Timing of Pediatric Drug Approval and Clinical Evidence Submitted to Regulatory Authorities: International Comparison Among Japan, the United States, and the European Union

How the French national authority for health assesses medicines for use in pediatrics

Children deserve to be treated with appropriate medicines based on robust assessments. Despite the introduction of new regulations, the availability of medicines for children is suboptimal because of the frequent lack of relevant clinical trials due to the difficulty of conducting such trials. Thus, the Transparency Committee (TC) of the French National Authority for Health, who oversees the assessment of medicinal products in France, set up a pediatric working group with two aims: (1) The first aim was to review all opinions on medicines for pediatric use. Out of 536 opinions delivered between 2020 and 2022, 181 (34 %) concerned medicines for pediatric use. Whereas oncology largely dominated the medicines for adults, medicines for infectious diseases, endocrinology/metabolism, neurology, and hematology mostly prevailed for children. (2) The second aim was to clarify the evaluation criteria assessed by the TC, namely, the clinical benefit (CB), the clinical added value (CAV), and the public health impact (PHI) for pediatric medicinal products. An important CB was given to 113 out of 161 (71 %) opinions on medicines for pediatric use when it concerned pathologies with a severe prognosis. The quality of the demonstration (e.g., double-blind randomized trial vs. placebo or another active medicine) played a major role in the CB level. Clinical pediatric studies were also consistently associated with higher CAV levels: levels I (major) to III (moderate) in 26 out of 42 (62 %) opinions, level IV (minor) and level V (no therapeutic progress) in 43 out of 84 (51 %) and 30 out of 43 (70 %) opinions granting a sufficient CB, respectively. Conversely, 22 out of 30 (73 %) dossiers based only on literature reviews were given a level V. The main criteria leading to the qualification of a medicine for pediatric use as providing a PHI included a significant change in the morbidity and mortality of the disease and an improvement in the care pathway. Assessments were mostly aligned on the adults in the case of subsequent extensions of indications to children. Lastly, new measures were taken aimed at shortening median delays in the assessment process in order to reduce off-label use of medicines in France.

Evidence of clinical benefit of WHO essential anticancer medicines for children, 2011-2021

Background

Access to essential cancer medicines is a key determinant of childhood cancer survival. WHO published the Model List of Essential Medicine for Children (EMLc) and updated it every two years since 2007 to promote better access to medicines for children. This study aimed to assess whether the inclusion of essential anticancer medicines for respective indications for children was based on evidence of significant clinical benefit between 2011 and 2021.

Methods

We identified all anticancer medicine indications added to the WHO EMLc Section 8 since 2011 and extracted evidence of benefit documented in the corresponding technical reports. Evidence in children was defined as evidence that included participants under 12, and graded into five levels, according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. We analyzed whether each anticancer medicine indication was listed with documented OS benefit or improvements in surrogate measures based on the highest level of documented evidence in children.

Findings

A total of 115 anticancer medicine indications were added to the EMLc from 2011 to 2021, of which 101 (87.8%) had some clinical evidence in children and 4 (3.5%) were added without any clinical evidence. Among the 101 medicine indications, none were added with level-1 evidence in children, and 43 (42.6%), 11 (10.9%), 41 (40.6%), and 6 (5.9%) were listed with level-2, level-3, level-4, and level-5 evidence in children, respectively. Only eight (7.9%) medicine indications were reported to have OS benefit, another 12 (11.9%) were reported to have improvements on surrogate measures, and 81 (80.2%) were listed in the EMLc without documented improvements in either OS or surrogate measures.

Interpretation

Most anticancer medicine indications of the WHO EMLc were added based on limited evidence of statistically significant clinical benefit in children. Our results suggest that WHO should refine requirements for clinical benefit criteria and permissible forms, quality, and reporting of evidence of essential anticancer medicines for children, specify whether anticancer medicine indications have required evidence of clinical benefit in children, and provide further details in its technical reports that summarise the available evidence.

Funding

Not applicable.

For children admitted to hospital, what interventions improve medication safety on ward rounds? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Every year, medication errors harm children in hospitals. Ward rounds are a unique opportunity to bring information together and plan management. There is a need to understand what strategies can improve medication safety on ward rounds. We systematically reviewed published interventions to improve prescribing and safety of medicines on ward rounds.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

SETTING

Studies examining inpatient ward rounds.

PATIENTS

Children and young people aged between 0 and 18 years old.

INTERVENTIONS

Any intervention or combination of interventions implemented that alters how paediatric ward rounds review inpatient medications.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary outcome was improvement in medication safety on paediatric ward rounds. This included reduction in prescribing error rates, healthcare professionals' opinions on prescribing and improvement in documentation on ward rounds.

RESULTS

Three studies were eligible for review. One examined the use of an acrostic, one the use of a checklist, and the other a use of a specific prescribing ward round involving a clinical pharmacist and doctor. None of the papers considered weight-based errors or demonstrated reductions in clinical harm. Reductions in prescribing errors were noted by the different interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

There are limited data on interventions to improve medication safety in paediatric ward rounds, with all published data being small scale, either quality improvement or audits, and locally derived/delivered. Good-quality interventional or robust quality improvement studies are required to improve medication safety on ward rounds.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022340201.

Evaluation of financial relationships between Japanese certified pediatric hematologist/oncologists and pharmaceutical companies: a cross-sectional analysis of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019

This cross-sectional study evaluated the magnitude of personal payments made by pharmaceutical companies to pediatric hematologist-oncologists (PHOs) board-certified by the Japanese Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (JSPHO), using publicly disclosed data. Among all 307 PHOs, 215 (70.0%) PHOs received $916 703 personal payments from 54 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019 in total. Median four-year payments per PHO was $1440 (interquartile range, $523-$4015). Payments per PHO significantly increased during the study period, by 23.8% (95% confidence interval: 15.3%-32.8%, P < 0.001) annually. Furthermore, leading PHOs, including university professors, society board members, and clinical practice guideline authors, received far larger personal payments from the companies.

An Empirical Analysis of Japan's Drug Development Lag Behind the United States

The "Drug lag" (i.e., the approval lag for new drugs) hinders patients' access to innovative, new medicines. The drug lag had been heavily debated in Japan from the late 2000s to the early 2010s. It consists of "development lag" (i.e., the submission date lag for new drug applications) and "review lag" (i.e., the difference in review periods). As the two lags have different causes and display significantly different recent trends in Japan, we focus on the development lag-in contrast with most previous literature-between Japan and the United States, based on a database we created for all new drugs from 2008 to 2018 using publicly available data sources. First, we found that Japan's development lag relative to the United States did not shrink in terms of the overall distribution rather than the median, which was the focus of most prior studies. Second, we examined the factors (product characteristics) that significantly affected the development lag and found that products that underwent multi-regional clinical trials and those that were certified as "breakthrough therapies" in the United States had significantly shorter development lags with high robustness, whereas products receiving price premiums did not. Finally, we discussed the policy implications of these results. For instance, innovative new drugs that are presumed to receive price premiums require enhanced policy support for early application from the initial stages of clinical trials. It is also essential to promote information-sharing regarding evaluations by foreign reviewing authorities for efficient utilization in the home country. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Childhood cancer drugs in China: An overview and comparison of regulatory approvals in China and the United States

Different from less developed countries, 80% of children with cancers in the United States are cured. Traditional chemotherapy drugs are the mainstay of therapies; new targeted medications have become available recently. Using publicly available data, we created a database of cancer drugs with paediatric malignancy indications approved by 31 October 2020 in China and the United States. We compared numbers, type, indications and listing on the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (WHO EMLc) between the two countries, assessed the correlation between paediatric indications and cancer incidences, and described evidence supporting approvals of targeted medications in the two settings. Our study showed that by 31 October 2020, 31 and 39 cancer drugs available in China and the United States were approved for use in children, corresponding to 137 and 102 paediatric cancer indications, respectively. About half of these drugs (17 in China and 18 in the United States) were listed on the WHO EMLc. The correlation between indications and burden of disease was higher in the United States (r = 0.68) than China (r = 0.59). More traditional chemotherapy drugs were approved in China (n = 27) than the United States (n = 19). Of 20 targeted childhood anticancer medicines approved in the United States, mainly on the basis of single arm trials (27/32 indications, 84.4%), only four were approved for paediatric indications in China, at a median of 2.8 years after US Food and Drug Administration approval. A harmonised, evidence-based regulatory framework is needed to ensure approvals of needed, safe and efficacious childhood cancer drugs across the world.

Assessment of Drugs Approved by Public Knowledge-Based Applications (Kouchi-shinsei) During the Last Two Decades in Japan

Public knowledge‐based application (“Kouchi‐shinsei” in Japanese) is unique to Japan, implemented to eliminate the off‐label use of unapproved indications, dosages, and administrations because of drug lag. The guidance for public knowledge‐based application was issued in 1999. This study comprehensively investigated the trends of items approved by public knowledge‐based application in Japan during the last 2 decades. Prescription drugs approved from January 2000 to December 2019 were surveyed. In Japan, 1,855 drugs were approved within the target survey period. Among them, 219 (11.8%) were approved by public knowledge‐based application. Considering the changes in the number of items approved by public knowledge‐based application over the years, the number of items approved in 2000 was 7, reaching a maximum of 34 items in 2011, and decreased after that, 8 items were approved in 2019. The regulatory characteristics of drugs approved by public knowledge‐based application and those of other drugs were compared. By public knowledge‐based application, more anticancer and pediatric drugs were approved (P < 0.001), and only one drug for orphan diseases was approved (P < 0.001). In addition, the review time of public knowledge‐based applications was significantly shorter than that of normal applications regardless of time point. The approval system using public knowledge‐based application began in 2000, following issuance of the “Guidance for off‐label use of prescription drugs.” Furthermore, the approved items were mostly drugs for cancer, infectious diseases, and pediatric drugs. We anticipate the promotion of public knowledge‐based application to accommodate the approval of drugs for orphan diseases.