0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letters |

Pediatric Information in Drug Product Labeling FREE

Aaron N. Sachs, BS; Debbie Avant, RPh; Catherine S. Lee, DrPH; William Rodriguez, MD; M. Dianne Murphy, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore (Mr Sachs); and Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland (Ms Avant and Drs Lee, Rodriguez, and Murphy) (debbie.avant@fda.hhs.gov). Mr Sachs worked at the Food and Drug Administration when this study was performed.


JAMA. 2012;307(18):1914-1915. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.3435.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

To the Editor: The dearth of information on drugs for children led to children being called “therapeutic orphans.” In 1975, Wilson determined that 78% of drug labeling had inadequate pediatric information.1 In 1999, Wilson summarized 25 years of efforts to get pediatric information into labeling and extended his analysis.2 In the decade after Wilson’s review, regulations and legislation have led to more pediatric studies and labeling.3 We hypothesized that a higher percentage of labeling has information on use in children compared with the analyses by Wilson in 19751 and in 1999.2

We evaluated labeling in the June 2009 electronic Physicians' Desk Reference4 (ePDR) using methods established by Wilson1 in analyzing the 1973 print PDR. Labeling was categorized as adequate if it stated that the drug was approved for pediatric use, had been studied, or had safety, efficacy, or dosing information for all appropriate pediatric populations; and inadequate if labeling lacked data on dosing, safety, or efficacy in at least 1 pediatric subpopulation. Partially labeled was a subgroup of inadequately labeled and defined as adequate labeling for at least 1 but not all appropriate pediatric subpopulations.

Labeling in the ePDR was reviewed by 3 people (A.N.S., D.A., W.R.). Differences were reviewed by a fourth person who made final assignments (M.D.M.). The κ was 0.91. Topicals, nasal sprays and most over-the-counter products were excluded per the methods of Wilson. In products with multiple formulations, only 1 likely to be used in children (ie, oral formulation) was analyzed.

Because limitations in the ePDR may lead to an underestimate of pediatric labeling, 2 subanalyses were performed. First we excluded products on the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA’s) list of Products Deemed Not Relevant to Pediatrics.5 Second, we compared the ePDR list with the FDA's Pediatric Labeling Changes Table (February 1998-June 2009), which reflects only pediatric legislative initiatives and is not comprehensive, to determine whether most new pediatric labeling changes were included in the ePDR.3

Similar to Wilson,2 we also assessed the labeling for all new molecular entities (NMEs) approved between 2002 and 20086 to determine if the product might be used in pediatrics and the adequacy of the pediatric information.

There were 1264 trade name products in the ePDR. After excluding 510 products (consistent with the approach by Wilson) and 194 multiple formulation products, 560 products in the ePDR were analyzed. Of these, 231 (41%; 95% CI, 37%-45%) were adequately labeled and 29 (5%; 95% CI, 3%-7%) were partially labeled for pediatric use. Therefore, 260 (46%; 95% CI, 42%-51%) products had some information on pediatric use in labeling.

If products deemed not relevant to pediatrics were removed, 231 of 461 (50%; 95% CI, 46%-55%) were adequately labeled for pediatric use, 29 (6%; 95% CI, 4%-9%) were partially labeled; and 260 (56%; 95% CI, 52%-61%) had some pediatric labeling. If 72 products with pediatric labeling from the Pediatric Labeling Changes Table that were not in the ePDR were added, 303 (57%; 95% CI, 53%-61%) products were adequately labeled, 29 (5%; 95% CI, 4%-7%) were partially labeled, and 332 (62%; 95% CI, 58%-66%) had some pediatric information.

Between 2002 and 2008, the FDA approved 142 NMEs; 105 (74%) were deemed to have potential pediatric use and 43 (41%) had pediatric information in the labeling (Table).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. New Molecular Entities Approved Between 2002-2008a

In 2009, only 46% of products in the ePDR had some information on pediatric use in labeling. Progress has been made since 1975, when only 22% were labeled.1 Of NMEs with pediatric labeling, the increase from 20% in 19992 to 41% in 2009 is also an improvement. Our estimate of the true percentage of products with pediatric labeling information is probably an underestimate because many commonly used products were excluded from the analysis and not all products are listed in the ePDR.

Labeling with pediatric information in only 46% of products is still insufficient. Legislation to increase pediatric clinical trials and require the resulting information be added to labeling is necessary. The current legislation expires in 2012 without reauthorization.

Author Contributions: Ms Avant had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Sachs, Avant, Murphy.

Acquisition of data: Sachs, Avant, Lee, Murphy.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Sachs, Avant, Lee, Rodriguez, Murphy.

Drafting of the manuscript: Sachs, Avant, Lee, Murphy.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Sachs, Avant, Lee, Rodriguez, Murphy.

Statistical analysis: Sachs, Avant, Lee.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Avant, Rodriguez, Murphy.

Study supervision: Murphy.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

Additional Contributions: We thank John T. Wilson, MD, Louisiana State University Medical Center for his advice and guidance with this project. He provided information on the methodology used in the 1975 and 1999 reports. He also reviewed and edited the letter. He was not compensated.

Wilson JT. Pragmatic assessment of medicines available for young children and pregnant or breast-feeding women. In: Basic and Therapeutic Aspects of Perinatal Pharmacology. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1975:411-421
Wilson JT. An update on the therapeutic orphan.  Pediatrics. 1999;104(3 pt 2):585-590
PubMed
US Department of Health and Human Services; Food and Drug Administration.  FDA pediatric labeling changes table . http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/sda/sdNavigation.cfm?sd=labelingdatabase. Accessed October 10, 2011
PDR Network.  Electronic physicians' desk reference website. http://www.pdr.net. Accessed October 10, 2011.
US Department of Health and Human Services; Food and Drug Administration.  Guidance for industry: how to comply with the Pediatric Research Equity Act. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/UCM077855.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2011
US Department of Health and Human Services; Food and Drug Administration.  New molecular entities drug and new biologic approvals. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/DrugandBiologicApprovalReports/ucm121136. Accessed October 10, 2011

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. New Molecular Entities Approved Between 2002-2008a

References

Wilson JT. Pragmatic assessment of medicines available for young children and pregnant or breast-feeding women. In: Basic and Therapeutic Aspects of Perinatal Pharmacology. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1975:411-421
Wilson JT. An update on the therapeutic orphan.  Pediatrics. 1999;104(3 pt 2):585-590
PubMed
US Department of Health and Human Services; Food and Drug Administration.  FDA pediatric labeling changes table . http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/sda/sdNavigation.cfm?sd=labelingdatabase. Accessed October 10, 2011
PDR Network.  Electronic physicians' desk reference website. http://www.pdr.net. Accessed October 10, 2011.
US Department of Health and Human Services; Food and Drug Administration.  Guidance for industry: how to comply with the Pediatric Research Equity Act. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/UCM077855.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2011
US Department of Health and Human Services; Food and Drug Administration.  New molecular entities drug and new biologic approvals. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/DrugandBiologicApprovalReports/ucm121136. Accessed October 10, 2011
CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 14

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles