Do Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIPs) Advance Paediatric Healthcare?
- 151 Downloads
Since 2007, new drugs need a paediatric investigation plan (PIP) for EU registration. The PIPs’ justifications can be traced back to concerns expressed by Shirkey that label warnings against paediatric use made children “therapeutic orphans”, and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ claim that all children differ considerably from adults. US legislation first encouraged, then also required, separate, adult-style safety and efficacy studies in all paediatric subpopulations. This triggered paediatric regulatory studies by the pharmaceutical industry. There were also negative outcomes, as a result of using the legal definition of childhood as a medical/physiological term. The “therapeutic orphans” concept became dogma that supported/expanded adult-style regulatory testing into all age groups even when poorly justified in adolescents or where other methods are available to generate needed data. PIPs are especially problematic because they lack the limitations imposed on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) regulatory actions and more practical approaches used in the USA. Many PIP studies are medically senseless or even questionable and/or unfeasible with poor risk/benefit ratios. For example, physiologically mature adolescents have been exposed to treatments and doses known to be suboptimal in adults. Unfeasible PIP studies in rare diseases may harm patients by preventing their participation in more beneficence-driven studies. PIP-required studies can prevent effective treatment of allergic rhinitis during years of placebo treatment, exposing minors to the risk of disease progression to asthma. The PIP system should be revised; more should be done by key players, including institutional review boards/ethics committees, to ensure that all paediatric clinical studies are medically justified, rather than legislation driven, and can produce scientifically valid results.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No actual trials were done or subjects recruited/involved in this Opinion paper. Therefore no IRB/EC review was requested or done.
Conflict of interest
Dr. Rose has worked for 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry in drug development and medical affairs. Independent since 2011, he consults on pediatric drug development, teaches, organizes scientific conferences, edits books, and publishes. His main clients are small, medium-size and large pharmaceutical companies. He is also father of a daughter with a rare disease and is biased against governmental empty promises. Dr. Walson reports potential conflicts with his private consulting company (Walson Consulting LLC) that has provided fee for service consultation to the pharmaceutical industry and contract research organizations as well as to US and EU not-for-profit governmental funded research organizations (e.g., Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, FP7 health projects, and the Innovative Medicines Initiative) and paid participation in numerous conferences devoted to pediatric clinical trials and drug development.
No grants or funds have been involved in the authorship of this article. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest in this work.
- 1.Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 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. Official Journal of the European Union, 27.12.2006, L 378/1 - L 278/19. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2006_1901/reg_2006_1901_en.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 4.Hilts PJ. Protecting America’s health: the FDA, business, and one hundred years of regulation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 2004.Google Scholar
- 5.Kefauver-Harris amendments revolutionized drug development. https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm322856.htm. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 7.American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Drugs. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Pediatrics. 1977;60:91–101.Google Scholar
- 8.Committee on Drugs, American Academy of Pediatrics. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Pediatrics. 1995;95:286–94.Google Scholar
- 18.Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act Of 1997. [[Page 111 STAT. 2296]]. Public Law 105–115. 105th Congress. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ115/pdf/PLAW-105publ115.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 19.FDA 2014. General clinical pharmacology considerations for pediatric studies for drugs and biological products. Guidance for industry. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm425885.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 20.FDA 2016. FDA Update: anti-epileptic drug efficacy in adults can be extrapolated to pediatric patients. http://www.aappublications.org/news/2016/04/06/FDAUpdate040616. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 21.FDA 2017. Avelumab prescribing information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/761049s000lbl.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 22.FDA expands approved use of Kalydeco to treat additional mutations of cystic fibrosis. Laboratory evidence used to support efficacy. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm559212.htm. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 26.EMA 1998. Report on the experts round table on the difficulties related to the use of new medicinal products in children held on 18 December 1997. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2009/09/WC500003759.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 28.EMA 2004. Evidence of harm from off-label or unlicensed medicines in children. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2009/10/WC500004021.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 29.The Belmont Report. Office of the Secretary. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. April 18, 1979. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 30.EMA 2011: EMA Decision CW/1/2011 on a class waiver on condition(s) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2011/12/WC500119981.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 32.BRIM-P. A study of vemurafenib in pediatric patients with stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma harboring BRAFV600 mutations. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01519323. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 33.Phase 2 study of ipilimumab in children and adolescents (12 to <18 years) with previously treated or untreated, unresectable stage III or stage lV malignant melanoma. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01696045. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 34.A study of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in pediatric participants with advanced melanoma or advanced, relapsed, or refractory PD-L1-positive solid tumors or lymphoma (MK-3475-051/KEYNOTE-051). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02332668. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 35.A study to determine safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of oral dabrafenib in children and adolescent subjects. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01677741. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 36.To find a safe dose and show early clinical activity of weekly nab-paclitaxel in pediatric patients with recurrent/refractory solid tumors. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01962103. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 37.A phase I/II, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study of the safety and pharmacokinetics of cobimetinib in pediatric and young adult patients with previously treated solid tumors. http://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2014-004685-25. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 42.European Medicines Agency decision CW-0001-2015 of 23 July 2015 on class waivers in accordance with Regulation EC No 1901-2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2015/07/WC500190385.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 45.10-Year Report to the European Commission. General report on the experience acquired as a result of the application of the Paediatric Regulation. http://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/files/paediatrics/2016_pc_report_2017/ema_10_year_report_for_consultation.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.
- 47.Gonzalez D, Melloni C, Yogev R et al. Use of opportunistic clinical data and a population pharmacokinetic model to support dosing of clindamycin for premature infants to adolescents. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;96(4):429–37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4169790/pdf/nihms609415.pdf.
- 48.Pediatric Trials Network. http://pediatrictrials.org/. Accessed 26 May 2017.