ArticleThe AAPS journal2026
Effect of Incentivizing Pediatric Studies on the Development of Pediatric-Friendly Formulations.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2026. 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.
- Pediatric Pharmacotherapy: Why the Fundamentals (Still) Matter.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2026Article
- Accelerating Pediatric Oncology Drug Development: Advances in Clinical Pharmacology, Trial Design, Non-Clinical Evidence, and Regulatory Science.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Challenges to medication administration arise in children when pediatric-friendly (PF) formulations are lacking. This study examines the extent to which PF formulations were developed for use in pediatric trials of drugs awarded 6-months of patent extension under a written request (WR). Publicly accessible and proprietary data were aggregated to characterize the formulations used in studies submitted to the U.S. FDA in support of pediatric labeling for WRs issued through September 2025. From 1998-2025, exclusivity was awarded to 321 unique sponsor:drug pairs satisfying the requirements of a WR. A majority, (235/321), received a new or updated pediatric indication and nearly all (310/321) resulted in pediatric labeling. Drugs intended for oral administration (n = 213) were supported by 304 studies. The majority (173/304) exclusively studied adult solid dosage forms (SDF), a minority (129/304) used at least one PF dosage form, and 2 accomplished labeling without the conduct of clinical trials. SDF were exclusively used in 26.3%, 44.9%, 85.1%, and 94.1% of studies in children < 2 yr, 2-5 yr, 6-12 yr and > 12 yr, respectively. Of trials employing an oral PF formulation, 85% were associated with a marketed PF product at labeling. Marketed oral PF formulations were also associated with 8% of cases where studies relied exclusively on a s SDF. Nearly all non-enteral drug studies were supported by existing commercial formulations with only investigational inhalation formulations making their way to market. Legislative provisions enacted to incentivize pediatric drug development incompletely extend to pediatric reformulation efforts despite the associated financial gains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41882479What 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.