Impact of pediatric exclusivity on drug labeling and demonstrations of efficacy.

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.

The economic returns of pediatric clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs.

BACKGROUND: Congress has authorized the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide industry sponsors with a 6-month extension of drug marketing rights under the Pediatric Exclusivity Provision if FDA-requested pediatric drug trials are conducted. The cost and economic return of pediatric exclusivity to industry sponsors has been shown to be highly variable. We sought to determine the cost of performing pediatric exclusivity trials within a single therapeutic area and the subsequent economic return to industry sponsors. METHODS: We evaluated 9 orally administered antihypertensive drugs submitted to the FDA under the Pediatric Exclusivity Provision from 1997 to 2004 and obtained key elements of the clinical trial designs and operations. Estimates of the costs of performing the studies were generated and converted into after-tax cash outflow. Market sales were obtained and converted into after-tax inflows based on 6 months of additional patent protection. Net economic return and net return-to-cost ratios were determined for each drug. RESULTS: Of the 9 antihypertensive agents studied, an average of 2 studies per drug was performed, including at least 1 pharmacokinetic study and a safety and efficacy study. The median cost of completing a pharmacokinetic trial was $862,000 (range $556,000 to 1.8 million). The median cost of performing safety and efficacy trials for these agents was $4.3 million (range $2.1-12.9 million). The ratio of net economic return to cost was 17 (range 4-64.7). CONCLUSION: We found that, within a cohort of antihypertensive drugs, the Pediatric Exclusivity Provision has generated highly variable, yet lucrative returns to industry sponsors.

Economic return of clinical trials performed under the pediatric exclusivity program.

CONTEXT: In 1997, Congress authorized the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant 6-month extensions of marketing rights through the Pediatric Exclusivity Program if industry sponsors complete FDA-requested pediatric trials. The program has been praised for creating incentives for studies in children and has been criticized as a "windfall" to the innovator drug industry. This critique has been a substantial part of congressional debate on the program, which is due to expire in 2007. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the economic return to industry for completing pediatric exclusivity trials. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort study of programs conducted for pediatric exclusivity. Nine drugs that were granted pediatric exclusivity were selected. From the final study reports submitted to the FDA (2002-2004), key elements of the clinical trial design and study operations were obtained, and the cost of performing each study was estimated and converted into estimates of after-tax cash outflows. Three-year market sales were obtained and converted into estimates of after-tax cash inflows based on 6 months of additional market protection. Net economic return (cash inflows minus outflows) and net return-to-costs ratio (net economic return divided by cash outflows) for each product were then calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Net economic return and net return-to-cost ratio. RESULTS: The indications studied reflect a broad representation of the program: asthma, tumors, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, hypertension, depression/generalized anxiety disorder, diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux, bacterial infection, and bone mineralization. The distribution of net economic return for 6 months of exclusivity varied substantially among products (net economic return ranged from -$8.9 million to $507.9 million and net return-to-cost ratio ranged from -0.68 to 73.63). CONCLUSIONS: The economic return for pediatric exclusivity is variable. As an incentive to complete much-needed clinical trials in children, pediatric exclusivity can generate lucrative returns or produce more modest returns on investment.