ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2005
Effect of the pediatric exclusivity provision on children's access to medicines.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The EU paediatric regulation: still a large discrepancy between therapeutic needs and approved paediatric investigation plans.Paediatric drugs · 2014Article
- The status of paediatric medicines initiatives around the world--What has happened and what has not?European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012Review
- An empirical review of major legislation affecting drug development: past experiences, effects, and unintended consequences.The Milbank quarterly · 2011Review
- The availability and age-appropriateness of medicines authorized for children in The Netherlands.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011Article
- Licensing and labelling of drugs in a paediatric oncology ward.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011Article
- Challenges in conducting clinical trials in children: approaches for improving performance.Expert review of clinical pharmacology · 2009Article
- Access to prescribing information for paediatric medicines in the USA: post-modernization.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2009Article
- Delivering better medicines to children: need for better integration between the science, the policy, and the practice.Paediatric drugs · 2009Article
- The ethics of psychopharmacological research in legal minors.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2008Article
- The new European regulation on pediatric medicines: safety and ethics perspectives.Paediatric drugs · 2008Article
- The EU's new paediatric medicines legislation: serving children's needs?Archives of disease in childhood · 2007Review
- The EU-regulation on medicinal products for paediatric use: impacts on child and adolescent psychiatry and clinical research with minors.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2007Article
- Expanding Bioshield: a call for caution.American journal of public health · 2007Article
- Establishing a baseline for the monitoring of medicines availability for children in the UK: 1998-2002.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2007Article
- Availability of pediatric-evaluated formulations in Serbia.Indian journal of pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo determine the paediatric licensing status in the USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand of the 79 medicines granted paediatric exclusivity in the USA, and to assess the importance of those medicines to paediatric practice.
methodsThe medicines granted a patent extension in the USA as of 10 November 2003 were identified from the FDA website. Data on paediatric licensing were obtained from the Physicians Desk Reference (USA), the Electronic Medicines Compendium (UK), the Australian Prescription Products Guide (Australia) and the MedSafe website (New Zealand). A questionnaire was administered to seven paediatric consultants to assess the importance of the 79 PEMs for use in children. The questionnaire sought opinions on each drug, by age grouping, regarding: usefulness in patients with the condition, number of patients likely to be treated with each drug in a year, and acceptable therapeutic alternatives.
resultsFifty-eight (73%) of the medicines had attained paediatric licensing in the USA. Sixty were licensed for adults in all four countries and of these 45 (75%) were licensed for children under 12 years in the USA compared with 31 (52%) to 33 (55%) for the other three countries. The proportion of these medicines licensed for children under 1 month, under 2 years and under 6 years of age ranged from 10% to 58% and there were no significant differences between the countries. For all four countries perceived usefulness and predicted numbers of patients both had some influence on the odds of a medicine having paediatric licensing.
conclusionsImprovements in licensing of some medicines for children have occurred in the USA, relative to the UK, Australia and New Zealand, subsequent to the Paediatric Exclusivity Provision. Improvements occurred for children over the age of six, but not for younger children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.