Search

AbstractDisruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD), a relatively new diagnosis in child and adolescent psychiatry that remains without medications approved for its indication, warrants a renewed consideration of the ethics surrounding the off-label use of medications. In the absence of empirical studies, clinicians must work with the best available information regarding treatment, such as case reports demonstrating the success of off-label interventions. Although subject to ethical limitations and the risk-benefit profile of each medication, increased use of this approach in the treatment of DMDD is warranted. A review of the literature was undertaken to identify studies for inclusion in this article. A case history of a 12-year-old girl with DMDD who was treated with amantadine with good response illustrates these ethical considerations within a clinical context. There are significant benefits of off-label uses of medications in the treatment of DMDD. The promising potential of amantadine as an agent for off-label use for pediatric populations with DMDD illustrates this approach. In the absence of approved medications for DMDD, further attempts to use off-label treatments for this disorder are warranted despite ethical constraints and varying risk-benefit profiles for each medication.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the biologics license application for the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine (Comirnaty) on August 23, 2021, opened the door to the off-label vaccination of children younger than the age range currently covered by either the biologics license application (16 years old and older) or the emergency use authorization (12 to 15 years old). Although prescribing medications at doses, for conditions, or in populations other than those approved by the FDA is generally legal and is common in pediatrics, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have recommended against off-label prescription of the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. Several commentaries consider a case in which parents ask their child's pediatrician to prescribe the vaccine for their 11-year-old with special health care needs before approval or authorization in her age group. The first commentary considers the potential benefits and risks to the patient, as well as to the family, the provider, and society, emphasizing the unknown risks in younger patients and the need for adequate informed consent. The second commentary describes an algorithm and principles for evaluating off-label prescribing and argues that the current benefits of prescribing Comirnaty off label to children <12 do not outweigh the risks. The third commentary addresses ethical and legal issues, ultimately calling on federal agencies to remove legal barriers to making the vaccine available to children in age groups that currently lack authorization., Competing Interests: FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: The authors have indicated they have no financial disclosures relevant to this article to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)