ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2015
The development and assessment of biological treatments for children.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Uptake and Use of Biologic Therapies in Paediatric Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: An Australian Population-Based Study.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Understanding efficacy-safety balance of biologics in moderate-to-severe pediatric psoriasis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Treatment prescribing patterns in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA): Analysis from the UK Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study (CAPS).Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2016Article
- Factors associated with choice of biologic among children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: results from two UK paediatric biologic registers.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2016Observational
- Paediatric prescribing: why children are not small adults.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of biological agents with specific immunological targets has revolutionized the treatment of a wide variety of paediatric diseases where traditional immunosuppressive agents have been partly ineffective or intolerable. The increasing requirement for pharmaceutical companies to undertake paediatric studies has provided impetus for studies of biologics in children. The assessment of biological agents in children to date has largely relied upon randomized controlled trials using a withdrawal design, rather than a parallel study design. This approach has been largely used due to ethical concerns, including use of placebo treatments in children with active chronic disease, and justified on the basis that treatments have usually already undergone robust assessment in related adult conditions. However, this study design limits the reliability of the data and can confuse the interpretation of safety results. Careful ongoing monitoring of safety and efficacy in real-world practice through national and international biologics registries and robust reporting systems is crucial. The most commonly used biological agents in children target tumour necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1, interleukin-6 and cytotoxic lymphocyte-associated antigen-4. These agents are most frequently used in paediatric rheumatic diseases. This review discusses the development and assessment of biologics within paediatric rheumatology with reference to the lessons learned from use in other subspecialties.
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.