Rose Klaus, Walson Philip D
klausrose Consulting, Pediatric Drug Development and More, Riehen, Switzerland.
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University Medical School, Goettingen, Germany.
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2015 Nov 5;8:185-205. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S63029. eCollection 2015.
Although the diagnosis of childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence, too many patients still die, more with acute myeloid leukemia than with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The European Union pediatric legislation was introduced to improve pharmaceutical treatment of children, but some question whether the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approach is helping children with leukemia. Some have even suggested that the decisions of EMA pediatric committee (PDCO) are counterproductive. This study was designed to investigate the impact of PDCO-issued pediatric investigation plans (PIPs) for leukemia drugs.
All PIPs listed under "oncology" were downloaded from the EMA website. Non-leukemia decisions including misclassifications, waivers (no PIP), and solid tumors were discarded. The leukemia decisions were analyzed, compared to pediatric leukemia trials in the database http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, and discussed in the light of current literature.
The PDCO leukemia decisions demand clinical trials in pediatric leukemia for all new adult drugs without prioritization. However, because leukemia in children is different and much rarer than in adults, these decisions have resulted in proposed studies that are scientifically and ethically questionable. They are also unnecessary, since once promising new compounds are approved for adults, more appropriate, prioritized pediatric leukemia trials are initiated worldwide without PDCO involvement.
EMA/PDCO leukemia PIPs do little to advance the treatment of childhood leukemia. The unintended negative effects of the flawed EMA/PDCO's standardized requesting of non-prioritized testing of every new adult leukemia drug in children with relapsed or refractory disease expose these children to questionable trials, and could undermine public trust in pediatric clinical research. Institutions, investigators, and ethics committees/institutional review boards need to be skeptical of trials triggered by PDCO. New, better ways to facilitate drug development for pediatric leukemia are needed.
尽管儿童白血病的诊断不再意味着宣判死刑,但仍有太多患者死亡,急性髓系白血病患者的死亡人数多于急性淋巴细胞白血病患者。欧盟出台儿科立法旨在改善儿童的药物治疗,但有人质疑欧洲药品管理局(EMA)的做法是否有助于白血病患儿。甚至有人认为EMA儿科委员会(PDCO)的决定适得其反。本研究旨在调查PDCO发布的白血病药物儿科研究计划(PIP)的影响。
从EMA网站下载“肿瘤学”项下列出的所有PIP。剔除包括错误分类、豁免(无PIP)和实体瘤在内的非白血病决定。对白血病决定进行分析,与数据库http://www.clinicaltrials.gov中的儿科白血病试验进行比较,并结合当前文献进行讨论。
PDCO的白血病决定要求对所有新的成人药物进行儿科白血病临床试验,且未进行优先级排序。然而,由于儿童白血病与成人白血病不同且更为罕见,这些决定导致所提议的研究在科学和伦理上存在问题。它们也是不必要的,因为一旦有前景的新化合物被批准用于成人,全球范围内会在没有PDCO参与的情况下启动更合适、有优先级的儿科白血病试验。
EMA/PDCO的白血病PIP对推进儿童白血病治疗作用甚微。EMA/PDCO对每一种新的成人白血病药物在复发或难治性疾病患儿中进行非优先级标准化测试的错误做法产生的意外负面影响,使这些患儿面临有问题的试验,并可能损害公众对儿科临床研究的信任。机构、研究者以及伦理委员会/机构审查委员会需要对由PDCO引发的试验持怀疑态度。需要新的、更好的方法来促进儿科白血病药物的研发。