Therapeutic orphans, off-label, pediatric drug development: towards reasonable pharmacotherapy for minors
- PMID: 39526437
- DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2024.2426678
Therapeutic orphans, off-label, pediatric drug development: towards reasonable pharmacotherapy for minors
Abstract
Introduction: The concept that children are therapeutic orphans emerged in the 1960s, triggering eventually worldwide legislation to facilitate pediatric studies, called 'Pediatric Drug Development (PDD).' However, PDD's true aim is not better medicines for children but labels in minors; minors are not another species.
Areas covered: Absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) differ in preterm newborns, but babies mature. With the exception of neonatology, the justifications for clinical, pharmacokinetic, and safety studies were and are exaggerated.
Expert opinion: PDD reflects an artificial regulatory challenge, reflecting mankind's transition into a world of effective new drugs compared to previous millennia when only materials taken from nature were available. Minors need dose assessment and proof of safety; there is a tendency to exaggerate the scope of pharmacokinetic and safety studies before and after the eighteenth birthday, potentially motivated not by industry's greed, but by researchers' desire for funding and regulatory authorities' desire for recognition, specifically as since 2007 the European Medicines Agency (EMA) augmented and expanded PDD: a new type of conflict of interest in medicines' administration and mainstream medical science.
Keywords: Pediatric drug development (PDD); children as therapeutic orphans; conflict of interests; developmental pharmacology; international council of medical journal editors (ICMJE); off-label.
Plain language summary
The concept that children are therapeutic orphans claims that children are disadvantaged in drug treatment if drugs are not specifically approved for children. The concept arose when new drug legislation in the U.S.A. required that medicines had to be proven safe and effective before applying for approval. This legislation was the result of the thalidomide disaster. In order to avoid lawsuits for damages, manufacturers now included warnings in drug labels that the respective drug had not been tested on children. This was the time of many new discoveries and medical breakthroughs. One such breakthrough was the realization that the body of very young children works differently than it does when it gets older. Developmental pharmacology learned, for example, how the liver enzymes involved in processing medication change massively in the days after birth. But after the first few weeks and months, the child’s body matures and the differences to adults are no longer so dramatic. The concept that children are therapeutic orphans demanded pediatric studies for all minors. This demand is called ‘Pediatric Drug Development’ (PDD). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) in particular requires pediatric studies long before approval, regardless of whether they make medical sense or not. But adolescents’ bodies are no longer as different from adults as babies are. Nevertheless, the EMA also requires pediatric studies for adolescents. Also, for younger children, EMA`s insistence on repeating safety and efficacy studies is exaggerated. The origins and impact of the children-are-therapeutic-orphans concept can only be understood by considering that modern drug development is only half century old and that for the regulatory authorities drugs are only safe with a label. However, the major therapeutic breakthroughs in pediatrics were not caused by pediatric labels, but because courageous researchers used everything that was available. Pediatric oncology saved hundreds of thousands of children from death decades before the discussion about pediatric labels had even begun. PDD reflects a regulatory challenge and mankind’s transition into a world of new drugs in contrast to previous millennia when only materials taken from nature were available. Minors need reasonable assessment of doses and safety, not large international regulatory studies. Such expensive pointless and exaggerated studies are primarily not triggered by industry’s greed, but by researchers’ desire for funding and regulatory authorities’ desire for recognition. A new type of conflict of interest in medicines’ administration and in mainstream medical science.
Similar articles
-
Pharmacogenomics and pediatric drug development: science and political power. A narrative review.Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2024 Dec;25(18):2367-2373. doi: 10.1080/14656566.2024.2401429. Epub 2024 Sep 13. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2024. PMID: 39268964 Review.
-
The Meanings of "Pediatric Drug Development".Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2019 Nov;53(6):767-774. doi: 10.1177/2168479018812060. Epub 2018 Dec 9. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2019. PMID: 30526039
-
Melanoma and pediatric drug development: clinical progress vs. regulatory activism in minors - a narrative review.Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2025 Apr;26(5):595-603. doi: 10.1080/14656566.2025.2475184. Epub 2025 Mar 9. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2025. PMID: 40035212 Review.
-
Neurology's vital role in preventing unnecessary and potentially harmful pediatric studies.Expert Rev Neurother. 2022 Mar;22(3):209-219. doi: 10.1080/14737175.2022.2045953. Epub 2022 Mar 6. Expert Rev Neurother. 2022. PMID: 35213279
-
Deception and Fraud in the Justification of "Pediatric Drug Development": A Challenge at the Interface of Medicine and Law.J Law Med. 2024 Nov;31(3):635-644. J Law Med. 2024. PMID: 39789690
Cited by
-
African minors' health challenges are comparable to those in the rest of the world.World J Clin Pediatr. 2025 Jun 9;14(2):102922. doi: 10.5409/wjcp.v14.i2.102922. eCollection 2025 Jun 9. World J Clin Pediatr. 2025. PMID: 40491728 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials