Have Children Truly Ever Been ‘Therapeutic Orphans?’

Dr. Harry Shirkey, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) committee on drugs, talked of children as “therapeutic orphans” for the first time in 1963 at a conference and published his toughts in 1968.^1,2 This concept looks back on a remarkable success story. It was adopted by the AAP, endorsed by the emerging discipline of developmental pharmacology, taken up by the FDA, and resulted in US pediatric legislation in 1997.

Credit: ibreakstock - stock.adobe.com.

As if that were not enough, it inspired comparable legislation in the European Union (EU) and became the backbone of what is now called "pediatric drug development" (PDD).^3,4

Shirkey cited as evidence the pediatric warnings that drug developers had inserted into labels since 1962, when new US pharmaceutical legislation had been enacted in response to the thalidomide catastrophe: "not to be used in children;…not recommended for use in infants and young children, since few studies have been carried out in this age group;…clinical studies have been insufficient to establish any recommendations for use in infants and children;…should not be given to children.“

Shirkey also complained that despite these warnings, many physicians continued to prescribe. He asked what a jury would decide if a defendant physician admitted to have prescribed a drug despite such clear warning.

He argued that children were now deprived of the use of safe medicines. And he used examples of treatment that had been considered as harmless but had been associated with unexpected adverse effects (AEs), such as oxygen in newborns. In conclusion, he demanded separate clinical efficacy and safety (E&S) studies also in children.¹

The US legislation of 1962 had demanded proof of E&S in adequate and well-controlled studies. Drug developers had inserted pediatric warnings into labels for legal reasons to avoid damage lawsuits in the litigatious US legal environment.^5-8

Shirkey's concept appears to be logical and coherent. But should physicians really have followed the warnings and not have used life-saving medicines in young patients? Shirkey argued medically that in newborns, treatments previously considered as harmless later showed negative AEs.

Many preterm newborns treated with oxygen developed retinopathy of prematurity—for awhile the largest single cause of infant blindness. When oxygen administration to preterm newborns was eventually reduced, retinopathy of prematurity decreased worldwide.^9,10

But should physicians have let babies die because treatments were not yet approved? In the 1960s, drug development and drug approval were still emerging. Toxicities of antibiotics in preterm newborns had been reported in the 1940/50s.^11-13

Shirkey used really observed toxicities but switched to discuss “children” in the legal sense: minors. Could a physician really have been charged for prescribing a drug despite a pediatric warning? In the 1960s, physicians used formulas and dosing tables to adapt doses for minors.¹⁴ They worked well in general, but not in premature newborns.

Shirkey used the nightmare of every physician: to be accused of malpractice. But what might be dangerous in a baby is not dangerous in all minors until they come of age.

Shirkey’s argument was legal and formal only, without any medical evidence. No public prosecutor would have charged a physician for saving the life of a patient of 15 years because the drug was not approved. No jury would have found him guilty.

Neonatology emerged in 1960s, but the dangers of antibiotics were already well known.^15,16 No family physician would have dared to routinely treat a preterm baby. For example, in an emergency such as a hurricane, nobody would have expected the same level of treatment as in a neonate intensive care unit.

In several official statements, the AAP claimed a dilemma that the physician must often either not treat children or treat them with drugs based on adult studies or anecdotal empirical experience in children.^13,17,18 In 1995, the AAP defined children as persons not yet of age,¹³ a legal definition.

The concept of children as “therapeutic orphans” uses medical technical terms, moral pressure, threat with litigation, and different meanings of the term “child” to create the impression that minors are bodily different from adults. In this exercise, the AAP successfully used its scientific authority. From a public relations point of view, this worked rather well.

In the 1960s and later, no major pediatric drug disasters occurred. But a group of influential pharmacologists and pediatricians conjured such an alleged crisis. A subheading in a lecture from 1999 was "CONTINUED PEDIATRIC THERAPEUTIC DISASTERS."¹⁹ But all listed problems had occurred in preterm neonates.

Clinical pharmacology measures absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) of food and drugs. In short, what the body does to drugs and what drugs do to the body.^20,21 Developmental clinical pharmacology investigates how ADME develops and changes over time.²²

Biologically, there are not 2 human species of children before and adults after the 18th birthday.^7,8,23 This distinction is legal,^5,8 but such a static view is expressed in the literature until today.^24-30

Developmental pharmacology was strongly involved in the intellectually justifying the “therapeutic orphans” concept. The lament about alleged continued pediatric therapeutic disasterswas given at a meeting where representatives of today’s European Society for Perinatal and Pediatric Pharmacology,³¹ the Japanese Society for Pediatric Clinical Pharmacology,³² and the US Pediatric Pharmacology Research Unit Network³³ discussed how to resolve the therapeutic orphan problem.^34,35

Some publications that claim that in “children” everything is different, and that pediatric drug development is essential to pediatric health care are rather differentiated. Others allege crudely a lack of availability of appropriate drugs for children.^36,37

A comparable accusation is that children are a neglected group.²⁵ The European Medicines Agency (EMA) complains that the use of unlicensed and off-label medicines in children is widespread, that in the EU 50% or more of medicines used in children have never actually been studied in this population, and warns that this lack of information may expose them to unwanted AEs or underdosing.^38,39

The “pediatric population” is not a medically defined human group. The narrative of children as neglected therapeutic orphans is a tall tale without scientific basis—it is pseudo-science.

On a general level, there is off-label use of drugs, their off-label prescription, and their off-label promotion. The FDA does not regulate off-label use by patients or off-label prescription by physicians. It regulates the marketing of drugs.

If a company would register a new drug in a rare disease and promote it in a frequent disease, this would be off-label promotion. The FDA has issued fines of billions of dollars to companies for off-label promotion.⁴⁰ The on-label/off-label discussion is a neverending story.^41,42

Imposing the on-label/off-label framework on administratively defined "children" resulted in a regulatory demand for pediatric studies that had no basis in clinical medicine, with the exception of the small group of preterm newborns. But this imposition resulted in the requirement for clinical drug studies in all administratively defined minors.

The main beneficiary of these studies was academic research, supported by developmental pharmacology organizations, the AAP, and the regulatory authorities.A new kind of conflict of interest in the 21st century.^5,8 Will a drug work better in a 17-year-old if it has a pediatric label? No, labels do not have magic power.

The AAP supports studies in “children” with the aim to get “pediatric” labels, but accepts off-label use if is based on sound expert medical judgment.⁴³ It defends reasonable pediatricians’ decisions, but supports “pediatric” research irrespectively if the minors are bodily still children.^5-8

The key advances in pediatrics were achieved by clinicians who used whatever was available, often by trial and error. There was no major involvement of the regulatory authorities.

See the development of the iron lung for children with polio, the development of the incubator for preterm babies, or the antibiotic treatment of preterm newborns to prevent or treat bacterial infections.^15,16 Pediatric oncology and neonatology developed without interventions by the regulatory authorities.^5-8

The first US pediatric legislation in 1997 represented an alleged compromise between drug developers, pediatric researchers, and the FDA, as companies could propose “pediatric” studies for patented drug. If the FDA agreed, it issued a “pediatric request.”

When the company had fulfilled its requirements, it got 6 months patent extension (“pediatric exclusivity”). A list of granted pediatric exclusivities is public and⁴⁴ many, but not all written requests are published online.⁶

Six months patent extension can be rather rewarding, which has been discussed in depth in the literature.^45-47 The other side is that pediatric researchers profited as well, because now companies had to consider studies. “Pediatric” drug studies are expansive, but unfortunately, most are medically pointless and many even cause harm.^48,49

The FDA has stepped back in several clinical areas from the “children are not small adults” mantra, such as for drugs that treat or prevent epilepsy. For crisaborole ointment for neurodermatitis, the FDA accepted patients aged 2-79 years in the pivotal studies. In adolescents with malignancies, the FDA now recommends inclusion into promising adult studies.⁶

Children were never therapeutic orphans.A clever choice of words, if you blindly believe the authorities.⁷ A closer look reveals the gaps in this pseudo-scientific argument.It is time for the life science industry, which achieves top scientific and technical achievements, to take a closer look at this challenge and the interface between medicine and law.^5,8

About the Authors

Earl B Ettienne, BScPharm, MBA, LPD,Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs and Industrial Partnerships, Howard University, College of Pharmacy, Washington, DC; and Klaus Rose, MD, MS, klausrose Consulting, Riehen (BS), Switzerland.

References

1. Shirkey H. Therapeutic Orphans. J Pediatr 1968 Jan; 72 (1), 119-120. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/104/Supplement_3/583/28381/Editorial-Comment-Therapeutic-Orphans?redirectedFrom=fulltext
2. Burckart GJ, Kim C. The Revolution in Pediatric Drug Development and Drug Use: Therapeutic Orphans No More. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2020; 25(7): 565–573. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7541025/pdf/i1551-6776-25-7-565.pdf 
3. Hirschfeld S, Saint-Raymond A. Pediatric Regulatory Initiatives. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2011;205,245-68
4. Mulberg AE, Murphy MD, Dunne J, Mathis LL (Eds.) Pediatric Drug Development: Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2013.
5. Rose K, Grant-Kels JM, Striano P, Ettienne EB, Oishi T, Neubauer D. “Pediatric” Drug Studies Might Be the Largest Abuse in Medical Research in History. It Is Time for Lawyers to Step In. J Law Med 2023,30(1),131-154
6. Rose K. Considering the Patient in Pediatric Drug Development. How good intentions turned into harm. Elsevier, London, UK, 2020
7. Rose K. Blind Trust - How parents with a sick child can escape the labyrinth of lies, hypocrisy and false promises of researchers and regulatory authorities. Hammersmith, London, UK, 2022.
8. Rose K. Abuse of Minors in Clinical Studies: A Worldwide Ethical Challenge for the 21st Century. Ethics International Press, Bradford, UK, 2023 https://ethicspress.com/products/abuse-of-minors-in-clinical-studies
9. Patz A. The role of oxygen in retrolental fibroplasia. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1968;66:940-85. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1310320/pdf/taos00033-0953.pdf
10. Tasman W, Patz A, McNamara JA, et al. Retinopathy of prematurity: the life of a lifetime disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006 Jan;141(1):167-74.
11. Burns LE, Hodgman JE, Cass AB. Fatal circulatory collapse in premature infants receiving chloramphenicol. N EngI 1 Med. 1959;261:1318-1321
12. Silverman WA, Andersen DH, Blanc WA, et al. A difference in mortality rate and incidence of kernicterus among premature infants allotted to two prophylactic antibacterial regimens. Pediatrics 1956;18:6
13. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 1995 | Committee on Drugs |Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Studies to Evaluate Drugs in Pediatric Populations Pediatrics 1995 Feb,95(2),286–294.
14. Blumer JL. Developmental Pharmacology: Past, present and future. Acta Paediatr Jpn 1996 Dec;38(6):555-61
15. Philip AG. The evolution of neonatology. Pediatr Res 2005;58(4):799_815 https://www.nature.com/articles/pr2005743.pdf?origin5ppub 
16. Jorgensen AM. Born in the USA _ The history of neonatology in the United States: Acentury of caring. http://images.abbottnutrition.com/ANHI/MEDIA/Nurse%20Currents%20NICU%20History%20June%202010.pdf 
17. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Drugs. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Pediatrics. 1977 Jul;60(1):91-101.
18. Shaddy RE, Denne SC, The Committee on Drugs and Committee on Pediatric Research. Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Studies to Evaluate Drugs in Pediatric Populations. Pediatrics2010;125(4):850–860. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/125/4/850/73133/Guidelines-for-the-Ethical-Conduct-of-Studies-to?autologincheck=redirected 
19. Christensen ML, Helms RA, Chesney RW. Is pediatric labeling really necessary? Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 2):593-7.
20. Wikipedia, Clinical pharmacology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_pharmacology
21. Wikipedia, Pharmacology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacology
22. Kearns GL, Abdel-Rahman SM, Alander SW, Blowey DL, Leeder JS, Kauffman RE, et al. Developmental pharmacology--drug disposition, action, and therapy in infants and children. N Engl J Med. 2003 Sep 18;349(12):1157-67.
23. Gillis J, Loughlan P. Not just small adults: the metaphors of paediatrics. Arch Dis Child. 2007 Nov;92(11):946-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2083631/pdf/946.pdf
24. Wilson JT: An Update on the Therapeutic Orphan. Pediatrics 1999, 104 (3) Suppl. September, 585-590, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/104/3/S1/585 
25. Wilson G. Developmental Pharmacology. Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine 2021;22(9),587-593
26. Van den Anker JN. Developmental Pharmacology. Dev Disabil Res Rev 2010;16(3):233-238
27. Van den Anker JN, Reed MD, Allegaert K, et al. Developmental Changes in Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.J Clin Pharmacolog 2018 Oct;58(Suppl 10) S10–S25 https://accp1.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jcph.1284
28. Smits A, Annaert P, Cavallaro G, et al. Current knowledge, challenges and innovations in developmental pharmacology: A combined conect4children Expert Group and European Society for Developmental, Perinatal and Paediatric Pharmacology White Paper. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022 Dec;88(12):4965-4984. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9787161/pdf/BCP-88-4965.pdf
29. Aranda JV, Soyka LF. Developmental Pharmacology and Therapeutics - Who Needs lt? Dev Pharmacol Ther 1980;1:1–5
30. Ward RM, Benjamin DK Jr, Davis JM, et al. The Need for Pediatric Drug Development. J Pediatr 2018 Jan;192:13-21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7942021/pdf/nihms-1601167.pdf
31. European Society for Developmental, Perinatal and Paediatric Pharmacology (ESDPPP) https://www.esdppp.org/
32. Japanese Society for Pediatric Clinical Pharmacologyhttps://www.jscpt.jp/eng/ 
33. US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Pediatric Pharmacology Research Units (PPRU) Network (Historical/For Reference Only). DHHS 2021. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/ppru
34. Yaffee S. Foreword. Pediatrics 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 2):581.
35. Blumer JL. Introduction. Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 2):582
36. Rocchi F, Paolucci P, Ceci A, et al. The european paediatric legislation: benefits and perspectives. Ital J Pediatr 2010 Aug 17;36:56. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933611/pdf/1824-7288-36-56.pdf 
37. Rocchi R, Tomasi P. The development of medicines for children. Part of a series on Pediatric Pharmacology, guest edited by Gianvincenzo Zuccotti, Emilio Clementi, and Massimo Molteni. Pharmacol Res 2011 Sep;64(3):169-175
38. European Medicines Agency (EMA). History of the Paediatric Regulation. EMA 2007. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/european-paediatric-initiative-history-paediatric-regulation_en.pdf
39. Evidence of harm from off-label or unlicensed medicines in children. EMA 2004. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/evidence-harm-label-unlicensed-medicines-children_en.pdf
40. Janssen WM. A Historical Perspective on Off-Label Medicine: From Regulation, Promotion, and the First Amendment to the Next Frontiers. Food and Drug Law Institute, Levy MC (Editor). First Washington, D.C., USA, 2008
41. Parziale A. The Law of Off-label Uses of Medicines: Regulation and Litigation in the EU, UK and USA. Routledge, London, UK, 2022
42. Plate V. The Impact of Off-Label, Compassionate and Unlicensed Use on Health Care Laws in preselected Countries. https://bonndoc.ulb.uni-bonn.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11811/4152/1936.pdf
43. Frattarelli DA, Galinkin JL, Green TP, et al. Off-label use of drugs in children. Pediatrics 2014 Mar;133(3):563-7.
44. FDA. Pediatric exclusivity granted. FDA 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/pediatric-exclusivity-granted
45. Li JS, Eisenstein EL, Grabowski HG, et al. Economic Return of Clinical Trials Performed Under the Pediatric Exclusivity Program. JAMA 2007 Feb 7;297(5):480-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773665/pdf/nihms155305.pdf
46. Varnai P, Farla K, Simmonds P, et al. Study on the economic impact of the Paediatric Regulation, including its rewards and incentives. December 2016. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2017-10/paediatrics_10_years_economic_study_0.pdf 
47. Sinha MS, Najafzadeh M, Rajasingh EK, et al. Labeling Changes and Costs for Clinical Trials Performed Under the US Food and Drug Administration Pediatric Exclusivity Extension, 2007 to 2012. JAMA Intern Med 2018 Nov 1;178(11):1458-1466 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6248195/
48. EU Commission. Report from The Commission To The European Parliament And The Council. State of Paediatric Medicines in the EU – 10 years of the EU Paediatric Regulation. 2017. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0626&from=en
49. EU Commission. State of Paediatric Medicines in the EU. 10 years of the EU Paediatric Regulation. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. COM (2017) 626.2017. https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/paediatrics/docs/2017_childrensmedicines_report_en.pdf