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.)

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak is rapidly spread over the world and kills infected patients. There is no proven medication for its treatment, so, all of the medications used for treatment are considered to be off-label. Off-label uses are not under regulation in the outbreak because there is no specific regulation for this condition., Objectives: In this short communication we aim at describing two ways of off-label use as clinical practice or investigational use. Further, we will describe the third way of off-label use, we named it pseudo-research and then we will state the most possible ethical challenges of off-label use for better perceptions and responsibility., Results: The WHO considers off-label uses as country-specific. All international regulatory bodies consider off-label prescription as the physician's responsibility and legal by necessitating some requirements. There is no international guideline for regulating investigational off-label uses as clinical practice., Conclusion: There are different types of approaches, none of them is comprehensive and conclusive. Furthermore, respecting the four ethical principles necessitates codification and strict regulation of off-label uses either as clinical practice or investigational. Besides, compilation of a special guideline based on ethical principles especially non-maleficence and autonomy for investigational off-label uses in disasters is highly recommended.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has rapidly become epidemic in Italy and other European countries. The disease spectrum ranges from asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic presentations to acute respiratory failure. At the present time the absolute number of severe cases requiring ventilator support is reaching or even surpassing the intensive care unit bed capacity in the most affected regions and countries., Objectives: To narratively summarize the available literature on the management of COVID-19 in order to combine current evidence and frontline opinions and to provide balanced answers to pressing clinical questions., Sources: Inductive PubMed search for publications relevant to the topic., Content: The available literature and the authors' frontline-based opinion are summarized in brief narrative answers to selected clinical questions, with a conclusive statement provided for each answer., Implications: Many off-label antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs are currently being administered to patients with COVID-19. Physicians must be aware that, as they are not supported by high-level evidence, these treatments may often be ethically justifiable only in those worsening patients unlikely to improve only with supportive care, and who cannot be enrolled onto randomized clinical trials. Access to well-designed randomized controlled trials should be expanded as much as possible because it is the most secure way to change for the better our approach to COVID-19 patients., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Type 2 coronavirus pandemics that is plaguing almost all the world has caused  qualitative and quantitative strains in health systems that have had to be responded to. The lack of known vaccines and effective treatments has generated the need to  use drugs with very little evidence for their incorporation into pharmacotherapeutic  protocols agreed by the clinical team. The hospital pharmacist, within the  multidisciplinary team, has been responsible for critically evaluating the alternatives and positioning them in these protocols. Finally, some ethical and legal questions  that should be considered in this scenario are analyzed in this article., (Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.)

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 pandemic has spread to Africa, where nearly all countries have reported laboratory-confirmed cases of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Although there are ongoing clinical trials of repurposed and investigational antiviral and immune-based therapies, there are as yet no scientifically proven, clinically effective pharmacological treatments for COVID-19. Among the repurposed drugs, the commonly used antimalarials chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have become the focus of global scientific, media, and political attention despite a lack of randomized clinical trials supporting their efficacy. Chloroquine has been used worldwide for about 75 years and is listed by the WHO as an essential medicine to treat malaria. Hydroxychloroquine is mainly used as a therapy for autoimmune diseases. However, the efficacy and safety of CQ/HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19 remains to be defined. Indiscriminate promotion and widespread use of CQ/HCQ have led to extensive shortages, self-treatment, and fatal overdoses. Shortages and increased market prices leave all countries vulnerable to substandard and falsified medical products, and safety issues are especially concerning for Africa because of its healthcare system limitations. Much needed in Africa is a cross-continental collaborative network for coordinated production, distribution, and post-marketing surveillance aligned to low-cost distribution of any approved COVID-19 drug; this would ideally be piggybacked on existing global aid efforts. Meanwhile, African countries should strongly consider implementing prescription monitoring schemes to ensure that any off-label CQ/HCQ use is appropriate and beneficial during this pandemic.

Background: Data on off-label and unlicensed prescribing in children in Indonesia is limited. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of off-label and unlicensed prescribing for paediatric patients in a public hospital, Indonesia., Method: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 200 randomly selected paediatric patients admitted to hospital between August and October 2014, collected patient details and all drugs prescribed. Licensed drugs were classified as off-label if there was a non-compliance with the Product Information for age, weight, indication, dose, frequency and route of administration, if there was a contraindication, special precautions or not recommended for children. Unlicensed drugs were those not approved for use in Indonesia. The main outcome was the prevalence of off-label or unlicensed prescribing to infants, children and adolescents and the impact of age group on off-label prescribing., Results: A total of 200 patients received 1961 medicines of which 1807/1961 (92.1%) were licensed and 154/1961 (7.9%) were unlicensed. There were 1403/1961 (71.5%) drugs prescribed off-label. More than half of the total drugs (n = 1066; 54.4%) were administered parenterally. Every patient was prescribed at least one off-label drug. Indication (n = 810; 34.6%) was the most common reason for off-label prescribing. Ranitidine was the most frequent drug prescribed off label. Darplex® (dihydroartemisinin and piperaquine), although manufactured in Indonesia, was unlicensed. There was a significant difference between age group and off-label prescribing in that children were prescribed significantly less off-label drugs (p<0.0003)., Conclusion: This study revealed a high prevalence of off-label and unlicensed drug use in paediatric patients in this hospital, exposing them to drug treatments or regimens that had not been approved by regulatory authorities. The high incidence of invasive parenteral prescribing is of concern for paediatric patients. Incentives are needed to encourage specific drug evaluation in paediatric populations., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, ranibizumab, aflibercept, and pegaptanib are approved treatments for certain eye diseases that occurs especially in the elderly. These drugs are mostly inaccessible due to their high cost. Bevacizumab is a VEGF inhibitor, approved for cancer treatment. Being a cheaper alternative, it is extensively used off-label as an intravitreal injection for the treatment of eye diseases. In this article, we have analyzed similarities and differences between bevacizumab and ranibizumab, and potential long-term safety concerns with off-label use of bevacizumab. We also analyzed legal, regulatory, and ethical background of off-label use and provided recommendations to resolve this issue. Based on the extensive clinical data, actions taken, and recommendations provided by agencies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, International Council of Ophthalmology, United Kingdom and Thailand regulatory agency, intravitreal bevacizumab has adequate evidence for controlled licensing. Claiming better safety for ranibizumab at the expense of nonaffordability cannot be considered a positive risk-benefit scenario. Intravitreal bevacizumab is being used and will continue to be used off-label, if not regulatory controlled. Licensing will ensure the availability of intravitreal bevacizumab to the patients with eye diseases, without any legal or ethical concerns for the clinicians, and will also assist in generating long-term safety data. Safest delivery formulation and dosage form should be considered for approval. Both the regulatory agency and technical experts should join and take critical decision, which will be a big step forward to making a cost-effective drug available to the public., Competing Interests: The authors are employees of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., India. Intas has manufacturing and marketing approval in India for bevacizumab for oncology indication as well as ranibizumab for eye indications., (Copyright: © 2020 Indian Journal of Pharmacology.)

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy has revolutionised the treatment of a variety of ophthalmic conditions and has become the first-line therapy for a range of retinal diseases. Bevacizumab, a VEGF inhibitor first approved for the treatment of colorectal cancer, has been shown to be nearly or virtually as effective and safe as other anti-VEGF therapies in the treatment of certain retinal diseases but is not approved or registered by the Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency. While other anti-VEGF options are approved and registered, they are generally more expensive and less accessible. Accordingly, despite its off-label status, bevacizumab is frequently used for a variety of disabling retinal diseases. Indeed, bevacizumab is included on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines. However, its use in some parts of the world remains restricted due to its off-label status. How, then, should healthcare authorities approach this situation? What are the ethical and societal implications of adhering to a standard and generally effective evaluation and approval system while restricting access to a potentially cost-saving therapy? In countries where its use is not restricted, how should providers approach off-label treatment with bevacizumab? By examining the evidence behind bevacizumab's efficacy and safety and evaluating the individual and societal implications of off-label use and restriction, this paper illustrates the ethical factors providers and policy makers must consider in the off-label use of bevacizumab and ultimately argues for increased access to bevacizumab in the treatment of retinal disease., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The term "off-label drug use" involves the prescription of medications for unapproved indications or in unapproved dosage, dosage form, or route of administration. Off-label medications are common in the management of dermatologic diseases. In the recent years, new indications for botulinum toxin, biologics, spironolactone, topical calcineurin, and topical vitamin D analogues emerged, and these drugs are being used off-label to treat a variety of conditions. The high cost and long time required for the approval discourage pharmaceutical companies from developing studies and pursuing the approval by regulatory agencies. Patients and physicians may have a different perspective regarding the off-label use of medications. The ethical discussion is based on the different opinions concerning the need for informed consent by the patient and how this could be applicable in the clinical practice., (© 2018 The International Society of Dermatology.)

Traditionally, schools of nursing teach legal and ethical responsibilities at the pre-licensure and advanced practice levels, with emphasis on legal duties and ethical principles. However, involving clinicians in the process of ethical reasoning, a process similar to the scientific method and nursing process, is much less common. The current article describes and demonstrates the steps in ethical reasoning in common situations faced by prescribing advanced practice RNs and psychiatric-mental health nurses. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 57(1), 7-10.]., (Copyright 2019, SLACK Incorporated.)

Modern paediatric oncology practice has rapidly evolved from a fatal condition at diagnosis in the 1940s to modern survival rates of over 80%. With the advent of the 'omics' era and modern diagnostics platforms, we can now determine many of the molecular driving mechanisms of malignancy. Current molecular diagnostics trials PRISM and AIM/MNP, open in Australia, allow accurate diagnosis and determination of the molecular drivers of many cancers leading to new targeted opportunities for treatment. Unfortunately, clinical trial support, development and drug access for children has lagged behind. This is leaving clinicians and their institutions with increasingly difficult medical and ethical decisions, further complicating an already demanding profession., (© 2018 Paediatrics and Child Health Division (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians).)

Off-label prescribing of psychiatric drugs is common, despite lacking strong scientific evidence of efficacy and potentially increasing risk for adverse events. The goal of this study was to characterize prevalence of off-label prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and examine patient and clinician predictors of off-label use. This manuscript presents a retrospective, cross-sectional study using data from the 2012 and 2013 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NAMCS). The study examined all adult outpatient visits to psychiatric practices for chronic care management with a single listed visit diagnosis in which at least one psychiatric drug was prescribed. The main outcome measure was off-label prescribing of at least one psychiatric drug, defined as prescription for a condition for which it has not been approved for use by the FDA. Among our sample representative of 1.85 billion outpatient visits, 18.5 million (1.3%) visits were to psychiatrists for chronic care management in which at least one psychiatric drug was prescribed. Overall, the rate of off-label use was 12.9% (95% CI: 12.2-15.7). The most common off-label uses were for manic-depressive psychosis treated with citalopram and primary insomnia treated with trazodone. Several patient and clinician characteristics were positively associated with off-label prescribing, including seeing a psychiatrist (OR: 1.06, 95% CI, 1.01-1.12; p = 0.03) instead of another type of clinician, the office visit taking place in the Western region of the country (OR: 1.09, 95% CI, 1.01-1.17; p = 0.02), and the patient having 3 or more chronic conditions (OR: 1.12, 95% CI, 1.02-1.14; p = 0.003). In contrast, having Medicare coverage (OR: 0.93, 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; p = 0.04) and receiving payment assistance from a medical charity (OR: 0.91, 95% CI, 0.88-0.96; p = 0.03) instead of private insurance were negatively associated with off-label prescribing. These results suggest that certain classes of psychiatric medications are being commonly prescribed to treat conditions for which they have not been determined by the FDA to be clinically efficacious and/or safe., Competing Interests: In the past 36 months, Dr. Ross has received research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from Medtronic, Inc. and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop methods for postmarket surveillance of medical devices (U01FD004585), from the Food and Drug Administration to establish Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association to better understand medical technology evaluation, from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to develop and maintain performance measures that are used for public reporting (HHSM 500-2013-13018I), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164), and from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to establish the Good Pharma Scorecard at Bioethics International and the Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency (CRIT) at Yale University. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

The off-label use of medical devices is becoming increasingly widespread. Though the off-label use of drugs has been controlled with the establishment of legal and ethical rules, similar regulations have not been implemented for medical devices. Legal gaps in this field, and the broad initiative granted to physicians have led to the emergence of problems in practice, and physicians are vulnerable to potential criminal sanctions that may emerge as a consequence of these off-label applications. Since the off-label use of medical devices cannot rely on scientifically proven, evidence-based information, evaluation of the risks creates critically important ethical problems that may have serious deleterious effects, despite the good intent of a physician tying to be helpful. During the process of obtaining informed consent from the patient for the off-label use of a device, the physician has crucial responsibilities. The ethical responsibilities of physicians particularly increase in vulnerable patient groups that should be protected from harm. In addition to the physician, the family members who make decisions on behalf of the patient also assume some responsibilities. The development of ethical norms and guidelines enforced by legal regulations concerning this issue, an effective role for ethics committees in the decision-making process, and collaboration between patients, scientists, nongovernmental organizations, medical device companies, specialists in the field of medical ethics, and legal authorities will be important in solving this problem.

Off-label drug use is unavoidable, especially in children. Legal justice originates from ethical justice; therefore, ethical off-label drug use can be considered legal. We share our successful experiences with this issue in China, which may provide a reference to Indian healthcare professionals, to develop a common executable standard to be applied to evaluate the off-label drug use in clinical practice.

We present a review and analysis of the ethical considerations in off-label ketamine use for severe, treatment-resistant depression. The analysis of ethical considerations is contextualised in an overview of the evidence for ketamine use in depression, and a review of the drug's safety profile. We find that, based on current evidence, ketamine use for severe, treatment-resistant depression does not violate ethical principles; however, clinicians and professional bodies must take steps to ensure that guidelines for good practice are enacted, that all experimental and trial data are made available through national registries, and that the risk potential of ketamine treatment continues to be monitored and modelled. We conclude with a set of key recommendations for oversight bodies that would support safe, effective, and ethical use of ketamine in depression., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In 2012, the FDA approved for the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease a brain-imaging technology, Amyvid-PET (aka florbetapir-PET), capable of non-invasively estimating the burden of amyloid plaques; this approval for one indication renders the technology a candidate for off-label use for another indication according to a physician's judgment. What should a physician do if an educated, pro-active, and concerned patient requests off-label use of Amyvid-PET to help her estimate the likelihood that her mild memory complaints are "just normal aging" or are likely to profoundly worsen? I consider reasons that a physician might justify denial of such a request, including concerns of safety, uncertain benefit, and fair resource allocation, but cautiously conclude that there may be certain cases where off-label bioprediction would be permissible.

The use of drugs for unregistered indications, known as "off-label" use, is a practice that creates problems of rational use and access when other options are not available. Health systems should address this situation, particularly in connection with decisions concerning coverage, while trying to minimize health risks and clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved. Colombia's Ministry of Health and Social Protection (MinSalud), together with the National University of Colombia and national experts, developed a proposal for a model for managing drugs being used for unregistered indications (off-label) and their potential reimbursement with public resources, taking into account international practices and country characteristics. The management model is non-punitive and is geared toward promoting the rational use of these drugs so that barriers to access are reduced whenever their use is supported by solid scientific evidence. The model addresses patient safeguards in the bioethical domain and the roles and responsibilities of the prescriber and government entities.

Background: Depressive disorders are a common form of psychiatric illness and cause significant disability. Regulation authorities, the medical profession and the public require high safety standards for antidepressants to protect vulnerable psychiatric patients. Ketamine is a dissociative anaesthetic and a derivative of a hallucinogen (phencyclidine). Its abuse is a major worldwide public health problem. Ketamine is a scheduled drug and its usage is restricted due to its abuse liability. Recent clinical trials have reported that ketamine use led to rapid antidepressant effects in patients suffering from treatment-resistant depression. However, various flaws in study designs, and possible biased reporting of results, may have influenced those findings. Further analyses of ketamine use are needed to ensure patient safety., Discussion: The use of ketamine in research and treatment of depressive disorders is controversial. Recently, mental health professionals raised ethical concerns about an ongoing ketamine trial in the UK. Also, a Canadian agency reviewed the existing evidence and did not recommend prescribing ketamine to treat depressive disorders. Findings obtained from tightly controlled research settings cannot be easily translated to clinical practice as substance abuse is commonly comorbid with depressive disorders. An effective antidepressant should reduce severity of depressive symptoms without liability problems. Although the US FDA has not approved the use of ketamine to treat depressive disorders, some psychiatrists offer off-label repeat prescription of ketamine. Prescribing ketamine for treating depressive disorders requires substantial empirical evidence. Clinicians should also consider research findings on ketamine abuse. Depressive disorders can be chronic conditions and the current evidence does not rule out the risk of substance abuse after repeat prescription of ketamine. Off-label ketamine use in treating depressive disorders may breach ethical and moral standards, especially in countries seriously affected by ketamine abuse. This article presents two real-world clinical vignettes which highlight ethical principles and theories, including autonomy, nonmaleficience, fidelity and consequentialism, as related to off-label ketamine use., Conclusion: We urge clinicians to minimise the risk of harming patients by considering the empirical evidence on ketamine properties and attempting all standard antidepressant therapies before considering the off-label use of ketamine.

Although there has been long-standing reluctance to include pregnant women as clinical trial participants, increasing recognition of profound gaps in research on the safety and efficacy of drugs often prescribed to pregnant women calls into question the practice of routinely excluding them. This article presents compelling reasons for including pregnant women in clinical research, highlights certain regulatory barriers to the inclusion of pregnant women, and proposes that professional societies with expertise in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine can be instrumental in hastening the paradigm shift from the systematic exclusion of pregnant women in research to a one of responsible and fair inclusion., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The safe and effective use of medicines is an integral part of the medicine safety agenda. We present a phenomenological topic review of the literature relating to the use of unlicensed medicines (ULM). There is evidence to demonstrate that the use of ULM is associated with increased incidence of adverse drug reactions, and that despite advances in medicine regulation and guidance from professional organisations, the use of ULM in at risk populations has not reduced. There is also evidence to suggest that patients and their carers are not being provided with adequate information about their medicines and that ULM are being used where safer licensed alternatives are available. This is contrary to the philosophy of "patient-focussed care". We conclude that organisational governance processes and professional guidelines have not kept pace with regulatory developments or changes in legal and ethical understanding. We recommend that governance procedures for ULM be updated across healthcare settings to ensure that patients are involved in the decisions made about their medicines including the regulatory status of the medicine. This includes ensuring adequate consent is obtained from the patient (or their advocate). We also recommend that professional bodies clarify their position on when ULM can be used instead of licensed medicines to ensure that licensed medicines are used wherever possible. In the current economic environment, commissioners and clinicians must resist the temptation to use lower-quality ULM in place of licensed ones to cut costs. We go on to recommend areas of further research including the extent of ULM prescribing where licensed alternatives exist and the geographical and social factors that influence clinician prescribing of ULM.

The British National Formulary has been in existence for over 30 years. The prescribing of medicines for children has been less well organized. Many medicines used in children have never been tested in the appropriate age groups and have been prescribed 'off-label'. This has led to safety issues and concerns that children continued to be treated as second-class citizens. The first attempt at the development of a national formulary specifically for prescribing in children occurred in 1999 with the publication of 'Medicines for Children'. This generated much national and international interest resulting in the government agreeing to fund the development and production of the first British National Formulary for Children in 2005. This article charts the process and progress of the formulary to the present day., (© 2013 The British Pharmacological Society.)

For too long children have received medicines not sufficiently studied for their needs and, in fact, being considered as small replicas of adults, it was deemed sufficient to adjust the dosage of a drug approved for adults. Together with the limited availability of appropriate drug formulations, especially for neonates and toddlers, this approach has caused increased iatrogenic risk and/or suboptimal adherence to treatment. With the aim of encouraging the development of more efficacious and safer medicines for children, the Regulatory Agencies in Europe and U.S.A. commendably issued directives to promote adequate and well controlled pediatric clinical trials. In compliance with the agenda of the Pediatric Regulation, in the past decade the number of pediatric patients enrolled in double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is markedly increased. In order to establish the efficacy of new medicines, RCTs frequently include a placebo-control group that carries the burden of additional, and to some extent underestimated, ethical concerns with respect to trials in adults. Six years into the Pediatric Regulation implementation, off-patent drugs, most of which at present are extensively used off-label, are underrepresented in ongoing/proposed pediatric RCTs. We debate this status quo to assess what might be the child's best interest. In fact, we argue that well-designed studies, in which efficacy and safety of new drugs are compared to off-patent drugs that are currently prescribed off-label, would achieve the aim of the Pediatric Regulation better and more ethically than placebo controlled RCTs.

Ketamine offers a promising new option for the treatment of depression, but its increasing off-label use is ethically and clinically inappropriate at the moment.

Statins (3-hydroxy-3 methyl-glutaryl coenzyme-A reductase inhibitors) are the most commonly prescribed cholesterol-lowering medications due to their efficacy in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidities, tolerability, and safety profiles. Based on pathophysiologic similarities between cardiovascular disease and preeclampsia, a common and dangerous complication of pregnancy, there is an increasing interest in studying this class of medications during pregnancy to prevent and/or treat preeclampsia. Undergoing such a study, which entails the use of a pregnancy class X medication for an off-label indication in pregnancy, requires intensive multidisciplinary involvement of a group of experts in basic and clinical pharmacology, research methods, pregnancy physiology and maternal-fetal medicine, as well as U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory guidelines and practice. Issues of potential fetal risk, altered maternal-fetal pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and regulatory challenges are real, and must be carefully considered in the process of research in this arena., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

We describe the use of psychotropic medications in the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) in children based on available data. We address their safety and efficacy. Most pediatric gastroenterologists do not or are not able to collaborate with child psychiatrists, so it may be beneficial for pediatric gastroenterologists to have a working knowledge of off-label psychotropic drugs to improve functional symptoms. We recommend that efforts be made to involve both the children and their families from the beginning, adverse effects be mentioned, and the treatment plan be explained.

Background: The use of medical stimulants to sustain attention, augment memory and enhance intellectual capacity is increasing in society. The use of Methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement is a subject that has received much attention in the literature and academic circles in recent times globally. Medical doctors and medical students appear to be equally involved in the off-label use of Methylphenidate. This presents a potential harm to society and the individual as the long-term side effect profile of this medication is unknown., Discussion: The implication of the use of Methylphenidate by medical students and doctors has not been fully explored. This article considers the impact of this use on the traditional role of medicine, society, the patient and suggests a way forward. We discuss the salient philosophy surrounding the use of cognitive enhancement. We query whether there are cognitive benefits to the use of Methylphenidate in healthy students and doctors and whether these benefits would outweigh the risks in taking the medication. Could these benefits lead to tangible outcomes for society and could the off label-use of Methylphenidate potentially undermine the medical profession and the treatment of patients? If cognitive benefits are proven then doctors may be coerced explicitly or implicitly to use the drug which may undermine their autonomy. The increased appeal of cognitive enhancement challenges the traditional role of medicine in society, and calls into question the role of a virtuous life as a contributing factor for achievement. In countries with vast economic disparity such as South Africa an enhancement of personal utility that can be bought may lead to greater inequities., Summary: Under the status quo the distribution of methylphenidate is unjust. Regulatory governmental policy must seek to remedy this while minimising the potential for competitive advantage for the enhanced. Public debate on the use of cognitive enhancement is long overdue and must be stimulated. The use of Methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement is philosophically defendable if long-term research can prove that the risks are negligible and the outcomes tangible.

We cannot just point to the facts to solve a medical debate. The use of evidence is itself a matter of values. What the evidence tells us to do tends to depend on what we see as important.

Over the course of the past decade, critics have increasingly called attention to the corrosive influence of the pharmaceutical industry on both biomedical research and the practice of medicine. Critics describe the industry's use of ghostwriting and other unethical techniques to expand their markets as evidence that medical science is all-too-frequently subordinated to the goals of corporate profit. While we do not dispute this perspective, we argue that it is imperative to also recognize that the goals of medical science and industry profit are now tightly wed to one another. As a result, medical science now operates to expand disease definitions, lower diagnostic thresholds, and otherwise advance the goals of corporate profit through the redefinition and expansion of what it means to be ill. We suggest that this process has led to a variety of ethical problems that are not fully captured by current critiques of ghostwriting and other troubling practices by the pharmaceutical industry. In our conclusion, we call for physicians, ethicists, and other concerned observers to embrace a more fundamental critique of the relationship between biomedical science and corporate profit.