Drug labeling changes and pediatric hematology/oncology prescribing: Measuring the impact of U.S. legislation

Abstract

Background/Aims:

The Pediatric Research Equity Act and Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act are intended to promote the conduct of clinical trials that generate pediatric-specific evidence about drug safety and efficacy. This study assesses the quality of evidence generated through Pediatric Research Equity Act–mandated and Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act–incentivized clinical trials of hematology/oncology drugs and characterizes subsequent changes in pediatric drug utilization rates.

Methods:

Trial characteristics (blinding, randomization, and comparator group) were determined for clinical trials that supported pediatric label changes. Using data from OptumLabs^® Data Warehouse, a de-identified administrative claims database, we calculated pediatric utilization rates for each drug. We calculated monthly utilization rates from January 2003 (or from the first month in which data were available) to December 2018.

Results:

We identified 11 hematology/oncology drugs that underwent pediatric label changes under the Pediatric Research Equity Act Pediatric Research Equity Act and/or Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, and we identified 15 trials supporting these changes. Of these trials, 36% (5/14) were randomized, 31% (4/13) were blinded, and 36% (5/14) used a comparator group. A median of 49 children (interquartile range 29.5) received the drug under investigation across these trials. Pediatric label changes were not associated with subsequent changes in pediatric drug utilization. Although some drugs saw increased pediatric use after gaining new pediatric indications, this pattern was not consistently observed. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that drugs were utilized less frequently after they failed to receive pediatric indications.

Conclusions:

Clinical trials of hematology/oncology drugs conducted under the Pediatric Research Equity Act Pediatric Research Equity Act and Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act generally have low methodological rigor, and the resulting label changes are not consistently associated with changes in pediatric utilization. Alternative regulatory strategies and study designs may be necessary to maximize the impact of newly generated knowledge on drug utilization.

Keywords

Clinical trials as topic drug approval health policy pediatrics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Milne

Davis

The pediatric studies initiative: after 15 years have we reached the limit of the law?

Clin Therap 2014; 36(2): 156–162.

Sachs

Avant

Lee

, et al. Pediatric information in drug product labeling. JAMA 2012; 307(18): 1914–1915.

Hoon

Taylor

Kapadia

, et al. Trends in off-label drug use in ambulatory settings: 2006–2015. Pediatrics 2019; 144(4): e20190896.

Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) Program . Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2019.

Landier

Armenian

Bhatia

. Late effects of childhood cancer and its treatment. Pediatr Clin North Am 2015; 62(1): 275–300.

Bernhardt

Lindsay

Allen-Rhoades

, et al. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and Pediatric Research Equity Act reach the age of majority—an oncology perspective. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2021; 68(3): e28871.

Das

Rousseau

Adamson

, et al. New business models to accelerate innovation in pediatric oncology therapeutics: a review. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4(9): 1274–1280.

Zimmerman

Smith

McMahon

, et al. Duration of pediatric clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration. JAMA Pediatr 2018; 173(1): 60–67.

Hwang

Orenstein

Kesselheim

, et al. Completion rate and reporting of mandatory pediatric postmarketing studies under the US pediatric research equity act. JAMA Pediatr 2019; 173(1): 68–74.

10.

Bourgeois

Hwang

. The pediatric research equity act moves into adolescence. JAMA 2017; 317(3): 259–260.

11.

Hill

Henderson

Hornik

, et al. Paediatric cardiovascular clinical trials: an analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov and the food and drug administration pediatric drug labeling database. Cardiol Young 2015; 25(Suppl. 2): 172–180.

12.

Wharton

Murphy

Avant

, et al. Impact of pediatric exclusivity on drug labeling and demonstrations of efficacy. Pediatrics 2014; 134(2): e512–158.

13.

Benjamin

Jr Smith

Murphy

, et al. Peer-reviewed publication of clinical trials completed for pediatric exclusivity. JAMA 2006; 296: 1266–1273.

14.

Roberts

Rodriguez

Murphy

, et al. Pediatric drug labeling: improving the safety and efficacy of pediatric therapies. JAMA 2003; 290(7): 905–911.

15.

Avant

Wharton

Murphy

. Characteristics and changes of pediatric therapeutic trials under the best pharmaceuticals for children act. J Pediatr 2018; 192: 8–12.

16.

Benjamin

Jr Smith

Sun

, et al. Safety and transparency of pediatric drug trials. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009; 163(12): 1080–1086.

17.

Rodriguez

Selen

Avant

, et al. Improving pediatric dosing through pediatric initiatives: what we have learned. Pediatrics 2008; 121(3): 530–539.

18.

Wang

Franklin

Eddings

, et al. Did FDA decisionmaking affect anti-psychotic drug prescribing in children? A time-trend analysis. PLoS ONE 2016; 11(3): e0152195.

19.

Ody

Schmitt

. Who cares about a label- the effect of pediatric drug labeling changes on utilization. Int J Health Econ Manag 2019; 18: 1–29.

20.

Drugs@FDA: FDA approved drug products, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/ (accessed 1 March 2019).

21.

OptumLabs. OptumLabs and OptumLabs data warehouse (OLDW) descriptions and citation. Cambridge, MA: OptumLabs, 2019.

22.

Wallace

Shah

Dennen

, et al. Optum Labs: building a novel node in the learning health care system. Health Aff 2014; 33(7): 1187–1194.

23.

New Pediatric Labeling Information, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/sda/sdnavigation.cfm?sd=labelingdatabase (accessed 1 March 2019).

24.

Written Requests Issued, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/sda/sdnavigation.cfm?sd=labelingdatabase (accessed 1 March 2019).

25.

Postmarket Requirements Commitments, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/pmc/index.cfm (accessed 1 March 2019).

26.

Hébert

Stanbrook

. Indication creep: physician beware. CMAJ 2007; 177(7): 697699.

27.

Mehrotra

Bhattaram

Earp

, et al. Role of quantitative clinical pharmacology in pediatric approval and labeling. Drug Metab Dispos 2016; 44(7): 924–933.

28.

RACE for Children Act, 21 U.S.C. §355c.

29.

Morris

Wooding

Grant

. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med 2011; 104(12): 510–520.

30.

Murthy

Fontela

Berry

. Incorporating adult evidence into pediatric research and practice: Bayesian designs to expedite obtaining child-specific evidence. JAMA 2021; 325(19): 1937–1938.

31.

Corrigan-Curay

Sacks

Woodcock

. Real-world evidence and real-world data for evaluating drug safety and effectiveness. JAMA 2018; 320(9): 867–868.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB