Safety and Transparency of Pediatric Drug Trials

Department of Pediatrics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
JAMA Pediatrics (Impact Factor: 5.73). 12/2009; 163(12):1080-6. DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.229
Source: PubMed


To quantify the frequency and type of new safety information arising from studies performed under the auspices of the Pediatric Exclusivity Program, to describe the dissemination of these findings in the peer-reviewed literature and compare this with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review, and to describe their effect on pediatric labeling.
Cohort study of the 365 trials performed for 153 drugs.
The Pediatric Exclusivity incentive from December 1997 through September 2007.
Food and Drug Administration publicly available records and peer-reviewed literature retrievable by MEDLINE search. Main Exposures New safety findings obtained from the trials completed for exclusivity.
Concordance of the information highlighted in the peer-reviewed article abstracts with the information in the FDA labeling and drug reviews.
There were 137 labeling changes; we evaluated 129 of these (the 8 selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were excluded from review). Thirty-three products (26%) had pediatric safety information added to the labeling. Of these, 12 products had neuropsychiatric safety findings and 21 had other important safety findings. Only 16 of 33 of these trials (48%) were reported in the peer-reviewed literature; however, 7 of 16 focused on findings substantively different from those highlighted in the FDA reviews and labeling changes.
Medication adverse events in children often differ from those in adults, particularly those that are neuropsychiatric in nature. Labeling changes for pediatric use demonstrate that pediatric drug studies provide valuable and unique safety data that can guide the use of these drugs in children. Unfortunately, most of these articles are not published, and almost half of the published articles focus their attention away from the crucial safety data.

Download full-text


Available from: William Rodriguez,
  • Source
    • "Practitioners may not realize they need to watch for such updates [10]. Metabolic drug effects specific to children and adolescents may be first identified years after a drug is on the market [11] because the metabolic effects in children tend to manifest beyond the timeframe of clinical trials. Disseminating drug safety information may be additionally complicated by practice patterns. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Medications necessary for disease management can simultaneously contribute to weight gain, especially in children. Patients with preexisting obesity are more susceptible to medication-related weight gain. How equipped are primary care practitioners at identifying and potentially reducing medication-related weight gain? To inform this question germane to public health we sought to identify potential gaps in clinician knowledge related to metabolic adverse drug effects of weight gain. Methods: The study analyzed practitioner responses to the pre-activity questions of six continuing medical education (CME) activities from May 2009 through August 2010. Results: The 20,705 consecutive, self-selected respondents indicated varied levels of familiarity with adverse metabolic effects and psychiatric indications of atypical antipsychotics. Correct responses were lower than predicted for drug indications pertaining to autism (-17% predicted); drug effects on insulin resistance (-62% predicted); chronic disease risk in mental illness (-34% predicted); and drug safety research (-40% predicted). Pediatrician knowledge scores were similar to other primary care practitioners. Conclusions: Clinicians' knowledge of medication-related weight gain may lead them to overestimate the benefits of a drug in relation to its metabolic risks. The knowledge base of pediatricians appears comparable to their counterparts in adult medicine, even though metabolic drug effects in children have only become prevalent recently.
    Nutrition Journal 04/2013; 12(1):44. DOI:10.1186/1475-2891-12-44 · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The consequences of major depression disorder (MDD) in youths are likely to be devastating for both the patient and his/her family. Thus, this review analyzes systematically the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs (ADDs) in managing such patients. Medical literature reporting primary data on use of ADDs in children and adolescents was identified through searches (1966-January 2010) of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and The Cochrane Library databases. Additional studies were manually identified from the reference lists of published articles. Search terms (variously combined) were: children, childhood, adolescents, adolescence, MDD, mood/affective disorders, depression, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) SSRIs, Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), noradrenergic/specific serotoninergic antidepressants (NaSSA). A separate search was conducted to complete the profile of effectiveness of each single antidepressant agent. 43 peer-reviewed articles met the inclusion criteria. Reviewed information does not definitively support the use of antidepressants in children younger than 10 years old. In contrast, robust information suggests that fluoxetine should be considered as first-line agent in depressed adolescents whose clinical conditions require psychopharmacological approach. Depressed children should be primarily approached with non-pharmacological interventions that should include the evaluation of potential parental psychiatric disorders. In adolescents with MDD, the decision to use fluoxetine should be associated with specific social and health protocols focused to reinforce self-esteem, improve the quality of relationships with parents and peers, facilitate healthy life-style changes, and identify the potential onset/worsening of suicidality.
    Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials 01/2010; 5(1):63-75. DOI:10.2174/157488710790820517 · 1.07 Impact Factor

  • The Journal for Nurse Practitioners 04/2010; 6(4):300-301. DOI:10.1016/j.nurpra.2010.02.017
Show more