Risk of bias in randomized trials of pharmacological interventions in children and adults.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic interventions in children are more likely to be biased than similar trials in adults. STUDY DESIGN: Trials involving only children and published in MEDLINE between January 2008 and October 2009 (n=100) were randomly selected and matched, by drug class and therapeutic area, with a similar trial completed in adults. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to compare the pediatric and adult trials. RESULTS: The characteristics of adult and pediatric trials included were similar, except that adult studies were more likely to be conducted in Europe and published in specialty journals. Two-thirds of all trials were single center, and 62% had 100 or fewer participants. Many trials had an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment (65% adult, 52% pediatric). More pediatric trials had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation (59% pediatric, 41% adult, P=.002) and blinding of outcome assessment (63% pediatric, 48% adult, P=.04) than adult trials; however, a sensitivity analysis of trials published since 2008 (and so matched by year of publication) did not confirm this finding, suggesting year of publication was an important confounder. CONCLUSIONS: When randomized controlled trials are matched for drug class and therapeutic area, trials involving children display a similar risk of bias. Differences in the risk of bias between pediatric and adult trials are not caused by differences in the capacity of researchers to conduct and report trials of high quality.

A national study of the processes and outcomes of paediatric formulary applications in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the processes by which pharmaceuticals are added to the formularies of Australian paediatric hospitals. DESIGN: Descriptive study of the processes and outcomes of all submissions to Australian paediatric hospital drug and therapeutics committees from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2011. SETTING: All eight tertiary paediatric hospitals in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Interviews with committee secretaries or delegates and document analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total number of formulary applications, stratified by therapeutic class, approval rates for each hospital and quality of supporting information. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty applications were considered during the study period, with most applications approved (range, 67%-100%). Neurological agents were the most common therapeutic class considered. A conflict of interest was declared for 10 applications (8%). Forty-five (38%) were independently reviewed by a statewide medicines advisory committee or hospital pharmacist. Several committees approved identical applications during the period of review and with different outcomes. For applications submitted for new drugs or new indications (95 applications), supporting data included randomised controlled trials (37/95), case series (36/95), product information (34/95) and narrative reviews (29/95). Few applications (14/95) included a systematic review or meta-analysis. No application included an evaluation of the risk of bias of supporting studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited high-quality evidence informing paediatric hospital-based drug approvals. Approval processes vary considerably among institutions with substantial duplication of effort and variable outcomes. Resources and training appear insufficient given the technical complexity of submissions. A national, standardised approach to hospital-based drug evaluation could reduce overlap and improve decision making.