Benefit-Risk Assessment of Off-Label Drug Use in Children: The Bravo Framework

Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in children and young people with psychiatric disorders: a systematic review

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has demonstrated benefits in adults with psychiatric disorders, but its clinical utility in children and young people (CYP) is unclear. This PRISMA systematic review used published and ongoing studies to examine the effects of rTMS on disorder-specific symptoms, mood and neurocognition in CYP with psychiatric disorders. We searched Medline via PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO via OVID, and Clinicaltrials.gov up to July 2023. Eligible studies involved multiple-session (i.e., treatment) rTMS in CYP (≤ 25 years-old) with psychiatric disorders. Two independent raters assessed the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a custom-built form. Out of 78 eligible studies (participant N = 1389), the majority (k = 54; 69%) reported an improvement in at least one outcome measure of disorder-specific core symptoms. Some studies (k = 21) examined rTMS effects on mood or neurocognition,: findings were largely positive. Overall, rTMS was well-tolerated with minimal side-effects. Of 17 ongoing or recently completed studies, many are sham-controlled RCTs with better blinding techniques and a larger estimated participant enrolment. Findings provide encouraging evidence for rTMS-related improvements in disorder-specific symptoms in CYP with different psychiatric disorders. However, in terms of both mood (for conditions other than depression) and neurocognitive outcomes, evidence is limited. Importantly, rTMS is well-tolerated and safe. Ongoing studies appear to be of improved methodological quality; however, future studies should broaden outcome measures to more comprehensively assess the effects of rTMS and develop guidance on dosage (i.e., treatment regimens).

Repurposing empagliflozin in individuals with glycogen storage disease Ib: A value-based healthcare approach and systematic benefit-risk assessment

Off-label repurposing of empagliflozin allows pathomechanism-based treatment of neutropenia/neutrophil-dysfunction in glycogen storage disease type Ib (GSDIb). From a value-based healthcare (VBHC) perspective, we here retrospectively studied patient-reported, clinical and pharmacoeconomic outcomes in 11 GSDIb individuals before and under empagliflozin at two centers (the Netherlands [NL], Austria [AT]), including a budget impact analysis, sensitivity-analysis, and systematic benefit-risk assessment. Under empagliflozin, all GSDIb individuals reported improved quality-of-life-scores. Neutrophil dysfunction related symptoms allowed either granulocyte colony-stimulating factor cessation or tapering. Calculated cost savings per patient per year ranged between € 6482-14 190 (NL) and € 1281-41 231 (AT). The budget impact analysis estimated annual total cost savings ranging between € 75 062-225 716 (NL) and € 37 697-231 790 (AT), based on conservative assumptions. The systematic benefit-risk assessment was favorable. From a VBHC perspective, empagliflozin treatment in GSDIb improved personal and clinical outcomes while saving costs, thereby creating value at multiple pillars. We emphasize the importance to reimburse empagliflozin for GSDIb individuals, further supported by the favorable systematic benefit-risk assessment. These observations in similar directions in two countries/health care systems strongly suggest that our findings can be extrapolated to other geographical areas and health care systems.

Off-Label Prescribing in Pediatric Population-Literature Review for 2012-2022

Off-label prescribing is widespread among pediatricians, and it is unlikely that this trend will soon be bound by a uniform legal framework. This is necessitated by the fact that there are four variables: the patient's health condition, the physician's experience and knowledge, the legislative measures (laws, directives, guidelines, and recommendations), and finally, the pharmaceutical industry. There is considerable concern worldwide about the use of off-label medicines in children. We may call it an enormous global problem that is much talked about and written about; however, we should not forget that the goal around which everyone should unite is the patient's life. For healthcare providers, the most important thing will always be the health and preservation of the patient's life, particularly when it comes to children with life-threatening conditions in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units (NICU and PICU). The study aimed to examine the prevalence of off-label drug use in pediatrics. Literature research was conducted, and we included studies from 2012 to 2022 that evaluated off-label drug prevalence in various pediatric patient populations.

A Callout for International Collaboration. Reply to Giger, E.V.; Tilen, R. Comment on "Shaniv et al. Neonatal Drug Formularies-A Global Scope. Children 2023, 10, 848"

We are very grateful that the global-scope paper on neonatal drug formularies has received a relevant amount of interest from the readership of the journal [...].

Optimizing therapeutic decision-making for off-label medicines use: A scoping review and consensus recommendations for improving practice and research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2023;32:1200-1222. [PMID: 37208845 PMCID: PMC10543391 DOI: 10.1002/pds.5640] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

PURPOSE

Off-label medicines use is a common and sometimes necessary practice in many populations, with important clinical, ethical and financial consequences, including potential unintended harm or lack of effectiveness. No internationally recognized guidelines exist to aid decision-makers in applying research evidence to inform off-label medicines use. We aimed to critically evaluate current evidence informing decision-making for off-label use and to develop consensus recommendations to improve future practice and research.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to summarize the literature on available off-label use guidance, including types, extent and scientific rigor of evidence incorporated. Findings informed the development of consensus recommendations by an international multidisciplinary Expert Panel using a modified Delphi process. Our target audience includes clinicians, patients and caregivers, researchers, regulators, sponsors, health technology assessment bodies, payers and policy makers.

RESULTS

We found 31 published guidance documents on therapeutic decision-making for off-label use. Of 20 guidances with general recommendations, only 35% detailed the types and quality of evidence needed and the processes for its evaluation to reach sound, ethical decisions about appropriate use. There was no globally recognized guidance. To optimize future therapeutic decision-making, we recommend: (1) seeking rigorous scientific evidence; (2) utilizing diverse expertise in evidence evaluation and synthesis; (3) using rigorous processes to formulate recommendations for appropriate use; (4) linking off-label use with timely conduct of clinically meaningful research (including real-world evidence) to address knowledge gaps quickly; and (5) fostering partnerships between clinical decision-makers, researchers, regulators, policy makers, and sponsors to facilitate cohesive implementation and evaluation of these recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide comprehensive consensus recommendations to optimize therapeutic decision-making for off-label medicines use and concurrently drive clinically relevant research. Successful implementation requires appropriate funding and infrastructure support to engage necessary stakeholders and foster relevant partnerships, representing significant challenges that policy makers must urgently address.

Toward responsible clinical n-of-1 strategies for rare diseases

N-of-1 strategies can provide high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy at the individual level and optimize evidence-based selection of off-label treatments for patients with rare diseases. Given their design characteristics, n-of-1 strategies are considered to lay at the intersection between medical research and clinical care. Therefore, whether n-of-1 strategies should be governed by research or care regulations remains a debated issue. Here, we delineate differences between medical research and optimized clinical care, and distinguish the regulations which apply to either. We also set standards for responsible optimized clinical n-of-1 strategies with (off-label) treatments for rare diseases. Implementing clinical n-of-1 strategies as defined here could aid in optimized treatment selection for such diseases.

Comparative Analysis of Oral Ondansetron, Metoclopramide, and Domperidone for Managing Vomiting in Children With Acute Gastroenteritis

Background Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) is a major health concern in pediatric populations because of its associated vomiting, which worsens dehydration and the severity of illness. Objective The purpose of the research was to compare the relative effectiveness of oral ondansetron in treating AGE in children's vomiting when compared to oral domperidone and oral metoclopramide. Methodology A clinical investigation involving 120 pediatric patients diagnosed with AGE was conducted in Pakistan from November 2022 to April 2023 using a single-blind randomized design and convenience sampling. The participants received oral suspensions of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and domperidone, with doses of 0.15 mg/kg, 0.1-0.2 mg/kg, and 0.5 mg/kg, respectively, adjusted according to their body weight. The outcome in different groups was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (version 20.0; IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY). Results At six hours, vomiting cessation rates were 80.0% for ondansetron (n=32), 72.5% for domperidone (n=29), and 67.5% for metoclopramide (n=27; p=0.29). By 24 hours, ondansetron exhibited significantly higher efficacy (92.5%; n=37) compared to domperidone (82.5%; n=33) and metoclopramide (77.5%; n=31; p=0.03). Adverse effects were minimal and comparable across groups. Conclusion Oral ondansetron demonstrated superior efficacy in managing AGE-related vomiting in children within 24 hours compared to metoclopramide and domperidone.

Guiding future paediatric drug studies based on existing pharmacokinetic and efficacy data: Cardiovascular drugs as a proof of concept

INTRODUCTION

Off-label drug use in the paediatric population is common, and the lack of high-quality efficacy studies poses patients at risk for failing pharmacotherapy. Next to efficacy studies, pharmacokinetic (PK) studies are increasingly used to inform paediatric dose selection. As resources for paediatric trials are limited, we aimed to summarize existing PK and efficacy studies to identify knowledge gaps in available evidence supporting paediatric dosing recommendations, thereby taking paediatric cardiovascular drugs as proof of concept.

METHODS

For each cardiovascular drug, paediatric indication and prespecified age group, together comprising one record, the authorized state was assessed. Next, for off-label records, the highest level of evidence was scored. High-quality efficacy studies were defined as meta-analysis or randomized controlled trials. Other comparative research, noncomparative research or consensus-based expert opinions were considered low quality. The level of evidence for PK studies was scored per drug and per age group, but regardless of indication.

RESULTS

A total of 58 drugs included 417 records, of which 279 (67%) were off-label. Of all off-label records, the majority (81%) were not supported by high-quality efficacy studies, but for 140 of these records (62%) high-quality PK studies were available.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that for the majority of off-label cardiovascular drugs, only low-quality efficacy studies were available. However, high-quality PK studies were frequently available. Combining these PK data with extrapolation of efficacy data from adults may help to close the current information gap and prioritize the drugs for which clinical studies and safety data are urgently needed.

Advances in pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling for pediatric drug development: extrapolations and exposure-response analyses

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacokinetic (PK)-Pharmacodynamic (PD) and exposure-response (E-R) modeling are critical parts of pediatric drug development. By integrating available knowledge and supportive data to support the design of future studies and pediatric dose selection, these techniques increase the efficiency of pediatric drug development and lowers the risk of exposing pediatric study participants to suboptimal or unsafe dose regimens.

AREAS COVERED

The role of PK, PK-PD and E-R modeling within pediatric drug development and pediatric dose selection is discussed. These models allow investigation of the impact of age and bodyweight on PK and PD in children, despite the often sparse data on the pediatric population. Also discussed is how E-R analyses strengthen the evidence basis to support (full or partial) extrapolation of drug efficacy from adults to children, and between different pediatric age groups.

EXPERT OPINION

Accelerated pediatric drug development and optimized pediatric dosing guidelines are expected from three future developments: (1) Increased focus on E-R modeling of currently approved drugs in children resulting in (novel) E-R modeling techniques and best practices, (2) increased use of real-world data for E-R (3) increased implementation of available population PK and E-R information in pediatric drug dosing guidelines.

An Innovative Tool for Evidence-Based, Personalized Treatment Trials in Mucopolysaccharidosis

Mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) is a group of rare metabolic diseases associated with reduced life expectancy and a substantial unmet medical need. Immunomodulatory drugs could be a relevant treatment approach for MPS patients, although they are not licensed for this population. Therefore, we aim to provide evidence justifying fast access to innovative individual treatment trials (ITTs) with immunomodulators and a high-quality evaluation of drug effects by implementing a risk-benefit model for MPS. The iterative methodology of our developed decision analysis framework (DAF) consists of the following steps: (i) a comprehensive literature analysis on promising treatment targets and immunomodulators for MPS; (ii) a quantitative risk-benefit assessment (RBA) of selected molecules; and (iii) allocation phenotypic profiles and a quantitative assessment. These steps allow for the personalized use of the model and are in accordance with expert and patient representatives. The following four promising immunomodulators were identified: adalimumab, abatacept, anakinra, and cladribine. An improvement in mobility is most likely with adalimumab, while anakinra might be the treatment of choice for patients with neurocognitive involvement. Nevertheless, a RBA should always be completed on an individual basis. Our evidence-based DAF model for ITTs directly addresses the substantial unmet medical need in MPS and characterizes a first approach toward precision medicine with immunomodulatory drugs.

Dexmedetomidine: An Alternative to Pain Treatment in Neonatology

Infants might be exposed to pain during their admissions in the neonatal intensive care unit [NICU], both from their underlying conditions and several invasive procedures required during their stay. Considering the particularities of this population, recognition and adequate management of pain continues to be a challenge for neonatologists and investigators. Diverse therapies are available for treatment, including non-pharmacological pain management measures and pharmacological agents (sucrose, opioids, midazolam, acetaminophen, topical agents…) and research continues. In recent years one of the most promising drugs for analgesia has been dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist. It has shown a promising efficacy and safety profile as it produces anxiolysis, sedation and analgesia without respiratory depression. Moreover, studies have shown a neuroprotective role in animal models which could be beneficial to neonatal population, especially in preterm newborns. Side effects of this therapy are mainly cardiovascular, but in most studies published, those were not severe and did not require specific therapeutic measures for their resolution. The main objective of this article is to summarize the existing literature on neonatal pain management strategies available and review the efficacy of dexmedetomidine as a new therapy with increasing use in the NICU.

Off-Label Use vs Off-Label Marketing of Drugs: Part 1: Off-Label Use-Patient Harms and Prescriber Responsibilities

Once medical drugs and devices are approved for marketing by the FDA they can legally be used for purposes and in ways other than the ones for which they have been tested and approved. However, it is illegal for manufacturers to advertise or promote such unapproved uses of the drugs and devices. Part 1 of this review focuses on off-label use of FDA-approved therapies. Part 2 addresses illegal off-label marketing of drugs and devices. While off-label use can be beneficial to patients, unless carefully undertaken off label use may undermine the important safety mission of the FDA, can expose patients to elevated risks without proven benefits (or possibly no benefit), and can reduce motivation of companies to study the safety and risks of off-label use of therapies. These problems are further amplified when off-label use occurs among very vulnerable patient populations such as the elderly, patients with mental health disorders, pregnant women and pediatric patients. This review considers ethical issues in off-label use, as well as important steps for physicians considering an off-label prescription of a drug or device.

Paediatric drug development and evaluation: Existing challenges and recommendations

Despite various international regulatory initiatives over the last 20 years, many challenges remain in the field of paediatric drug development and evaluation. Indeed, drug research and development is still focused essentially on adult indications, thereby excluding many paediatric patients, limiting the feasibility of trials and favouring competing developments. Off-label prescribing persists and the development of age-appropriate dosage forms for children remains limited. Against this background, the members of this panel (TR) recommend the launch of multi-partner exchange forums on specific topics in order to focus new drug research and development on the real, unmet medical needs of children and adolescents, and in keeping with the underlying mechanisms of action. Scientific information sharing and cooperation between stakeholders are also essential for defining reference evaluation methods in each medical field. These forums can be organised through existing paediatric facilities and research networks at the French and European level. The latter are specifically dedicated to paediatric research and can facilitate clinical trial implementation and patient enrolment. Moreover, specific grants and public/private partnerships are still needed to support studies on the repositioning of drugs in paediatric indications, and pharmacokinetic studies aimed at defining appropriate dosages. The development of new pharmaceutical forms, better suited for paediatric use, and the promotion of resulting innovations will stimulate future investments. Initiatives to gather observational safety and efficacy data following off-label and/or derogatory early access should also be encouraged to compensate for the lack of information available in these situations. Finally, the creation of Ethics Committees (EC) with a specific "mother-child" advisory expertise should be promoted to ensure that the current regulation (Jardé law in France) is implemented whilst also taking into account the paediatric specificities in medical trials.

Off-Label, but on-Evidence? A Review of the Level of Evidence for Pediatric Pharmacotherapy

Many drugs are still prescribed off-label to the pediatric population. Although off-label drug use not supported by high level of evidence is potentially harmful, a comprehensive overview of the quality of the evidence pertaining off-label drug use in children is lacking. The Dutch Pediatric Formulary (DPF) provides best evidence-based dosing guidelines for drugs used in children. For each drug-indication-age group combination-together compiling one record-we scored the highest available level of evidence: labeled use, systematic review or meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial (RCT), comparative research, noncomparative research, or consensus-based expert opinions. For records based on selected guidelines, the original sources were not reviewed. These records were scored as guideline. A total of 774 drugs were analyzed comprising a total of 6,426 records. Of all off-label records (n = 2,718), 14% were supported by high quality evidence (4% meta-analysis or systematic reviews, 10% RCTs of high quality), 20% by comparative research, 14% by noncomparative research, 37% by consensus-based expert opinions, and 15% by selected guidelines. Fifty-eight percent of all records were authorized, increasing with age from 30% in preterm neonates (n = 110) up to 64% in adolescents (n = 1,630). Many have advocated that off-label use is only justified when supported by a high level of evidence. We show that this prerequisite would seriously limit available drug treatment for children as the underlying evidence is low across ages and drug classes. Our data identify the drugs and therapeutic areas for which evidence is clearly missing and could drive the global research agenda.

The Use of Psychotropic Medication in Pediatric Oncology for Acute Psychological and Psychiatric Problems: Balancing Risks and Benefits

Severe acute behavioral and emotional problems represent one of the most serious treatment-related adverse effects for children and adolescents who have cancer. The critical and severe nature of these symptoms often makes necessary the use of psychotropic drugs. A working group composed of experts in multiple disciplines had the task of creating an agreement regarding a management plan for severe acute behavioral and emotional problems (SABEPs) in children and adolescents treated for cancer. To obtain global information on the use of psychotropic drugs in pediatric oncology, the working group first developed and mailed a 15-item questionnaire to many Italian pediatric oncology centers. Overall, an evident lack of knowledge and education regarding the use of psychotropic medications for the treatment of SABEPs was found. Thus, by referring to an adapted version of the Delphi method of consensus and standard methods for the elaboration of clinical questions (PICOs), the working group elaborated evidence-based recommendations for psychotropic drugs in the pediatric oncology setting. Furthermore, based on a thorough multivariate analysis of needs and difficulties, a comprehensive management flow was developed to optimize therapeutic interventions, which allows more accurate and efficient matching of the acute needs of patients while guiding treatment options.

Guideline for the management of pediatric off-label use of drugs in China (2021)

BACKGROUND

The "Law on Doctors of the People's Republic of China," which was officially implemented on March 1, 2022, emphasizes the requirements for rational drug use and the necessity for appropriate management of off-label drug use. The safety and ethical considerations related to off-label drug use are different in children than in adults. There is so far no management guideline for pediatric off-label use of drugs in China, and the applicability of foreign guidelines is limited. Establishing a localized evidence-based management guideline for pediatric off-label use of drugs to support the national legislation and clinical practice is of critical importance.

METHODS

We established a guideline working group, including experts from a broad range of disciplines and developed recommendations following the guidance of the World Health Organization Handbook and the Chinese Medical Association. The following themes were identified by questionnaires and expert interviews to be of great concern in the management of off-label drug use in children: general principles and characteristics of management of pediatric off-label drug use; establishment of expert committees; evidence evaluation; risk-benefit assessment; informed consent; monitoring and assessment of the risk; and monitoring and patient education. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were organized to determine the final recommendations of this guideline. We graded the recommendations based on the body of evidence, referring to the evaluation tool of the Evidence-based management (EBMgt) and the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine: Level of Evidence (March 2009).

RESULTS

We developed the first guideline for the management of pediatric off-label use of drugs in China.

CONCLUSIONS

The guideline is to offer guidance for pediatricians, pharmacists, medical managers, policymakers, and primary care physicians on how to manage off-label drug use in pediatrics and to provide recommendations for Chinese healthcare policy in the future.

Best Evidence-Based Dosing Recommendations for Dexmedetomidine for Premedication and Procedural Sedation in Pediatrics: Outcome of a Risk-Benefit Analysis By the Dutch Pediatric Formulary

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is currently off-label for use in pediatric clinical care worldwide. Nevertheless, it is frequently prescribed to pediatric patients as premedication prior to induction of anesthesia or for procedural sedation. There is ample literature on the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in this vulnerable patient population, but there is a general lack of consensus on dosing. In this project, we aimed to use the standardized workflow of the Dutch Pediatric Formulary to establish best evidence-based pediatric dosing guidelines for dexmedetomidine as premedication and for procedural sedation.

METHOD

The available literature on dexmedetomidine in pediatrics was reviewed in order to address the following three questions: (1) What is the right dose? (2) What is known about efficacy? (3) What is known about safety? Relevant literature was compiled into a risk-benefit analysis document. A team of clinical experts critically appraised the analysis and the proposed dosing recommendations.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine is most commonly administered via the intravenous or intranasal route. Clearance is age dependent, warranting higher doses in infants to reach similar exposure as in adults. Dexmedetomidine use results in satisfactory sedation at parent separation, adequate sedation and a favorable recovery profile. The safety profile is good and comparable to adults, with dose-related hemodynamic effects.

CONCLUSION

Following the structured approach of the Dutch Pediatric Formulary, best evidence-based dosing recommendations were proposed for dexmedetomidine, used as premedication prior to induction of anesthesia (intranasal dose) and for procedural sedation (intranasal and intravenous dose) in pediatric patients.

Evidenzbasierte Off-label-Anwendung von Arzneimitteln bei Kindern und Jugendlichen

Trotz verbesserter gesetzlicher Rahmenbedingungen bei der Entwicklung von Arzneimitteln (AM) für Kinder bestehen für viele pädiatrische Therapiebereiche und v. a. die jüngsten Altersgruppen immer noch große Defizite in der AM-Versorgung. Daher müssen viele AM für Kinder außerhalb der Zulassung (off-label) und somit ohne pädiatrische Fachinformationen angewendet werden. Dadurch besteht ein erhöhtes Risiko für inadäquate Dosierungen sowie fehlende oder unerwünschte Wirkungen. In der Off-label-Anwendung haben Verschreibende eine erhöhte Verantwortung, auf die bestverfügbare Evidenz zurückzugreifen, um altersentsprechende Dosierungen zu wählen sowie Nutzen und Risiko zu bewerten. Dieser Verantwortung können einzelne Verschreibende kaum gerecht werden, weil die wenigen verfügbaren pädiatrischen Daten oft von heterogener Qualität und nicht unmittelbar verfügbar sind.

Das internationale Konsortium von Kinderformularien stellt eine Kollaboration in derzeit vier europäischen Ländern dar (Niederlande, Deutschland, Österreich, Norwegen) dar und baut auf dem niederländischen Kinderformularium auf. Das Konsortium hält AM-Informationen für Kinder und Jugendliche, basierend auf bestverfügbarer Evidenz, bereit; diese werden anhand von systematischen Recherchen, kritischen Evaluationen, ExpertInnenreviews, internationaler Harmonisierung sowie regelmäßigen Aktualisierungen erstellt und transparent referenziert. Die Plattform ist webbasiert und Nutzern in der jeweiligen Landessprache frei zugänglich.

Das internationale Konsortium von Kinderformularien bietet die Grundlage der Off-label-Anwendung von AM bei Kindern und Jugendlichen, um nach bestverfügbarer Evidenz altersentsprechende Dosierungen zu wählen sowie Nutzen und Risiko abzuwägen.

Development and evaluation of an assessment of the age-appropriateness/inappropriateness of formulations used in children

BACKGROUND

Medicines designed for adults may be inappropriate for use in children in terms of strength, dosage form and/or excipient content. There is currently no standardised method of assessing the age-appropriateness of a medicine for paediatric use.

AIM

To develop and test a tool to assess whether a dosage form (formulation) is appropriate for children and estimate the proportion of formulations considered 'inappropriate' in a cohort of hospitalised paediatric patients with a chronic illness.

METHOD

A multi-phase study: patient data collection, tool development, case assessments and tool validation. Inpatients aged 0-17 years at two UK paediatric/neonatal hospitals during data collection periods between January 2015 and March 2016. Written informed consent/assent was obtained. Medicines assessed were new or regularly prescribed to inpatients as part of their routine clinical care. All medicine administration episodes recorded were assessed using the Age-appropriate Formulation tool. The tool was developed by a consensus approach, as a one-page flowchart. Independent case assessments were evaluated in 2019.

RESULTS

In 427 eligible children; 2,199 medicine administration episodes were recorded. Two assessors reviewed 220 episodes in parallel: percentage exact agreement was found to be 91.7% (99/108) and 93.1% (95/102). In total, 259/2,199 (11.8%) medicine administration episodes involved a dosage form categorised as 'age-inappropriate'.

CONCLUSION

A novel tool has been developed and internally validated. The tool can identify which medicines would benefit from development of an improved paediatric formulation. It has shown high inter-rater reliability between users. External validation is needed to further assess the tool's utility in different settings.

Development of the Swiss Database for dosing medicinal products in pediatrics

In daily paediatrics, drugs are commonly used off-label, as they are not approved for children. Approval is lacking because the required clinical studies were limited to adults in the past. Without clinical studies, evidence-based recommendations for drug use in children are limited. Information on off-label drug dosing in children can be found in different handbooks, databases and scientific publications but the dosing recommendations can differ considerably. To improve safety and efficacy of drugs prescribed to children and to assist the prescribers, stakeholders in Swiss paediatrics started a pilot project, supported by the Federal Office of Public Health, with the aim to create a database, providing healthcare professionals with so called "harmonised" dosage recommendations based on the latest available scientific evidence and best clinical practice. A standardised process for dosage harmonisation between paediatric experts was defined, guided and documented in an electronic tool, developed for this purpose. As proof of principle, a total of 102 dosage recommendations for 30 different drugs have been nationally harmonised in the pilot phase considering the current scientific literature and the approval of the most experienced national experts in the field.Conclusion: This approach paved the way for unified national dosage recommendations for children. Reaching the project's milestones fulfilled the prerequisites for funding and starting regular operation of SwissPedDose in 2018. Since then, the database was extended with recommendations for 100 additional drugs. What is Known: • Prescribing off-label is a common practice among paediatricians, as many drugs are still not authorised for use in children. • Some countries developed national drug formularies providing off-label dosage recommendations. What is New: • Comparison of published dosage recommendations in known drug handbooks and online databases show substantial differences and heterogeneity, revealing the need for harmonisation. • The design of a tool for standardised harmonisation of dosage recommendations, based on information collected on currently applied dosages, latest scientific evidence and the approval of experts.

Pharmacokinetics of Antibiotics in Pediatric Intensive Care: Fostering Variability to Attain Precision Medicine

Children show important developmental and maturational changes, which may contribute greatly to pharmacokinetic (PK) variability observed in pediatric patients. These PK alterations are further enhanced by disease-related, non-maturational factors. Specific to the intensive care setting, such factors include critical illness, inflammatory status, augmented renal clearance (ARC), as well as therapeutic interventions (e.g., extracorporeal organ support systems or whole-body hypothermia [WBH]). This narrative review illustrates the relevance of both maturational and non-maturational changes in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) applied to antibiotics. It hereby provides a focused assessment of the available literature on the impact of critical illness—in general, and in specific subpopulations (ARC, extracorporeal organ support systems, WBH)—on PK and potential underexposure in children and neonates. Overall, literature discussing antibiotic PK alterations in pediatric intensive care is scarce. Most studies describe antibiotics commonly monitored in clinical practice such as vancomycin and aminoglycosides. Because of the large PK variability, therapeutic drug monitoring, further extended to other antibiotics, and integration of model-informed precision dosing in clinical practice are suggested to optimise antibiotic dose and exposure in each newborn, infant, or child during intensive care.