Introduction This paper focuses on the authorisation of new medicines, new indications and new pharmaceutical forms or strengths for use in children and also on the availability of paediatric information in the product information of centrally authorised medicinal products following the enforcement of the Paediatric Regulation on 26 January 2007.
Objectives To investigate whether the Paediatric Regulation has led to more medicines available for children in the European Union (EU) and if more information on paediatric use is now available in the product information of medicines authorised via the centralised procedure.
Materials and methods We retrospectively analysed the centrally authorised medicinal products in the EU that had an approval for an initial marketing authorisation, a type II variation, or a line extension during the years 2004–2006 and 2012–2014. Medicinal products not subjected to the obligations of the Paediatric Regulation were excluded.
Results In 2004–2006, 20 new medicines and 10 new indications were centrally authorised for paediatric use compared with 26 new medicines and 37 new indications in 2012–2014. The number of medicines with a new pharmaceutical form or strength for use in children was eight in 2004–2006 and seven in 2012–2014. There was a huge increase in the number of products with changes of paediatric relevance in the summary of product characteristics in 2012–2014 compared with 2004–2006.
Conclusions The entry into force of the Paediatric Regulation has had a positive impact on paediatric drug development with more medicines available for children in the EU and substantially more information available for clinicians on paediatric use in the product information.
- general paediatrics
- paediatric practice
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors SN and CP were responsible for the design of the work and data collection. SN was responsible for data analysis and interpretation and PT and CP critically reviewed the results. All authors contributed to writing the article (drafting of the article by SN and critical review and revision by PT and CP). All authors gave their final approval of the version to be published.
Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the European Medicines Agency, Karolinska Institutet or the Karolinska University Hospital.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.