IOM Review of FDA--approved biologics labeled or studied for pediatric use.

BACKGROUND: Studies have examined the extent to which public policies such as the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act have increased pediatric information in drug labeling. Little attention has focused on pediatric labeling of biologics. This analysis examines the extent to which biologics are labeled for pediatric use or have been studied in children. METHODS: The analysis covers the 96 biologics (excluding vaccines) that were first licensed by the Food and Drug Administration between 1997 and 2010 and were still marketed as of 2010. Product labeling was consulted for information on approved pediatric uses, pediatric studies, or pediatric safety warnings based on analyses of adverse events. The online database ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for registered pediatric studies of these biologics. A separate analysis examined labeling and studies for 55 vaccines. RESULTS: For ∼60% of the 96 biologics, labeling shows approved pediatric use or pediatric study information or both. Approximately 85% of the biologics have ≥1 registered pediatric trial completed, underway, or planned. Overall, ∼90% are labeled for pediatric use, have pediatric information in the label, have a registered pediatric study, or have some combination of these characteristics. For the 55 analyzed vaccines, the corresponding figure is 95%. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of biologics approved in the past 15 years include some pediatric information in their labeling, and pediatric trials have been registered for a substantial majority of these products.

Guideline funding and conflicts of interest: article 4 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.

INTRODUCTION: Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that healthcare recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the fourth of a series of 14 articles prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other disease. It focuses on commercial funding of guidelines and managing conflict of interest effectively in the context of guidelines. METHODS: In this review, we addressed the following topics and questions. (1) How are clinical practice guidelines funded? (2) What are the risks associated with commercial sponsorship of guidelines? (3) What relationships should guideline committee members be required to disclose? (4) What is the most efficient way to obtain complete and accurate disclosures? (5) How should disclosures be publicly shared? (6) When do relationships require management? (7) How should individual conflicts of interest be managed? (8) How could conflict of interest policies be enforced? The literature review included a search of PubMed and other databases for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. Our conclusions are based on available evidence, consideration of what guideline developers are doing, and workshop discussions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Professional societies often depend on industry funding to support clinical practice guideline development. In addition, members of guideline committees frequently have financial relationships with commercial entities, are invested in their intellectual work, or have conflicts related to clinical revenue streams. No systematic reviews or other rigorous evidence regarding best practices for funding models, disclosure mechanisms, management strategies, or enforcement presently exist, but the panel drew several conclusions that could improve transparency and process.