Off-label medication use in adult critical care patients

How New Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests Will Affect Infectious Diseases Clinical Practice

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) affects 2.8 million Americans annually. AMR is identified through antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), but current and proposed regulatory policies from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jeopardize the future availability of AST for many microorganisms. Devices that perform AST must be cleared by the FDA using their susceptibility test interpretive criteria, also known as breakpoints. The FDA list of breakpoints is relatively short. Today, laboratories supplement FDA breakpoints using breakpoints published by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, using legacy devices and laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). FDA proposes to regulate LDTs, and with no FDA breakpoints for many drug-bug combinations, the risk is loss of AST for key clinical indications and stifling innovation in technology development. Effective solutions require collaboration between manufacturers, infectious diseases clinicians, pharmacists, laboratories, and the FDA.

Has pharmaceutical innovation reduced the average cost of U.S. health care episodes?

A number of authors have argued that technological innovation has increased U.S. health care spending. We investigate the impact that pharmaceutical innovation had on the average cost of U.S. health care episodes during the period 2000-2014, using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Health Care Satellite Account and other sources. We analyze the relationship across approximately 200 diseases between the growth in the number of drugs that have been approved to treat the disease and the subsequent growth in the mean amount spent per episode of care, controlling for the growth in the number of episodes and other factors. Our estimates indicate that mean episode cost is not significantly related to the number of drugs ever approved 0-4 years before, but it is significantly inversely related to the number of drugs ever approved 5-20 years before. This delay is consistent with the fact (which we document) that utilization of a drug is relatively low during the first few years after it was approved, and that some drugs may have to be consumed for several years to have their maximum impact on treatment cost. Our estimates of the effect of pharmaceutical innovation on the average cost of health care episodes are quite insensitive to the weights used and to whether we control for 3 covariates. Our most conservative estimates imply that the drugs approved during 1986-1999 reduced mean episode cost by 4.7%, and that the drugs approved during 1996-2009 reduced mean episode cost by 2.1%. If drug approvals did not affect the number of episodes, the drugs approved during 1986-1999 would have reduced 2014 medical expenditure by about $93 billion. However, drug approvals may have affected the number, as well as the average cost, of episodes. We also estimate models of hospital utilization. The number of hospital days is significantly inversely related to the number of drugs ever approved 10-19 years before, controlling for the number of disease episodes. Our estimates imply that the drugs approved during 1984-1997 reduced the number of hospital days by 10.5%. The hospital cost reduction was larger than expenditure on the drugs.

Accessing unproven interventions in the COVID-19 pandemic: discussion on the ethics of 'compassionate therapies' in times of catastrophic pandemics

Since the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, an array of off-label interventions has been used to treat patients, either provided as compassionate care or tested in clinical trials. There is a challenge in determining the justification for conducting randomised controlled trials over providing compassionate use in an emergency setting. A rapid and more accurate evaluation tool is needed to assess the effect of these treatments. Given the similarity to the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) pandemic in Africa in 2014, we suggest using a tool designed by the WHO committee in the aftermath of the EVD pandemic: Monitored Emergency Use of Unregistered and Investigational Interventions (MEURI). Considering the uncertainty around SARS-CoV-2, we propose using an improved MEURI including the Plan-Do-Study-Act tool. This combined tool may facilitate dynamic monitoring, analysing, re-evaluating and re-authorising emergency use of unproven treatments and repeat it in cycles. It will enable adjustment and application of outcomes to clinical practice according to changing circumstances and increase the production of valuable data to promote the best standard of care and high-quality research-even during a pandemic.

Management guideline for the off-label use of medicine in China (2021)

BACKGROUND

Off-label drug use embodies a thorough clinical diagnosis and evaluation of treatment needs and should not be confused with unreasonable drug use, but it also faces potential risks with drug safety and legal issues.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We first established a guideline working group. Following the guideline development process recommended by the World Health Organization Handbook and the Chinese Medical Association, the key questions were determined through literature searches of PubMed, CNKI (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure) and other databases. Both the evidence and the clinicians' diagnosis and treatment workload were considered to formulate the initial recommendations. Finally, two rounds of Delphi surveys and one expert seminar were organized to determine the final recommendations of this guideline. Meanwhile, we graded the recommendations based on the body of evidence.

RESULTS

We determined nine questions and proposed a total of 23 recommendations regarding the definition of off-label use of drugs, applicable circumstances, classification of evidence, informed consent, legal basis, adverse drug reaction monitoring and evaluation, management procedure, responsibilities and obligations of different stakeholders, medical insurance reimbursement, and the national approval system.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline standardized clinical off-label drug use and provided suggestions and references for the management of off-label drug use.

A point-prevalence study of off-label medication use in an Australian adult tertiary intensive care unit

Medications prescribed for indications or at doses, frequencies or durations not approved by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration are considered "off- label". Critical illness makes seeking consent for off-label medication use impractical. We aimed to characterise the extent of off-label medication use in a tertiary medical- surgical intensive care unit (ICU) by auditing the electronic health records of all patients admitted over a one-month period. We found 25.4% of 2292 prescriptions made for 142 patients were off-label. Eighty-one (37.2%) of the total of 218 different prescribed medications were used at least once for an off-label indication. Medications commonly prescribed off-label included antacids (pantoprazole, esomeprazole), analgesics (fentanyl, morphine, ketamine, pregabalin), anticonvulsants (levetiracetam), antibiotics (cefazolin, erythromycin), antipsychotics (quetiapine, haloperidol), and cardiovascular agents (metoprolol, clonidine). Nearly all patients (88.0%) received at least one off-label medication during their ICU stay. Most off- label medications were used for conventional (albeit not licensed) reasons, but nine out of 81 (11.1%) were not; for example, acetazolamide for hypertension, aminophylline for oliguria, and dexmedetomidine for seizures. Recognising the challenges of formally registering an indication with the Therapeutic Goods Administration, but also the value of reducing the incidence of medications used for potentially incorrect purposes, we suggest guideline endorsement of what constitutes standard critical care practice as an alternative to regulatory control.

Off-label Drug Prescription Pattern and Related Adverse Drug Reactions in the Medical Intensive Care Unit

Introduction: The utilization of prescription drugs as off-label is common. While this practice can be beneficial to some patients, it can raise a safety concern when scientific evidence is lacking; hence, this study was conducted to evaluate the off-label drug consumption and its adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the medical intensive care unit (ICU). Materials and methods: In the prospective cohort study conducted for a duration of 6 months, data pertaining to ICU patients' (age ≥18 years) demography, diagnosis, treatment, and laboratory investigation were collected to assess for off-label use as well as the strength of evidence and the occurrence of ADRs by using MICROMEDEX 2017 version (Healthcare Series Thomson Reuter, Greenwood, CO). Results: Of total 3574 drugs prescribed, 1453 (41%) were off-label indications and 65 (1.81%) were off-label dose. On the evaluation of off-label indication use, 1279 (88%) were evidence-based and 174 (12%) were low/no evidence-based medications (EBMs); 59 (91%) were evidence-based and 6 (9%) were low/no EBMs for off-label dose. Most commonly prescribed evidence-based off-label drug belonged to the gastrointestinal class while low/no evidence drugs were mostly of anti-infective class. A total of 383 ADRs were identified and 139 (36.2%) were implicated due to off-label medications, of which ADRs with evidence off-label medications (87.8%) were higher than low/no evidence off-label medication (12.2%) (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Widespread presence of off-label use was observed in medical ICU. Although incidence of ADRs was similar to the FDA-approved use, ongoing monitoring of such practice is needed. How to cite this article: Raut A, Krishna K, Adake U, Sharma AA, Thomas A, Shah J. Off-label Drug Prescription Pattern and Related Adverse Drug Reactions in the Medical Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(8):872-877.

Off-Label Drug Use in Pediatric Out-Patient Care: A Multi-Center Observational Study

Objective

Prescribing a drug for a child is not an easy task and requires using the best available evidence as a guide, especially when a drug is used off-label. The practice of prescribing a drug for off-label use is fairly widespread worldwide. The FDA does not regulate prescribing patterns or practices of individual practitioners and, therefore, allows off-label use. The main objective of this study is to evaluate off-label prescribing among the pediatric population in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

Method

This is a retrospective, simple random selection observational study of children (≤15 years) who visited pediatric clinics and had at least 1 drug prescribed over a 12-month period (January to December 2018).

Results

A total of 865 drugs (mean 1 and SD 0.24) were prescribed to 326 children. Off-label was identified in 39.4% of the drugs with a frequency of 512 (as 1 drug may belong to more than 1 off-label category). The most common reason for off-label prescribing was related to doses that were "higher or lower than the recommended use" (48.6%), and the most frequently identified drug class prescribed for off-label use was anti-infective drugs for systemic use (39.9%). The percentage of off-label drug use was found to be higher in girls and in the age group of 1 month to 2 years (P = .001) for both variables. In addition, a significant association was found between off label drug use and the total number of drugs prescribed, P < .001.

Conclusion

The findings of this study showed a high incidence of off-label prescribing mainly related to dosing and indication. The results of this observational study support the need to establish a unified national pediatric dosing formulary guide to ensure safe drug use in pediatrics.

The evolving role and utility of off-label drug use in multiple myeloma

The treatment landscape for multiple myeloma (MM) has dramatically changed over the last three decades, moving from no US Food and Drug Administration approvals and two active drug classes to over 19 drug approvals and at least eight different active classes. The advances seen in MM therapy have relied on both a structured approach to obtaining new labels and cautious off-label drug use. Although there are country and regional differences in drug approval processes, many of the basic principles behind off-label drug use in MM can be summarized into four main categories: 1) use of a therapy prior to the current approval regulations; 2) widespread use of a therapy following the release of promising clinical trial results but prior to drug approval; 3) use of a cheap therapy supported by clinical safety and efficacy data but without commercial backing; and 4) niche therapies for small well-defined patient populations where large clinical trials with sufficient power may be difficult to perform. This review takes a historical approach to discuss how off-label drug use has helped to shape the current treatment approach for MM.

Off-label Medication Use: A Double-edged Sword

Agarwal V. Off-label Medication Use: A Double-edged Sword. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(8):845-846.

Potential harm caused by physicians' a-priori beliefs in the clinical effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and its impact on clinical and economic outcome - A simulation approach

BACKGROUND

Despite growing controversies around Hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness, the drug is still widely prescribed by clinicians to treat COVID19 patients. Therapeutic judgment under uncertainty and imperfect information may be influenced by personal preference, whereby individuals, to confirm a-priori beliefs, may propose drugs without knowing the clinical benefit. To estimate this disconnect between available evidence and prescribing behavior, we created a Bayesian model analyzing a-priori optimistic belief of physicians in Hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness.

METHODOLOGY

We created a Bayesian model to simulate the impact of different a-priori beliefs related to Hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness on clinical and economic outcome.

RESULTS

Our hypothetical results indicate no significant difference in treatment effect (combined survival benefit and harm) up to a presumed drug's effectiveness level of 20%, with younger individuals being negatively affected by the treatment (RR 0.82, 0.55-1.2; (0.95 (1.1) % expected adverse events versus 0.05 (0.98) % expected death prevented). Simulated cost data indicate overall hospital cost (medicine, hospital stay, complication) of 18.361,41€ per hospitalized patient receiving Hydroxychloroquine treatment.

CONCLUSION

Off-label use of Hydroxychloroquine needs a rational, objective and datadriven evaluation, as personal preferences may be flawed and cause harm to patients and to society.

A multicenter case series documenting Medicare Part D plan denials of immunosuppressant drug coverage for organ transplant recipients

Medicare Part D plans make coverage decisions according to FDA-labeled indications and off-label uses endorsed by two CMS-recognized compendia. Patients who rely on Medicare Part D for immunosuppressive drug coverage are at risk for denied coverage when these medications are prescribed off-label. The purpose of this multicenter collaboration was to assemble a case series documenting situations where immunosuppressive therapies prescribed for transplant patients were denied by Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. This case series documents 66 instances in 39 patients where immunosuppressive drug claims were denied coverage due to off-label use not endorsed by the compendia. Patients were recipients of lung (n = 28, 72%), heart (n = 7, 18%), or liver (n = 4, 10%) transplants. Denied claims were for mycophenolate mofetil (n = 22, 33%), azathioprine (n = 18, 27%), sirolimus (n = 15, 23%), mycophenolate sodium (n = 5, 8%), everolimus (n = 5, 8%), and belatacept (n = 1, 1%). Most denials were upheld across all the levels of attempted appeal, including those escalated to a Medicare Administrative Law Judge. This case series demonstrates a critical flaw in the construct of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. The currently referenced compendia are not up to date and do not reflect best practices in organ transplantation.

Off-Label Medicines Use: Complex Problem of Modern Clinical Practice

World experience in off-label medicines use is presented in the article. Data on the history of changes in tactics and approaches to solve the problem of medicines off-label use in the USA and some European countries, as well as in the European Union as a whole, are presented. The reasons, why doctors should use medicines off-label, are discussed. The expert opinion on the conditions ensuring the maximum safety in off-label medicines use is presented. In particular, the validity of obtaining patient informed consent is discussed. The article does not apply to the Russian regulation regarding “off-label” therapy but describes the foreign practice related to off-label medicines use. In addition, the results of some recently completed randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of direct oral anticoagulants are presented in order to demonstrate the need to clarify the effectiveness and safety of medicines used in certain clinical situations. The results of such studies clarify the indications for the drug use, which are subsequently entered into the summary of product characteristics.

Off-label prescriptions of drugs used for the treatment of Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Off-label prescribing is encountered across various fields of medicine and creates alternative treatment options, but is associated with unknown safety risks. The use of off-label drugs for the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) has not been characterised before.

AIM

To assess the proportion and characteristics of off-label prescribing for IBD in tertiary care centres in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A prospective database of IBD patients from all Dutch university hospitals was used to collect data on drug prescriptions for IBD and demographics. Drugs were classified as off-label if they were unlicensed for Crohn's disease and/or ulcerative colitis by the Medicines Evaluation Board. Uni- and multivariable analyses were used to identify patient-specific characteristics predictive of increased off-label use.

RESULTS

For the induction and/or maintenance treatment of 4583 IBD patients, 12 651 historical and current drug records were available in the database. Of these, 2374 (19%) were considered off-label prescriptions. Out of 4583 IBD patients, 1477 (32%) were exposed to off-label drugs. Commonly prescribed off-label IBD drugs were mercaptopurine (18%), beclomethasone (12%), thioguanine (4%) and allopurinol (3%). Non-thiopurine/methotrexate off-label drugs were prescribed in 243 patients (6%), including biological agents or tofacitinib in 47 IBD patients (1%). Off-label prescriptions were more common in ulcerative colitis than Crohn's disease (37% vs 29%, P < 0.001). Smokers and patients that received ≥5 drug types during their disease course were more likely to be exposed to off-label drugs (smoking 33% vs 27% and multiple drug use 66% vs 22%, both P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

About one-fifth of prescriptions for IBD were off-label and one-third of IBD patients, especially ulcerative colitis patients, were exposed to off-label drugs.

Development of the Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Trials Network

PURPOSE

The development of the Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Trials Network (CCPTN) as a model for practice-based pharmacotherapy research is described.

SUMMARY

The CCPTN was formed in 2010 as a collaborative research network dedicated to scientific investigation in the field of critical care pharmacotherapy. The CCPTN organizational structure is consistent with many professional pharmacy and interdisciplinary organizations and organized into 3 primary domains: executive committee, working committees, and network membership. The network membership consists of critical care investigators dedicated to the mission and vision of the CCPTN and is open to anyone expressing an interest in contributing to high-level research. Network member sites represent the breadth of U.S. critical care practice environments. In addition, network members include individuals with demonstrated expertise in patient safety, administration, research design, grantsmanship, database management, peer review, and scientific writing. In 2015, there were more than 100 site investigators from around the United States and Canada. Projects to date have yielded numerous abstracts, platform presentations, and peer-reviewed publications in high-impact journals. The CCPTN has expanded to form collaborations with researchers in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The CCPTN has identified new potential partnerships and field-based areas for inquiry. Numerous opportunities for continued growth and scientific inquiry in the field of critical care pharmacotherapy research exist for the CCPTN to foster in the coming years.

CONCLUSION

The CCPTN has been a successful model for practice-based pharmacotherapy research and assists its members in expanding critical care pharmacotherapy knowledge.

Comparing efficacy of enteral nutrition plus ranitidine and enteral nutrition alone as stress ulcer prophylaxis

Aim: Adequacy of enteral nutrition (EN) alone as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy of EN alone and ranitidine plus EN as SUP. Method: Critically ill adults with indications to receive SUP were randomized to ranitidine 50 mg IV every 8 h plus EN (SUP) or EN alone (non-SUP) group for 7 days. Besides, endoscopy was performed at the time of recruitment and on day 7. Results: During the study period, only one patient in each group of SUP and non-SUP experienced gastrointestinal bleeding. At the time of recruitment, gastric erosion and erythema were the most endoscopic findings in the SUP and non-SUP groups. These findings did not significantly change at the end of the study (p = 0.21). Conclusion: EN was at least effective as ranitidine plus EN as SUP.

Off-label prescriptions in intensive care unit: the Chinese experience

Background and purpose

Off-label prescriptions for critically ill patients pose several ethical and legal dilemmas for intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. Yet, few data are available on the prevalence of this practice in critical care environment in China. This nationwide survey was performed to evaluate the conditions of off-label prescriptions in ICU within China.

Methods

The survey was performed at the scene of the national ICU conferences in 2016. ICU clinicians attending the congress from 23 provinces across the country were invited. The features of the clinician's off-label prescription practice were investigated and analyzed.

Results

A total of 1,318 ICU clinicians completed the anonymous questionnaire. Of these, 76.2% prescribed off-label in clinical practice. A significant difference (p<0.005) was observed between the ICU clinicians with different years of working experience and professional levels, respectively. For 69.2% of the ICU clinicians, the proportion of off-label prescriptions did not exceed 10%, while for fewer prescribers (2.9%), the proportion exceeded 25%. The main reasons for off-label prescriptions were life-threatening or terminal medical condition without other substitutes (48.3%), new treatments with strong scientific evidence (38.1%), and limited indications of drug labels (22.7%). Of the ICU clinicians surveyed, 87.5% worried about causing medical disputes, and 26.5% encountered medical disputes caused by off-label prescriptions. The risk of medical disputes was positively associated with the proportion of off-label prescriptions (p=0.009). Among the ICU clinicians, 92.5% expected the national policy for off-label prescriptions in future. Gastrointestinal and respiratory drug classes were noted to have the highest prevalence of off-label use.

Conclusion

Off-label prescriptions have been commonly practiced by ICU clinicians in China. A concerted effort should be made to develop a practical and explicit guidance for off-label prescriptions.

A nationwide evaluation of off-label drug utilization in Turkey

Background/aim: Off-label drug use (OLDU) is under the control of the Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency (TMMDA) in Turkey. It was aimed to investigate demographic and medical features of patients with OLDU applications in Turkey. Materials and methods: A total of 4426 electronic OLDU application records of the TMMDA were evaluated retrospectively. Information regarding patients? demographic characteristics, diagnoses, requested drugs, institutions, and specialties of the physicians were evaluated. Results: OLDU applications were mostly made by rheumatologists (21.5%) and 95.2% of them were approved by the TMMDA. The mean age of the patients was 35 years and 54.4% of them were female. Off-label drugs were mostly prescribed for patients aged 18?64 years (62.1%) and were most frequently prescribed by physicians from university medical centers (81.0%). Systemic lupus erythematosus (10.1%) was the most common diagnosis. Mycophenolate (16.1%) and rituximab (10.1%) were the most frequently prescribed off-label drugs. There were differences regarding some characteristics of patients and their physicians among most frequently prescribed off-label drugs (P < 0.05). Conclusion: It is noteworthy that OLDU applications showed demographical and institutional differences. It is expected that this study will provide important contributions to physicians working in the relevant area with respect to treatment alternatives of diseases with treatment challenges.

Characterization of Guideline Evidence for Off-label Medication Use in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Non-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or off-label medication prescribing occurs commonly in the intensive care unit (ICU). Off-label medication use creates a concern for untoward adverse effects; however, this worry may be alleviated by supportive literature.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence behind off-label medication use by determining the presence of guideline support and compare graded recommendations to an online tertiary resource, DRUGDEX.

METHODS

Off-label medication use was identified prospectively over 3 months in medical ICUs in 3 academic medical centers. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed and the national guideline clearinghouse website to determine the presence of guideline support. DRUGDEX was also searched for strength-of-evidence ratings to serve as a comparator.

RESULTS

A total of 287 off-label medication indication searches resulted in 44% (126/287) without identified evidence; 253 guidelines were identified for 56% (161/287) of indications. Of the published guidelines, 89% (226/253) supported the off-label indication. In the DRUGDEX comparison, 67% (97/144) of guideline gradings disagree with DRUGDEX, whereas 33% (47/144) of the gradings matched the online database.

CONCLUSION

Because more than half of off-label medication use has the benefit of supportive guidelines recommendations and a majority of gradings are inconsistent with DRUGDEX, clinicians should consider utilizing guidelines to inform off-label medication use in the ICU. Still, there is a considerable amount of off-label medication use in the ICU that lacks supporting evidence, and use remains concerning because it may lead to inappropriate treatment and adverse events.

Polypharmacy and Delirium in Critically Ill Older Adults: Recognition and Prevention

Among older adults, polypharmacy is a sequelae of admission to the intensive care unit and is associated with increased medication-associated adverse events, drug interactions, and health care costs. Delirium is prevalent in critically ill geriatric patients and medications remain an underappreciated modifiable risk for delirium in this setting. This article reviews the literature on polypharmacy and delirium, with a focus on highlighting the relationships between polypharmacy and delirium in critically ill, older adults. Discussed are clinician strategies on how to recognize and reduce medication-associated delirium and recommendations that help prevent polypharmacy when interventions to reduce the burden of delirium in this vulnerable population are being formulated.

Knowledge and perception of off-label drug use amongst prescribing physicians in a tertiary care hospital

INTRODUCTION

Off-label drug use is commonly reported in various disciplines of medicine. Considering the lacunae of studies from prescribers in the Indian subcontinent, the present study was conducted to explore their awareness and views of off-label drug use.

METHODS

A validated questionnaire was administered to interns, junior residents and faculty members who were recruited in the present study of various medical and surgical departments of Subharti Medical College, Meerut, India, a tertiary care teaching hospital. Descriptive statistics was used for analyzing the data.

RESULTS

A total of 59/85 (69%) stated that they have used a drug in an off-label manner mainly [31/85 (36.5%)] related to indications. Nearly half of the study participants (41/85, 48.2%) considered prescribing an off-label drug illegal and only 25/85 (29.3%) participants felt that they had adequate knowledge regarding the use of drugs in off-label manner. Out of the total 70 participants who answered the question related to informing parents/relatives while prescribing an off label drug, only 39/70 (55.7%) answered affirmative. Out of the remaining 31/70 (44.3%) of participants who did not inform about prescribing an off label drug, 9/31 (29%) felt that it was illegal and more than two-third (24/31, 77%) felt their knowledge on off-label drug use was insufficient. Surprisingly, 74/82 (90.2%) participants felt that a drug approved to be used in adults cannot be used in children for the same indication despite not having any alternative in pediatric age group.

CONCLUSION

We found an inadequate knowledge regarding the off-label drug use amongst the prescribers in a tertiary care medical college hospital. Many of the physicians felt such use as illegal and do not inform the patient's relatives about such acts. Considering the legal issues, clearly there exists a need to patch up this lacuna in developing countries like India.

A Multicenter Evaluation of Off-Label Medication Use and Associated Adverse Drug Reactions in Adult Medical ICUs

OBJECTIVE

Prior research indicates that off-label use is common in the ICU; however, the safety of off-label use has not been assessed. The study objective was to determine the prevalence of adverse drug reactions associated with off-label use and evaluate off-label use as a risk factor for the development of adverse drug reactions in an adult ICU population.

DESIGN

Multicenter, observational study

SETTING

: Medical ICUs at three academic medical centers.

PATIENTS

Adult patients (age ≥ 18 yr old) receiving medication therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

All administered medications were evaluated for Food and Drug Administration-approved or off-label use. Patients were assessed daily for the development of an adverse drug reaction through active surveillance. Three adverse drug reaction assessment instruments were used to determine the probability of an adverse drug reaction resulting from drug therapy. Severity and harm of the adverse drug reaction were also assessed. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to identify a set of covariates that influenced the rate of adverse drug reactions.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 1,654 patient-days (327 patients) and 16,391 medications were evaluated, with 43% of medications being used off-label. One hundred and sixteen adverse drug reactions were categorized dichotomously (Food and Drug Administration or off-label), with 56% and 44% being associated with Food and Drug Administration-approved and off-label use, respectively. The number of adverse drug reactions for medications administered and the number of harmful and severe adverse drug reactions did not differ for medications used for Food and Drug Administration-approved or off-label use (0.74% vs 0.67%; p = 0.336; 33 vs 31 events, p = 0.567; 24 vs 24 events, p = 0.276). Age, sex, number of high-risk medications, number of off-label medications, and severity of illness score were included in the Cox proportional hazard regression. It was found that the rate of adverse drug reactions increases by 8% for every one additional off-label medication (hazard ratio = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.018-1.154).

CONCLUSION

Although adverse drug reactions do not occur more frequently with off-label use, adverse drug reaction risk increases with each additional off-label medication used.

Improved treatment of multidrug-resistant bacterial infections: utility of clinical studies

In a time of increasing antibacterial resistance and limited availability of new antibiotics, clinical studies are much needed to assess treatment options against multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). In this review, we describe the clinical challenge caused by MDROs and present recent evidence on how clinical studies may generate quality data to improve antibiotic treatment of MDRO infections. To this aim, we critically assess the current status, gaps and challenges associated with observational and interventional studies performed to assess MDRO treatment options. We address why observational studies are useful, which treatment options for MDRO have been explored by observational studies and how to improve quality and usefulness of observational studies. Furthermore, the utility of clinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies for improving MDRO treatment is described. Finally, we discuss interventional study designs, end points and margins, as well as ethical, logistic and statistical challenges, and current regulatory changes proposed to foster the development of new antibiotics.

Should we stop prescribing metoclopramide as a prokinetic drug in critically ill patients?

Regulatory agencies in North America and Europe recently re-evaluated the safety of metoclopramide. This re-evaluation resulted in recommendations and restrictions in order to minimise the risk of neurological and other adverse reactions associated with the use of metoclopramide. In the ICU, off-label prescription of metoclopramide is common. We have reviewed the evidence for safety, effectiveness and dosing of metoclopramide in critically ill patients. Furthermore, tachyphylaxis is addressed and alternatives are summarised. Finally, recommendations are presented not to abandon use of metoclopramide in ICU patients, because metoclopramide is considered effective in enhancing gastric emptying and facilitating early enteral nutrition.

Cost-effectiveness of histamine receptor-2 antagonist versus proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients*

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cost-effectiveness of using histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis.

DESIGN

Decision analysis model examining costs and effectiveness of using histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Costs were expressed in 2012 U.S. dollars from the perspective of the institution and included drug regimens and the following outcomes: clinically significant stress-related mucosal bleed, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and Clostridium difficile infection. Effectiveness was the mortality risk associated with these outcomes and represented by survival. Costs, occurrence rates, and mortality probabilities were extracted from published data.

SETTING

A simulation model.

PATIENTS

A mixed adult ICU population.

INTERVENTIONS

Histamine receptor-2 antagonist or proton pump inhibitor for 9 days of stress ulcer prophylaxis therapy.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Output variables were expected costs, expected survival rates, incremental cost, and incremental survival rate. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the drivers of incremental cost and incremental survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted using second-order Monte Carlo simulation. For the base case analysis, the expected cost of providing stress ulcer prophylaxis was $6,707 with histamine receptor-2 antagonist and $7,802 with proton pump inhibitor, resulting in a cost saving of $1,095 with histamine receptor-2 antagonist. The associated mortality probabilities were 3.819% and 3.825%, respectively, resulting in an absolute survival benefit of 0.006% with histamine receptor-2 antagonist. The primary drivers of incremental cost and survival were the assumptions surrounding ventilator-associated pneumonia and bleed. The probabilities that histamine receptor-2 antagonist was less costly and provided favorable survival were 89.4% and 55.7%, respectively. A secondary analysis assuming equal rates of C. difficile infection showed a cost saving of $908 with histamine receptor-2 antagonists, but the survival benefit of 0.0167% favored proton pump inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Histamine receptor-2 antagonist therapy appears to reduce costs with survival benefit comparable to proton pump inhibitor therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Ventilator-associated pneumonia and bleed are the variables most affecting these outcomes. The uncertainty in the findings justifies a prospective trial.

Drug utilization in emergency medicine department at a tertiary care teaching hospital: A prospective study

Background and Objectives:

The practice of emergency medicine has the primary mission of evaluating, managing and providing treatment to those patients with unexpected injury or illness. Instituting appropriate therapy is necessary for safety of the patients and to decrease mortality and morbidity. The objectives were to study the drug utilization pattern and direct cost of therapy in emergency medicine department of a tertiary care teaching hospital.

Materials and Methods:

Data of the patients admitted to emergency medicine department was collected prospectively for 48 h from the time of admission over 2 months. The prescriptions were analyzed for drug use pattern and direct cost of therapy was calculated.

Results:

A total of 156 patients received 1635 drugs with the mean of 9.99 ± 2.55 drugs/patient. Most common diagnosis was acute coronary syndrome 35 (21.79%). Ondansetron 135 (86.53%) was most frequently prescribed drug followed by pantoprazole 133 (85.25%) and furosemide 68 (43.58%). Amongst antimicrobials ceftriaxone 51 (32.69%) was the most commonly prescribed drug. Direct cost of treatment per patient for the first 48 h was र 4051 ± 1641.

Conclusion:

Ondansetron and pantoprazole were the most commonly prescribed drugs in the emergency department. However, their use in all patients was not justified. Polypharmacy was prevalent. A closer look at the rationality of therapy would help in highlighting issues involved and would be helpful to authorities in deciding prescribing policies.

Off-Label Use of Gastrointestinal Medications in the Intensive Care Unit

Purpose:

Determine the level of evidence supporting off-label gastrointestinal (GI) medication use and identify the medication class and indication whereby off-label use was most common.

Materials and Methods:

This prospective, multicentered observational study evaluated all medication orders written in 37 intensive care units (ICUs) in the United States, over a 24-hour period. All medications classified as “GI” according to a national reference were identified. The class and indication whereby off-label use was most prominent were determined and the level of evidence was described.

Results:

There were 774 orders from 363 patients and 63% (489 of 774) were considered off-label. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) accounted for most of the off-label usage (55% [271 of 489]), followed by laxatives (16% [77 of 489]) and histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs; 15% [71 of 489]). When prescribed, 99% (271 of 274) of PPIs, 99% (71 of 72) of H2RAs, and 79% (30 of 38) of promotility agents were off-label. Stress ulcer prophylaxis (100% [309 of 309]), GI bleeding (100% [18 of 18]), and gastric motility (88% [30 of 34]) were the most common off-label indications. The most common strength of recommendation and level of evidence for off-label use was indeterminate (58% [282 of 489]) and none (57% [280 of 489]), respectively.

Conclusion:

The PPIs are the most widely used off-label medications in the ICU. Stress ulcer prophylaxis is the most common indication. The level of evidence supporting off-label GI medication use is poor.

[Off-label use and G-BA. Legal framework for off-label use]

Off-label use of medicinal products, i.e. beyond their submitted, tested and approved indications, lies between 30 and 90%--depending on the indication. In dermatology, off-label use is of special importance, for even guideline-endorsed standard therapeutic approaches for common dermatological diseases like atopic eczema, psoriasis, or malignant melanoma are to some extent not licensed for these indications. In addition, many of the approximately 5000 dermatological diseases have a low prevalence. For many such orphan diseases, there are no approved drugs, and it is not feasible that licensing studies will be performed for these indications within a foreseeable time. A reliable legal framework for the reimbursement of medicinal products that are used off-label is essential both for patients and to allow physicians to choose the most adequate therapy. Therefore, off-label use expert groups have been convened by the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) in order to improve patient care. So far this new and innovative approach has not provided any reasonable improvement for many patients with dermatological diseases whose treatment can only be off-label since a comprehensive evaluation of all off-label indications is not possible. The following statement of the former Federal Minister of Health, U. Schmidt, is particularly true for dermatological therapy: "Good oncologic care also requires a good drug treatment--especially in the outpatient setting. The use of drugs which are not or not yet approved for this indication is often required here". Federal Minister of Health, Ulla Schmidt, 25th German Cancer Congress, 10 March 2002, Berlin.

Oral midodrine treatment accelerates the liberation of intensive care unit patients from intravenous vasopressor infusions

PURPOSE

Persistent low-level hypotension represents a barrier to discharging patients from the intensive care unit (ICU). Midodrine may be an effective adjunct to wean intravenous (IV) vasopressors and permit ICU discharge. We tested the hypothesis that midodrine, given to patients on IV vasopressors who otherwise met ICU discharge criteria, increased the magnitude of change in IV vasopressor rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study in 20 adult surgical ICU patients who met ICU discharge criteria except for an IV vasopressor requirement. We compared the change in phenylephrine equivalent rates during the day before midodrine to the change in phenylephrine equivalent rates after midodrine initiation and analyzed changes in total body fluid balance, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and white blood cell count during this period.

RESULTS

Patients received 41.0±33.4 μg/min of phenylephrine equivalents and the change in IV vasopressor rate (slope) decreased significantly from -0.62 μg/min per hour of phenylephrine equivalents before midodrine to -2.20 μg/min per hour following the initiation of midodrine treatment (P=.012). Change in total body fluid balance, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and white blood cell count did not correlate with change in IV vasopressor rate.

CONCLUSION

Midodrine treatment was associated with an increase in the magnitude of decline of the IV vasopressor rate. Oral midodrine may facilitate liberation of surgical ICU patients from an IV vasopressor infusion, and this may affect discharge readiness of patients from the ICU.

Frequency of the off-label use of antibiotics in clinical practice: a systematic review

Antibiotics constitute a major class among drugs commonly prescribed either empirically or for microbiologically documented infections in clinical practice. In addition, due to medical necessity physicians are forced, at times, to prescribe medications for off-label indications. The authors sought to record the frequency of the off-label use of antibiotics among both adult and pediatric patients. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant studies. A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria (725,124,505 prescriptions); 16 were prospective and nine retrospective. Fifteen studies reported on the pediatric population, seven on adults who had received a specific antibiotic, two on adult critical-care patients, and one on the general outpatient population. In the pediatric population, the percentage of off-label prescriptions varied from 1 to 94%. Off-label prescriptions varied from 19 to 43% in adult critical-care patients. Last, one study reporting on general outpatient care showed that 23% of prescriptions were off-label. Antibiotics are frequently prescribed as off-label among patient populations. The wide variation observed in the off-label use of antibiotics among pediatric patients might be attributed to the heterogeneity among the study populations regarding the age of children. Although this unapproved manner of prescribing cannot always be avoided, clinicians should only use unapproved drugs in cases when there are no effective alternatives are available and based on scientific evidence regarding safety and effectiveness.

Search strategies to identify reports on "off-label" drug use in EMBASE

BACKGROUND

Medications are frequently prescribed outside their regulatory approval (off-label) by physicians particularly where appropriate therapies are not available. However, the risk/benefit ratio of drugs in off-label use needs to be critically appraised because it may differ from approved on-label usage. Therefore, an extensive exploration of current evidence on clinical data is well-advised. The objective of this study was to develop a search strategy that facilitates detection of the off-label drug use documents in EMBASE via OvidSP.

METHODS

We constructed two sets of gold standards from relevant records to off-label drug use by a sensitive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Search queries, including search words and strings, were conceived based on definition of off-label use of medications as well as text analysis of 500 randomly selected relevant documents. The selected terms were searched in EMBASE (from 1988 to 2011) and their retrieval performance was compared with the gold standards. We developed a sensitivity-maximizing, and a sensitivity- and precision-maximizing search strategy.

RESULTS

From 4067 records relevant to off-label drug use in our full gold standard set, 3846 records were retrievable from EMBASE. "off label*.af." was the most sensitive single term (overall sensitivity 77.5%, sensitivity within EMBASE 81.9%, precision 88.1%). The highest sensitive search strategy was achieved by combining 36 search queries with overall sensitivity of 94.0% and precision of 69.5%. An optimal sensitive and precise search strategy was yielded precision 87.4% at the expense of decreasing overall sensitivity to 89.4%.

CONCLUSION

We developed highly sensitive search strategies to enhance the retrieval of studies on off-label drug use in OvidSP EMBASE.

Ten common questions (and their answers) about off-label drug use

The term off-label drug use (OLDU) is used extensively in the medical literature, continuing medical education exercises, and the media. Yet, we propose that many health care professionals have an underappreciation of its definition, prevalence, and implications. This article introduces and answers 10 questions regarding OLDU in an effort to clarify the practice's meaning, breadth of application, acceptance, and liabilities. Off-label drug use involves prescribing medications for indications, or using a dosage or dosage form, that have not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Since the Food and Drug Administration does not regulate the practice of medicine, OLDU has become common. It occurs in every specialty of medicine, but it may be more common in areas of medicine in which the patient population is less likely to be included in clinical trials (eg, pediatric, pregnant, or psychiatric patients). Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to promote their medications for an off-label use, which has lead to several large settlements for illegal marketing. To limit liability, physicians should prescribe medications only for indications that they believe are in the best interest of the patient. In addition, health care professionals should educate themselves about OLDU to weigh the risks and benefits and provide the best possible care for their patients.

Search strategies-identified reports on "off-label" drug use in MEDLINE

OBJECTIVE

We developed search strategies that facilitate the identification of studies on "off-label" drug use in the bibliographic database OvidSP MEDLINE.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We compiled a gold standard reference set of reports classified as relevant or not relevant to off-label drug use. We conceived search queries, including search words and word strings. We searched MEDLINE via OvidSP from 1948 to 2011. In comparison with the gold standard, we determined sensitivity and precision of search queries and their combinations. We attempted to achieve the highest possible sensitive search strategy and an optimal balance of sensitivity and precision.

RESULTS

Our gold standard set contained 4,067 relevant documents overall of 6,785 records, among those 2,177 could be retrieved from MEDLINE. The most sensitive single term was "off label∗.af." (overall sensitivity 40.9%, sensitivity within MEDLINE 76.4%, and precision 84.4%). A combination of 31 search queries had the maximum overall sensitivity of 53.3% (sensitivity within MEDLINE 99.5%) at a precision of 60.3%. A search strategy with the maximum precision (84.0%) yielded a sensitivity of 49.0% (sensitivity within MEDLINE 91.5%).

CONCLUSION

We empirically developed two versions of optimized sensitive search strategies, which can achieve reasonable performance for retrieving off-label drug use documents in OvidSP MEDLINE.