ArticlePharmaceutics2020
Cardiovascular Paediatric Medicines Development: Have Paediatric Investigation Plans Lost Heart?
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Narrative update of clinical trials with antihypertensive drugs in children and adolescents.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Paediatric Phase I/II Clinical Trial Assessments Under the New EU Clinical Trial Regulation: A Descriptive Analysis.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensionally Printed Paediatric Medicines: Formulation, Process, and Regulatory Considerations.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Article
- Improving Development of Drug Treatments for Pregnant Women and the Fetus.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2022Review
- Surfactant-Free Chitosan/Cellulose Acetate Phthalate Nanoparticles: An Attempt to Solve the Needs of Captopril Administration in Paediatrics.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work aimed to establish whether paediatric needs in cardiovascular diseases have been met by paediatric investigation plans (PIPs) produced since the development of the European Union Paediatric Regulation in 2007. The European Medicines Agency repository was searched for patterns in the development of paediatric medicines in general. Next, positive PIPs related to cardiovascular diseases were scrutinized for outcomes and compared to specific paediatric cardiovascular needs. In total, 1866 PIPs were identified with 12% corresponding to decisions taken for cardiovascular medicines. However, despite this therapeutic area having the greatest number of overall PIPs, only 14% of established needs in paediatric cardiovascular diseases were addressed by PIPs with positive decisions. Further, 71.9% of PIPs with decisions in cardiovascular disease corresponded to full waivers, so the product would not be studied in paediatrics. Despite the progress found in overall numbers of PIPs published, cardiovascular products are still commonly used off-label in paediatrics. Particularly, there is a need to develop products to treat heart failure and hypertension, two areas with clear unmet clinical needs in paediatrics. A case study on valsartan showed that industry, regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and prescribers should work together to reduce off-label use of paediatric cardiovascular diseases (CVD).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.