar to clinicians. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: With the goal of reducing burden and ensuring access to investigational products, Michigan Medicine established the Expanded Access Oversight Committee in January 2015. This committee brought together key stakeholders to develop appropriate policy and infrastructure to support these requests. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Outcomes from this committee have resulted in a uniform process with a single point of entry for interested physicians and patients. With standardized policy implemented across the institution, a revised IRB application has been developed that is more tailored to Expanded Access and an informed consent document has been developed specific to the clinical use of investigational therapies. To ensure timely execution of these agreements, the contracts office has streamlined the process for negotiating Expanded Access agreements with manufacturing companies. Further development has begun with the Michigan Clinical Research Unit to provide space for clinical visits in Expanded Access cases, allowing for initiation of outpatient therapy. These changes have allowed Michigan Medicine to support triple the number of Expanded Access requests, including more than 45 Expanded Access requests in fiscal year 2018. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Institutional support for Expanded Access requests within a large academic medical center is feasible and can increase access to investigational therapies bfor patients.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To describe how Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR) has engaged communities in its leadership and governance structure. This presentation will describe these practices, how they are being evaluated, and future plans for institute-wide engagement of communities in translational research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Engaged partners from various communities across Michigan in various ways within MICHR’s Community Engagement Program. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: MICHR has utilized participatory practices in the development of the CAB to strengthen existing relationships and build new ones with potential partners. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: MICHR-wide Community Advisory Board (CAB) will ensure community voices are heard and utilized in leadership and strategic decisions for CTSA activities.

The Antarctic Roadmap Challenges (ARC) project identified critical requirements to deliver high priority Antarctic research in the 21st century. The ARC project addressed the challenges of enabling technologies, facilitating access, providing logistics and infrastructure, and capitalizing on international co-operation. Technological requirements include: i) innovative automated in situ observing systems, sensors and interoperable platforms (including power demands), ii) realistic and holistic numerical models, iii) enhanced remote sensing and sensors, iv) expanded sample collection and retrieval technologies, and v) greater cyber-infrastructure to process ‘big data’ collection, transmission and analyses while promoting data accessibility. These technologies must be widely available, performance and reliability must be improved and technologies used elsewhere must be applied to the Antarctic. Considerable Antarctic research is field-based, making access to vital geographical targets essential. Future research will require continent- and ocean-wide environmentally responsible access to coastal and interior Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Year-round access is indispensable. The cost of future Antarctic science is great but there are opportunities for all to participate commensurate with national resources, expertise and interests. The scope of future Antarctic research will necessitate enhanced and inventive interdisciplinary and international collaborations. The full promise of Antarctic science will only be realized if nations act together.