ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Populations Addressed in Vaccines Approved via the European Medicines Agency.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Special Populations in Pivotal Clinical Trials: Eligibility and Supporting Evidence for Exclusion in EMA-Authorised Medicines.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Article
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
Therapeutic and prophylactic agents require robust evidence before patient use. Randomized controlled trials are essential for evaluating safety and efficacy but often exclude specific populations that are also targets for the intervention. This study assessed which populations are included in vaccine registration studies and/or addressed in label indications, and if special populations are considered at any point in the regulatory life cycle of vaccines approved in the European Union. We analyzed product labels, pivotal studies, risk management plans, and post-authorization studies for all vaccines centrally approved via the European Medicines Agency between 2012 and 2022. For the 31 vaccines approved, we identified 90 pivotal studies supporting initial marketing authorizations and 46 studies supporting product revisions. At the end of our follow-up, 27 vaccines (87%) were approved for adults, 19 (68%) for pediatric patients, 3 (11%) were recommended for pregnant populations, 4 (14%) for breastfeeding populations, and 7 (23%) for immunocompromised populations. Pregnant, breastfeeding, and immunocompromised individuals were rarely included in studies supporting regulatory actions. We observed a slight increase in the inclusion of special populations in post-marketing studies, yet this had limited impact on product indications or information availability on labels. Pivotal studies supporting vaccine registrations were also highly selective and predominantly conducted in high-income settings. These findings highlight significant variations in how different populations are considered during vaccine development and by regulators. Greater inclusion of special populations in the evidence-generation chain is essential to ensure that vaccines respond to unmet medical needs equitably.
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.