Paediatric extrapolation: A necessary paradigm shift.

Legislative initiatives have been successful in increasing the availability of approved therapies for paediatric patients. However, additional measures to ensure the timely completion of paediatric studies are necessary to further increase the number of medicines available to children. Over the last 3 years, international experts convened to revise the ICH E11 guideline on clinical investigations of medicinal products in paediatric populations to harmonize approaches to paediatric extrapolation, striving to reduce substantial differences between regions in the acceptance of data for global paediatric medicine development programmes. Several areas of therapeutics development in children, such as human immunodeficiency virus and partial-onset seizures, have been streamlined and require fewer children enrolled in clinical trials because of the appropriate application of paediatric extrapolation. Based on this experience, it is clear that for paediatric extrapolation strategies to reach their full potential there is the need to understand the quality and quantity of data, often collected in adult patients, that will inform the appropriateness of the use of paediatric extrapolation, as well as to identify gaps in knowledge with respect to disease pathophysiology, organ maturation or drug target ontogeny. The generation of information that enhances our current understanding of these gaps in knowledge can further decrease the need for larger, paediatric clinical trials and can increase the efficiency of paediatric therapeutics development as well as protect children from participation in unnecessary studies. We hope that this publication will increase awareness, input and support from all the stakeholders involved in paediatric therapeutics development.

Role of Quantitative Clinical Pharmacology in Pediatric Approval and Labeling.

Dose selection is one of the key decisions made during drug development in pediatrics. There are regulatory initiatives that promote the use of model-based drug development in pediatrics. Pharmacometrics or quantitative clinical pharmacology enables development of models that can describe factors affecting pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics in pediatric patients. This manuscript describes some examples in which pharmacometric analysis was used to support approval and labeling in pediatrics. In particular, the role of pharmacokinetic (PK) comparison of pediatric PK to adults and utilization of dose/exposure-response analysis for dose selection are highlighted. Dose selection for esomeprazole in pediatrics was based on PK matching to adults, whereas for adalimumab, exposure-response, PK, efficacy, and safety data together were useful to recommend doses for pediatric Crohn's disease. For vigabatrin, demonstration of similar dose-response between pediatrics and adults allowed for selection of a pediatric dose. Based on model-based pharmacokinetic simulations and safety data from darunavir pediatric clinical studies with a twice-daily regimen, different once-daily dosing regimens for treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus 1-infected pediatric subjects 3 to <12 years of age were evaluated. The role of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling (PBPK) in predicting pediatric PK is rapidly evolving. However, regulatory review experiences and an understanding of the state of science indicate that there is a lack of established predictive performance of PBPK in pediatric PK prediction. Moving forward, pharmacometrics will continue to play a key role in pediatric drug development contributing toward decisions pertaining to dose selection, trial designs, and assessing disease similarity to adults to support extrapolation of efficacy.

Healthcare providers' use of a concise summary to prescribe for lactating patients.

BACKGROUND: Most breastfeeding individuals take at least one prescription drug, yet limited data from lactation studies are available to inform the safety of these drugs during breastfeeding. As a result, healthcare providers (HCPs) rely on available information about safety of drugs used during pregnancy or on personal experiences to inform prescribing/counseling decisions for breastfeeding individuals. To improve risk communication regarding drugs used during lactation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration published the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule (PLLR) in 2015, which added a narrative summary of available risk information to the lactation section of Prescribing Information (PI). Prior studies on labeling in PLLR format revealed that although HCPs found these details valuable, they regarded the narrative as too long to support decision-making during patient encounters. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study's objective was to assess the utility of adding a concise summary to the Lactation subsection of PI to complement the narrative and succinctly communicate to busy HCPs a drug's risks when used during lactation. The concise summary consisted of a bolded headline, bulleted descriptions of available study findings and potential adverse reactions, and recommendations for risk mitigation. METHODS: Twenty-five online focus groups were conducted with five segments of HCPs to obtain their feedback on the concise summary and discuss their prescribing/counseling decisions for four fictitious prescription drugs including one vaccine. RESULTS: HCPs utilized the concise summary to make initial prescribing/counseling decisions. Many also used the labeling narrative for a comprehensive benefit-risk assessment. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate a need to continue to improve communication about safety of drugs used during lactation, and that the concise summary may help facilitate this communication. The study also highlights the need to educate HCPs about PI limitations when clinical data are lacking and the need to encourage clinical studies to be conducted to support actionable recommendations about use of prescription drugs during lactation.

Evaluation of FDA Labeling Changes Related to PREA Safety-Waivers.

PURPOSE: The Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) gives the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to require pediatric studies for drug and biologics products under certain circumstances and to waive this requirement in some, or all, pediatric ages. When studies are waived for safety, PREA stipulates the safety issue must be described in labeling. This study assessed the rate of including waiver-related safety information in labeling. METHODS: FDA databases were reviewed to determine the number of safety-related pediatric study waivers and issued from December 2003 through August 2020, and corresponding labeling to establish when relevant safety information was included. Descriptive comparisons were conducted across Cohort 1: December 2003-2007, Cohort 2: 2008-2011, Cohort 3: 2012-2015, and Cohort 4: 2016-August 2020. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen safety waivers were issued [Cohort 1 (n = 1); Cohort 2 (n = 38), Cohort 3 (n = 37), and Cohort 4 (n = 40)] for 84 unique drugs or biologics. Most (106 of 116; 91%) waiver-related safety issues were described in labeling [Cohort 1 (1 of 1), Cohort 2 (33 of 38), Cohort 3 (33 of 37), and Cohort 4 (39 of 40)]. Safety waivers were most common in patients ≤ 17 years (n = 40) and least common in patients ≤ 6 months (n = 15). Products for infections (n = 32) were the most common group receiving safety waivers; 17 for non-antiviral anti-infective products including treatments for dermatologic infestations/infections, and 15 for antiviral products. CONCLUSION: The data confirm that FDA consistently describes waiver-related safety information in drug/biologic product labeling since the inception of PREA in December of 2003.

Pediatric Efficacy Extrapolation in Drug Development Submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration 2015-2020.

Pediatric extrapolation plays a key role in the availability of reliable pediatric use information in approved drug labeling. This review examined the use of pediatric extrapolation in studies submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration and assessed changes in extrapolation approaches over time. Pediatric studies of 125 drugs submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration that led to subsequent pediatric information in drug labeling between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed. The use of pediatric extrapolation for each drug was identified and categorized as "complete," "partial," or "no" extrapolation. Approaches to pediatric extrapolation of efficacy changed over time. Complete extrapolation of efficacy was the predominantly used approach. "Complete," "partial," or "no" extrapolation was used for 51%, 23%, and 26% of the drugs, respectively. This represents a shift in extrapolation approaches when compared to a previous study that evaluated pediatrics drug applications between 2009 and 2014, which found complete, partial, or no extrapolation was used for 34%, 29%, and 37% of the drugs, respectively. Pediatric extrapolation approaches may continue to shift as emerging science fills gap in knowledge of the fundamental assumptions underlying this scientific tool. The international community continues to collaborate on discussions of pediatric extrapolation of efficacy from adults and other pediatric subpopulations to optimize its use for pediatric drug development.

Innovations in Pediatric Therapeutics Development: Principles for the Use of Bridging Biomarkers in Pediatric Extrapolation.

Even with recent substantive improvements in health care in pediatric populations, considerable need remains for additional safe and effective interventions for the prevention and treatment of diseases in children. The approval of prescription drugs and biological products for use in pediatric settings, as in adults, requires demonstration of substantial evidence of effectiveness and favorable benefit-to-risk. For diseases primarily affecting children, such evidence predominantly would be obtained in the pediatric setting. However, for conditions affecting both adults and children, pediatric extrapolation uses scientific evidence in adults to enable more efficiently obtaining a reliable evaluation of an intervention's effects in pediatric populations. Bridging biomarkers potentially have an integral role in pediatric extrapolation. In a setting where an intervention reliably has been established to be safe and effective in adults, and where there is substantive evidence that disease processes in pediatric and adult settings are biologically similar, a 'bridging biomarker' should satisfy three additional criteria: effects on the bridging biomarker should capture effects on the principal causal pathway through which the disease process meaningfully influences 'feels, functions, survives' measures; secondly, the experimental intervention should not have important unintended effects on 'feels, functions, survives' measures not captured by the bridging biomarker; and thirdly, in statistical analyses in adults, the intervention's net effect on 'feels, functions, survives' measures should be consistent with what would be predicted by its level of effect on the bridging biomarker. A validated bridging biomarker has considerable potential utility, since an intervention's efficacy could be extrapolated from adult to pediatric populations if evidence in children establishes the intervention not only to be safe but also to have substantive effects on that bridging biomarker. Proper use of bridging biomarkers could increase availability of reliably evaluated therapies approved for use in pediatric settings, enabling children and their caregivers to make informed choices about health care.

Approaches to Dose Finding in Neonates, Illustrating the Variability between Neonatal Drug Development Programs.

Drug dosing in neonates should be based on integrated knowledge concerning the disease to be treated, the physiological characteristics of the neonate, and the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of a given drug. It is critically important that all sources of information be leveraged to optimize dose selection for neonates. Sources may include data from adult studies, pediatric studies, non-clinical (juvenile) animal models, in vitro studies, and in silico models. Depending on the drug development program, each of these modalities could be used to varying degrees and with varying levels of confidence to guide dosing. This paper aims to illustrate the variability between neonatal drug development programs for neonatal diseases that are similar to those seen in other populations (meropenem), neonatal diseases related but not similar to pediatric or adult populations (clopidogrel, thyroid hormone), and diseases unique to neonates (caffeine, surfactant). Extrapolation of efficacy from older children or adults to neonates is infrequently used. Even if a disease process is similar between neonates and children or adults, such as with anti-infectives, additional dosing and safety information will be necessary for labeling, recognizing that dosing in neonates is confounded by maturational PK in addition to body size.

Pediatric Extrapolation in Type 2 Diabetes: Future Implications of a Workshop.

Extrapolation from adults to youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is challenged by differences in disease progression and manifestation. This manuscript presents the results of a mock-team workshop focused on examining the typical team-based decision process used to propose a pediatric development plan for T2D addressing the viability of extrapolation. The workshop was held at the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (ASCPT) in Orlando, Florida on March 21, 2018.

Extrapolation of Adult Efficacy to Pediatric Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common treatment-related adverse event that negatively impacts the quality of life of cancer patients. During pediatric drug development, extrapolation of efficacy from adult to pediatric populations is a pathway that can minimize the exposure of children to unnecessary clinical trials, improve efficiency, and increase the likelihood of success in obtaining a pediatric indication. The acceptability of the use of extrapolation depends on a series of evidence-based assumptions regarding the similarity of disease, response to intervention, and exposure-response relationships between adult and pediatric patients. This study evaluated publicly available summaries of data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for drugs approved for CINV to assess the feasibility of extrapolation for future development programs. Extracted data included trial design, emetogenic potential of chemotherapy, primary end points, participant enrollment criteria, and antiemetic pharmacokinetics. Adult and pediatric clinical trial designs for assessment of efficacy and safety shared key design elements. Antiemetic drugs found to be efficacious in adults were also efficacious in pediatric patients. Systemic drug concentrations at approved doses were similar for ondansetron, granisetron, and aprepitant, but an exposure-response analysis of palonosetron in children suggested that higher palonosetron systemic exposure is necessary for the prevention of CINV in the pediatric population. For 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist antiemetic drugs, efficacy in adults predicts efficacy in children, supporting the extrapolation of effectiveness of an antiemetic product in children from adequate and well-controlled studies in adult patients with CINV.

Collaboration in Regulatory Science to Facilitate Therapeutic Development for Neonates.

BACKGROUND: Historically, neonatal therapeutic interventions were derived from adult therapeutics, and tragedies resulting from this approach have demonstrated differences in the pathophysiologic and developmental processes between neonates and older patients. Over the past 3 decades, researchers and collaborative research networks have made progress in the systematic evaluation of neonatal therapies, yet most neonatal therapeutic products have been incompletely assessed for safety and efficacy, and remain unlabeled and unapproved. APPROACH: This work describes the legislative initiatives that have stimulated an increase in pediatric and neonatal studies. It highlights examples of successful neonatal drug studies that have resulted in informative neonatal labeling changes, as well as studies that have produced incomplete information. Strategies that support the design of successful studies, including targeting specific subpopulations, modeling and simulation to inform dose selection, innovative design strategies, biomarkers, and endpoints are discussed. Multi-stakeholder consortia such as the International Neonatal Consortium (INC), are working to improve the tools needed for the development of neonatal therapies. These research tools may be used by trial networks to inform consistent and efficient multicenter studies. CONCLUSION: More data are needed to support safe and effective use of drugs in neonates, and to obtain these data, a thorough understanding of pathophysiology, drug disposition, biomarkers, and clinically-meaningful endpoints is required. This information will be derived from clinical trials, registries, real-world evidence, and the medical literature. Collaboration of consortia and the development of research networks are essential to achieving these goals.

Development of Drug Therapies for Newborns and Children: The Scientific and Regulatory Imperatives.

Pediatric legislation has generated information about the efficacy, safety, and dosing of more than 600 products in children. Extrapolation of adult efficacy data has been an integral part of pediatric drug development. Advances in our understanding of physiology and pharmacology have improved the approach to pediatric dose selection. However, a high percentage of pediatric trials do not meet their primary efficacy endpoint. Delays in initiating completing pediatric studies persist. This article describes these advances and provides innovative approaches to optimize pediatric drug development.

Enrolling Adolescents in Disease/Target-Appropriate Adult Oncology Clinical Trials of Investigational Agents.

The enrollment of adolescents with cancer in clinical trials is much lower than that of younger pediatric patients. For adolescents with "adult-type" cancers, lack of access to relevant trials is cited as one of the reasons for this discrepancy. Adolescents are generally not eligible for enrollment in adult oncology trials, and initial pediatric trials for many drugs are conducted years later, often after the drug is approved. As a result, accrual of adolescents to these trials may be slow due to off-label use, prospectively collected safety and efficacy data are lacking at the time of initial approval, and, most importantly, these adolescents have delayed access to effective therapies. To facilitate earlier access to investigational and approved drugs for adolescent patients with cancer, and because drug exposure is most often similar in adolescents and adults, we recommend the inclusion of adolescents (ages 12-17) in disease- and target-appropriate adult oncology trials. This approach requires careful monitoring for any differential safety signals, appropriate pharmacokinetic evaluations, and ensuring that ethical requirements are met. Inclusion of adolescents in adult oncology trials will require the cooperation of investigators, cooperative groups, industry, institutional review boards, and regulatory agencies to overcome real and perceived barriers. Clin Cancer Res; 23(1); 9-12. ©2016 AACR.

Exposure Matching of Pediatric Anti-infective Drugs: Review of Drugs Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for Pediatric Approval.

PURPOSE: Over the last decade, few new antibiotics have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric use. For most anti-infective agents, including antibiotics, extrapolation of efficacy from adults to children is possible if the disease and therapeutic exposures are similar between the 2 populations. This approach reduces the number of studies required in children, but relies heavily on exposure matching between children and adults. Failures in exposure matching can lead to delays in pediatric approvals of new anti-infective agents. We sought to determine the extent of exposure matching, defined by a comparison of area under the concentration-time curve, between children and adults, for anti-infective drug products submitted to the FDA for approval. METHODS: We reviewed anti-infective submissions to the FDA (2002-2014) for pediatric indication. We included drug products administered via oral, intravenous, or intramuscular administration routes, and those with AUC estimates for children in available FDA reports. Our main outcome of interest was the proportion of drugs with median (or mean) pediatric AUC within 20% of the median (or mean) reported adult value. FINDINGS: We identified 29 drug products that met inclusion criteria, 14 (48%) of which had mean (or median) AUCs of all submitted age groups within 20% of that in adults. Only route of administration and drug class were associated with pediatric AUC within 20% of adult AUC. IMPLICATIONS: Future research is needed to define criteria for and predictors of successful exposure matching of anti-infectives between children and adults.

Exposure Matching for Extrapolation of Efficacy in Pediatric Drug Development.

During drug development, matching adult systemic exposures of drugs is a common approach for dose selection in pediatric patients when efficacy is partially or fully extrapolated. This is a systematic review of approaches used for matching adult systemic exposures as the basis for dose selection in pediatric trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 1998 and 2012. The trial design of pediatric pharmacokinetic (PK) studies and the pediatric and adult systemic exposure data were obtained from FDA publicly available databases containing reviews of pediatric trials. Exposure-matching approaches that were used as the basis for pediatric dose selection were reviewed. The PK data from the adult and pediatric populations were used to quantify exposure agreement between the 2 patient populations. The main measures were the pediatric PK studies' trial design elements and drug systemic exposures (adult and pediatric). There were 31 products (86 trials) with full or partial extrapolation of efficacy with an available PK assessment. Pediatric exposures had a range of mean Cmax and AUC ratios (pediatric/adult) of 0.63 to 4.19 and 0.36 to 3.60, respectively. Seven of the 86 trials (8.1%) had a predefined acceptance boundary used to match adult exposures. The key PK parameter was consistently predefined for antiviral and anti-infective products. Approaches to match exposure in children and adults varied across products. A consistent approach for systemic exposure matching and evaluating pediatric PK studies is needed to guide future pediatric trials.

Drug development for pediatric neurogenic bladder dysfunction: dosing, endpoints, and study design.

Pediatric drug development is challenging when a product is studied for a pediatric disease that has a different underlying etiology and pathophysiology compared to the adult disease. Neurogenic bladder dysfunction (NBD) is such a therapeutic area with multiple unsuccessful development programs. The objective of this study was to critically evaluate clinical trial design elements that may have contributed to unsuccessful drug development programs for pediatric NBD. Trial design elements of drugs tested for pediatric NBD were identified from trials submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Data were extracted from publically available FDA reviews and labeling and included trial design, primary endpoints, enrollment eligibilities, and pharmacokinetic data. A total of four products were identified. Although all four programs potentially provided clinically useful information, only one drug (oxybutynin) demonstrated efficacy in children with NBD. The lack of demonstrable efficacy for the remainder of the products illustrates that future trials should give careful attention to testing a range of doses, using objectively measured, clinically meaningful endpoints, and selecting clinical trial designs that are both interpretable and feasible. Compiling the drug development experience with pediatric NBD will facilitate an improved approach for future drug development for this, and perhaps other, therapeutic areas.

Adolescent dosing and labeling since the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.

IMPORTANCE: During pediatric drug development, dedicated pharmacokinetic studies are generally performed in all relevant age groups to support dose selection for subsequent efficacy trials. To our knowledge, no previous assessments regarding the need for an intensive pharmacokinetic study in adolescents have been performed. OBJECTIVES: To compare U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved adult and adolescent drug dosing and to assess the utility of allometric scaling for the prediction of drug clearance in the adolescent population. DESIGN: Adult and adolescent dosing and drug clearance data were obtained from FDA-approved drug labels and publicly available databases containing reviews of pediatric trials submitted to the FDA. Dosing information was compared for products with concordant indications for adolescent and adult patients. Adolescent drug clearance was predicted from adult pharmacokinetic data by using allometric scaling and compared with observed values. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Adolescent and adult dosing information and drug clearance. RESULTS: There were 126 unique products with pediatric studies submitted to the FDA since the FDA Amendments Act of 2007, of which 92 had at least 1 adolescent indication concordant with an adult indication. Of these 92 products, 87 (94.5%) have equivalent dosing for adults and adolescent patients. For 18 of these 92 products, a minimum weight or body surface area threshold is recommended for adolescents to receive adult dosing. Allometric scaling predicted adolescent drug clearance with an overall mean absolute percentage error of 17.0%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Approved adult and adolescent drug dosing is equivalent for 94.5% of products with an adolescent indication studied since the FDA Amendments Act of 2007. Allometric scaling may be a useful tool to avoid unnecessary dedicated pharmacokinetic studies in the adolescent population during pediatric drug development, although each development program in adolescents requires a full discussion of drug dosing with the FDA.