Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18762496›Full record

ArticlePediatrics2008

Safety monitoring of drugs receiving pediatric marketing exclusivity.

P Brian Smith, Daniel K Benjamin, M Dianne Murphy, Rosemary Johann-Liang, Solomon Iyasu, Barbara Gould, Robert M Califf, Jennifer S Li, William Rodriguez

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatrics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Pediatric clinical trials.Perspectives in clinical research · 2013
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Innovative clinical trial design for pediatric therapeutics.Expert review of clinical pharmacology · 2011
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

P Brian SmithMHS, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3179, Durham, NC 27710, USA. brian.smith@duke.edu
Daniel K Benjamin
M Dianne Murphy
Rosemary Johann-Liang
Solomon Iyasu
Barbara Gould
Robert M Califf
Jennifer S Li
William Rodriguez

Funding

Pilot Project for the DTMI CRA ProgramUL1RR024128 · NCRR · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CALIFF, ROBERT M · 2006 to 2010
$48.1M
North Carolina Collaborative PPRU NetworkU10HD045962 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BENJAMIN, DANIEL K. · 2004 to 2009
$2.1M
NCRR NIH HHS 1UL1RR024128-01NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024128NICHD NIH HHS 1U10-HD45962-04NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD045962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act provided for an additional 6-month period of marketing exclusivity to companies that perform pediatric drug trials in response to a Food and Drug Administration-issued written request. Because many safety concerns cannot be detected until after the introduction of a product to a larger and more diverse market, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act required the Food and Drug Administration to report to the Pediatric Advisory Committee on adverse events occurring during the 1-year period after granting pediatric exclusivity. We sought to describe the Pediatric Advisory Committee's recommendations made in response to safety reviews informed by data from the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System in 67 drugs granted exclusivity. PATIENTS AND

methodsPediatric Advisory Committee meetings and data presented by the Food and Drug Administration for all drugs were reviewed from June 2003 through April 2007. We divided the drugs into 2 groups: those that were returned to routine adverse event monitoring and those that had specific Pediatric Advisory Committee recommendations.

resultsForty-four (65.7%) drugs were returned to routine monitoring for adverse events. The Pediatric Advisory Committee, sometimes working with other advisory committees, recommended label changes for 12 (17.9%) drugs, continued monitoring for 10 (14.9%), production of MedGuides for 9 (13.4%), and an update on label changes resulting from discussions with the sponsor for 1 (1.5%) drug. Some drugs had >1 action. Several of the adverse events revealed during this process were rare and life-threatening.

conclusionsSafety monitoring during the early postmarketing period is crucial to detect rare, serious, or pediatric-specific adverse events. Fortunately, the majority of drugs given exclusivity had no adverse events of a frequency or severity that prevented a return to routine adverse event monitoring.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsChildDrug LabelingDrug MonitoringDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID18762496
PMCPMC2561901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.