Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41406177›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2025

Pediatric studies and labeling additions required by the U.S. FDA for novel drugs approved from 2011 to 2023: A retrospective cohort study.

Rylee McGonigle, Huseyin Naci, Maximilian Siebert, Michelle Ouvina, Alba Gutiérrez-Sacristán, Anita K Wagner, Florence T Bourgeois

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Rylee McGonigleHarvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Huseyin NaciDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7192-5751
Maximilian SiebertHarvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4385-5773
Michelle OuvinaHarvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6567-3162
Alba Gutiérrez-SacristánDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1245-198X
Anita K WagnerDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Florence T BourgeoisHarvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7798-4560

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to require that sponsors conduct pediatric studies for certain new drugs under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA). Here, we evaluate the characteristics and completion of these studies and assess the addition of pediatric-specific evidence generated from these studies into drug labeling. METHODS AND

findingsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of all novel drugs approved by the FDA from 2011 to 2023 with at least one pediatric study requirement issued under PREA. Study status and outcomes were followed through 31 December 2024. We assessed completion of pediatric studies; addition of pediatric prescribing information to drug labels; and deviations from FDA-projected timelines. Of 552 novel drugs approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2023, 179 (32.4%) were subject to pediatric study requirements under PREA. Thirteen were later discontinued, resulting in a final cohort of 166 drugs and 338 pediatric study requirements. About half (51.8%) of the studies assessed efficacy. Among 222 studies with due dates by 31 December 2024, only 24.3% were completed by the original deadline. Over half (56.8%) received extensions of original timelines, by an average of 2.9 years (SD 2.0). At 10 years after drug approval, while 92.0% of studies were expected to have been completed, 59.5% had been completed. Of the 117 drugs with studies due by 31 December 2024, 54.7% (n = 64) had pediatric labeling updated with results from required studies. The mean time to addition of pediatric approval was 5.7 years (SD 2.6), whereas labeling additions reflecting lack of pediatric safety or benefit took an average of 8.3 years (SD 3.3) (p < 0.001). While 90.4% of drugs were expected to have all pediatric studies completed by 10 years, only 52.8% had any labeling changes reflecting data from the PREA-mandated studies. A limitation of this study is that publicly available FDA data provide limited detail on study design, execution, and reasons for delays, preventing assessment of study rigor and the factors contributing to delayed completion.

conclusionsPREA was implemented to advance pediatric drug research and fill a critical gap in pediatric labeling of new drugs. However, our findings reveal frequent delays in study completion and labeling updates, with just over half of labeling additions completed 10 years after drug approval. Strengthening reporting requirements and expanding the FDA's enforcement authority are essential to ensuring that children receive timely access to safe and effective therapies supported by high-quality evidence.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalDrug LabelingPediatricsUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationChildHumansRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41406177
PMCPMC12742784

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.