Economic Return of Clinical Trials Performed Under the Pediatric Exclusivity Program

Department of Pediatrics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 03/2007; 297(5):480-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.297.5.480
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In 1997, Congress authorized the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant 6-month extensions of marketing rights through the Pediatric Exclusivity Program if industry sponsors complete FDA-requested pediatric trials. The program has been praised for creating incentives for studies in children and has been criticized as a "windfall" to the innovator drug industry. This critique has been a substantial part of congressional debate on the program, which is due to expire in 2007.
To quantify the economic return to industry for completing pediatric exclusivity trials.
A cohort study of programs conducted for pediatric exclusivity. Nine drugs that were granted pediatric exclusivity were selected. From the final study reports submitted to the FDA (2002-2004), key elements of the clinical trial design and study operations were obtained, and the cost of performing each study was estimated and converted into estimates of after-tax cash outflows. Three-year market sales were obtained and converted into estimates of after-tax cash inflows based on 6 months of additional market protection. Net economic return (cash inflows minus outflows) and net return-to-costs ratio (net economic return divided by cash outflows) for each product were then calculated.
Net economic return and net return-to-cost ratio.
The indications studied reflect a broad representation of the program: asthma, tumors, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, hypertension, depression/generalized anxiety disorder, diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux, bacterial infection, and bone mineralization. The distribution of net economic return for 6 months of exclusivity varied substantially among products (net economic return ranged from -$8.9 million to $507.9 million and net return-to-cost ratio ranged from -0.68 to 73.63).
The economic return for pediatric exclusivity is variable. As an incentive to complete much-needed clinical trials in children, pediatric exclusivity can generate lucrative returns or produce more modest returns on investment.


Available from: Eric Eisenstein, Jun 05, 2015
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prior to the implementation of the EU Paediatric Regulation, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) defined unmet paediatric needs for active substances already available on the market. Seven years after the Paediatric Regulation came into force, we investigated the extent to which previously identified needs have led to programmes for generating evidence necessary for the regulatory approval of medicines for managing childhood conditions. The websites of the EMA and the European Commission Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS) were systematically screened to identify active substances from the assessment of paediatric needs, off-patent priority list, agreed Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIP) and 7th Framework Programme (FP7) projects related to paediatric medicines. A total of 357 active substances with paediatric needs were identified by June 2013. 511 PIPs were agreed by the Paediatric Committee at the EMA (PDCO), including 51 (14.3 %) PIPs for a previously identified need. Amongst those, 21 were off-patent at the time of the PIP approval, 15 of which received funding from the European Commission's FP7. According to the assessment of paediatric needs, evidence is particularly needed for active substances treating cardiovascular diseases (n = 61), cancer (n = 40) and in the field of anaesthesiology (n = 38). Whereas oncology drugs (n = 66) were frequently represented in PIPs, drugs for cardiovascular diseases (n = 39) and anaesthesiology (n = 3) rarely were. Most PIPs are attributable to marketing authorisations of new active substances, whereas off-patent drugs which are commonly used off-label remain unstudied to a large extent. More effort including ongoing research funding is essential to further regularise and standardise paediatric pharmacotherapy.
    Paediatric Drugs 07/2014; 16(5). DOI:10.1007/s40272-014-0082-4 · 1.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research in vulnerable populations, especially in minors and in the mentally ill, is becoming an increasing and urgent problem. For example, a large part of phar- maceuticals which is given to minors and adolescents is not licensed for them; whereas in other cases effective pharmaceuticals have not been developed yet (e.g. dementia). Recently, politicians have taken steps to remedy this deplorable state – e.g. by introducing the regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use. The realisation of this regulation, however, is causing a number of ethical, legal and economical problems: It is debated, to begin with, to what extent and on which ethical and legal foundation risky research in vulnerable popula- tions is acceptable at all. In addition, the realisation of clinical studies in smaller groups of patients (infants, minors, adolescents) is complex, time-consuming, and therefore very costly. Thus, the question arises whether the established ways of drug development are appropriate at all for fulfilling societal needs. The present volume is based on the talks given by an international panel of experts covering the fields of paediatrics, psychiatry, pharmacology, ethics, and law dur- ing the conference “Clinical Research in Vulnerable Populations” jointly organ- ised by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, the Klinik für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie/Psychotherapie Universitätsklinikum Ulm and the Europäische Akademie GmbH in Berlin in April 2008.
    1 edited by Felix Thiele; Jörg M Fegert; Günter Stock, 01/2008; Europäische Akademie.