Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

How is the Pharmaceutical Industry Structured to Optimize Pediatric Drug Development? Existing Pediatric Structure Models and Proposed Recommendations for Structural Enhancement



Pediatric regulations enacted in both Europe and the USA have disrupted the pharmaceutical industry, challenging business and drug development processes, and organizational structures. Over the last decade, with science and innovation evolving, industry has moved from a reactive to a proactive mode, investing in building appropriate structures and capabilities as part of their business strategy to better tackle the challenges and opportunities of pediatric drug development.


The EFGCP Children’s Medicines Working Party and the IQ Pediatric working group have joined their efforts to survey their member company representatives to understand how pharmaceutical companies are organized to fulfill their regulatory obligations and optimize their pediatric drug development programs.


Key success factors and recommendations for a fit-for-purpose Pediatric Expert Group (PEG) were identified.


Pediatric structures and expert groups were shown to be important to support optimization of the development of pediatric medicines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    Bucci-Rechtweg C. Enhancing the pediatric drug development framework to deliver better pediatric therapies tomorrow. Clin Ther. 2017;39(10):1920–32.

  2. 2.

    ICH E11(R1) Guideline: Addendum to ICH E11: Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population. 2017.

  3. 3.

    Rivera DR, Hartzema AG. Pediatric exclusivity: evolving legislation and novel complexities within pediatric therapeutic development. Ann Pharmacother. 2014;48(3):369–79.

  4. 4.

    Ren Z, Zajicek A. Review of the best pharmaceuticals for children act and the pediatric research equity act: what can the obstetric community learn from the pediatric experience? Semin Perinatol. 2015;39(7):530–1.

  5. 5.

    EMA Reflection Paper on the Use of Extrapolation in the Development of Medicines for Paediatrics. EMA/189724/2018. 2018.

  6. 6.

    ICH Q8 Guideline: Pharmaceutical Development. 2009.

  7. 7.

    EMA Guideline on pharmaceutical Development of Medicines for Paediatric Use, EMA/CHMP/QWP/805880/2012 Rev. 2. 2013.

  8. 8.

    WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations. Development of paediatric medicines: points to consider in formulation. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2012.

  9. 9.

    Liu F, Ranmal S, Batchelor HK, et al. Formulation factors affecting acceptability of oral medicines in children. Int J Pharm. 2015;492:341–3.

  10. 10.

    Turner M, Attar S, et al. Roles of clinical research networks in pediatric drug development. Clin Ther. 2017;39(10):1939–48.

  11. 11.

    Ruperto Nicolino, Eichler Irmgard, et al. A European Network of Paediatric Research at the European Medicines Agency (Enpr-EMA). Arch Dis Child. 2012;97:185–8.

  12. 12.

    Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act (FDARA) PREA Section 504. 2017.

  13. 13.

    Mackall CL. In search of targeted therapies for childhood cancer. Front Oncol. 2011.

  14. 14.

    Mulberg AE, Silber SA, Anker JN. Pediatric drug development—concepts and applications. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011.

  15. 15.

    Shen J, Grewal G, Pilon A, McKew JC. New financial and research models for pediatric orphan drug development—focus on the NCATS TRND Program 2014. Pharmaceut Med. 2014;28(1):1–6.

  16. 16.

    Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.

  17. 17.

    European Network of Paediatric Research at the European Medicines Agency (Enpr-EMA)

  18. 18.

    European Network of Paediatric Research at the European Medicines Agency (Enpr-EMA) Network Database

  19. 19.

    Report of the tenth annual workshop (2018) of the European Network of Paediatric Research at the EMA (Enpr-EMA).

  20. 20.

    European Network of Paediatric Research at the European Medicines Agency (Enpr-EMA).

  21. 21.

    Lepola P, Tansey S, Dicks P, et al. Pharmaceutical industry and pediatric clinical trial networks in Europe—how do they communicate? Appl Clin Trials. 2016.

  22. 22.

    International Neonatal consortium.

  23. 23.

    Minneci PC, Nacion KM, Lodwick DL, et al. Improving surgical research by involving stakeholders. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(6):579–80.

  24. 24.

    European Young Persons’ Advisory Group Network (eYPAGnet).

  25. 25.

    Gaillard S, Malik S, Preston J, et al. Involving children and young people in clinical research through the forum of a European Young Persons’ Advisory Group: needs & challenges. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2018.

  26. 26.

    Gwara M, Smith S, Woods C, et al. A multifaceted approach to patient engagement in pediatric research. Clin Ther. 2017;39(10):1934–8.

  27. 27.

    Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI).

  28. 28.

    IMI Conect4children (C4C).

Download references


The authors thank Dimitrios Athanasiou, Jack Cook, Begonya Nafria Escalera, Claudio Fracasso, Johannes van den Anker, and Katie Rizvi for their review of the draft manuscript. Special thanks to the following colleagues for revealing the structure of their respective PEG: Ensio Norjavaara & Solange Corriol-Rohou (AstraZeneca); Corina Becker (Bayer); Sebastian Haertter (Boehringer-Ingelheim); Leslie Dickman & Sabine Fuerst-Recktenwald (Roche/Genentech); Christina Bucci-Rechtweg (Novartis); Kristina an Haack, Ashley Strougo, & Sebastien Bernard (Sanofi); Sam Maldonado & Katherine Cheng (Johnson & Johnson); Angela James (Astellas); and Jing Liu, Carlo Bello, & Claudio Fracasso (Pfizer).


No funding sources.

Author information

Correspondence to Thomas Severin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Conflict of Interest forms have been uploaded for each author. Thomas Severin is employee of Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Solange Corriol-Rohou is employee of AstraZeneca, Paris, France. Christina Bucci-Rechtweg is employee and stockholder of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA. Kristina an Haack is employee of Sanofi/Genzyme, Chilly-Mazarin, France. Sabine Fuerst-Recktenwald is employee of F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland. Pirkko Lepola is employee of Helsinki University Hospital, Department of Children and Adolescents, Helsinki, Finland and has no disclosures. Ensio Norjavaara is employee of AstraZeneca, Mölndal, Sweden. Martine Dehlinger-Kremer is employee of Synteract, & EUCROF, Munich, Germany. Sebastian Haertter is employee of Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ingelheim, Germany. S.Y. Amy Cheung is employee of Certara Strategic Consulting, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

In this article, ‘Pediatric Expert Group’ (PEG) is a term used as a common denominator when talking more generally about a pediatric structure used within a company or companies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Severin, T., Corriol-Rohou, S., Bucci-Rechtweg, C. et al. How is the Pharmaceutical Industry Structured to Optimize Pediatric Drug Development? Existing Pediatric Structure Models and Proposed Recommendations for Structural Enhancement. Ther Innov Regul Sci (2020).

Download citation


  • Medicines for children
  • Pediatric medicines
  • Child
  • Drug development
  • Pediatric structures
  • Expert group