Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 19
1
Introduction
I
n the late 1990s, the federal government enacted policies to expand
the study of drugs in children and thereby to begin to correct a serious
deficit in the data on drug safety and efficacy for young patients. In one
case, it offered marketplace incentives for the completion of pediatric drug
studies. In the other case, it required such studies in specific situations. The
objectives of these policies were to expand information for clinicians who
prescribe drugs to children and, as a consequence, to improve pediatric
clinical care and child health outcomes. These policies—in their current
form, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA; which provides the
incentives) and the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA; which provides
the requirements)—are the focus of this report from a committee of the
Institute of Medicine (IOM).
BPCA and PREA are implemented by the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration (FDA), which must approve new drugs before they can be legally
marketed in the United States. Drugs that have been approved and labeled
on the basis of the results of studies conducted with adults may be legally
prescribed by health care professionals (as part of the practice of medi-
cine) for children.1 Clinicians who treat young patients often have had to
prescribe medications without specific, scientific information on their safe
and effective use by children of different ages and sizes. This “off-label”
prescribing may be guided by the personal experience as well as the accu-
mulated experience of clinicians. This experience may be published in the
1Manufacturers may not promote and are limited in their ability to disseminate information
about product uses for which they have not obtained FDA approval.
19
OCR for page 20
20 SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN
medical literature as case series reports or codified in consensus guidelines.
Although recent years have seen increasing emphasis on evidence-based
practice guidelines, neither guideline developers nor practitioners can use
evidence that does not exist or is not public. The use of medications by chil-
dren without guidance from pediatric studies of safety and efficacy raises
ethical issues that underscore the importance of such studies. In some cases,
high-quality clinical trials sponsored by government agencies or nonprofit
groups are available but are not reflected in product labeling.
In the years preceding the adoption of BPCA and PREA and their pre-
decessor policies, several analyses documented the lack of information on
the safety and efficacy of FDA-approved medications that are prescribed
for children. Table 1-1 summarizes several of these.
The frustration of many clinicians with the lack of pediatric prescribing
information was expressed decades ago in a 1968 editorial in the Journal
of Pediatrics that referred to children as “therapeutic orphans” (Shirkey,
1968). This oft-used description of children appeared years later in the
Senate report (Senate Report 105-43, 1997) that accompanied the Food
and Drug Administration Modernization and Accountability Act of 1997
(FDAMA; PL 105-115). FDAMA first established the incentives for pediat-
ric research, which were reauthorized in 2002 and 2007. The 1997 Senate
report also stated that less than 20 percent of prescription medications
available in the United States were labeled for pediatric use.
For drugs that may be used by children as well as adults, evidence from
pediatric studies is important for several reasons (see, e.g., IOM, 2000,
TABLE 1-1 Historical Data on Drugs Without Adequate Labeling for
Pediatric Use
Year Extent of Pediatric Drug Labeling
1973 78% of drugs listed in the Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) lacked sufficient
pediatric drug labeling
1984-1989 80% of new molecular entities (NMEs) approved by FDA lacked pediatric
drug labeling
1991 81% of drugs in PDR had disclaimers or age restrictions
1991 44% of NMEs with potential pediatric usefulness had no pediatric labeling
when approved
1992 79% of NMEs were not approved for potential pediatric use
1991-1994 71% of NMEs lacked pediatric drug labeling
1996 37% of NMEs with potential pediatric usefulness had some pediatric labeling
when approved
SOURCE: Adapted from Wilson (1999), with additional information from FDA (1998).
OCR for page 21
21
INTRODUCTION
2008; Kearns et al., 2003, Reed and Gal, 2004; Ward and Lugo, 2005;
Rakhmanina and van den Anker, 2009). These include the need to
1. understand age- and development-related variations in the way that
the body affects a drug (pharmacokinetics, including absorption,
distribution, metabolism, and excretion);
2. identify age- and development-related variations in how a drug
affects the body (pharmacodynamics);
3. develop evidence about age- and development-related variations
in a drug’s short- and long-term benefits and harms (efficacy and
safety); and
4. provide the basis for creating developmentally suitable formula-
tions of a drug (e.g., an oral solution for a toddler who cannot
swallow a pill or capsule).
Several factors, notably economic disincentives, explain the historical
shortage of pediatric drug studies and the need for BPCA and PREA (see,
e.g., IOM, 2000, 2008; Milne, 2009). Children, who account for approxi-
mately 25 percent of the nation’s population, are usually healthy (FIFCFS,
2009). They provide a far smaller market for most medications than do
adults, especially older adults. Even for the common childhood condition
of asthma, individuals age 18 years or older account for 75 percent of those
with the condition (Akinbami, 2006). Drug studies with adults thus typi-
cally offer companies a better economic return on their research investment
than do pediatric studies. Even when pediatric studies result in positive find-
ings and labeling of a drug for pediatric use, companies may not recover
the costs of the research.
Moreover, the study of a drug in children may be more challenging than
the study of the same drug in adults. Recruitment of a sufficient number of
children may require more study sites. That difficulty is multiplied to the
extent that studies need to include sufficient numbers of children in differ-
ent age groups to support credible conclusions about safety, efficacy, and
dosing across the developmental spectrum. Although pediatric studies may
include a smaller total number of participants, sponsors still incur many of
the same fixed research costs that they do for larger adult studies.
Even with multiple sites, pediatric studies sometimes cannot be com-
pleted because investigators are unable to secure an acceptable sample size
in a reasonable period of time. Also, if FDA is requesting or requiring stud-
ies of several drugs in the same class or for the same condition, companies
may be competing with each other for the same pool of potential child
research participants. In addition, as noted above, once a drug is approved
for use by adults, clinicians can legally prescribe it for children. This avail-
OCR for page 22
22 SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN
ability may discourage physicians and parents from enrolling children in
a trial of the drug. Companies thus benefit from sales of the drug without
the necessity of conducting studies to demonstrate the safety and efficacy
of pediatric use.
Beyond limited numbers, companies and investigators may encounter
other problems of practicality or feasibility. Young children may lack the
developmental maturity to cooperate with certain research procedures or
measurements. For children too young to reliably swallow existing tablet
or capsule forms, a new formulation may be required, and development of
such a formulation adds time and costs to pediatric studies.
Ethical considerations also complicate pediatric research. Reflecting
concerns that date back to the 1960s and before, the federal government
in 1983 added special protections for children to federal regulations on the
BOX 1-1
Knowledge Contributed by Pediatric Drug
Studies Conducted Under BPCA and PREA
Pediatric studies support safety and efficacy
Insulin glulisine (Apidra), a recombinant, rapid-acting human insulin analog, was
approved in 2004 for treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus in adults, with a re-
quirement for a study with children ages 5 to 17 years (Meyer, 2004). In 2008, on
the basis of the findings of one previously submitted pharmacokinetic/pharmaco-
dynamic study and one new safety and efficacy study, FDA approved use of the
product by children ages 4 to 17 years, the period of peak onset for this disease
(Gabry and Joffe, 2008).
Safe and effective dosing in children differs from expectations for youngest children
Gabapentin (Neurontin) was first approved in 1993. FDA requested studies under
BPCA in 1999, and the drug was approved in 2000 as adjunctive treatment of
partial seizures in children ages 3 years and older (Katz, 2000). Based on staff
analyses of pharmacokinetic data, FDA concluded that children under 5 years
of age required higher than anticipated doses (Feeney, 2000). Findings from the
study for the 3- to 12-year-old age group also led to a warning on the product’s
label about adverse neuropsychiatric events, such as concentration problems,
hostility, and hyperactivity.
Drug affects growth and development
Pegylated interferon alfa 2b (PegIntron) in combination with ribavirin (Rebetol)
was approved in June 2008 for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infec-
tion in patients ages 18 years or older, with deferral of PREA-required studies
for children ages 3 years or older. In December 2008, after the required studies
OCR for page 23
23
INTRODUCTION
ethical conduct of human research (45 CFR 46, Subpart D; see also IOM,
2004). For example, parents normally must give their permission for their
child’s participation in research. As discussed further in Chapter 4, certain
studies that are required to support approval of a drug for adult use—no-
tably, early studies with healthy individuals to understand a drug’s pharma-
cokinetics—may be unethical to undertake with healthy children and also
impermissible under federal regulations, except under limited conditions.
Notwithstanding these complexities, the study of drugs in children is
essential because children’s growth and development affect their responses
to medicines. Fortunately, public officials, investigators, and manufactur-
ers have demonstrated a commitment to expanding research on the safety
and efficacy of drugs in children. Such research has contributed important
information to guide the prescribing of drugs for children (Box 1-1).
were submitted, FDA approved labeling for use by that age group. The clinical
review noted that “growth inhibition and hypothyroidism were two notable adverse
reactions” and that they were being further evaluated in a 5-year follow-up study
(Crewalk, 2008, p. 4). The review also noted that these adverse reactions pre-
sented less risk than the risk of untreated hepatitis C. The revised label included
warnings about the impact of pediatric use on growth of the child.
Studies support different dosing calculation
Nevirapine (Viramune), which was first approved in 1996, was approved in 1998
for treatment of HIV infection in children ages 2 months of age to 16 years, with
additional information submitted in 2002. The 2002 approval letter specified re-
quired studies to determine dosing for younger groups. The information submitted
by the sponsor in 2007 provided for dosing down to age 15 days and also provided
data to support calculation of pediatric dosing based on body surface area rather
than weight (Belew, 2008).
Risk-benefit assessment does not support pediatric use
Omalizumab (Xolair) was approved in 2003 for treatment of moderate to severe
persistent asthma in individuals 12 years of age or older. Although this approval
occurred during a period when pediatric study requirements were not in effect,
FDA encouraged further pediatric studies and noted that pending legislation might
require such studies (Risso, 2003). The sponsor submitted studies for the 6-to-11
age group in 2008. After the data were reviewed by FDA staff and considered
in a meeting of the joint Pulmonary-Allergy, Pediatric, and Drug Safety and Risk
Management Advisory Committee, the product’s labeling was revised to include
the statement “Considering the risk of anaphylaxis and malignancy seen in Xolair-
treated patients ≥12 years old and the modest efficacy of Xolair in the pivotal
pediatric study, the risk-benefit assessment does not support the use of Xolair in
patients 6 to <12 years of age” (Starke, 2009; Genentech, 2010b).
OCR for page 24
24 SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN
STUDY ORIGINS AND OVERVIEW
Charge to the Committee
In late 2009, FDA approached the IOM about an examination of
pediatric studies of drugs and biologics conducted under the provisions of
BPCA and PREA (and their predecessor policies). This examination was
called for in the 2007 reauthorizations of these policies as part of the Food
and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA; PL 110-85).
While planning for the study was under way, Congress passed the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) in March 2010, which
included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. That legisla-
tion changed the study specifications related to biologic products, and the
FDA altered the Statement of Task accordingly. The tasks for the study
committee appointed by the IOM were
1. Review and assess a representative sample of written requests is-
sued by the Secretary [of the U.S. Department of Health and Hu-
man Services] and studies conducted under BPCA since 1997 and
labeling changes made as a result of such studies.
2. Review and assess a representative sample of studies conducted
since 1997 under PREA or precursor regulations, and labeling
changes made as a result of such studies.
3. Using a representative sample of written requests issued by the Sec-
retary and studies conducted under BPCA since 1997 and studies
conducted since 1997 under PREA or precursor regulations, review
and assess (a) the use of extrapolation for pediatric subpopulations;
(b) the use of alternative endpoints for pediatric populations; (c)
neonatal assessment tools; and (d) ethical issues in pediatric clinical
trials.
4. Using a representative sample of studies conducted since 1997 un-
der PREA or precursor regulations, review and assess the number
and type of pediatric adverse events.
5. Review and assess the number and importance of biological prod-
ucts for children that are being tested as a result of the amendments
made by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of
2009 [passed in 2010] and the importance for children, health care
providers, parents, and others of labeling changes made as a result
of such testing.
6. Review and assess the number, importance, and prioritization of
any biological products that are not being tested for pediatric use.
OCR for page 25
25
INTRODUCTION
7. Offer recommendations for ensuring pediatric testing of biological
products, including consideration of any incentives, such as those
provided under section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos-
metic Act or section 351(m) of the Public Health Service Act.
Unlike many other IOM committees, this committee was not asked to
make recommendations except with respect to recently enacted policies to
provide incentives for pediatric studies of biologics. This report does, how-
ever, include conclusions and suggestions or options for consideration by
Congress and FDA. The report is written for a diverse audience, including
not only policy makers but also companies that develop pharmaceutical and
biologic products subject to the incentives and requirements of BPCA and
PREA, researchers who study drugs and biologics in pediatric populations,
professional societies and child health advocacy groups that promote pedi-
atric research, and others interested in better information to guide clinical
care for children.
For the most part, the committee examined studies intended to sup-
port initial labeling of a drug or biologic for use in pediatric age groups as
approved by FDA. It did not investigate policies and activities to monitor
the safety and effectiveness of products after they have been approved for
pediatric use. The committee did, however, consult the postapproval (1-
year) safety reviews that FDA’s Pediatric Advisory Committee is required to
conduct following a labeling change under BPCA or PREA. Such monitor-
ing is important because the use of approved products in real-world clinical
practice may reveal safety problems or shortfalls in effectiveness that are
not evident in the relatively short-term controlled studies that FDA typically
requires to support product approvals.
The absence of information about pediatric use or pediatric studies in
the labeling of a medication does not mean that there have been no well-
controlled studies of a drug’s safety or efficacy. The committee could not,
however, systematically evaluate either the extent of off-label use of medica-
tions with children or the extent to which there are controlled studies (other
than those reflected in product labeling) to support or contradict such use
for specific drugs and indications.
FDA did not ask the IOM to assess the impact of BPCA and PREA on
clinical practice or child health, for example, the extent to which off-label
use of a product decreased following labeling changes that described studies
with negative safety or efficacy findings. The study committee recognizes
that clinical practice is not always consistent with scientific evidence and
also that many other factors such as nutrition and environmental hazards
affect the health and well-being of children.
OCR for page 26
26 SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN
Overview of Conclusions
In the course of its work, the committee reached several conclusions
that are discussed in later chapters. Summarized, the conclusions are as
follows:
• Pediatric studies conducted under BPCA and PREA are yield-
ing important information to guide clinical care for children. The
yield varies by medical condition, type of product, and age group.
The information from pediatric studies sometimes supports and
sometimes challenges expectations and assumptions about the ef-
ficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of drugs in children of different
ages. The timely conduct of studies with children can discourage
potentially unsafe off-label use of drugs approved for adults and
encourage the timely incorporation of safe and effective drugs into
pediatric care.
• Some studies requested under BPCA or required under PREA do
not achieve their full potential. Reasons vary and may include the
inability of sponsors to recruit sufficient numbers of children, the
use of weak study designs and underpowered samples, the lack of
dose-ranging studies to guide efficacy trials, and the omission of
relevant study information from product labeling. More careful
specification of requested and required studies combined with ad-
vances in the science of clinical trials would increase the likelihood
that studies will provide uniformly high-quality information for
clinicians who care for children.
• More timely planning, initiation, and completion of pediatric stud-
ies would benefit children. European requirements for the submis-
sion of plans for pediatric studies apply somewhat early in the drug
development process, whereas U.S. requirements apply later than
is needed for access to credible safety and efficacy data for adults
that are sufficient to support the planning and initiation of pediat-
ric studies. Delays in sponsor completion of some studies required
under PREA is also a concern.
• Pediatric drug studies remain particularly limited in certain areas,
including the use of medications with neonates and the long-term
safety and effectiveness of medications used for all pediatric age
groups. The lack of information about the long-term safety of
drugs is a general concern, but it is a special worry for developing
children. Questions about long-term safety exist both for drugs
that may be used for decades for chronic conditions and for drugs
for which relatively short-term use may have adverse consequences
OCR for page 27
27
INTRODUCTION
on a child’s development months or years later. Many drugs com-
monly used to treat premature and sick neonates are older drugs
that have not been adequately evaluated in studies with this vulner-
able age group.
• Congress has significantly expanded professional and public ac-
cess to information from pediatric studies conducted under BPCA
and PREA and has thereby enhanced the value of these studies.
Although the addition of information to product labeling is im-
portant, other valuable information is included in FDA clinical and
clinical pharmacology reviews of the pediatric studies submitted to
support a labeling change. Access to such information from studies
associated with labeling changes prior to September 2007 remains
limited, especially for studies conducted under PREA.
• The reauthorization processes for BPCA and PREA have improved
the policies in both acts, but the short term of reauthorizations cre-
ates uncertainties for industry and for FDA. Since 1997, Congress
has strengthened the application of expertise in pediatrics to the
development of requests and requirements for pediatric studies
and to the review of submitted studies. It has directed the inclu-
sion of information from pediatric studies in product labeling in
most cases and required a follow-up assessment of safety informa-
tion from the first year following a pediatric labeling change. At
the same time, frequent reauthorizations of the policies—every 5
years—create uncertainties for sponsors, given the long lead time
for planning, conducting, analyzing, and submitting studies, and
they may discourage FDA from developing final and updated guid-
ance on BPCA and PREA.
• Pediatric studies of biologics conducted under PREA have gener-
ated valuable information. The 2010 expansion of BPCA to cover
biologics has the potential to expand knowledge further, but it is
too early to assess its effects. Almost 90 percent of biologics inves-
tigated by the committee are labeled for use with children or have
been the subject of some study with children. Most of the remain-
ing products were approved for indications that are not diagnosed
or very rarely diagnosed in children. Given the applicability to
biologics of long-standing policies such as the 1984 Orphan Drug
Act and PREA and the broad range of existing pediatric research
on biologics, BPCA may have a valuable but more modest effect
in encouraging studies of biologics than was the case for small-
molecule drugs.
OCR for page 28
28 SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN
Report Structure
The rest of this chapter provides historical context and defines key
terms. In this and subsequent chapters, unless otherwise indicated, refer-
ences to studies conducted under BPCA and PREA also encompass studies
undertaken as result of predecessor policies (e.g., the 1998 Pediatric Rule)
that are described below. Chapter 2 briefly reviews how children’s develop-
ment affects their response to drugs and discusses ways in which pediatric
drug research must take children’s growth and development into account.
Chapter 3 describes key features of BPCA and PREA in the broader context
of U.S. regulatory policies to ensure drug safety and efficacy. Public policy
is also the focus of Chapter 4, which discusses policies for the protection
of human research participants, including special protections for children.
This chapter also describes some of the ethical issues that the committee
encountered in its assessments of studies conducted under BPCA and PREA
(Task 3d).
Chapter 5 examines elements of safety and efficacy determinations in
studies conducted under BPCA and PREA. It considers FDA conclusions
about the safety profile of a drug or biologic based on judgments about the
source and importance of adverse events reported by study sponsors (Task
4). It also considers the use of alternative endpoints and extrapolation in
determinations about efficacy (Tasks 3a and 3b). Chapter 6 discusses the
complexities of assessing the safety and efficacy of drugs in neonates and
describes the relatively small number of BPCA- and PREA-related labeling
changes for this age group (Task 3c). Chapter 7 builds on the preceding
chapters to consider the types and outcomes of studies conducted under
BPCA and PREA and the information added (or not added) to product
labeling as a result of these studies (Tasks 1 and 2). Chapter 8 looks at
incentives and requirements for pediatric studies of biologics and identifies
and discusses the small number of biologics that have not been evaluated
in studies with children (Tasks 5, 6, and 7).
Appendix A describes committee activities and explains the methods
the committee used to select the representative sample referred to in the
Statement of Task. Appendix B discusses the dissemination of informa-
tion from FDA-approved drug labeling to professionals through various
intermediary resources. Appendix C presents additional information about
the use of biologics in pediatric populations, and Appendix D summarizes
data on pediatric labeling and pediatric studies of nearly 100 biologics that
were approved by FDA between 1997 and 2010. Appendix E summarizes
changes in the specifications of written requests for pediatric studies of
drugs for hypertension. Appendix F provides brief biographies of committee
members and project staff.
OCR for page 29
29
INTRODUCTION
EVOLUTION OF POLICIES TO PROMOTE PEDIATRIC
STUDIES OF DRUGS AND BIOLOGICS
Harm to Children as a Spur to Regulation of Drug Safety and Efficacy
FDA, the agency responsible for administering BPCA and PREA, owes
its existence and modern responsibilities, in some measure, to public reac-
tion to the injuries, illnesses, and deaths of children that were caused by un-
safe and unregulated medical products. For example, the federal regulation
of vaccines and other biologics dates to the Biologics Control Act of 1902
(PL 57-244), a year after more than a dozen children died from tainted
diphtheria antitoxin and other children died from contaminated smallpox
vaccine (Junod, 2002). The law assigned responsibility for regulation of
vaccines and antitoxins to the Hygenic Laboratory (which eventually be-
came the National Institutes of Health [NIH]) (NIH, 2011b). Four years
later, in 1906, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drugs Act (PL 59-384).
It set certain standards for the labeling and lawful interstate transport of
drugs and created the foundation for what later became the FDA. Although
drugs could be removed from the market under the law, the law did not
require drug testing or government approval.
The deaths in 1937 of more than 30 children from a product called
Elixir Sulfanilamide contributed to the passage of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic (FDC) Act of 1938 (PL 75-540). Ironically, the development
of this deadly product resulted from the manufacturer’s effort to create
a form of the drug—an early antimicrobial—that was suitable for young
children and others who could not swallow pills (Ballentine, 1981; Wax,
1995). The formulation, which was tested for palatability and appearance
but not safety, unfortunately included diethylene glycol, a toxic substance
found in antifreeze. Among other provisions, the FDC Act required govern-
ment approval of new drugs prior to marketing on the basis of evidence of
safety and also required that drug labels include information on how to use
the products safely. It did not require evidence of efficacy.
Further legislation came after women who took the drug thalidomide
in the 1950s and early 1960s gave birth to thousands of children with limb
and other deformities. An FDA medical officer is credited with keeping the
drug off the market in the United States, and the tragedy itself is credited
with mobilizing support for passage of the Kefauver-Harris Amendments to
the FDC Act (PL 87-781) (Kuehn, 2010). These 1962 amendments required
that FDA approval of drugs be based on evidence not only of safety but also
of efficacy as demonstrated in well-controlled clinical trials.
Yet another tragedy—deaths and permanent paralysis linked to a con-
taminated polio vaccine—prompted a strengthening of the oversight of
biologics and the creation in 1955 of an independent Division of Biolog-
OCR for page 32
32 SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN
a 6-year period between 1991 and 1996, drug sponsors promised to com-
plete 71 postmarketing pediatric studies. Only 11 were completed” (FDA,
2001b, p. 8).3 In 1998, to justify new regulations, the agency made this
case:
The response to the 1994 rule has not substantially addressed the lack
of adequate pediatric use information for marketed drugs and biological
products. Pediatric labeling supplements were submitted for approximately
430 drugs and biologics, a small fraction of the thousands of prescription
drug and biological products on the market. Of the supplements submit-
ted, approximately 75 percent did not significantly improve pediatric
use information. Over half of the total supplements submitted simply
requested the addition of the statement “Safety and effectiveness in pedi-
atric patients have not been established.” (63 FR 66631) (emphasis added)
Policies to Promote Pediatric Drug Research, 1997 to 2010
The response to the limited effects of previous efforts to encourage
pediatric drug studies and increase pediatric drug labeling was twofold.
One response involved the creation through legislation of incentives for
pediatric drug studies; the other relied on the creation through regulations
of requirements for such studies. The discussion below briefly summarizes
the policies; Chapter 3 provides more details.
Incentives for Pediatric Studies and Pediatric Exclusivity: FDAMA and
BPCA
Among many other provisions, FDAMA provided companies with
market protections—pediatric exclusivity—when they undertook pediatric
studies of a drug in response to formal written requests from FDA. As
passed in 1997, the relevant section of the law was not entitled “Best Phar-
maceuticals for Children,” although it incorporated proposed legislation
that had been first introduced in 1992 under the title “Better Pharmaceuti-
cals for Children” (AAP, 2008).
Pediatric exclusivity extends for 6 months beyond any existing period
of exclusivity and patent protection, which means that products that have
no remaining patent life or exclusivity are usually not eligible for the ex-
clusivity incentive. Exclusivity applies to all forms of a company’s drug
that contain the same active moiety (in essence, the active ingredient in the
3 In November 1996, the agency sent letters to 250 manufacturers asking if and when they
intended to file applications; by December 30, it had received 40 responses. In addition, it
received a request from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America that the
compliance date be extended because “some companies with large numbers of products had
encountered unexpected problems in gathering the required information” (61 FR 68623).
OCR for page 33
33
INTRODUCTION
drug). For a drug with a lucrative market in adults, this incentive can be
significant, producing net economic returns in the hundreds of millions of
dollars (see, e.g., Li et al., 2007; Baker-Smith et al., 2008).
Congress reauthorized the exclusivity provisions of the 1997 legislation
in BPCA of 2002 (PL 107-109) and again in 2007 as part of FDAAA. BPCA
is once more up for reauthorization by October 1, 2012.
FDA issued guidance for industry on pediatric exclusivity in 1998 and
subsequently revised the guidance in 1999 (CDER/CBER, 1999a). That
guidance has not been updated or reissued to reflect subsequent legislative
changes in 2002 and 2003. For companies considering or planning studies
under BPCA, FDA will advise about current requirements and expectations.
Requirements for Pediatric Studies
The same year that Congress created the pediatric exclusivity incentive
for pediatric drug studies, FDA on its own initiative proposed regulations—
the Pediatric Rule—that required companies to undertake pediatric studies
of drugs and biologics under certain conditions. It issued the revised, final
regulations in 1998 with an effective date of April 1, 1999 (63 FR 66631;
21 CFR 314.55(a) and 601.27(a)). Except when FDA waived or deferred
its application, the rule required that the submission of a drug or biologics
marketing application contain a pediatric assessment if the submissions
involved a new active ingredient, indication, drug form, dosing regimen, or
route of administration. The FDA issued draft guidance on the application
of the Pediatric Rule in November 2000 (FDA, 2000).
In December 2000, groups opposing the regulations filed suit claiming
that FDA exceeded its authority in issuing them. In 2002, a U.S. district
court agreed and enjoined their enforcement (Association of Am. Physicians
& Surgeons, Inc. v. FDA, 226 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D.D.C. 2002)). Supporters
of the regulations went to Congress, which codified the key features of the
Pediatric Rule in the PREA of 2003 (PL 108-155). In 2005, FDA published
draft guidance for industry on compliance with PREA (70 FR 53233). That
guidance has not been updated or made final.4
Like BPCA, PREA was reauthorized in 2007 as part of FDAAA. It, too,
is due for reauthorization by October 1, 2012.
4 Early in 2012, FDA announced plans to issue a new guidance document, Pediatric Stud-
ies: How to Comply with the Pediatric Research Equity Act, Title IV of the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDA, 2012).
OCR for page 34
34 SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN
PREA Compared with and in Conjunction with BPCA
Following the precedent of the Pediatric Rule, PREA applies not only
to drugs but also to biologics and, under certain circumstances, to generic
products. The incentives established by BPCA did not extend to biolog-
ics until the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of
2010 (see Chapter 8). Under PREA, FDA can require pediatric studies only
for the indications specified in an application for FDA approval, whereas
requests under BPCA can cover studies for other indications, including
indications that were approved before the adoption of either policy. Drugs
with designation under the Orphan Drug Act are exempt under PREA but
can be the subject of written requests.
The incentives of BPCA and the requirements for PREA can operate in
tandem for the same product and sponsor. That is, FDA can require pedi-
atric studies and also request them to give an incentive for the companies
to conduct the required studies in a timely fashion. Congress has made the
BPCA and PREA more consistent in certain respects over the years, par-
ticularly with respect to public access to information developed through
requested or required pediatric studies.
As described further in Chapter 7, from July 1998 through October
2011, FDA approved more than 425 labeling changes associated with stud-
ies requested under BPCA or required under PREA. More than 380 of these
changes involved the submission of information from new pediatric studies.
During the same time period, FDA
• issued more than 330 written requests under BPCA, nearly half of
them in the first 2 years of the program;
• approved 145 labeling changes related solely to such requests and
granted exclusivity to 174 active moieties;
• approved at least 179 labeling changes related solely to PREA
requirements;
• approved 49 labeling changes related to both BPCA requests and
PREA requirements; and
• made public clinical and other reviews associated with 139 labeling
changes (since September 2007).
Other Activities and Policies at FDA
FDA supports other policies and initiatives not directly related to BPCA
or PREA that may encourage the study of drugs in children. As discussed
in Chapter 8, the Orphan Drug Act has promoted the study and approval
of drugs for rare diseases, many of which affect children. Products with
OCR for page 35
35
INTRODUCTION
orphan drug designations are exempt from PREA requirements, but many
orphan drugs are approved for pediatric use.
In addition, through its initiative on unapproved drugs, the agency
has sought to get sponsors of such drugs, generally older products, to
provide information sufficient to support their approval, including for use
by relevant pediatric populations (FDA, 2006a). After announcing in 2007
that sponsors of three previously unapproved pancreatic enzyme products
had until April 2010 to secure agency approval, FDA approved the three
products by that date (FDA, 2010d). All are labeled for the treatment of
exocrine pancreatic insufficiency due to cystic fibrosis or other conditions
in all pediatric age groups.
National Institutes of Health
NIH supports pediatric clinical research on a wide range of specific
diseases and conditions and likewise funds basic research in many areas
that may eventually translate into products that benefit children. In 1998,
in response to congressional directives, NIH issued policies and guidelines
to increase the participation of children in agency-funded research. The goal
is “that adequate data will be developed to support the treatment modalities
for disorders and conditions that affect adults and may also affect children”
(NIH, 1998, unpaged). As described in Chapter 2, NIH has recently an-
nounced an initiative to investigate new strategies for creating and testing
drug formulations suitable for children.
In addition, because pediatric exclusivity is generally not relevant to
drugs that have no existing exclusivity or remaining patent life, Congress,
as part of BPCA of 2002, directed NIH to create a pediatric drug develop-
ment program and to set priorities for pediatric studies of off-patent drugs.
(The priority-setting process now extends to pediatric therapeutics more
broadly.) Under certain circumstances, FDA may also refer to NIH a writ-
ten request for studies of an on-patent drug if the sponsor has declined the
request and the agency determines that the requested information is still
needed. (See Chapters 3, 6, and 7 for further discussion of the role of NIH
under BPCA.)
International Activities and Policies
Pharmaceutical research is global. Many pediatric studies conducted
under BPCA or PREA include foreign study sites, and some (e.g., those for
prevention of HIV transmission from mother to child) may be undertaken
entirely outside the United States. These activities are subject to the laws
and regulations of many countries.
OCR for page 36
36 SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN
FDA is involved in a number of efforts to harmonize national policies
and otherwise try to limit some of the problems caused by different policies.
These efforts include frequent communication with agency counterparts
in the European Medicines Agency, which has somewhat different poli-
cies to require or encourage pediatric drug studies. Oversimplified, a key
difference is that European policies require the submission of a pediatric
study plan earlier in the process of drug development. Other differences in
these policies—and efforts to harmonize policies—are briefly described in
Chapter 3. Chapter 4 discusses ethical aspects of studies conducted outside
the United States.
In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO), which also pro-
vides guidance and encourages consensus on national regulation of medica-
tions, has the Make Medicines Child Size initiative that includes working
in partnerships with governments, researchers, industry, and others to
promote the development of medicines for children (WHO, 2011b). As part
of a broader program to identify drugs to meet priority health needs of the
majority of the world’s population, WHO has developed a list of what it
describes as essential medicines for children (WHO, 2011a).
SELECTED DEFINITIONS
This section discusses a number of terms used in the committee’s State-
ment of Task and defines several other key terms used in the report. The
terms drug, biologic, and active moiety are defined in Chapter 3. Additional
terms are defined in later chapters.
Pediatric Age Group, Children
Neither BPCA nor PREA defines the age range covered by the term
pediatric population and pediatric age group. Federal regulations on drug
labeling define the pediatric population as the age group from “birth to 16
years, including age groups often called neonates, infants, children, and
adolescents” (21 CFR 201.57(f)(9)). Elsewhere, FDA has described the age
ranges for pediatric subpopulations as follows: “neonate—birth to up to
one month; infant—one month up to 2 years of age; child—2 years up to
12 years; and adolescent—12 years up to 16 years” (see, e.g., FDA, 1996).5
5 In contrast, FDA guidance on pediatric studies of medical devices (which are not covered
by PREA and BPCA) includes as adolescents individuals “up to the age of 21” (CDRH, 2004,
p. 4). Other federal agencies may also use different definitions. For example, in infant mortal-
ity and other statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention define infancy as the
period from birth up to 1 year of age. To cite a different example, under NIH policies, an
18-year-old might be an adult for purposes of consenting to participation in research but a
child under a policy on the inclusion of children (up to age 21 years) in research (NIH, 1998).
OCR for page 37
37
INTRODUCTION
It is not always clear when a particular FDA document refers, for example,
to the “6- to 12-year” age group whether it is referring to children from
the ages of 6 years up to but not including 12 years or to children from the
ages of 6 years to 12 years inclusive.
In practice, when it specifies the age groups for which pediatric stud-
ies may be requested or required, FDA is not tied to fixed age categories.
It typically relies on knowledge of the drug and condition to be studied as
the basis for identifying appropriate pediatric age ranges and often specifies
ranges that differ from those described above. When specifying studies for
the youngest age groups, FDA may distinguish between term and preterm
infants and may consider gestational age (usually calculated as the number
of weeks from the start date of the mother’s last menstrual period). Among
older children, FDA sometimes defines a study population based on extent
of pubertal development. In general discussions, this report uses the terms
pediatric population and children interchangeably.
Pediatric Studies, Clinical Studies
As defined in BPCA, the term pediatric studies refers to clinical inves-
tigations with pediatric age groups in which use of a drug is anticipated
(21 § USC 355a(1)). The term is most clearly applied to studies that include
only pediatric populations. However, studies submitted in support of label-
ing for a pediatric age group occasionally include children in a larger study
group that includes adults. For example, when omalizumab (Xolair) was
originally approved in 2003 for use in patients ages 12 years and older, the
critical clinical efficacy studies included participants ages 12 to 74 years
in one trial and 12 to 76 years in the other (Kaiser, 2003). (Adolescents
comprised approximately 6.5 percent of participants in one trial and ap-
proximately 8 percent in the other.)
Sponsor submissions to FDA are not public. Thus, when this report
refers to assessments of studies, it means assessments of studies as they are
described in FDA staff reviews, primarily the clinical, clinical pharmacol-
ogy, and statistical reviews.
For the initial approval of a new drug or biologic, FDA typically re-
quires an extensive range of preclinical and clinical studies. The assessments
in this report focus on clinical studies or trials, that is, studies with humans.
FDA recently made a distinction between studies and trials as follows:
“Clinical trials are any prospective investigations in which the applicant
or investigator determines the method of assigning the drug product(s) or
other interventions to one or more human subjects. Studies are all other
investigations, such as investigations with humans that are not clinical trials
as defined above (e.g., observational epidemiologic studies), animal studies,
OCR for page 38
38 SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN
and laboratory experiments” (CDER/CBER, 2011). In this report, a trial is
one type of clinical study.
When FDA defers the submission of pediatric studies that are required
under PREA to a later date because the product is ready for approval for
adults (see Chapter 3), these studies are referred to as postmarket study
commitments. Although they are postmarket studies in the sense that they
occur after a drug has been approved for marketing for use by adults (or
another pediatric age group), the pediatric studies submitted at a later date
will usually include one or more Phase I, II, or III trials (see Box 1-2). Thus,
this report generally does not refer to pediatric studies requested under
BPCA or required under PREA as Phase IV trials.
BOX 1-2
Types of Clinical Trials
Phase I trials initiate the study of candidate drugs and biologics in humans. Such
trials typically assess the safety and tolerability of a drug, routes of administration
and safe dose ranges, and the way in which the body processes the drug (e.g.,
how it is absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted). They usually involve
less than 100 individuals, often healthy volunteers (in adult trials).
Phase II trials continue the assessment of a drug’s safety and dosing but also
begin to test efficacy in people with the target disease, including children. These
studies may include a range of controls for potential bias, including use of a con-
trol group that receives standard treatment or a placebo, the random assignment
of research participants to the experimental and control groups, and the conceal-
ment (blinding) from participants and researchers of a participant’s assignment.
The studies may involve hundreds of participants, although pediatric trials are
usually smaller.
Phase III trials are expanded, usually well-controlled investigations of safety and
efficacy that are intended to allow a fuller assessment of a drug’s benefits and
harms and to provide information sufficient to prepare labeling or instructions for
the use of the drug. These studies may involve hundreds to thousands of research
participants and multiple sites.
Phase IV studies occur after a new product or a new indication, drug form, dosing
regimen, or similar change is approved for marketing. They are highly variable in
their designs and purposes. Scientifically focused studies are typically intended
to provide further information about outcomes in clinical practice, for example,
when the drug is used over periods longer than those studied in the trials used
to support FDA approval.
SOURCES: Adapted from FDA (2010a) and IOM (2010).
OCR for page 39
39
INTRODUCTION
Benefit, Harm, Risk
The public health goal of drug development is to create drugs that pro-
duce desired health benefits and avoid or minimize harm insofar as possible.
A benefit is a valued and helpful outcome from an intervention; a harm is
an unwanted and hurtful outcome.
Risk refers to the potential for harm. Few medical interventions are
without risks. The challenge for those evaluating studies submitted in sup-
port of a drug’s approval is to weigh the projected benefits against the risks.
Adverse Event, Safety Signal, Efficacy, Effectiveness
In the context of clinical studies being undertaken to support the ap-
proval of a drug or biologic, an adverse experience (adverse event is used
in this report) is defined in federal regulations as “any untoward medical
occurrence associated with the use of a drug in humans, whether or not
considered drug related” (21 CFR 312.32(a)). The regulations use the term
adverse reaction to describe an adverse event caused by a drug. In addition
to lengthy descriptions and analyses of adverse events, FDA reviewers usu-
ally provide an overall assessment of a product’s safety profile, specifically,
whether the profile was similar to or different from that found in adults
(unless the product has not been evaluated in adults) and whether it identi-
fied serious drug-related adverse events.
Efficacy refers to the achievement of desired results in controlled clini-
cal studies. Effectiveness refers to the achievement of desired results in
actual clinical practice. Results in clinical practice may differ significantly
from results in carefully controlled clinical trials. Although the FDC Act
uses the term effectiveness to describe positive results reported in clinical
trials (21 USC 355), FDA clinical reviews and other documents use the term
efficacy rather than effectiveness in discussing such data.
Alternative Endpoint, Extrapolation
This report uses the term alternative endpoint to refer to a measure of
efficacy in a pediatric clinical trial that takes pediatric development into ac-
count and thus differs from endpoints for adult studies for the condition be-
ing investigated. For example, in studies with adults, investigators may rely
on self-reports of symptoms, whereas in studies with children, particularly
young children, they may rely on reports from parents or on investigator
assessments based on such physical expressions as crying or grimacing or
behaviors such as loss of appetite. For conditions that are found solely or
primarily in children, the pediatric endpoint may be unique.
In the context of pediatric studies conducted under BPCA or PREA,
OCR for page 40
40 SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICINES FOR CHILDREN
extrapolation refers to FDA’s acceptance of clinical trial and other infor-
mation developed in studies with adults to support decisions about the
approval of a product for pediatric use. As discussed in Chapters 3 and 5,
FDA also may accept extrapolation of data from one pediatric age group
to another.
Label, Labeling
Under the FDC Act, the drug label refers to “written, printed, or
graphic matter upon the immediate container of any article,” whereas the
term labeling refers to “all labels and other written, printed, or graphic
matters” accompanying a product (whether affixed or not) (21 USC 321(k)
and (m)). The former term is popularly applied to the short label affixed to
prescription drug containers.
Consistent with FDA usage, this report uses the term labeling to refer
to the longer and more detailed prescribing information (sometimes called
package inserts) that FDA approves to accompany prescription drugs. Also,
because labeling changes require FDA authorization, this report sometimes
uses the terms labeling change and approval interchangeably, including
when a product is approved for the first time and thus has no previous
labeling to change.
As a shorthand expression, this report may use the term pediatric label-
ing to describe a product that is explicitly labeled for use by all or some
pediatric age groups. Many products do not have pediatric labeling but do
have some information in the labeling from pediatric studies, for example,
brief reports of clinical trials that did not show safety and efficacy.
Indications, On-Label Use, Off-Label Use
FDA approves drugs and biologics for specific indications. An indica-
tion describes a particular use of a product, for example, for acute treat-
ment of schizophrenia or long-term control of asthma symptoms. FDA may
approve use of a drug for an indication for a medically relevant subset of
people with a condition, for example, those with severe disease or those
with disease that is not responsive to commonly used or less risky treat-
ments. Labeling, particularly if it has not recently been updated, is not
always explicit about the age groups to which the approved indication
applies.
On-label use refers to clinical use that is covered by a product’s label-
ing, primarily the indication(s) and age group(s) described in the labeling.
Physicians may legally prescribe drugs off-label for uses that are not ap-
proved and included in a product’s labeling. Companies may not explicitly
promote such uses.
OCR for page 41
41
INTRODUCTION
Applicant, Sponsor, Company, Manufacturer
In FDA terminology, an applicant or drug sponsor is “the person or
entity who assumes responsibility for the marketing of a new drug, includ-
ing responsibility for compliance with applicable provisions of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and related regulations” (FDA, 2010a). The
sponsor of an application for FDA approval of a drug or biologic is typi-
cally a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company.
Rarely, applications come from public or nonprofit agencies. For ex-
ample, the California Department of Health Services developed, tested,
and received FDA approval for botulism immune globulin (BabyBIG) for
the treatment of infant botulism (Arnon, 2007). Notwithstanding such
examples, this report uses the terms sponsor, applicant, company, and
manufacturer interchangeably.
As companies consider the planning and conduct of pediatric studies,
they must consider the particular scientific, ethical, legal, practical, and
economic aspects of such studies. The next chapter provides an overview
of developmental pharmacology and adaptations in research strategies
to accommodate the ways in which children of different ages differ from
adults and each other.
OCR for page 42
