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.

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.

The National Institutes of Health’s Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutes have been created, in part, to have a positive impact on collaboration and team science. This study is the first to examine the associations between a CTSA hub, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR), and investigators’ ego networks. We ran cross-sectional and panel models of the associations between consulting with MICHR and the ego network measure of two-step reach (TSR) – that is, colleagues of colleagues reachable in two steps – from a network of 2161 investigators who had co-submitted a grant proposal to an external sponsor in 2006. Our analyses covered the period 2004–2012, although some model specifications covered the shorter time period 2006–2010. Consulting with MICHR had positive associations with the size of and changes in an investigator’s TSR across and over time, even controlling for research productivity and organizational affiliation. For example, over the period 2006–2010 an investigator who consulted with MICHR reached 44 more individuals than a non-consulting investigator. This study expands our understanding of the indirect impacts that clinical and translational science institutes have on investigators’ scientific networks. This network-based approach might be useful in quantifying the impact of team science initiatives at the university level.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: (1) Assess if the total duration of EEG suppression during a protocolized exposure to general anesthesia predicts cognitive performance in multiple cognitive domains immediately following emergence from anesthesia. (2) Assess if the total duration of EEG suppression in the same individuals predicts the rate of cognitive recovery in a three-hour period following emergence from anesthesia. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This was a non-specified substudy of NCT01911195, a multicenter investigation taking place at the University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, and Washington University in St. Louis. 30 healthy volunteers aged 20-40 years were recruited to receive general anesthesia. Participants in the anesthesia arm were anesthetized for three hours at isoflurane levels compatible with surgery (1.3 MAC). Multichannel sensor nets were used for EEG acquisition during the anesthetic exposure. EEG suppression was detected through automated voltage-thresholded classification of 2-second signal epochs, with concordance assessed across sensors. Following return of responsiveness to verbal commands, participants completed up to three hours of serial cognitive tests assessing executive function, reaction time, cognitive throughput, and working memory. Non-linear mixed effects models will be used to estimate the initial cognitive deficit and the rate of cognitive recovery following anesthetic exposure; these measures of cognitive function will be assessed in relation to total duration of suppression during anesthesia. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Participants displayed wide variability in the total amount of suppression during anesthesia, with a median of 31.2 minutes and range from 0 minutes to 115.2 minutes. Initial analyses suggest that greater duration of burst suppression had a weak relationship with participants’ initial cognitive deficits upon return of responsiveness from anesthesia. Model generation of rate of recovery following anesthetic exposure is pending, but we anticipate this will also have a weak relationship with burst suppression. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: In healthy adults receiving a standardized exposure to anesthesia without surgery, burst suppression appears to be a poor predictor of post-anesthesia cognitive task performance. This suggests that burst suppression may have limited utility as a predictive marker of post-operative cognitive functioning, particularly in young adults without significant illness.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: There is no consensus on what constitutes translational research. To effectively support translation of research into practical settings, universities must determine who is involved, in which disciplines, and what results. In addition, it is unclear whether these researchers would see “translational research” as describing their work. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A survey assessing perceptions, successes, and barriers to the application of research was distributed to faculty, fellows, and graduate students within the University of Michigan. This survey included a question on the definition of translational research. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Investigators of every rank and school participated (n=865), and all schools reported forms of applied research. Over 70% of participants said it was important to use research results beyond academia, and those responses represented diverse successes ranging from product development to artistic endeavors. Common barriers to such as lack of time and funding were also widely experienced. The definitions of translational research were divided between strictly health-oriented or broadly focused application. However, both definitions and familiarity with the term differed by field. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Translation of research is widespread throughout the university, and many would define translational research to include their research discipline. Strategic university policies could benefit society by enhancing translation and application across many disciplines.

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.

Translational research as a discipline has experienced explosive growth over the last decade as evidenced by significant federal investment and the exponential increase in related publications. However, narrow project-focused or process-based measurement approaches have resulted in insufficient techniques to measure the translational progress of institutions or large-scale networks. A shift from traditional industrial engineering approaches to systematic investigation using the techniques of scientometrics and network science will be required to assess the impact of investments in translational research.