Search

For more than 60 years, regulations limited marketing of medications for off-label uses to very low levels. Some key policy changes in the late 1990s ushered in an era of deregulation of off-label marketing. Policy changes included revised United States federal law as well as modifications of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. Subsequent investigations documented an explosion in scope off-label prescribing. Attempts to limit off-label advertising by manufacturers were vigorously challenged in the courts. Other modalities are needed to maintain a clinical care environment that places the patients' best interests first. In many circumstances, an off-label medication may be in the patient's best interests; however, where there is a lower level of clinical justification, the informed consent of the patient and shared decision making of the patient is essential to optimize outcome.

The off-label and unlicensed use of drugs in neonatology is a widespread reality in all the NICUs. Several explanations may be given to justify the extension of this phenomenon and, among them, the lack of ad hoc clinical trials in neonatal subpopulation and the freedom to cure worldwide recognized to relatives and physicians. It is well known that adverse effects are more frequent, more serious and more underreported when medicines are used unauthorized or off-label, being physicians in theory responsible for the newborn physical damage. To avoid this responsibility, we believe that a shared legal framework may be helpful where the informative process on risks/benefits ratio for the newborn has a pivotal role. The National and International Scientific Societies should promote a common guidelines also for the informations on drug effects to be supplied to relatives. But at the same time EMA has to implement its strong policy towards the mandatory request on trials, for every new drug, on specific neonatal and pediatric subpopulations.