Search

IntroductionMedical devices (MedDevs) and medicines are assessed (and monitored) differently before and after launch. There are products for repeated oral ingestion that are marketed in the European Union as MedDevs.Objectives and methodsTo illustrate the consequences of these differences in assessment, we compared the leaflet information of three MedDevs with the standards for medicines and with published evidence at launch. As examples, gelatin tannate (GT), its combination with tyndalised probiotics (TP) (GTTP) for diarrhoea and a gel containing hyaluronic acid (HA)/chondroitin sulfate (CS)/poloxamer (Pol407) (HACSPol) for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease were examined.ResultsApplying standards for medicines, product composition is insufficiently defined in the MedDev leaflet (eg, plant origin, polymerisation grade, dose and ratio of the relevant constituents). As no age limit is mentioned in the leaflets, all 3 products allow use in children from birth onwards, although published clinical documentation in children was poor (GT) or lacking (GTTP and HACSPol). MedDev leaflets do not mention adverse events (AEs), while literature search suggests safety concerns such as tannic acid (TA) cytotoxicity, potentially more diarrhoea/AEs with TP, use of doses higher than established safe (TA and HA) and lack of chronic toxicity studies for oral Pol407. None refers to interactions with medicines, although some ingredients may affect medicine absorption.ConclusionAlthough these MedDevs require repeated oral intake as do medicines, their assessment and monitoring differ significantly from the standards for medicines. Compared with medicines, MedDevs for repeated oral use are poorly labelled and rely on very limited clinical information at market release.

ObjectiveTo study the pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of desmopressin (dDAVP) oral lyophilisate in children below the age of 8 years with special emphasis on age-related and size-related differences in bioavailability.DesignOpen label, non-randomised, interventional PK and PD trial.SettingSingle-centre study.PatientsChildren (age: 6 months to 8 years) with nocturnal polyuria, including both children with uropathy or nephropathy (glomerular filtration rate >60 mL/min/1.73 m²) and children (age: 5–8 years) with severe monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis, who were unresponsive to treatment with 400 µg of the dDAVP tablet for at least 1 month.InterventionsAfter a water load, dDAVP was administered sublingually as a single dose of oral lyophilisate. Subsequently, blood and urine samples were collected until 7 hours post-administration.Main outcome measuresNon-compartmental analysis of PK parameters was performed based on dDAVP concentrations in both plasma and urine. To evaluate the effect of dDAVP lyophilisate (PD parameters), the urinary concentration capacity (urine osmolality (mOsm/kg)) and antidiuretic effect (diuresis rate (mL/kg/h)) were calculated.ResultsThe PK data support the need for size-dependent dosing in children. Body weight was shown to be a significant covariate for apparent clearance (CL/F) and apparent volume of distribution (Vd/F). A double absorption peak of dDAVP lyophilisate in the first 2 hours post-administration was demonstrated.ConclusionsFor the first time, a double absorption profile of dDAVP lyophilisate was found in children, questioning extrapolation of bioequivalence from adults towards children. Moreover, the need for size-adapted dosing regimens of dDAVP lyophilisate in young children is indicated.Trial registration numberNTC02584231.

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use is becoming increasingly common. Although the toxicity profiles of PPIs are not well understood particularly in children, PPIs have been associated with increased risks of gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infection, vitamin B12deficiency, hypomagnesaemia, bone fractures, and rebound hyperacidity after discontinuation. Prescribers should take into account that PPI uses pose toxicity risks, which remain to be fully characterised in infants and children.

PurposeSince 1997, strong incentives have been introduced worldwide to improve access to safe and effective medicines addressing the therapeutic needs of children. ACE inhibitors, the most prescribed antihypertensive drugs in the paediatric population, are one of the prototype drugs targeted by the legislation initiatives. Our purpose in assembling this review is to evaluate and describe the current evidence for the efficacy and safety profile of ACE inhibitors in the paediatric population.MethodsThe authors made a descriptive review of the literature from 1980 to 2015 using the following search terms: hypertension, child, paediatric, ACE (inhibitors), renin–angiotensin aldosterone system, captopril, lisinopril, enalapril, ramipril and fosinopril.ResultsA total of 16 studies evaluating efficacy and safety of ACE inhibitors were included in this review. The included studies demonstrate that ACE inhibitors have the potency to decrease the systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure with an overall favourable safety profile in a short-term period. More importantly, the incentives resulted in an improvement of the overall availability of paediatric labelling, dosing and safety information for ACE inhibitors. However, they failed to fulfil several of paediatric needs: absence of long-term safety data on growth and maturation, absence of commercially available child-friendly formulations and incomplete evaluation of the entire paediatric hypertension population.ConclusionAdditional efforts are needed to close the gap between the availability of drugs that are labelled and indicated for paediatric use and the actual drug usage in children, especially in young children, neonates and children with severe hypertension, renal transplantation or severe renal impairment.

Background and aimsDuring the last decades, much attention has been paid to off-label and unlicensed prescriptions in paediatrics. However, on-label prescribing can also cause health issues. In this paper, the case of first-generation H1-antihistamines is investigated, notably the range of indications for which products are licensed in different European countries and the evidence base (or lack thereof) for each indication, as well as reported adverse drug reactions.MethodsReview of the Summary of Product Characteristics of first-generation H1-antihistamines with a focus on paediatric use. This is plotted against the evidence available in the literature.ResultsThis investigation shows a large variability in labelled indications and licensing ages when compared in five different European countries. Moreover, most of the indications are not based on clinical trials evaluating efficacy and safety of these drugs in children.ConclusionsMany of the licensed indications of first-generation antihistamines do not appear to be evidence based.