Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36645217›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2023

Changing incentives to ACCELERATE drug development for paediatric cancer.

Teresa de Rojas, Pamela Kearns, Patricia Blanc, Jeffrey Skolnik, Elizabeth Fox, Leona Knox, Raphael Rousseau, François Doz, Nick Bird, Andrew J Pearson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Teresa de RojasACCELERATE, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7749-8423
Pamela KearnsCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, Birmingham, UK.
Patricia BlancImagine for Margo - Children Without Cancer, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France.
Jeffrey SkolnikINOVIO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, USA.
Elizabeth FoxSt Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Leona KnoxSolving Kids' Cancer UK, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5218-3895
Raphael RousseauGritstone Oncology, Inc., Emeryville, California, USA.
François DozSIREDO Centre (Care, Innovation Research in Paediatric, Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology), Institut Curie, Paris, France.
Nick BirdSolving Kids' Cancer UK, London, UK.
Andrew J PearsonACCELERATE, Brussels, Belgium.
Gilles VassalACCELERATE, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore effective incentives are needed to motivate paediatric oncology drug development, uncoupling it from dependency on adult drug development. Although the current European and North-American legislations aim to promote drug development for paediatrics and rare diseases, children and adolescents with cancer have not benefited as expected from these initiatives and cancer remains the first cause of death by disease in children older than one. Drug development for childhood cancer remains dependent on adult cancer indications and their potential market. The balance between the investment needed to execute a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) in Europe and an initial Paediatric Study Plan (iPSP) in the US, coupled with the potential financial reward has not been sufficiently attractive to incite the pharmaceutical industry to develop drugs for rare indications such as childhood cancer.

methodsWe propose changes in the timing and nature of the rewards within the European Paediatric Medicine Regulation (PMR) and Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products (both currently under review), which would drive earlier initiation of paediatric oncology studies and provide incentives for drug development specifically for childhood indications.

resultsWe suggest modifying the PMR to ensure mechanism-of-action driven mandatory PIP and reorganization of incentives to a stepwise and incremental approach. Interim and final deliverables should be defined within a PIP or iPSP, each attracting a reward on completion. A crucial change would be the introduction of the interim deliverable requiring production of paediatric data that inform the go/no-go decisions on whether to take a drug forward to paediatric efficacy trials.

conclusionAdditionally, to address the critical gap in the current framework where there is a complete lack of incentives to promote paediatric-specific cancer drug development, we propose the introduction of early rewards in the Orphan Regulation, with a variant on the US-Creating Hope Act and its priority review vouchers.

Indexed as

MotivationNeoplasmsAdolescentAdultChildDrug DevelopmentDrug IndustryHumansMedical Oncologydrug developmentincentivespaediatric oncologypaediatric regulationsupplementary protection certificate

Identifiers

PMID36645217
PMCPMC10134303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.