Comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children

Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research

Similar to systematic reviews (SRs) in clinical fields, preclinical SRs address a specific research area, furnishing information on current knowledge, possible gaps, and potential methodological flaws of study design, conduct, and report. One of the main goals of preclinical SRs is to identify aspiring treatment strategies and evaluate if currently available data is solid enough to translate to clinical trials or highlight the gaps, thus justifying the need for new studies. It is imperative to rigorously follow the methodological standards that are widely available. These include registration of the protocol and adherence to guidelines for assessing the risk of bias, study quality, and certainty of evidence. A special consideration should be made for pediatric SRs, clinical and preclinical, due to the unique characteristics of this age group. These include rationale for intervention and comparison of primary and secondary outcomes. Outcomes measured should acknowledge age-related physiological changes and maturational processes of different organ systems. It is crucial to choose the age of the animals appropriately and its possible correspondence for specific pediatric age groups. The findings of well-conducted SRs of preclinical studies have the potential to provide a reliable evidence synthesis to guide the design of future preclinical and clinical studies. IMPACT: This narrative review highlights the importance of rigorous design, conduct and reporting of preclinical primary studies and systematic reviews. A special consideration should be made for pediatric systematic reviews of preclinical studies, due to the unique characteristics of this age group.

Identifying research priorities with children, youth, and families: A scoping review

Increased patient advocacy has resulted in a shift toward more active patient engagement in the research. A scoping review was conducted to explore the literature on healthcare research priority settings wherein children, youths, or their families were involved in the priority-setting process. Six databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Global Health and the James Lind Alliance website were searched up until September 2019. All primary studies involving children (<18 years of age) or families in developing research priorities in health care were included. All retrieved references were uploaded into Covidence, and two independent reviewers screened the search results. Descriptive thematic analysis was used to identify common themes. A total of 30 studies with 4247 participants were included. Less than half of the participants (n = 1237, (33%) were pediatric patients and their families. A total of 455 research priorities were identified. Three common themes emerged: (i) quality of care delivery, (ii) self-efficacy in health behaviors, and (iii) community engagement in care. This scoping review revealed priority research health topics from the perspectives of children, youths, or their families. The findings may be used as a foundation for future research to improve the health outcomes of children, youths, or their families according to their identified priorities.

New Information on Old Medicinal Products: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Guidance for Paediatric Use for Substances on the European Priority List of Off-Patent Medicinal Products

BACKGROUND

As part of the European Paediatric Regulation, the European Medicines Agency (former European Medicines Evaluation Agency) and the Paediatric Working Party (precursor for the Paediatric Committee) revised a priority list for studies on off-patent medicinal products in 2007 where a need for studies on paediatric medicinal products was emphasised.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the status of guidance for paediatric use in the Summary of Product Characteristics for medicinal products on the priority list as well as the presence and status of Paediatric Investigation Plans for these medicinal products.

METHODS

We included active pharmaceutical ingredients on the priority list authorised through the centralised procedure and/or marketed in Denmark. The status of guidance for paediatric use (indication, posology and/or contraindication) was reviewed from the most recent Summary of Product Characteristics uploaded on the European Medicines Agency or the Danish Medicines Agency website as of November 2020. Information on Paediatric Investigation Plans status (Paediatric Committee opinion, completion and waivers granted) was retrieved from the European Medicines Agency website.

RESULTS

A total of 121 active pharmaceutical ingredients were included in this study. Seventy-one percent had guidance for paediatric use in the Summary of Product Characteristics for at least one paediatric subpopulation, more often concerning adolescents (70%) and children (70%) as compared with neonates (41%) and infants (49%). The guidance included a paediatric indication in 46% of the cases, but less often a contraindication (13%). Thirty-three active pharmaceutical ingredients had an agreed Paediatric Investigation Plan, six of these were completed.

CONCLUSIONS

Most active pharmaceutical ingredients from the priority list had guidance for paediatric use in the Summary of Product Characteristics. However, there is still an unmet need in relation to guidance for use for the youngest paediatric subpopulation.

Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Participation in Prioritization of Research Questions in Pediatric Hospital Medicine

IMPORTANCE

The research agenda in pediatric hospital medicine has seldom considered the perspectives of young people, parents and caregivers, and health care professionals. Their perspectives may be useful in identifying questions on topics for research.

OBJECTIVE

To prioritize unanswered research questions in pediatric hospital medicine from the perspectives of young people, parents/caregivers, and health care professionals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Between August 4, 2020, and August 19, 2021, two online surveys and a virtual workshop were conducted, using modified Delphi technique and nominal group technique. Young people, parents/caregivers, and health care professionals with experiences in pediatric hospital medicine in Canada were included.

INTERVENTIONS

The established James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method was used. In phase 1, a survey collected unanswered questions regarding pediatric hospital medicine via 3 open-ended questions. Survey responses were used to develop summary questions that went through an evidence-checking process. Unanswered questions were brought to a phase 2 interim prioritization survey. The top 10 unanswered research questions in pediatric hospital medicine were established at the final priority setting workshop.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Survey responses, top 10 research questions.

RESULTS

The phase 1 survey was completed by 188 participants (148 of 167 [89%] females; 17 of 167 [10%] males; mean [SD] age, 39.5 [12.4] years) and generated 495 unanswered research questions and comments, of which 58 were deemed out of scope. The remaining 437 responses were grouped into themes (eg, communication, shared decision-making, health service delivery, and health service management) and then refined to 75 unanswered research questions. Of these 75, only 4 questions had sufficient evidence. To make the number of questions in phase 2 manageable, 21 questions submitted by only 1 respondent were eliminated. Fifty unanswered research questions were included in the phase 2 survey, which was completed by 201 participants (165 of 186 [89%] females; 19 of 186 [10%] males; mean [SD] age, 40.0 [11.0] years). A short list of 16 questions-the top 10 questions from patient partners (youths, parents/caregivers) and clinicians-was presented at the final priority setting workshop and the top 10 questions were prioritized. The top 10 questions focused on the care of special inpatient populations (eg, children with medical complexity), communication, shared decision-making, support strategies in the hospital, mental health supports, shortening length of stay, and supporting Indigenous patients, parents/caregivers, and families.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This patient-oriented pediatric hospital medicine priority setting partnership identified the most important unanswered research questions focused on the care of children in the hospital. These questions provide a possible roadmap for research on areas deemed important to young people, parents/caregivers, and clinicians.

High prevalence of off-label and unlicensed paediatric prescribing in a hospital in Indonesia during the period Aug.-Oct. 2014

BACKGROUND

Data on off-label and unlicensed prescribing in children in Indonesia is limited. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of off-label and unlicensed prescribing for paediatric patients in a public hospital, Indonesia.

METHOD

A retrospective cross-sectional study of 200 randomly selected paediatric patients admitted to hospital between August and October 2014, collected patient details and all drugs prescribed. Licensed drugs were classified as off-label if there was a non-compliance with the Product Information for age, weight, indication, dose, frequency and route of administration, if there was a contraindication, special precautions or not recommended for children. Unlicensed drugs were those not approved for use in Indonesia. The main outcome was the prevalence of off-label or unlicensed prescribing to infants, children and adolescents and the impact of age group on off-label prescribing.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients received 1961 medicines of which 1807/1961 (92.1%) were licensed and 154/1961 (7.9%) were unlicensed. There were 1403/1961 (71.5%) drugs prescribed off-label. More than half of the total drugs (n = 1066; 54.4%) were administered parenterally. Every patient was prescribed at least one off-label drug. Indication (n = 810; 34.6%) was the most common reason for off-label prescribing. Ranitidine was the most frequent drug prescribed off label. Darplex® (dihydroartemisinin and piperaquine), although manufactured in Indonesia, was unlicensed. There was a significant difference between age group and off-label prescribing in that children were prescribed significantly less off-label drugs (p<0.0003).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed a high prevalence of off-label and unlicensed drug use in paediatric patients in this hospital, exposing them to drug treatments or regimens that had not been approved by regulatory authorities. The high incidence of invasive parenteral prescribing is of concern for paediatric patients. Incentives are needed to encourage specific drug evaluation in paediatric populations.

Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in evaluating differences in healthcare interventions across routinely collected demographic characteristics. However, individual subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials are often not prespecified, adjusted for multiple testing, or conducted using the appropriate statistical test for interaction, and therefore frequently lack credibility. Meta-analyses can be used to examine the validity of potential subgroup differences by collating evidence across trials. Here, we characterize the conduct and clinical translation of age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews.

METHODS

For a random sample of 928 Cochrane intervention reviews of randomized trials, we determined how often subgroup analyses of age are reported, how often these analyses have a P < 0.05 from formal interaction testing, how frequently subgroup differences first observed in an individual trial are later corroborated by other trials in the same meta-analysis, and how often statistically significant results are included in commonly used clinical management resources (BMJ Best Practice, UpToDate, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Google Scholar, and Google search).

RESULTS

Among 928 Cochrane intervention reviews, 189 (20.4%) included plans to conduct age-treatment subgroup analyses. The vast majority (162 of 189, 85.7%) of the planned analyses were not conducted, commonly because of insufficient trial data. There were 22 reviews that conducted their planned age-treatment subgroup analyses, and another 3 reviews appeared to perform unplanned age-treatment subgroup analyses. These 25 (25 of 928, 2.7%) reviews conducted a total of 97 age-treatment subgroup analyses, of which 65 analyses (in 20 reviews) had non-overlapping subgroup levels. Among the 65 age-treatment subgroup analyses, 14 (21.5%) did not report any formal interaction testing. Seven (10.8%) reported P < 0.05 from formal age-treatment interaction testing; however, none of these seven analyses were in reviews that discussed the potential biological rationale or clinical significance of the subgroup findings or had results that were included in common clinical practice resources.

CONCLUSION

Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews were frequently planned but rarely conducted, and implications of detected interactions were not discussed in the reviews or mentioned in common clinical resources. When subgroup analyses are performed, authors should report the findings, compare the results to previous studies, and outline any potential impact on clinical care.

Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate research priority setting approaches in childhood chronic diseases and to describe the priorities of stakeholders including patients, caregivers/families and health professionals.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 16 October 2016. Studies that elicited stakeholder priorities for paediatric chronic disease research were eligible for inclusion. Data on the prioritisation process were extracted using an appraisal checklist. Generated priorities were collated into common topic areas.

RESULTS

We identified 83 studies (n=15 722). Twenty (24%) studies involved parents/caregivers and four (5%) children. The top three health areas were cancer (11%), neurology (8%) and endocrine/metabolism (8%). Priority topic areas were treatment (78%), disease trajectory (48%), quality of life/psychosocial impact (48%), disease onset/prevention (43%), knowledge/self-management (33%), prevalence (30%), diagnostic methods (28%), access to healthcare (25%) and transition to adulthood (12%). The methods included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys and focus groups/interviews. Specific methods for collecting and prioritising research topics were described in only 60% of studies. Most reviewed studies were conducted in high-income nations.

CONCLUSIONS

Research priority setting activities in paediatric chronic disease cover many discipline areas and have elicited a broad range of topics. However, child/caregiver involvement is uncommon, and the methods often lack clarity. A systematic and explicit process that involves patients and families in partnership may help to inform a more patient and family-relevant research agenda in paediatric chronic disease.

Comparison of nuisance parameters in pediatric versus adult randomized trials: a meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation

Background

We wished to compare the nuisance parameters of pediatric vs. adult randomized-trials (RCTs) and determine if the latter can be used in sample size computations of the former.

Methods

In this meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation we examined meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic-Reviews, with at least one pediatric-RCT and at least one adult-RCT. Within each meta-analysis of binary efficacy-outcomes, we calculated the pooled-control-group event-rate (CER) across separately all pediatric and adult-trials, using random-effect models and subsequently calculated the control-group event-rate risk-ratio (CER-RR) of the pooled-pediatric-CERs vs. adult-CERs. Within each meta-analysis with continuous outcomes we calculated the pooled-control-group effect standard deviation (CE-SD) across separately all pediatric and adult-trials and subsequently calculated the CE-SD-ratio of the pooled-pediatric-CE-SDs vs. adult-CE-SDs. We then calculated across all meta-analyses the pooled-CER-RRs and pooled-CE-SD-ratios (primary endpoints) and the pooled-magnitude of effect-sizes of CER-RRs and CE-SD-ratios using REMs. A ratio < 1 indicates that pediatric trials have smaller nuisance parameters than adult trials.

Results

We analyzed 208 meta-analyses (135 for binary-outcomes, 73 for continuous-outcomes). For binary outcomes, pediatric-RCTs had on average 10% smaller CERs than adult-RCTs (summary-CE-RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.98). For mortality outcomes the summary-CE-RR was 0.48 (95% CIs: 0.31, 0.74). For continuous outcomes, pediatric-RCTs had on average 26% smaller CE-SDs than adult-RCTs (summary-CE-SD-ratio: 0.74).

Conclusions

Clinically relevant differences in nuisance parameters between pediatric and adult trials were detected. These differences have implications for design of future studies. Extrapolation of nuisance parameters for sample-sizes calculations from adult-trials to pediatric-trials should be cautiously done.

Comparative evidence on harms in pediatric randomized clinical trials from less developed versus more developed countries is limited

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate comparative harm rates from medical interventions in pediatric randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from more developed (MDCs) and less developed countries (LDCs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation of Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (June 2014) meta-analyses reporting clinically important harm-outcomes (severe adverse events [AEs], discontinuations due to AEs, any AE, and mortality) that included at least one pediatric RCT from MDCs and at least one from LDCs. We estimated relative odds ratios (RORs) for each harm, within each meta-analysis, between RCTs from MDCs and LDCs and calculated random-effects-summary-RORs (sRORs) for each harm across multiple meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Only 1% (26/2,363) of meta-analyses with clinically important harm-outcomes in the entire Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews included pediatric RCTs both from MDCs and LDCs. We analyzed 26 meta-analyses with 244 data sets from pediatric RCTs, 116 from MDCs and 128 from LDCs (64 and 66 unique RCTs respectively). The summary ROR was 0.92 (95% confidence intervals: 0.78-1.08) for severe AEs; 1.13 (0.54-2.34) for discontinuations due to AEs; 1.10 (0.77-1.59) for any AE; and 0.99 (0.61-1.61) for mortality and for the all-harms-combined-end point 0.96 (0.83-1.10). Differences of ROR-point-estimates ≥2-fold between MDCs and LDCs were identified in 35% of meta-analyses.

CONCLUSION

We found no major systematic differences in harm rates in pediatric trials between MDCs and LDCs, but data on harms in children were overall very limited.

[Justification of off-label antibiotics uses in hospitalized children]

Unlicensed and off-label (UL/OL) drugs are commonly used in pediatrics wards, especially the antibiotics. It remains unclear if this strategy is justified by randomized controlled trials of good quality?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the level of evidence of UL/OL antibiotics prescription in hospitalized children. The initial hypothesis was that the UL/OL antibiotics prescriptions had a lower level of evidence than licensed antibiotics.

METHOD

This observational study assessed the antibiotics prescription in the children mother and women hospital of Lyon. Each antibiotic medicine courses was classified depending on: (i) they were licensed, UL or OL, (ii) their level of evidence for efficiency (sufficient evidence, insufficient evidence, no evidence) and (iii) the existence or not of randomized controlled trials (RCT) or not. The antibiotics medicine courses in atypical cases were excluded (rare disease, lack of diagnosis, comorbidities modifying antibiotic use). Data were collected with computerized patient file data. The data were compared using Fisher exact test and χ².

RESULTS

One hundred and eight medicine courses were identified, corresponding to 72 mono, bi or tri-antibiotic therapies administered to 62 patients; 34% were OL and 66% were licensed. No prescriptions were UL. Thirty-two prescriptions were excluded from the evidence assessment. No proof of efficiency was found for any of the 76 analyzed medicine courses. RCTs were found for 36 of the analyzed medicine courses (47%); licensed medicine courses were significantly more justified by RCTs than UL/OL medicine courses (63% vs. 16%, P<0.001).

DISCUSSION

This study has shown the absence of RCTs of good quality to justify the prescriptions of antibiotics in pediatrics, regardless their license status. Nevertheless, the licensed prescriptions have shown more data of efficiency than OL prescriptions. Still, even when data were found, no antibiotics prescriptions reach the threshold of good quality studies. New clinical trials should respond to the patient needs.

Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?-two systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that newborn and child health systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibit poor quality in reporting. The "Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" (PRISMA) and PRISMA-Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklists have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic review results and protocols, respectively. We aimed to evaluate the clarity and transparency in reporting of child-centric items in child health systematic reviews (SRs) and SR protocols and to identify areas where reporting could be strengthened.

METHODS

Two preliminary lists of potential child-centric reporting items were used to examine current reporting. The Cochrane, DARE, MEDLINE, and EMBASE libraries were searched from 2010 to 2014 for systematic reviews that included children. Each report and protocol that met the inclusion criteria had their quality of reporting assessed by their reporting of child-centric items. Quality of reporting was assessed per whether one third, one to two thirds, or more than two thirds of papers complied with potential child-centric potential modifications/extensions to PRISMA and were analyzed by the following: (i) paper type (i.e., report vs. protocol), (ii) publication type (i.e., Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane), and (iii) population type (i.e., child-only vs. mixed populations vs. family/maternal).

RESULTS

Of the 414 eligible articles, 248 reports and 76 protocols were included. In 21 of 24 potential SR reporting items and 13 of 14 potential SR protocol reporting items, less than two thirds of papers met the child-centric reporting item requirements. Mixed population studies displayed significantly poorer reporting in comparison to child-only and family/maternal intervention studies for 11 potential SR reporting items (p < 0.05) and five potential SR protocol items (p < 0.05). When comparing non-Cochrane to Cochrane reports and protocols, five items in both lists were found to perform significantly poorer in non-Cochrane reports (p < 0.05). Significant differences in reporting quality were found in three of 14 items shared between the potential SR reporting items and potential SR protocol reporting items (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Newborn and child health systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibit incomplete reporting, thereby hindering prudent decision-making by healthcare providers and policy makers. These results provide a rationale for the implementation of child-centric extensions and modifications to current PRISMA and PRISMA-P, such as to improve reporting in this population.

Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are key tools to enable decision making by healthcare providers and policymakers. Despite the availability of the evidence based Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-P 2015) statements that were developed to improve the transparency and quality of reporting of systematic reviews, uncertainty on how to deal with pediatric-specific methodological challenges of systematic reviews impairs decision-making in child health. In this paper, we identify methodological challenges specific to the design, conduct and reporting of pediatric systematic reviews, and propose a process to address these challenges.

DISCUSSION

One fundamental decision at the outset of a systematic review is whether to focus on a pediatric population only, or to include both adult and pediatric populations. Both from the policy and patient care point of view, the appropriateness of interventions and comparators administered to pre-defined pediatric age subgroup is critical. Decisions need to be based on the biological plausibility of differences in treatment effects across the developmental trajectory in children. Synthesis of evidence from different trials is often impaired by the use of outcomes and measurement instruments that differ between trials and are neither relevant nor validated in the pediatric population. Other issues specific to pediatric systematic reviews include lack of pediatric-sensitive search strategies and inconsistent choices of pediatric age subgroups in meta-analyses. In addition to these methodological issues generic to all pediatric systematic reviews, special considerations are required for reviews of health care interventions' safety and efficacy in neonatology, global health, comparative effectiveness interventions and individual participant data meta-analyses. To date, there is no standard approach available to overcome this problem. We propose to develop a consensus-based checklist of essential items which researchers should consider when they are planning (PRISMA-PC-Protocol for Children) or reporting (PRISMA-C-reporting for Children) a pediatric systematic review. Available guidelines including PRISMA do not cover the complexity associated with the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in the pediatric population; they require additional and modified standards for reporting items. Such guidance will facilitate the translation of knowledge from the literature to bedside care and policy, thereby enhancing delivery of care and improving child health outcomes.

Comparative rates of harms in randomized trials from more developed versus less developed countries may be different

OBJECTIVES

We set up to evaluate the relative risk of harms in trials performed in less developed vs. more developed countries.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Meta-epidemiologic evaluation using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We considered meta-analyses with at least one randomized clinical trial (RCT) in a less developed country and one RCT in a more developed country. We targeted severe adverse events (AEs), discontinuations due to AEs, any AE, organ system-specific AEs, individual AEs, and all discontinuations due to any reason. We estimated the relative odds ratio (ROR) of harms between more and less developed countries for each topic and the summary ROR (sROR) across topics under each category of harms.

RESULTS

We identified 42 systematic reviews (128 meta-analyses, 521 independent RCTs). Summary sRORs did not differ significantly from 1.00 for any harm category. Nominally significant RORs were found in only 6/128 meta-analyses. However, in 27% (35/128) of meta-analyses the ROR point estimates indicated relative differences between country settings >2-fold. Considering also ROR 95% confidence intervals, in 92% (118/128) of meta-analyses one could not exclude a 2-fold difference in both directions.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified limited comparative evidence on harms in trials from these two country settings. Substantial differences in the risk point estimates were common; the potential for modest differences could rarely be excluded with confidence.

Different treatment benefits were estimated by clinical trials performed in adults compared with those performed in children

OBJECTIVE

Our main objective was to see whether the therapeutic benefit observed in placebo controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is different between adults and children.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched three electronic databases for meta-analyses that included double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs with separate results for adults and children. The selected reviews were classified according to disease and drug used. The heterogeneity of treatment response between adults and children was measured using ratio of odds ratios (RORs).

RESULTS

We selected 89 meta-analyses and calculated RORs for 124 drugs. Heterogeneity in the direction of the treatment effect was observed in one drug and heterogeneity in the quantity of the treatment effect for 13 drugs, indicating significantly different treatment effect in adults when compared with children. RORs were not significantly different from 1 for 110 drugs. For 36 of these drugs, the treatment effect was confirmed in both populations.

CONCLUSION

We found different treatment benefits estimated by clinical trials performed in adults compared with those performed in children for 14 of 124 drugs. Data on dose adjustment and child age groups from RCTs were not adequately reported to investigate their influence on the treatment benefit dissimilarities.

Clinical trials in children

Safety and efficacy data on many medicines used in children are surprisingly scarce. As a result children are sometimes given ineffective medicines or medicines with unknown harmful side effects. Better and more relevant clinical trials in children are needed to increase our knowledge of the effects of medicines and to prevent the delayed or non-use of beneficial therapies. Clinical trials provide reliable evidence of treatment effects by rigorous controlled testing of interventions on human subjects. Paediatric trials are more challenging to conduct than trials in adults because of the paucity of funding, uniqueness of children and particular ethical concerns. Although current regulations and initiatives are improving the scope, quantity and quality of trials in children, there are still deficiencies that need to be addressed to accelerate radically equitable access to evidence-based therapies in children.

Comparison of treatment effect estimates for pharmacological randomized controlled trials enrolling older adults only and those including adults: a meta-epidemiological study

CONTEXT

Older adults are underrepresented in clinical research. To assess therapeutic efficacy in older patients, some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) include older adults only.

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment effects between RCTs including older adults only (elderly RCTs) and RCTs including all adults (adult RCTs) by a meta-epidemiological approach.

METHODS

All systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2011) were screened. Eligible studies were meta-analyses of binary outcomes of pharmacologic treatment including at least one elderly RCT and at least one adult RCT. For each meta-analysis, we compared summary odds ratios for elderly RCTs and adult RCTs by calculating a ratio of odds ratios (ROR). A summary ROR was estimated across all meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We selected 55 meta-analyses including 524 RCTs (17% elderly RCTs). The treatment effects differed beyond that expected by chance for 7 (13%) meta-analyses, showing more favourable treatment effects in elderly RCTs in 5 cases and in adult RCTs in 2 cases. The summary ROR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.77-1.08, p = 0.28), with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 51% and τ(2) = 0.14). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses by type-of-age RCT (elderly RCTs vs RCTs excluding older adults and vs RCTs of mixed-age adults), type of outcome (mortality or other) and type of comparator (placebo or active drug) yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of pharmacologic treatments did not significantly differ, on average, between RCTs including older adults only and RCTs of all adults. However, clinically important discrepancies may occur and should be considered when generalizing evidence from all adults to older adults.

Pediatric versus adult drug trials for conditions with high pediatric disease burden

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Optimal treatment decisions in children require sufficient evidence on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals in pediatric patients. However, there is concern that not enough trials are conducted in children and that pediatric trials differ from those performed in adults. Our objective was to measure the prevalence of pediatric studies among clinical drug trials and compare trial characteristics and quality indicators between pediatric and adult drug trials.

METHODS

For conditions representing a high burden of pediatric disease, we identified all drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with start dates between 2006 and 2011 and tracked the resulting publications. We measured the proportion of pediatric trials and subjects for each condition and compared pediatric and adult trial characteristics and quality indicators.

RESULTS

For the conditions selected, 59.9% of the disease burden was attributable to children, but only 12.0% (292/2440) of trials were pediatric (P < .001). Among pediatric trials, 58.6% were conducted without industry funding compared with 35.0% of adult trials (P < .001). Fewer pediatric compared with adult randomized trials examined safety outcomes (10.1% vs 16.9%, P = .008). Pediatric randomized trials were slightly more likely to be appropriately registered before study start (46.9% vs 39.3%, P = .04) and had a modestly higher probability of publication in the examined time frame (32.8% vs 23.2%, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial discrepancy between pediatric burden of disease and the amount of clinical trial research devoted to pediatric populations. This may be related in part to trial funding, with pediatric trials relying primarily on government and nonprofit organizations.

Empirical evaluation of age groups and age-subgroup analyses in pediatric randomized trials and pediatric meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

An important step toward improvement of the conduct of pediatric clinical research is the standardization of the ages of children to be included in pediatric trials and the optimal age-subgroups to be analyzed.

METHODS

We set out to evaluate empirically the age ranges of children, and age-subgroup analyses thereof, reported in recent pediatric randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses. First, we screened 24 RCTs published in Pediatrics during the first 6 months of 2011; second, we screened 188 pediatric RCTs published in 2007 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; third, we screened 48 pediatric meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2011. We extracted information on age ranges and age-subgroups considered and age-subgroup differences reported.

RESULTS

The age range of children in RCTs published in Pediatrics varied from 0.1 to 17.5 years (median age: 5; interquartile range: 1.8-10.2) and only 25% of those presented age-subgroup analyses. Large variability was also detected for age ranges in 188 RCTs from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and only 28 of those analyzed age-subgroups. Moreover, only 11 of 48 meta-analyses had age-subgroup analyses, and in 6 of those, only different studies were included. Furthermore, most of these observed differences were not beyond chance.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed large variability in the age ranges and age-subgroups of children included in recent pediatric trials and meta-analyses. Despite the limited available data, some age-subgroup differences were noted. The rationale for the selection of particular age-subgroups deserves further study.

Exogenous glucocorticoids and adverse cerebral effects in children

Glucocorticoids are commonly used in treatment of paediatric diseases, but evidence of associated adverse cerebral effects is accumulating. The various pharmacokinetic profiles of the exogenous glucocorticoids and the changes in pharmacodynamics during childhood, result in different exposure of nervous tissue to exogenous glucocorticoids. Glucocorticoids activate two types of intracellular receptors, the mineralocorticoid receptor and the glucocorticoid receptor. The two receptors differ in cerebral distribution, affinity and effects. Exogenous glucocorticoids favor activation of the glucocorticoid receptor, which is associated with unfavorable cellular outcomes. Prenatal treatment with glucocorticoids can compromise brain growth and is associated with periventricular leukomalacia, attentions deficits and poorer cognitive performance. In the neonatal period exposure to glucocorticoids reduces neurogenesis and cerebral volume, impairs memory and increases the incidence of cerebral palsy. Cerebral effects of glucocorticoids in later childhood have been less thoroughly studied, but apparent brain atrophy, reduced size of limbic structures and neuropsychiatric symptoms have been reported. Glucocortioids affect several cellular structures and functions, which may explain the observed adverse effects. Glucocorticoids can impair neuronal glucose uptake, decrease excitability, cause atrophy of dendrites, compromise development of myelin-producing oligodendrocytes and disturb important cellular structures involved in axonal transport, long-term potentiation and neuronal plasticity. Significant maturation of the brain continues throughout childhood and we hypothesize that exposure to exogenous glucocorticoids during preschool and school age causes adverse cerebral effects. It is our opinion that studies of associations between exposure to glucocorticoids during childhood and impaired neurodevelopment are highly relevant.