A Lack of Safety Data on Kids’ Drugs Puts Pediatricians in a Bind

Few medications have been proved safe for children, leaving doctors in a bind

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

It is a conundrum that has frustrated pediatricians for decades: children get sick and need drugs, yet few medications have been approved for their use. A recent study and a government report published in February concluded that, most of the time, doctors are forced to prescribe drugs to young patients without adequate data, putting kids at risk for overdoses, side effects and long-term health problems. In late June Congress was poised to strengthen existing laws that encourage pharmaceutical companies to test medicines in kids, but that won't solve the safety problems associated with pediatric drugs.

Drugmakers resist testing their products in children because doing so is risky, expensive and difficult—and it is rarely worthwhile from a business perspective because children make up a small percentage of the world's drug consumers. Yet children metabolize drugs differently from adults. “The adage that a child is not just a small adult is true: you can't simply scale down a dose of a drug from adults and expect it to behave identically in a small child,” says Peter Adamson, a pediatrician and pharmacologist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. A 2000 study revealed, for instance, that the seizure drug gabapentin (Neurontin) requires higher than expected doses for children younger than five and that it can make them hostile and hyperactive. Pain relievers, antibiotics and asthma medications are among other drugs often prescribed off-label.

Adamson was a co-author of a February Institute of Medicine report highlighting other ongoing issues in pediatric drug safety: some studies have never been made public, others have been too small to yield clinically useful data, and few studies have investigated the long-term effects of drugs in youngsters. The June legislation would grant more power to the FDA to ensure that drugmakers follow through with trials, test drugs in newborns and make past studies public. But it won't address the vital need for data on how drugs taken in youth might affect long-term health.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Fsurther readings and citationsScientificAmerican.com/aug2012/advances

Melinda Wenner Moyer, a contributing editor at Scientific American, is author of Hello, Cruel World! Science-Based Strategies for Raising Terrific Kids in Terrifying Times (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 2025).

More by Melinda Wenner Moyer
Scientific American Magazine Vol 307 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Not Just “Small Adults”” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 307 No. 2 (), p. 18
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0812-18

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe