Literature DB >> 17062311

Criteria supporting the study of drugs in the newborn.

Robert M Ward1, William E Benitz, Daniel K Benjamin, Lillian Blackmon, George P Giacoia, Mark Hudak, Tamar Lasky, William Rodriguez, Arzu Selen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Profound changes in the development and the maturation of neonates' organs and organ systems over variable periods of time potentially place neonates at increased risk and/or at different risks compared with adults or older children on exposure to pharmaceutical agents. Most studies of drugs in neonates focus on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic end points and include insufficient numbers of patients to permit evaluation of safety. Only one fourth to one third of approved drugs have received adequate pediatric study to permit labeling for treatment of all appropriate pediatric populations.
OBJECTIVE: The initial goal of the Newborn Drug Prioritization Group was to develop a reproducible, objective process for evaluating drugs most in need of study in the neonatal population based on a universally acceptable priority ranking. The criteria would be applicable across therapeutic classes and would identify those drugs for which immediate study was most needed.
METHODS: Because the therapeutic requirements of the neonate are unique in comparison to older infants and children, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) developed the Newborn Drug Development Initiative to address the limited study of off-patent drugs in newborns. In March 2003, they convened a meeting of pediatric pharmacologists and pediatric specialists from the FDA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Institutes of Health, and academic institutions to discuss how to increase the study of drugs for the newborn. One of the working groups was charged to develop generic criteria for overall prioritization of drugs for study in newborns. Because resources are limited, and not all drugs identified by the 4 clinically focused working groups can receive study at the same time, a process for priority ranking is necessary.
RESULTS: The panel identified 4 general categories containing different numbers of criteria as important for ranking drugs for priority investigation: (1) the disease and indication, including elements such as the potential for adverse outcomes, frequency in newborns, and level of evidence for treatment of newborns; (2) drug characteristics, including elements such as duration of dosing, lack of age-appropriate formulation, clinically relevant drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, and drug disposition in newborns; (3) feasibility and methodology for newborn studies, including both analytical considerations and clinical end points; and (4) the ethical basis for study, including elements to address benefit or harm due to exposure to the study drug, study methodology, and benefit of the new treatment relative to established standard therapy. Based on these categories, a list of criteria to warrant study of a drug in newborns was developed.
CONCLUSION: A process for judicious use of limited resources to rectify these deficiencies remains an urgent public health need.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17062311     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.09.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Ther        ISSN: 0149-2918            Impact factor:   3.393


  9 in total

1.  Drug utilisation profile in the neonatal unit of a university hospital: a prospective observational study in Brazil.

Authors:  Adriana Cristina de Souza Gonçalves; Adriano Max Moreira Reis; Ana Carolina Marçal Gusmão; Maria Cândida Ferrarez Bouzada
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2015-04-02

2.  Microanalysis of beta-lactam antibiotics and vancomycin in plasma for pharmacokinetic studies in neonates.

Authors:  Maurice J Ahsman; Enno D Wildschut; Dick Tibboel; Ron A Mathot
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2008-10-27       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Medications for premature neonates: healthcare considerations.

Authors:  Hervé Walti
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.022

4.  Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports for neonates and infants in the UK 2001-2010: content and utility analysis.

Authors:  Daniel B Hawcutt; Nicki-Jayne Russell; Hannah Maqsood; Koushan Kouranloo; Simon Gomberg; Catriona Waitt; Andrew Sharp; Andrew Riordan; Mark A Turner
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  Paediatric drug development: are population models predictive of pharmacokinetics across paediatric populations?

Authors:  Massimo Cella; Wei Zhao; Evelyne Jacqz-Aigrain; David Burger; Meindert Danhof; Oscar Della Pasqua
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.335

6.  Federal legislation and the advancement of neonatal drug studies.

Authors:  Jason R Wiles; Alexander A Vinks; Henry Akinbi
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2012-10-27       Impact factor: 4.406

7.  Sedatives and Analgesics Given to Infants in Neonatal Intensive Care Units at the End of Life.

Authors:  Kanecia O Zimmerman; Christoph P Hornik; Lawrence Ku; Kevin Watt; Matthew M Laughon; Margarita Bidegain; Reese H Clark; P Brian Smith
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 6.314

Review 8.  Barriers and Challenges in Performing Pharmacokinetic Studies to Inform Dosing in the Neonatal Population.

Authors:  Kate O'Hara; Jennifer H Martin; Jennifer J Schneider
Journal:  Pharmacy (Basel)       Date:  2020-02-05

9.  Prioritising neonatal medicines research: UK Medicines for Children Research Network scoping survey.

Authors:  Mark A Turner; Sara Lewis; Daniel B Hawcutt; D Field
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2009-08-12       Impact factor: 2.125

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.