Search

Following the Mediator crisis and the passage of the Health and Safety Law of December 2011, off-label prescriptions are a real concern shared by all those involved in healthcare system. Off-label, in the strictest sense of the term, is defined as all prescriptions that do not correspond to the summary of product characteristics (SPC), particularly those that fail to comply with the indications and dosage regimens defined by the marketing authorization (MA) for clear safety reasons. There are various rasons for off-label prescriptions, both conscious and unconscious. They are intended to respond to unmet medical needs, the needs of poorly studied populations or not studied at all in trials, but in relation to whom it is reasonable to extrapolate that MA would be given (common-sense prescriptions) and, additionally, to urgent public health needs (such as baclofen, pregnant women, and HIV drugs). All these prescriptions would deserve to be studied for a potential MA. However, there are off-label prescriptions that need to be restricted or even penalized in the case of compassionate prescriptions or unjustified prescriptions or prescriptions not based on any scientific grounds. Off-label prescriptions are not easy to track down because if the prescriber has to write "off-label" on his prescription, then clearly, in practice, he will only do so in exceptional cases. Neither the pharmacists who dispense the drug nor the Social Security that reimburses it, have access to the diagnosis (or targeted indication). Thus, in order to identify the off-label prescription, we must be able to cross reference the available databases (such as pharmacovigilance database, medicalized information system program [programme de médicalisation des systèmes d'information, PMSI], hospital drug formularies, general sample of beneficiaries [échantillon généraliste de bénéficiaires, EGB] or national inter-regional Health Insurance Information System [système national d'informations inter-régions d'Assurance maladie, SNIIRAM], sales data, and data from market surveys). The shared computerized patient file may resolve this problem. The temporary use recommendation (TUR) proposed by the Drug Safety Law will only partially deal with this problem for recently marketed molecules. This temporary and exceptional mechanism will authorize a recognized off-label prescription, which may be reimbursed and monitored for 3 years. These TURs will only concern a small portion of "off-label" drugs having yet a positive risk/benefit ratio (conditional MA) but this is far from matching with majority of off-label prescriptions. As such, and in order to improve the use of drugs, it is important to propose a control system for all "off-label" prescriptions with a dedicated committee: the "off-label" committee which would determine the frame of the "off-label" prescriptions., (© 2013 Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique.)

Background: Regulatory bodies including the European Medicines Agency register medications (formulation, route of administration) for specific clinical indications. Once registered, prescription is at clinicians' discretion. Off-label use is beyond the registered use. While off-label prescribing may, at times, be appropriate, efficacy and toxicity data are often lacking., Aim: The aim of this study was to document off-label use policies (including disclosure and consent) in Australian palliative care units and current practices by palliative care clinicians., Design: A national, cross-sectional survey was conducted online following an invitation letter. The survey asked clinicians their most frequent off-label medication/indication dyads and unit policies. Dyads were classified into unregistered, off-label and on-label, and for the latter, whether medications were nationally subsidised., Setting/participants: All Australian palliative medicine Fellows and advanced trainees., Results: Overall, 105 clinicians responded (53% response rate). The majority did not have policies on off-label medications, and documented consent rarely. In all, 236 medication/indication dyads for 36 medications were noted: 45 dyads (19%) were for two unregistered medications, 118 dyads (50%) were for 26 off-label medications and 73 dyads (31%) were for 12 on-label medications., Conclusions: Off-label prescribing with its clinical, legal and ethical implications is common yet poorly recognised by clinicians. A distinction needs to be made between where quality evidence exists but registration has not been updated by the pharmaceutical sponsor and the evidence has not been generated. Further research is required to quantify any iatrogenic harm from off-label prescribing in palliative care.

The Avastin - Lucentis debacle illustrates the ethical, policy and legal dilemmas encountered with the off-label use of medication. Ophthalmologists are using intra-ocular injections of Avastin (off-label) to treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The off-label use of Avastin is controversial because there are anti-VEGF drugs on the market, authorized for AMD, such as Lucentis. Lucentis is however extremely expensive and costs approximately 50 times more than Avastin. Ophthalmologists did not have the backing of randomized controlled trials, or the blessing of the manufacturer of Avastin. In May 2011 the results from the first year of the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials (CATT), a large, randomized clinical trial comparing Lucentis and Avastin, were released. The two-year results were published in April 2012. Respecting efficacy, the results of the drugs were the same. The study was not statistically powerful enough to identify meaningful differences in systemic drug-related adverse events and long-term safety. Ongoing trials in other parts of the world might or might not bring clarity in future. Currently there is conflict on the Avastin-issue between cost-conscious health authorities in EU Member States and the EU drug regulators. There are examples of cost-cutting solutions by health authorities, which risk undermining the fundamental principles of the regulatory framework. In the meantime risk is being shouldered by patients and doctors.

Sarcoidosis is a granulomatous multiorgan diseases with an unknown etiology, with the predominant lung involvement. Immunosuppressive agents such as corticosteroids, methotrexate, azathioprinum, ciclosporinum A, chlorambucil, cyclophosphamide, hydroxychlorochinum, indomethacin, pentoxyfillinum, thalidomide, leflunomidum, and adalimumab, or infliximab have been used in its treatment. It should be emphasized that the Summary of Products Characteristics (SPC) of these drugs does not specifically recommend their use in the therapy for sarcoidosis. That makes the application of the drugs in sarcoidosis an off-label use, which is not formally accepted by the authorities but is supported by medical bibliography or recommendations given by scientific bodies. Thus the off-label drugs raise legal, but also ethical and medical problems. The dosing regimen and the required duration of therapy for sarcoidosis are missing. In effect the therapy usually follows the recommendations from the American and European Respiratory Societies (ATS/ERS), based on the long-term medical research. The American Food and Drug Administration recognizes the existence of the off-label use. European legislations do not precisely specify the rules for the admissibility of the off-label use. The doctrine of law assumes that the off-label use constitutes a medical experiment. Therefore, the commencement of therapy with such drugs requires patients' informed consent, which must be kept along with other medical records. Insufficient knowledge of the legal regulations may result in civil and professional liability of a physician supervising the therapy of a sarcoidosis patient, especially in case of adverse effects.

The ethics of allowing off-protocol access to a study therapy are explored, using the example of recombinant factor VIIa for intracerebral hemorrhage. rVIIa was later found to be ineffective. While the studies were being performed, researchers struggled with the question of whether a critically ill patient with intracerebral hemorrhage was actually indifferent between the treatment and placebo arms of the trial.

The United States Food and Drug Administration's recent approval of the commercial use of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) as a treatment for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) will be discussed within the context of the existing USA regulatory framework. The purpose will be to illustrate the current lack of regulation and oversight of the DBS market, which has resulted in the violation of basic ethical norms. The discussion will focus on: 1) the lack of available evidence on procedural safety and efficacy, 2) the numerous conflicts of interest held by research investigators, and 3) the ambiguity of both aforementioned categories due to an inherent lack of transparency in the research. It is argued that in order to address these issues, ethical analyses of DBS for psychiatric disorders must include the role of the industry forces that have become the primary impetus for this research. As such, DBS for OCD serves as an important case example in studies of neurotechnology and innovative surgery., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Purpose: We sought to determine the prevalence, reliability, and predictors of conflict of interest (COI) and funding disclosure statements for studies of anticancer targeted therapies conducted in the off-label prescribing setting., Methods: As a part of a federally funded systematic review, manuscripts were included in the analysis if they were used to support one of 19 indications for cancer targeted therapies that were off-label but reimbursable according to compendia published in 2006 or before. Studies were categorized according to trial design, trial results, average impact factor of journals, and presence of COI and funding disclosure statements., Results: Among the 69 included studies, prevalence of COI and funding disclosures was low, at 33% and 58% respectively; time trends showed some improvement between 2002 to 2007, but only 60% of studies had disclosures by 2007. Predictors of COI disclosure were publication in high-impact-factor journals (P < .001), large study sample size (P = .001), enrollment exclusively in the United States (P = .04), and study of the targeted therapy in combination with other agents as opposed to the study drug alone (P = .03)., Conclusion: Disclosure of potential sources of bias in COI and funding statements in studies of off-label indications for anticancer targeted therapies was low and did not increase substantially over time.

Since more than 35 years, the international medical scientific community tries to solve the problem of the off-label use of paediatric drugs. The aim is simple, but ambitious: to supply children and adolescents with effective drugs, as safe as possible, with known and well-documented side effects, and with accurate and up-to-date information on dosage and administration form. However, despite the significant efforts of paediatricians, researchers and international health politics, a number of severe obstacles for the optimal supply of children and adolescents with safe drugs remain. The detailed analysis of the problem shows not only a still remaining lack of medical knowledge, but also persistent weaknesses in the ethical, legal, medical, pharmacological, and political practices that surround the phenomenon of off-label use in paediatrics. The article gives an overview about the remaining difficulties in the field of paediatric off-label medication with special consideration to ethical and regulatory questions.

The practice of off-label prescribing, i.e. prescribing drugs either for unregistered/unapproved therapeutic indications and age groups or using unregistered/unapproved doses or methods of administration, is common in older patients. This may be due to the poor representation of this group in pre-marketing clinical trials assessing therapeutic efficacy and safety of novel therapies or merely to the fact that trials in a particular indication have not been undertaken. Off-label prescribing should not be viewed as scientifically or ethically unsound when there are good clinical data to support a particular therapeutic indication. However, a number of steps should be followed in order to ensure therapeutic efficacy, reducing, at the same time, the risk of adverse drug reactions and/or medical litigation. This article discusses the current epidemiology and trends in off-label prescribing in older patients, the scientific and ethical justification of this practice, medico-legal implications, and proposed strategies for risk mitigation.

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.

Depression is a common, recurring disorder affecting millions of youth at some point before they reach mature adulthood. Given the shortage of and uneven distribution of psychiatrists who have completed specialized fellowships in child and adolescent psychiatry, a significant number of depressed youth will receive their pharmacotherapy from general psychiatrists and other prescribers with varying degrees of interest, training, and even willingness to treat children and adolescents. For general psychiatrists who will prescribe antidepressants for minors, knowledge of the training and expertise of nonphysician mental health professionals, the psychotherapies they may employ, and familiarity with school services are essential. Physicians who typically work only with adults will also need familiarity with differing ethical, legal, and regulatory issues and standards applicable to pediatric psychopharmacology. General psychiatrists, pediatricians, family physicians, nurse practitioners, and others contribute greatly to the care of depressed children, adolescents, and their families, and many find this work to be a very rewarding part of their professional practices.

Recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) is registered for patients with rare haematological disorders, but is used 'off-label' in many other situations, including intracranial haemorrhage, cardiac surgery, trauma, transplantation and prostatectomy. Lack of systematic evidence to support these off-label uses has not slowed the growth of off-label prescribing of rFVIIa. We use the case of rFVIIa to illustrate the issues raised by off-label prescribing, and the kind of impasse that can arise when views about evidence, expertise and clinical necessity are in conflict. We argue that clinicians, hospital drug committees and regulators all need to acknowledge the complexity of prescribing decisions, and ensure that decisions to prescribe off-label are sufficiently justified., (© 2012 The Authors. Internal Medicine Journal © 2012 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

We use the format of a hypothetical case study to review issues related to pharmaceutical product approval and physician prescribing practices. In this case, a new FDA-approved drug is recommended for a patient who subsequently experiences an adverse event that may or may not be related to the prescription. This case raises a number of ethical and legal considerations physicians routinely face when deciding whether to recommend such drugs for their patients. Despite the need for ongoing observation by the regulatory apparatus, physicians should be cognizant of the limitations of the drug approval system and the post-approval prescription drug surveillance system. We discuss physicians' ethical obligations when faced with a newly approved drug, including seeking out independent sources of learning, reporting adverse effects, and notifying patients about limitations in available knowledge about therapeutic recommendations.

Objectives: To explore the views and perspectives of children on the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children and on the participation of children in clinical trials., Methods: Focus-group discussions, involving school children, were carried out in a range of primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland. A purposeful sample was chosen to facilitate representation of various socioeconomic groupings., Results: A total of 123 pupils, aged from 10 to 16 years, from six schools, participated in 16 focus groups. In general, pupils viewed the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children as unsafe and unethical and felt it is necessary to test medicines in children to improve the availability of licensed products. The majority felt that older children should be told, and that parents should be told, about the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children, yet they recognised some implications of this, such as potential medication non-adherence., Conclusions: This is the first study to explore the views of healthy children on unlicensed medicine use in children. Children were able to recognise potential risks associated with the unlicensed use of medicines and felt it is necessary to test and license more medicines in children., Practice Implications: Health care professionals should consider the views of children in decisions that affect their health.

Background: Litigation documents reveal that pharmaceutical companies have paid physicians to promote off-label uses of their products through a number of different avenues. It is unknown whether physicians and scientists who have such conflicts of interest adequately disclose such relationships in the scientific publications they author., Methods and Findings: We collected whistleblower complaints alleging illegal off-label marketing from the US Department of Justice and other publicly available sources (date range: 1996-2010). We identified physicians and scientists described in the complaints as having financial relationships with defendant manufacturers, then searched Medline for articles they authored in the subsequent three years. We assessed disclosures made in articles related to the off-label use in question, determined the frequency of adequate disclosure statements, and analyzed characteristics of the authors (specialty, author position) and articles (type, connection to off-label use, journal impact factor, citation count/year). We identified 39 conflicted individuals in whistleblower complaints. They published 404 articles related to the drugs at issue in the whistleblower complaints, only 62 (15%) of which contained an adequate disclosure statement. Most articles had no disclosure (43%) or did not mention the pharmaceutical company (40%). Adequate disclosure rates varied significantly by article type, with commentaries less likely to have adequate disclosure compared to articles reporting original studies or trials (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.02-0.67, p = 0.02). Over half of the authors (22/39, 56%) made no adequate disclosures in their articles. However, four of six authors with ≥ 25 articles disclosed in about one-third of articles (range: 10/36-8/25 [28%-32%])., Conclusions: One in seven authors identified in whistleblower complaints as involved in off-label marketing activities adequately disclosed their conflict of interest in subsequent journal publications. This is a much lower rate of adequate disclosure than has been identified in previous studies. The non-disclosure patterns suggest shortcomings with authors and the rigor of journal practices. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

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.

Background: Promotion of drugs for off-label use is newsworthy, because it is an illegal but all too common strategy used by pharmaceutical companies. The print media are an important source of information about coverage of off-label promotion of drugs and devices and can influence public perceptions of the practice., Objectives: Print media coverage of off-label promotion during the years 1990-2008 were described and quantified. The primary themes and general tones relating to off-label promotion articles were evaluated. General concerns associated with off-label promotion and complaints about specific brand name drugs were also identified., Methods: Content analyses of the top 6 US newspapers were conducted over the period of 1990-2008 to analyze the media coverage given to off-label promotion of drugs and devices. Headlines and full text of articles were analyzed for primary themes and tones of the coverage. Intercoder reliability tests were performed on all the study variables., Results: One hundred and one articles were identified meeting the study inclusion criteria. Coverage varied by newspaper. The Wall Street Journal had the most coverage on the topic (45%), and USA Today and Chicago Tribune had the least coverage (5%). Overall, most of the stories sampled were deemed to have a negative tone in coverage (77%), focusing mainly on lawsuits against drug companies for promoting their drugs for off-label uses. Pfizer's Neurontin(®) (Pfizer Inc., New York, NY 10017, USA) and Johnson & Johnson's Retin-A(®) (Orthoneutrogena, Los Angeles, CA 90045, USA) received the most media attention., Conclusion: The news media helps shape public understanding of promotional practices of pharmaceutical companies and their potential benefits and harms. This study suggests that print media coverage is generally negative about off-label promotion, focusing on legal actions taken against drug companies and the negative consequences of such promotional practices., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: This paper analyses off-label prescribing of the iodinated organic and magnetic resonance (MR) contrast media used in diagnostic imaging and evaluates the liability profiles and medicolegal issues associated with such use. The term off-label generally indicates the use of known drugs for which new scientific evidence suggests use in a manner and in clinical scenarios not explicitly addressed by the drug data sheet and is outside the indications for which the medication was approved. In addition, the term also indicates the use of drugs with a different route of administration and dosage from those indicated in the information leaflet. Intravascular contrast media used in diagnostic imaging are drugs in the complete sense of the term, even though they have unique characteristics which in many ways distinguish them from other pharmacological agents. The off-label use of contrast media in diagnostic imaging is a little-investigated field and most commonly, but not exclusively, applies to gadolinium-based contrast media used in MR angiography as well as cardiac and paediatric applications. In particular, the off-label use of contrast media mostly concerns deviations from the recommended dose. As contrast media are to all effects pharmaceutical agents, their off-label use can be considered admissible within the limitations laid down by the Italian law in force (Article 3 of Law 94/98) and its interpretation, i.e. the following criteria must be present: the lack of a valid diagnostic alternative; written informed consent by the patient; the presence of scientific publications validated at the international level; assumption of responsibility by the radiologist., Conclusions: The use of contrast media in modern image-guided medicine is essential. In cases in which the information contained in the information leaflet is modified and updated in any way whatsoever (indications, dosage, at others), specifically if restrictions are introduced in accordance with the law in force, the pharmaceutical industry must provide formal and timely notification to radiologists. On their part as prescribers and users of contrast media, radiologists must remain up to date regarding any changes in indications, dosage and route of administration. Lastly, we propose that the radiology report includes not only the type but also the dose of contrast medium used.

Any medicinal product marketed in the country has its registration, under which are strictly defined indications and the extent to which a product can be used. It is of significance that the use of the product which is registered in the given range produces an effect similar to or identical to that effect, which is obtained after applying the product having a registration in a given indication. Relied on to justify the use of a medicinal product or medical product "off-label use" in Poland, there is also the fact that the same product has a registration in a particular indication in another EU member state or outside the Community. It is worth noting that the medicinal product may be used in therapeutic management of omitting or reducing the principles resulting from the SPC. However, this applies only to cases where the use of the medicinal product "off-label use" dictated by the necessity of saving life or health of the patient, and the previous ways and methods of treatment with the use of registered medicines have proved ineffective or insufficient to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.

On February 3, 2010, a "Letter of Concern from Bioethicists," organized by fetaldex.org, was sent to report suspected violations of the ethics of human subjects research in the off-label use of dexamethasone during pregnancy by Dr. Maria New. Copies of this letter were submitted to the FDA Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office for Human Research Protections, and three universities where Dr. New has held or holds appointments. We provide a critical appraisal of the Letter of Concern and show that it makes false claims, misrepresents scientific publications and websites, fails to meet standards of evidence-based reasoning, makes undocumented claims, treats as settled matters what are, instead, ongoing controversies, offers "mere opinion" as a substitute for argument, and makes contradictory claims. The Letter of Concern is a case study in unethical transgressive bioethics. We call on fetaldex.org to withdraw the letter and for co-signatories to withdraw their approval of it.

Should innovative therapy occur only within a research paradigm and under institutional review board oversight? The health risks from current human embryonic stem cell clinical applications have raised again a fundamental question addressed first in papers submitted to inform the writing of the Belmont Report. Revisiting the thinking underlying the Belmont Report, together with examining changed circumstances since then, leads to a new model for overseeing innovative therapy based on its unique risks and context, important changes since the Belmont Report, and new opportunities for addressing risks through safety and quality systems in health care.

This paper discusses exceptional circumstances under which patients outside of clinical trials are likely to receive innovative stem cell-based interventions. These circumstances involve: (1) stem cell interventions not initially amenable to a clinical trials approach; (2) expanded access to investigational stem cell products ("compassionate use"); and (3) off-label uses of FDA approved stem cell products. This paper proposes a new approach to regulating these exceptional cases.