Pediatric research: Coming of age in the new millennium

American Journal of Therapeutics

Volumn 6, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 263-282

  Milne, Christopher Paul ^a  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Economics of drug development; FDA final pediatric rule; FDAMA; Market exclusivity; Pediatric research capacity; Pediatric studies initiative

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG LABELING; DRUG SAFETY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEDIATRICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0032878337     PISSN: 10752765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00045391-199909000-00006     Document Type: Article

References (117)

1. Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. Pub Law 105-115 (1997 Nov 21); 21 USC 355a; 111 Stat 2296.
2. Regulations requiring manufacturers to assess the safety and effectiveness of new drugs and biological products in pediatric patients. Fed Reg 1998;63:66632.
3. Shirkey H: Therapeutic orphans. J Pediatr 1968;72:119-20.
4. Hutt PB: The FDA and regulation. Presented at Postgraduate Course in Clinical Pharmacology, Drug Development, and Regulation, Boston, February 24, 1998.
5. Wells TG: Underserved therapeutic classes: examples which should not be ignored in infants and children. Drug Inf J 1996;30:1179.
6. Roberts R, Maldonado S: FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) pediatric plan and new regulations. Drug Inf J 1996;30:1126.
7. Institute of Medicine: Report of a Workshop: Drug Development and the Pediatric Population. Forum on Drug Development, Division of Health Sciences Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, DC; 1991.
8. Pharmaceutical R&D Costs, Risks and Rewards. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA-H-522). US GPO, Washington, DC, 1993.
9. Pediatric patients: regulations requiring manufacturers to assess the safety and effectiveness of new drugs and biological products; proposed rule. Fed Reg 1997;62: 43899.
10. Specific requirements on content and format of labeling for human prescription drugs: revision of "pediatric use" subsection in the labeling. Fed Reg 1994;56:64240.
11. Wechsler J: Pediatric drug development set for take-off. Appl Clin Trials 1998;7:20.
12. Pear R: Proposal to test drugs in children meets resistance: ethical concerns raised. New York Times 1997 Nov 30:1,28.
13. Food and Drug Administration Modernization and Accountability Act of 1997, Senate Report 105-43, to accompany S830, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 105th Congress, 1st Session.
14. FDA's paediatric list causes concern. Scrip 1998;#2340:20.
15. Congressional Budget Office: How Increased Competition From Generic Drugs Has Affected Prices and Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry. US GPO, Washington, DC, 1998.
16. Guidance for Industry: Qualifying for Pediatric Exclusivity Under Section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), US Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, 1998.
17. Mathieu M: New Drug Development: A Regulatory Overview - 4th rev ed. PAREXEL, Waltham, MA, 1997.
18. Process for handling pediatric exclusivity. In: Manual of Policies and Procedures (MAPP), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, 1998.
19. List of approved drugs for which additional pediatric information may produce health benefits in the pediatric population, May 20, 1998. Docket No. 98N-0056. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, 1998.
20. Survey of the pharmaceutical industry: the alchemists. Economist 346:3-18.
21. Westmoreland T: Public meeting on FDA's proposed regulation to increase pediatric use information for drugs and biologicals, Monday, October 27, 1997, Washington, DC:66. (transcript). http://www/fda/ gov/cder/meeting/transcript/1027pedi.html.
22. Antibiotic, pediatric labeling market exclusivity provisions included in House FDA reform draft bill; extension for pediatric trials is not excessive - Hatch. Pink Sheet 1997;59:6-7.
23. Waxman/Hatch already undermined. Scrip 1998; #2310:17.
24. FDAMA 'a big loss' to generics, which need help. Pharma Marketletter 1998;25:12-13.
25. Wilson J: Public meeting on FDA's proposed regulation to increase pediatric use information for drugs and biologicals, Monday, October 27, 1997, Washington, DC:73. (transcript). http://www/fda/gov/cder/ meeting/transcript/1027pedi.html.
26. DeLaurentis S: Public meeting on FDA's proposed regulation to increase pediatric use information for drugs and biologicals, Monday, October 27, 1997, Washington, DC:11. (transcript). http://www/fda/ gov/cder/meeting/transcript/1027pedi.html.
27. Nahata M: Pediatric formulations: a rate-limiting step. Presented at Pediatric Drug Development: Successes and New Solutions, Drug Information Association, Arlington, VA, April 20-21, 1998.
28. Kauffman RE: Drug trials in children: ethical, legal, and practical issues. J Clin Pharmacol 1994;34:296-299.
29. Sponsors send mixed message to CROs. Center Watch 1998;5:1.
30. Hill T, Hubbard J: Is outsourcing clinicel trials really more expensive? Scrip Magazine 1996;#44:19-20.
31. Hill T: Calculating the costs of clinical research. Scrip Magazine 1994;#22:28-30.
32. Myshko D: The little patient. R&D Directions 1997;3: 20-26.
33. PAREXEL's Pharmaceutical R&D Statistical Source-book 1998. PAREXEL, Waltham, MA, 1998.
34. Sponsors send mixed message to CROs. CenterWatch 1998;5:1.
35. BIO Editors' and Reporters' Guide to Biotechnology, 1998-1999. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Washington, DC, 1998.
36. FDA reform must keep pace with drug research technology, Glaxo exec says. Pink Sheet 1998;60:14.
37. Market shares shift in US sales rankings. Scrip 1998; #2314:14.
38. Schweitzer S: Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy. Oxford University Press, New York, 1997.
39. Clemente E: Public meeting on FDA's proposed regulation to increase pediatric use information for drugs and biologicals, Monday, October 27, 1997, Washington, DC:46. (transcript). http://www/fda/gov/cder/ meeting/transcript/1027pedi.html.
40. Tilson H: Public meeting on FDA's proposed regulation to increase pediatric use information for drugs and biologicals, Monday, October 27, 1997, Washington, DC:56. (transcript). http://www/fde/gov/cder/ meeting/transcript/1027pedi.html.
41. FDA mandatory pediatric labeling rule would apply to first indication for NMEs, marketed products with wide use or important benefits for children. Pink Sheet 1997;59:7.
42. Pediatric subgroup data may be added after exclusivity filing-AAPS. Pink Sheet 1998;60:12.
43. Spielberg SP: Public meeting on FDA's proposed regulation to increase pediatric use information for drugs and biologicals, Monday, October 27, 1997, Washington, DC:32-33. (transcript). http://www/fda/gov/ cder/meeting/transcript/1027pedi.html.
44. Wechsler J: Promoting pediatric and other new uses. App Clin Trials 1998;7:20.
45. Kaitin K, Manocchia M: The new drug approvals of 1993, 1994, and 1995: trends in drug development. Am J Ther 1997;4:46-54.
46. DiMasi J, Manocchia M: Initiatives to speed new drug development and regulatory review: the impact of FDA-sponsored conferences. Drug Inf J 1997;31:771-788.
47. Cochetto D, Jones D: Faster access to drugs for serious or life-threatening illnesses through use of the accelerated approval regulation in the United States. Drug Inf J 1998;32:27-35.
48. Getz K: Strategic sourcing: we're not there yet. Appl Clin Trials 1998;7:40.
49. Pharmaceutical R&D return on investment has fallen 4-5% since Waxman/Hatch - CBO draft report: reduction in approval time worth more than patent extension. Pink Sheet 1998;60:4.
50. FDAMA implementation to be complete within a few years, FDA's Schultz says: agency fears that FDAMA workload will hinder ability to do other tasks. Pink Sheet 1998;60:7.
51. Food/Drug Law Institute education conference. Pharma Marketletter 1998;25:16-7.
52. Shalala DE: PDUFA reauthorization performance goals and procedures. Letter to Honorable James M. Jeffords. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, 1997.
53. Wilson JT, Kearns GL, Murphy D, Yaffe SJ: Paediatric labeling requirements: implications for pharmacokinetic studies. Clin Pharmacokinet 1994;26:312.
54. McCarver DG: Public meeting on FDA's proposed regulation to increase pediatric use information for drugs and biologicals, Monday, October 27, 1997, Washington DC:30-32. (transcript). http://www/fda/ gov/cder/meeting/transcript/1027pedi.html.
55. Pediatric clinical trial length poses one problem for industry in development of data for pediatric labeling, particularly for neonates and infants, PhRMA says. Pink Sheet 1997;59:7.
56. Gilman JT: Therapeutic drug monitoring in the neonate and paediatric age group: problems and clinical pharmacokinetic implications. Clin Pharmacokinet 1990;19:1-10.
57. Kauffman RE, Kearns GL: Pharmacokinetic studies in paediatric patients: clinical and ethical considerations. Clin Pharmacokinet 1992;23:10-29.
58. Rieder MJ: Immunopharmacology and adverse drug reactions. J Clin Pharmacol 1993;33:316-323.
59. Scala SM, Sanderson IC, Waugh JA: Pharmaceutical industry pulse: big caps and top mid/small caps look great in '98. Cowen Perspectives 1998;Jan:82.
60. Pediatric pharmacokinetic guidance awaiting policy cmte. sign-off. Pink Sheet 1998;60:25.
61. PhRMA members spend $5.3 bil. on extramural R&D in 1997, survey finds. Pink Sheet 1998;60:13.
62. Hodgson J, Marshall A: Pharmacogenomics: will the regulators approve? Nat Biotechnol 1998;16:243-244.
63. Wilson JT: Strategies for pediatric drug evaluation: a view from the trenches. Drug Inf J 1996;30:1149-1162.
64. Rieder MJ, Koren G, MacLeod SM: Paediatric clinical pharmacology and the health of the world's children. Dev Pharmacol Ther 1990;14:201-204.
65. Woosley R: Opportunities in Phase IV to improve drug development. Food Drug Law J 1997;52:186-188.
66. McKee M, Mossialos E: The impact of managed care on clinical research. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;14:19-25.
67. A child is not just a miniature adult: Pediatric Pharmacology Research Unit Network. U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. NICHD, Bethesda, MD, 1998.
68. NIH policy and guidelines on the inclusion of children as participants in research involving human subjects. In: NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 1998.
69. Nation's first pediatric clinical research trial organization created at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 1998.
70. Rogers LC, Cocchetto DM: Labeling prescription drugs for pediatric use in the United States. Appl Clin Trials 1997;6:50-56.
71. Sonnenreich P: All ethical pharmaceuticals in the United States. In: Medical and Healthcare Marketplace Guide 1997-98, 13th ed. Dorland's Directories, Philadelphia, 1997.
72. Keim K: Clinical trials for drug development in pediatric and adolescent patients: potential roles for CROs and SMOs. Presented at Pediatric Drug Development: Successes and New Solutions, Drug Information Association, Arlington VA, April 20-21, 1998.
73. Patricelli JS, Maboney PG: Pharmaceutical outsourcing industry: equity capital markets report. Dain Rauscher Wessels, Minneapolis, MN, 1998.
74. Approved drug products to which FDA has issued a written request for pediatric studies under section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1998. http://www.fda.gov/ cder/pediatric/wrlist.htm.
75. Botstein P: Pediatric regulatory initiatives: clinical considerations: ethical considerations, extrapolating from adult data. Presented at Drug Information Association Thirty Fourth Annual Meeting, Boston, June 10, 1998.
76. Lind SE: Finder's fees for research subjects. N Engl J Med 1990;323:192-195.
77. USA must invest in clinical research. Lancet 1998;351: 535.
78. Nelson AF, Quiter ES, Solberg LI: The state of research within managed care plans: 1997 survey. Health Affairs 1998;17:128-138.
79. Brushwood DB: The pharmacist's duty under OBRA-90 standards. J Legal Med 1997;18:475-450.
80. Coté CJ, Kauffman RE, Troendle GJ, Lambert GH: Is the "therapeutic orphan" about to be adopted? Pediatrics 1996;98:118-123.
81. Hilts PJ: Psychiatric researchers under fire. New York Times 1998 May 19;C1, C5.
82. Institutional review boards: their role in reviewing approved research. (OEI-01-97-00190) Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Boston, 1998.
83. Pear R: Study finds risks to patients in drug trials: Inspector General calls supervision by review boards inadequate. New York Times 1998 May 30:A9.
84. Usdin S: Inspector General Report: IRBs can't cope. BioCentury 1998;6:A1-A2.
85. Clinical trial recruitment ads may cause misperceptions - HHS IG report. Pink Sheet 1998;60:29.
86. Kuhlik BN, Kingham RF: The adverse effects of standardless punitive damage awards on pharmaceutical development and availability. Food Drug Cosmetic Law 1990;45:693-708.
87. Blute JG, Basham SM: Product liability claims arising out of new drug clinical trials. J BioLaw Business 1998; 1:18-28.
88. Gauthier M, Quintero SY: Clinical trial computer simulation: applications in drug development and biotechnology. J BioLaw Business 1998;1:97-100.
89. Wechsler J: Promoting pediatric and other new uses. App Clin Trials 1998;7:18.
90. MacLeod SM: Clinical pharmacology and optimal therapeutics in developing countries: aspirations and hopes of the Pediatric Clinical Pharmacology Subcommittee. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44(suppl 2):89S-93S.
91. Joint explanatory statement of the Committee of Conference: legislative history. Conference Report No. 105-399. Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act. Public Law 105-115 (1997Nov 21); USCAAN 111 Stat: 2882-4.
92. Citizen's petitions to list pediatric drugs will receive expedited review. Pink Sheet 1998;60:23.
93. Engel S: Risky business. R&D Directions 1998 May/ Jun;4:3.
94. Sylvestri MF: Water under the bridge: postmarketing concerns as related to pediatric populations. Drug Inf J 1996;30:1163.
95. US group petitions FDA in "inaccurate" patient info. Scrip 1998;#2346:14.
96. Schmickel D. Securities law reform intensifies. BIO News 1998 May:4,9.
97. Orphan drug designation process could be "template" for fast track. Pink Sheet 1998;60:T&G-3-T&G-5.
98. Amman AJ: Public meeting on FDA's proposed regulation to increase pediatric use information for drugs and biologicals, Monday, October 27, 1997, Washington DC:45. (transcript). http://www/fda/gov/cder/ meeting/transcript/1027pedi.html.
99. Alexander D: NIH responds to the challenge: the PPRU network. Presented at Pediatric Drug Development: Successes and New Solutions, Drug Information Association, Arlington, VA, April 20-21, 1998.
100. Investigational new drug applications and new drug applications. Federal Register 1998 Feb 11;63(28):6854.
101. Industry views US FDA pediatric study plan. Pharma Marketletter 1998;25:13.
102. Pharmaceutical policy project: a framework for research and evaluation into the effects of managed care on the pharmaceutical marketplace: final report. Prepared by Wilford BB, Novich M. Georg 2 Washington University, Washington, DC, 1997.
103. Health insurance coverage leads to increased health care access for children. (GAO/HEHS-98-14) US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. 1997.
104. Wechsler J: Studies for kids, drugs for seniors. Appl Clin Trials 1997;6:22.
105. Astrue MJ: Federal and state reimbursement for biotechnology products. In: Biotech '98. (Eds. Jones RL, Lytton ME, et al), Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. (MCLE), Massachusetts Bar Association, Boston Bar Association, Boston, 1998, pp 207-208.
106. Herstek J: Prescription mandates. State Health Notes 1998;275:7.
107. Homer L: Medicare reimbursement issues affecting new biotechnology. In: Biotech '98 (Eds. Jones RL, Lytton ME, et al), Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. (MCLE), Massachusetts Bar Association, Boston Bar Association, Boston, 1998, p 176
108. Klink B: Utah Medicaid DUR program proves effective cost-saver. Drug Topics 1998;142:54.
109. Flynn JE, Clark FS, Derby ML: Pharmaceuticals: a new age of discovery technology and consumer information. Furman Selz, New York, 1997.
110. "Trade-offs" common in pediatric formulations, incentives suggested - AAPS. Pink Sheet 1998;8; 60:11.
111. Geriatric study incentives modeled on pediatric patent extensions suggested. Pink Sheet 1998;60:11.
112. Fishbein JM, Grignolo A, Lund M: Domestic and multinational clinical trials: issues in design, implementation, and management for biotechnology research and product development. J BioLaw Business 1998;1:6-17.
113. Blatt R, Malinowski MJ: Clinical trials: the intersection between research and medicine. J BioLaw Business 1998;1:3-5.
114. Dominguez-Urban I: Harmonization in the regulation of pharmaceutical research and human rights: the need to think globally. Cornell Intl Law J 1997;30:245-286.
115. Showalter J: International Conference on Harmonization: how the United States Food and Drug Administration will proceed. J BioLaw Business 1998;1:90-91.
116. Murray P: Comments. Food and Drug Administration Modernization and Accountability Act of 1997, Senate Report 105-43, to accompany S830, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 105th Congress, 1st Session, 1997.
117. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Pediatric Pharmacology Research Unit Network. http://www-ppru.ucsd.edu/.