Advertisement

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

The status of paediatric medicines initiatives around the world—what has happened and what has not?

  • Kalle HoppuEmail author
  • Gabriel Anabwani
  • Facundo Garcia-Bournissen
  • Madlen Gazarian
  • Gregory L. Kearns
  • Hidefumi Nakamura
  • Robert G. Peterson
  • Shalini Sri Ranganathan
  • Saskia N. de Wildt
Review Article

Abstract

Purpose

This review was conducted to examine the current status of paediatric medicines initiatives across the globe.

Methods

The authors made a non-systematic descriptive review of current world situation.

Results

Two regions, the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), and the World Health Organization (WHO) have introduced strong paediatric initiatives to improve children’s health through improving access to better paediatric medicines. The experience from the US initiative indicates that it is possible to stimulate development and study of paediatric medicines and provide important new information for improvement of paediatric therapy. The early results from the EU initiative are similarly encouraging. In Canada, Japan, Australia and other developed countries, specific paediatric medicines initiatives have been less extensive and weaker, with modest results. Disappointingly, current evidence suggests that results from clinical trials outside the US often do not benefit children in the country in which the trials were largely conducted. Pharmaceutical companies that have derived a financial benefit commensurate with the cost of doing the paediatric trials in one country do not seem to be making the results of these trials available to all countries if there is no financial incentive to the company. The WHO campaign ‘make medicines child size’ has produced substantive accomplishments in building improved foundations to improve mechanisms that will enhance children’s access to critical medicines in resource-limited settings. However, practically all of this work has been performed using an amalgamation of short-term funding from a variety of sources as opposed to a sustained, programmatic commitment.

Conclusions

Although much still needs to be done, it’s clear that with concerted efforts and appropriate resources, change is possible but slow. Retaining and fostering public and political interest in paediatric medicines is challenging, but pivotal for success.

Keywords

Biomedical research Legislation Jurisprudence Child Drugs, investigational 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Gita Batmanabane, India, for providing information on the situation in India. Dr Kalle Hoppu and Dr Hidefumi Nakamura are members of the Global Research in Paediatrics (GRIP) consortium which has received research funding from the European Union 7th Framework Program.

References

  1. 1.
    Hoppu K (2008) Paediatric clinical pharmacology: at the beginning of a new era. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 64(2):201–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Assembly (2007) Resolution WHA60.20 ‘Better medicines for children’Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shirkey H (1968) Therapeutic orphans. J Pediatr 72(1):119–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boots I, Sukhai RN, Klein RH, Holl RA, Wit JM, Cohen AF, Burggraaf J (2007) Stimulation programs for pediatric drug research—do children really benefit? Eur J Pediatr 166(8):849–855. doi: 10.1007/s00431-006-0381-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    European Commission (2006) Regulation (EC) no 1901/2006 of the European parliament and of the Council on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) no 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2006). http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2006_1901/reg_2006_1901_en.pdf
  7. 7.
    Dunne J (2007) The European regulation on medicines for paediatric use. Paediatr Respir Rev 8(2):177–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mathis L, Rodriguez W (2009) Drug therapy in pediatrics: a developing field. Dermatol Ther 22(3):257–261. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8019.2009.01239.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benjamin DK Jr, Smith PB, Sun MJ, Murphy MD, Avant D, Mathis L, Rodriguez W, Califf RM, Li JS (2009) Safety and transparency of pediatric drug trials. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 163(12):1080–1086. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.229 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    US FDA Office of Pediatric Therapeutics (2011) Breakdown of FDAAA completed pediatric studies. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/ucm190622.htm. Accessed 20 January 2011
  11. 11.
    Baker-Smith CM, Benjamin DK Jr, Grabowski HG, Reid ED, Mangum B, Goldsmith JV, Murphy MD, Edwards R, Eisenstein EL, Sun J, Califf RM, Li JS (2008) The economic returns of pediatric clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs. Am Heart J 156(4):682–688. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.05.001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Medicines Agency (2010) European Medicines Agency receives 1,000th application for a Paediatric Investigation Plan or Waiver. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2010/10/news_detail_001128.jsp&murl=menus/news_and_events/news_and_events.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1. Accessed 29 November 2010
  13. 13.
    European Medicines Agency (2010) Report to the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/paediatrics/article_50_report2010.pdf. Accessed 19 January 2011
  14. 14.
    Olski TM, Lampus SF, Gherarducci G, Saint Raymond A (2011) Three years of paediatric regulation in the European Union. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 67(3):245–252. doi: 10.1007/s00228-011-0997-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Drug Therapy Committee of the Japan Pediatric Society (2000) Survey of the current state of pediatric drug use in Japan (1994–6). Pediatr Int 42 (1):109–113Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nakamura H, Ozaki M (2010) Facilitation of paediatric research in Japan. In: Rose K, van den Acker JN (eds) Guide to paediatric drug development and clinical research. Karger, Basel, pp 15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Department of Health and Ageing (2008) National medicines policy advisory structures and priorities. http://www.commcarelink.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/nmp-advisory-structure.htm. Accessed 6 December 2010
  18. 18.
    Gazarian M (2009) Delivering better medicines to children: need for better integration between the science, the policy, and the practice. Paediatr Drugs 11(1):41–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Department of Health and Ageing (2008) Paediatric medicines advisory group. http://www.commcarelink.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/nmp-pmag. Accessed 6 December 2010
  20. 20.
    Hoppu K, Sri Ranganathan S, Dodoo ANO (2011) Realities of paediatric pharmacotherapy in the developing world. Arch Dis Child. doi: 10.1136/adc.2009.180000
  21. 21.
    Pan American Health Organization (2010) Network for drug regulatory harmonization website. http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=1156&Itemid=513. Accessed 8 December 2010
  22. 22.
    PANDRH GPC committee (2008) V Pan American conference on drug regulatory harmonization: preliminary report, conclusions and recommendations. http://new.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2009/V-Conf-PANDRH_Draft-Reportr.pdf. Accessed 8 December 2010
  23. 23.
    PANDRH GPC Committee (2008) PANDRH good clinical practices workgroup—draft under discussion—guide for conducting clinical studies in pediatric populations. http://new.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2008/VConferencePANDRH_4_ClinicalPractices.pdf. Accessed 8 December 2010
  24. 24.
    Pan American Health Organization (no year) Guia para realizacion de ensayos clinicos en poblacion pediatrica—borrador en discusion. http://www.anmat.gov.ar/publicaciones/BPC-Investpediatrica.pdf. Accessed 8 December 2010
  25. 25.
    WHO (2007) WHO global campaign: make medicines child size. http://www.who.int/childmedicines/en/index.html. Accessed 7 January 2011
  26. 26.
    World Health Organization (2008) The selection and use of essential medicines. Report of the WHO Expert Committee, October 2007 (including the Model List of Essential Medicines for Children). Technical report series, vol 950. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    World Health Organization (2009) The selection and use of essential medicines. Report of the WHO Expert Committee, 2009 (including the 16th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and the 2nd WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for Children), Technical report series, vol 958. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hill S, Gray A, Weber M (2007) Setting standards for essential children's medicines. Bull World Health Organisation 85(9):650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoppu K, Hogerzeil HV (2011) Global aspects of drug development. In: Seyberth H, Rane A, Schwab M (eds) Handbook of experimental pharmacology, vol 205. Pediatric clinical pharmacology. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    WHO (2010) WHO model formulary for children 2010. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    WHO (2010) Report of WHO second partners meeting on better medicines for children (Geneva, October 2010). http://www.who.int/entity/childmedicines/progress/partners_meeting_2010.pdf. Accessed 7 January 2011
  32. 32.
    WHO (2008) WHO report of the informal expert meeting on dosage forms of medicines for children. http://www.who.int/childmedicines/progress/Dosage_form_reportDEC2008.pdf
  33. 33.
    Ministry of Healthcare and Nutrition and Department of Pharmacology (2006) National list of essential medicines, Sri Lanka, 3rd revisionGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ministry of Healthcare and Nutrition and Department of Pharmacology (2009) National list of essential medicines, Sri Lanka, 4th revisionGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vitiello B (2008) Recent developments and strategies in pediatric pharmacology research in the USA. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 2(1):36. doi: 10.1186/1753-2000-2-36 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    National Institutes of Health (2010) Pediatric trials network. http://bpca.nichd.nih.gov/clinical/network/index.cfm. Accessed 4 December 2010
  37. 37.
    European Medicines Agency (2011) European Network of Paediatric Research at the European Medicines Agency (Enpr-EMA). http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/partners_and_networks/general/general_content_000303.jsp&murl=menus/partners_and_networks/partners_and_networks.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac05801df74a. Accessed 10 January 2011
  38. 38.
    European Medicines Agency (2011) Enpr-EMA membership. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/partners_and_networks/q_and_a/q_and_a_detail_000108.jsp&jsenabled=true. Accessed 10 January 2011
  39. 39.
    Maternal, Infant, Child and Youth Research Network (MICYRN) (2011) Home page. www.micyrn.ca. Accessed 10 January 2011
  40. 40.
    Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (2011) Clinical Trials Action Group (CTAG). http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/PharmaceuticalsandHealthTechnologies/ClinicalTrialsActionGroup/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 19 January 2011
  41. 41.
    US NIH (2010) ClinicalTrials.gov. www.clinicaltrials.gov. Accessed 8 December 2010
  42. 42.
    Pasquali SK, Burstein DS, Benjamin DK Jr, Smith PB, Li JS (2010) Globalization of pediatric research: analysis of clinical trials completed for pediatric exclusivity. Pediatrics 126:e687–e692. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0098 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (2010) Home page. http://www.dndi.org/. Accessed 8 December 2010
  44. 44.
    TDR (2011) Research on neglected priority needs. http://apps.who.int/tdr/svc/research. Accessed 19 January 2011
  45. 45.
    Manikandan S, Jayanthi M, Sivagnanam G (2011) Clinical trials in children: an assessment of the information in the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI). Indira Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute, PondicherryGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    European Commission, DG Enterprise (2004) Extended impact assessment. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/pharmaceuticals/files/paediatrics/docs/extended_impact_assessment_final_3_september_en.pdf. Accessed 19 January 2011
  47. 47.
    Grieve J, Tordoff J, Reith D, Norris P (2005) Effect of the Pediatric Exclusivity Provision on children's access to medicines. Br J Clin Pharmacol 59(6):730–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Roberts R, Rodriguez W, Murphy D, Crescenzi T (2003) Pediatric drug labeling. Improving the safety and efficacy of pediatric therapies. JAMA 290(7):905–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    US FDA (2011) Pediatric exclusivity granted. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/UCM223058. Accessed 20 January 2011
  50. 50.
    Vassal G (2009) Will children with cancer benefit from the new European Paediatric Medicines Regulation? Eur J Cancer 45(9):1535–1546. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.04.008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Leeder JS, Kearns GL, Spielberg SP, van den Anker J (2010) Understanding the relative roles of pharmacogenetics and ontogeny in pediatric drug development and regulatory science. J Clin Pharmacol 50(12):1377–1387. doi: 10.1177/0091270009360533 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yogev R (2005) Balancing the upside and downside of antiretroviral therapy in children. JAMA 293(18):2272–2274. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.18.2272 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Natu SA, Daga SR (2007) Antiretroviral therapy in children: Indian experience. Indian Pediatr 44(5):339–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    O'Brien DP, Sauvageot D, Zachariah R, Humblet P (2006) In resource-limited settings good early outcomes can be achieved in children using adult fixed-dose combination antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 20(15):1955–1960. doi: 10.1097/01.aids.0000247117.66585.ce PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    WHO/UNAIDS/UNICEF (2010) Towards universal access: scaling up priority HIV/AIDS interventions in the health sector. http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/2010progressreport/report/en/index.html%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank. Accessed 15 November 2010

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kalle Hoppu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gabriel Anabwani
    • 2
  • Facundo Garcia-Bournissen
    • 3
  • Madlen Gazarian
    • 4
    • 5
  • Gregory L. Kearns
    • 6
    • 7
  • Hidefumi Nakamura
    • 8
  • Robert G. Peterson
    • 9
  • Shalini Sri Ranganathan
    • 10
  • Saskia N. de Wildt
    • 11
  1. 1.Hospital for Children and Adolescents and Dept. of Clinical PharmacologyUniversity of Helsinki and Poison Information Centre, Helsinki University Central HospitalHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Botswana-Baylor Children’s Clinical Centre of ExcellenceGaboroneBotswana
  3. 3.Buenos Aires Children’s Hospital “R Gutierrez”Buenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.Paediatric Therapeutics Program, School of Women’s and Children’s HealthUniversity of New South Wales and Sydney Children’s Hospital, RandwickSydneyAustralia
  5. 5.School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  6. 6.Departments of Pediatrics and PharmacologyUniversity of MissouriKansas CityUSA
  7. 7.Division of Pediatric Pharmacology and Medical ToxicologyThe Children’s Mercy HospitalKansas CityUSA
  8. 8.Division for Clinical Trials, Clinical Research CenterNational Center for Child Health and DevelopmentTokyoJapan
  9. 9.Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  10. 10.Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of ColomboColomboSri Lanka
  11. 11.Intensive Care and Pediatric SurgeryErasmus MC, Sophia Children’s HospitalRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations