Pediatric Melanoma and Drug Development

Importance—Pediatric melanoma occurs, albeit rarely. Should patients be treated by today’s medical standards, or be subjected to medically unnecessary clinical studies? Observations—We identified international, industry-sponsored pediatric melanoma studies triggered by regulatory demands in www.clin...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Klaus Rose, Jane M. Grant-Kels
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2018-03-01
Series:Children
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/5/3/43
id doaj-370f4cf33a004a02b0b73f08113259c1
record_format Article
spelling doaj-370f4cf33a004a02b0b73f08113259c12021-04-02T11:15:49ZengMDPI AGChildren2227-90672018-03-01534310.3390/children5030043children5030043Pediatric Melanoma and Drug DevelopmentKlaus Rose0Jane M. Grant-Kels1klausrose Consulting, Pediatric Drug Development & More, 4125 Riehen, SwitzerlandDepartment of Dermatology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030, USAImportance—Pediatric melanoma occurs, albeit rarely. Should patients be treated by today’s medical standards, or be subjected to medically unnecessary clinical studies? Observations—We identified international, industry-sponsored pediatric melanoma studies triggered by regulatory demands in www.clinicaltrials.gov and further pediatric melanoma studies demanded by European Union pediatric investigation plans. We retrieved related regulatory documents from the internet. We analyzed these studies for rationale and medical beneficence on the basis of physiology, pediatric clinical pharmacology and rationale. Regulatory authorities define children by chronological age, not physiologically. Newborns’ organs are immature but they develop and mature rapidly. Separate proof of efficacy in underage patients is justified formally/regulatorily but lacks medical sense. Children—especially post-puberty—and adults vis-a-vis medications are physiologically very similar. Two adolescent melanoma studies were terminated in 2016 because of waning recruitment, while five studies in pediatric melanoma and other solid tumors, triggered by European Union pediatric investigation plans, continue recruiting worldwide. Conclusions and Relevance—Regulatory-demanded pediatric melanoma studies are medically superfluous. Melanoma patients of all ages should be treated with effective combination treatment. Babies need special attention. Children need dose-finding and pharmacokinetic studies but adolescents metabolize and respond to drugs similarly to adults. Institutional Review Boards/ethics committees should suspend ongoing questionable pediatric melanoma studies and reject newly submitted questionable studies.http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/5/3/43pediatric drug developmentPediatric Investigation Plan (PIP)pediatric pharmaceutical legislationEU pediatric regulationpediatric clinical pharmacologydevelopmental pharmacologypediatric lawspediatric clinical studies
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Klaus Rose
Jane M. Grant-Kels
spellingShingle Klaus Rose
Jane M. Grant-Kels
Pediatric Melanoma and Drug Development
Children
pediatric drug development
Pediatric Investigation Plan (PIP)
pediatric pharmaceutical legislation
EU pediatric regulation
pediatric clinical pharmacology
developmental pharmacology
pediatric laws
pediatric clinical studies
author_facet Klaus Rose
Jane M. Grant-Kels
author_sort Klaus Rose
title Pediatric Melanoma and Drug Development
title_short Pediatric Melanoma and Drug Development
title_full Pediatric Melanoma and Drug Development
title_fullStr Pediatric Melanoma and Drug Development
title_full_unstemmed Pediatric Melanoma and Drug Development
title_sort pediatric melanoma and drug development
publisher MDPI AG
series Children
issn 2227-9067
publishDate 2018-03-01
description Importance—Pediatric melanoma occurs, albeit rarely. Should patients be treated by today’s medical standards, or be subjected to medically unnecessary clinical studies? Observations—We identified international, industry-sponsored pediatric melanoma studies triggered by regulatory demands in www.clinicaltrials.gov and further pediatric melanoma studies demanded by European Union pediatric investigation plans. We retrieved related regulatory documents from the internet. We analyzed these studies for rationale and medical beneficence on the basis of physiology, pediatric clinical pharmacology and rationale. Regulatory authorities define children by chronological age, not physiologically. Newborns’ organs are immature but they develop and mature rapidly. Separate proof of efficacy in underage patients is justified formally/regulatorily but lacks medical sense. Children—especially post-puberty—and adults vis-a-vis medications are physiologically very similar. Two adolescent melanoma studies were terminated in 2016 because of waning recruitment, while five studies in pediatric melanoma and other solid tumors, triggered by European Union pediatric investigation plans, continue recruiting worldwide. Conclusions and Relevance—Regulatory-demanded pediatric melanoma studies are medically superfluous. Melanoma patients of all ages should be treated with effective combination treatment. Babies need special attention. Children need dose-finding and pharmacokinetic studies but adolescents metabolize and respond to drugs similarly to adults. Institutional Review Boards/ethics committees should suspend ongoing questionable pediatric melanoma studies and reject newly submitted questionable studies.
topic pediatric drug development
Pediatric Investigation Plan (PIP)
pediatric pharmaceutical legislation
EU pediatric regulation
pediatric clinical pharmacology
developmental pharmacology
pediatric laws
pediatric clinical studies
url http://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/5/3/43
work_keys_str_mv AT klausrose pediatricmelanomaanddrugdevelopment
AT janemgrantkels pediatricmelanomaanddrugdevelopment
_version_ 1724165214068277248