Cited by 90Pharmaceutical studies and practicesPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Impact of Pediatric Exclusivity on Drug Labeling and Demonstrations of Efficacy

Wharton, Gerold T., Murphy, M. Dianne, Avant, Debbie, Goldsmith, John V., Chai, Grace, Rodriguez, William J., Eisenstein, Eric L.·2014·Pediatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Besides vaccines and otitis media medicines, most products prescribed for children have not been studied in the pediatric population. To remedy this, Congress enacted legislation in 1997, known as pediatric exclusivity (PE), which provides 6 months of additional market protection to drug sponsors in exchange for studying their products in children. METHODS: We reviewed requests for pediatric studies and subsequent labeling for drugs granted PE from 1998 through 2012. Regression analysis estimates the probability of demonstrating efficacy in PE trials. Variables include therapeutic group, year of exclusivity, product sales, initiation process, and small disease population. RESULTS: From 1998 through 2012, the US Food and Drug Administration issued 401 pediatric study requests. For 189 drugs, studies were completed and granted exclusivity. A total of 173 drugs (92%) received new pediatric labeling, with 108 (57%) receiving a new or expanded pediatric indication. Three drugs had non-efficacy trials. Efficacy was not established for 78 drugs. Oncology, cardiovascular, and endocrine drugs were less likely to demonstrate efficacy (P < .01) compared with gastrointestinal and pain/anesthesia drugs. Drugs studied later in the program were less likely to demonstrate efficacy (P < .05). Sales, initiation process, and small disease population were not significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Most drugs (173; 92%) granted exclusivity added pediatric information to their labeling as a result of PE, with 108 (57%) receiving a new or expanded pediatric indication. Therapeutic area and year of exclusivity influenced the likelihood of obtaining a pediatric indication. Positive and negative outcomes continue to inform the construct of future pediatric trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2013-2987

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wharton, G. T., Murphy, M. D., Avant, D., Goldsmith, J. V., Chai, G., Rodriguez, W. J., & Eisenstein, E. L.
Affiliations
  • Offices of Pediatric Therapeutics, and
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2014-08-01
Volume
134
Issue
2
Pages
e512-e518
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W1986985095
Cited by
90
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
7.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
pediatric drug labeling, pediatric drug trials, drug efficacy, therapeutic areas, oncology drugs, cardiovascular drugs, endocrine drugs, drug sales, market protection, pediatric drug development
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Drug Industry, Drug Labeling, Drug Therapy, Humans, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Treatment Outcome, Drug Approval, Patient Selection, Research Subjects, Marketing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review