A Review of Trials for Unsuccessful Pediatric Drug Development Programs Submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration 2015-2022.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Sherbet Samuels, Mark Seaton, Susan M Abdel-Rahman, Gilbert J Burckart
{"title":"A Review of Trials for Unsuccessful Pediatric Drug Development Programs Submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration 2015-2022.","authors":"Sherbet Samuels, Mark Seaton, Susan M Abdel-Rahman, Gilbert J Burckart","doi":"10.1007/s43441-025-00864-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Legislative initiatives have spurred an increase in pediatric drug development programs. However, some drug products studied in the pediatric population have not received an approved pediatric indication, and efforts have been made to improve the outcomes of a greater percentage of pediatric trials.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This analysis evaluated the rate of failure and the factors associated with those unsuccessful outcomes of recent pediatric drug development programs in comparison to earlier pediatric drug development programs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Publicly available information for non-oncology pediatric drug development programs submitted to the FDA between 2015 and 2022 were reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FDA reviews and drug product labeling for 211 drug products were examined. Of these, 32 (32/211, 15%) drug products for which pediatric trials were conducted did not receive an approved pediatric indication. The reasons for these unsuccessful outcomes were failure to demonstrate effectiveness only (18/32, 56%), failure to demonstrate safety only (7/32, 22%), or failure to demonstrate both effectiveness and safety (7/32, 22%). The psychiatry (8/32, 25%) and pain (5/32, 17%) therapeutic areas had the highest number of drug products that did not receive a pediatric indication.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings from this review suggest that, although this represents an improvement from pre-2012 pediatric drug development programs, that basic problems are still encountered in pediatric trial designs and dose selection. The 15% failure rate may represent close to a best-case scenario for pediatric drug development presently, but an increased use of pediatric extrapolation could change that.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-025-00864-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Legislative initiatives have spurred an increase in pediatric drug development programs. However, some drug products studied in the pediatric population have not received an approved pediatric indication, and efforts have been made to improve the outcomes of a greater percentage of pediatric trials.

Objective: This analysis evaluated the rate of failure and the factors associated with those unsuccessful outcomes of recent pediatric drug development programs in comparison to earlier pediatric drug development programs.

Methods: Publicly available information for non-oncology pediatric drug development programs submitted to the FDA between 2015 and 2022 were reviewed.

Results: FDA reviews and drug product labeling for 211 drug products were examined. Of these, 32 (32/211, 15%) drug products for which pediatric trials were conducted did not receive an approved pediatric indication. The reasons for these unsuccessful outcomes were failure to demonstrate effectiveness only (18/32, 56%), failure to demonstrate safety only (7/32, 22%), or failure to demonstrate both effectiveness and safety (7/32, 22%). The psychiatry (8/32, 25%) and pain (5/32, 17%) therapeutic areas had the highest number of drug products that did not receive a pediatric indication.

Conclusion: The findings from this review suggest that, although this represents an improvement from pre-2012 pediatric drug development programs, that basic problems are still encountered in pediatric trial designs and dose selection. The 15% failure rate may represent close to a best-case scenario for pediatric drug development presently, but an increased use of pediatric extrapolation could change that.

2015-2022年向美国食品和药物管理局提交的不成功儿科药物开发项目试验综述
背景:立法举措刺激了儿科药物开发项目的增加。然而,一些在儿科人群中研究的药物尚未获得批准的儿科适应症,并且已经努力改善更大比例的儿科试验的结果。目的:本分析评估了与早期儿科药物开发项目相比,近期儿科药物开发项目的失败率以及与不成功结果相关的因素。方法:回顾2015年至2022年间提交给FDA的非肿瘤儿科药物开发项目的公开信息。结果:共审查了211种药品的FDA审评和药品标签。其中,32种(32/211,15%)进行了儿科试验的药品没有获得批准的儿科适应症。这些不成功的结果的原因是未能证明有效性(18/ 32,56 %),未能证明安全性(7/ 32,22 %)或未能证明有效性和安全性(7/ 32,22 %)。精神病学(8/ 32,25%)和疼痛(5/ 32,17%)治疗领域未获得儿科指征的药品数量最多。结论:本综述的研究结果表明,尽管与2012年前的儿科药物开发项目相比,这一进展有所改善,但在儿科试验设计和剂量选择方面仍存在基本问题。15%的失败率可能接近目前儿科药物开发的最佳情况,但儿科外推法的使用增加可能会改变这一情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信