Аліментні обов'язки інших членів сім'ї та родичів

Виявлено проблеми у врегулюванні аліментних обов’язків інших членів сім’ї та родичів, вироблено рекомендації щодо їх вирішення. Проаналізовано специфіку правового регулювання аліментних зобов’язань зазначених суб’єктів, сімейне законодавство та міжнародний досвід. Ключові слова: аліментні обов’язки, правове регулювання, сімейне законодавство.Выявлены проблемы в урегулировании алиментных обязанностей других членов семьи и родственников, выработаны рекомендации по их решению. Проанализирована специфика правового регулирования алиментных обязательств указанных субъектов, семейное законодательство и международный опыт. Ключевые слова: алиментные обязанности, правовое регулирование, семейное законодавствоThis article is dedicated to identifying problems in the regulation of the alimentary obligations of other family members and relatives, and to making recommendations and proposing solutions. Studing the specificity of the legal regulation of alimentary obligations of these entities, analysing the current family law and international experience are very important. Key words: alimentary obligations, legal regulation, family law

Oral medicine acceptance in infants and toddlers: measurement properties of the caregiver-administered Children’s acceptance tool (CareCAT)

BACKGROUND: Developing age-appropriate medications remains a challenge in particular for the population of infants and toddlers, as they are not able to reliably self-report if they would accept and consequently take an oral medicine. Therefore, it is common to use caregivers as proxies when assessing medicine acceptance. The outcome measures used in this research field differ and most importantly lack validation, implying a persisting gap in knowledge and controversy in the field. The newly developed Caregiver-administered Children’s Acceptance Tool (CareCAT) is based on a 5-point nominal scale, with descriptors of medication acceptance behavior. This crosssectional study assessed the measurement properties of the tool with regards to the user’s understanding and its intra- and inter-rater reliability. METHODS: Participating caregivers were enrolled at a primary healthcare facility where their children (median age 6 months) had been prescribed oral antibiotics. Caregivers, trained observers and the tool developer observed and scored on the CareCAT tool what behavior children exhibited when receiving the medicine (n = 104). The videorecords of this process served as replicate observations (n = 69). After using the tool caregivers were asked to explain their observations and the tool descriptors in their own words. The tool’s reliability was assessed by percentage agreement and Cohen’s unweighted kappa coefficients of agreement for nominal scales. RESULTS: The study found that caregivers using CareCAT had a satisfactory understanding of the tool’s descriptors. Using its dichotomized scores the tool reliably was strong for acceptance behavior (agreement inter-rater 84–88%, kappa 0.66–0.76; intra-rater 87–89%, kappa 0.68–0.72) and completeness of medicine ingestion (agreement inter-rater 82–86%, kappa 0.59–0.67; intra-rater 85–93%, kappa 0.50–0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The CareCAT is a low-cost, easy-to-use and reliable instrument, which is relevant to assess acceptance behavior and completeness of medicine ingestion, both of which are of significant importance for developing age-appropriate medications in infants and toddlers

Methodologies for Assessing the Acceptability of Oral Formulations among children and older adults: A Systematic Review

This is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Acceptability of medicinal products in children and older populations is pivotal in ensuring adherence and therapeutic outcomes. This review systematically identifies studies reporting on formulation aspects of oral medications that affect their acceptability in these patient groups. Particular emphasis is placed on the evaluation of the methodologies employed in the studies. Sixty-eight studies were included for analysis, with 51 (75%) in children and 17 (25%) in older populations. The studies evaluated a range of oral formulations; however, the methodologies used differ considerably in participants’ characteristics, study settings, tools, acceptability definitions and criteria. It is evident that there is a lack of standardisation in study design as well as the assessment methods used in assessing acceptability of medicines in children and older populations. This review presents a systematic analysis on methods employed for assessing acceptability of oral medicines in children and older adults, to provide insights and recommendations regarding the design of reliable instruments in future studies.Peer reviewe

Paediatric Drug Development and Formulation Design—a European Perspective

The availability of licensed paediatric drugs is lagging behind those for adults, and there is a lack of safe formulations in suitable doses that children are able and willing to take. As a consequence, children are commonly treated with off-label or unlicensed drugs. As off-label and unlicensed drug use are associated with a greater risk for harm than on-label drug use, a range of global initiatives have been developed to realize “better” medicines for children. This review describes the challenges and achievements of the European Union to realize this goal, with a focus on paediatric drug development and formulation design. In 2007, a European Paediatric Regulation was installed enforcing companies to consider children in the early development of drugs with a new drug substance, for a new indication or with a new route of administration. The Regulation, e.g. requires companies to develop a paediatric investigation plan discussing the proposed clinical trials in children of different ages and the formulations for future marketing. Since 2013, the pharmaceutical design of any newly marketed paediatric drug should comply with the “Guideline on the Pharmaceutical Development of Medicines for Paediatric Use.” Companies should, e.g. justify the route of administration, dosage form, formulation characteristics, safety of excipients, dosing frequency, container closure system, administration device, patient acceptability and user information. In this review, the guideline’s key aspects are discussed with a focus on novel formulations such as mini-tablets and orodispersible films, excipients with a potential risk for harm such as azo dyes and adequate user instructions

Oral medicines for children in the European paediatric investigation plans

INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceutical industry is no longer allowed to develop new medicines for use in adults only, as the 2007 Paediatric Regulation requires children to be considered also. The plans for such paediatric development called Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIPs) are subject to agreement by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and its Paediatric Committee (PDCO). The aim of this study was to evaluate the key characteristics of oral paediatric medicines in the PIPs and the changes implemented as a result of the EMA/PDCO review. METHODS: All PIPs agreed by 31 December 2011 were identified through a proprietary EMA-database. PIPs were included if they contained an agreed proposal to develop an oral medicine for children 0 to 11 years. Information on the therapeutic area (EMA classification system); target age range (as defined by industry) and pharmaceutical characteristics (active substance, dosage form(s) as listed in the PIP, strength of each dosage form, excipients in each strength of each dosage form) was extracted from the EMA website or the EMA/PDCO assessment reports. RESULTS: A hundred and fifty PIPs were included corresponding to 16 therapeutic areas and 220 oral dosage forms in 431 strengths/compositions. Eighty-two PIPs (37%) included tablets, 44 (20%) liquids and 35 (16%) dosage forms with a specific composition/strength that were stored as a solid but swallowed as a liquid e.g. dispersible tablets. The EMA/PDCO review resulted in an increase of 13 (207 to 220) oral paediatric dosage forms and 44 (387 to 431) dosage forms with a specific composition/strength. For many PIPs, the target age range was widened and the excipient composition and usability aspects modified. CONCLUSION: The EMA/PDCO review realized an increase in the number of requirements for the development of oral dosage forms and a larger increase in the number of dosage forms with a specific composition/strength, both targeting younger children. Changes to their pharmaceutical design were less profound