涉及安慰剂治疗的儿科监管研究中的伦理问题

IF 0.2 Q4 PEDIATRICS Journal of Pediatric Epilepsy Pub Date : 2020-06-04 DOI:10.1055/s-0040-1712147
K. Rose, D. Neubauer, J. Grant-Kels
{"title":"涉及安慰剂治疗的儿科监管研究中的伦理问题","authors":"K. Rose, D. Neubauer, J. Grant-Kels","doi":"10.1055/s-0040-1712147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Separate pediatric studies for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) emerged with general separate drug approval in children and were defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as <17 years and by the European Union (EU) as <18 years. These administrative age limits are necessary in pediatrics, but they correspond variably with the physiological maturity of young patients and are not helpful for therapeutic decisions or as study inclusion criteria. AEDs are often effective for partial onset seizures (POS) in 2 to 17-year-olds as well as in ≥18-year-olds, if dosed correctly. Separate pediatric AED studies assume no difference between the legal and the physiological meaning of the word “child.” While the FDA now accepts efficacy of AEDs in POS in children ≥2 years, the EU still requires separate “pediatric” studies. For retigabine it waived all pediatric studies after having required 20 such studies over several years. We feel the current regulation creates a situation where many studies in children are done unnecessarily; we question the ethics of such an approach, which in our view, is morally wrong. Critical publications contributed to the FDA's shift of opinion for AEDs in POS but did not address the blur of different meanings of the word “child.”","PeriodicalId":42559,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Epilepsy","volume":"46 1","pages":"073 - 079"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical Issues in Pediatric Regulatory Studies Involving Placebo Treatment\",\"authors\":\"K. Rose, D. Neubauer, J. Grant-Kels\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0040-1712147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Separate pediatric studies for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) emerged with general separate drug approval in children and were defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as <17 years and by the European Union (EU) as <18 years. These administrative age limits are necessary in pediatrics, but they correspond variably with the physiological maturity of young patients and are not helpful for therapeutic decisions or as study inclusion criteria. AEDs are often effective for partial onset seizures (POS) in 2 to 17-year-olds as well as in ≥18-year-olds, if dosed correctly. Separate pediatric AED studies assume no difference between the legal and the physiological meaning of the word “child.” While the FDA now accepts efficacy of AEDs in POS in children ≥2 years, the EU still requires separate “pediatric” studies. For retigabine it waived all pediatric studies after having required 20 such studies over several years. We feel the current regulation creates a situation where many studies in children are done unnecessarily; we question the ethics of such an approach, which in our view, is morally wrong. Critical publications contributed to the FDA's shift of opinion for AEDs in POS but did not address the blur of different meanings of the word “child.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":42559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatric Epilepsy\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"073 - 079\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatric Epilepsy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1712147\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Epilepsy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1712147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)和欧盟(EU)分别将儿童抗癫痫药物(aed)的独立儿科研究定义为<17年和<18年。这些行政年龄限制在儿科是必要的,但它们与年轻患者的生理成熟程度相对应,对治疗决策或作为研究纳入标准没有帮助。如果剂量正确,aed通常对2至17岁以及≥18岁的部分发作性癫痫发作(POS)有效。单独的儿科AED研究认为“孩子”这个词的法律意义和生理意义没有区别。虽然FDA现在接受aed在POS≥2岁儿童中的疗效,但欧盟仍然需要单独的“儿科”研究。对于瑞加滨,在几年内要求进行20项此类研究后,它放弃了所有儿科研究。我们认为目前的规定造成了一种情况,即许多儿童研究都是不必要的;我们质疑这种做法的伦理性,在我们看来,这种做法在道德上是错误的。关键的出版物促成了FDA对POS中aed的看法转变,但没有解决“儿童”一词不同含义的模糊。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ethical Issues in Pediatric Regulatory Studies Involving Placebo Treatment
Abstract Separate pediatric studies for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) emerged with general separate drug approval in children and were defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as <17 years and by the European Union (EU) as <18 years. These administrative age limits are necessary in pediatrics, but they correspond variably with the physiological maturity of young patients and are not helpful for therapeutic decisions or as study inclusion criteria. AEDs are often effective for partial onset seizures (POS) in 2 to 17-year-olds as well as in ≥18-year-olds, if dosed correctly. Separate pediatric AED studies assume no difference between the legal and the physiological meaning of the word “child.” While the FDA now accepts efficacy of AEDs in POS in children ≥2 years, the EU still requires separate “pediatric” studies. For retigabine it waived all pediatric studies after having required 20 such studies over several years. We feel the current regulation creates a situation where many studies in children are done unnecessarily; we question the ethics of such an approach, which in our view, is morally wrong. Critical publications contributed to the FDA's shift of opinion for AEDs in POS but did not address the blur of different meanings of the word “child.”
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pediatric Epilepsy is an English multidisciplinary peer-reviewed international journal publishing articles on all topics related to epilepsy and seizure disorders, epilepsy surgery, neurology, neurosurgery, and neuropsychology in childhood. These topics include the basic sciences related to the condition itself, the differential diagnosis, natural history, and epidemiology of seizures, and the investigation and practical management of epilepsy (including drug treatment, neurosurgery and non-medical and behavioral treatments). Use of model organisms and in vitro techniques relevant to epilepsy are also acceptable. Journal of Pediatric Epilepsy provides an in-depth update on new subjects and current comprehensive coverage of the latest techniques used in the diagnosis and treatment of childhood epilepsy.
期刊最新文献
Principles and Practice of Neuropsychopharmacology Principles and Practice of Neuropsychopharmacology A Novel Neuroimaging Phenotype in the Pediatric Paroxysmal Kinesigenic Dyskinesia The Contribution of Argentine Neurologists to the Description of Infantile Epileptic Spasms Syndrome and Related Epileptic and Nonepileptic Neurological Conditions Use of Bibliotherapy in Patients with Epilepsy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1