No evidence or no alternative? Taking responsibility for off-label prescribing

Cost-Related Non-Adherence to Prescribed Medicines: What Are Physicians' Moral Duties?

As the price of pharmaceuticals and biologicals rises so does the number of patients who cannot afford them. In this article, we argue that physicians have a moral duty to help patients access affordable medicines. We offer three grounds to support our argument: (i) the aim of prescribing is to improve health and well-being which can only be realized with secure access to treatment; (ii) there is no morally significant difference between medicines being unavailable and medicines being unaffordable, so the steps physicians are willing to take in the first case should extend to the second; and (iii) as the primary stakeholder with a duty to put the individual patient's interests first, the medical professional has a duty to address cost-barriers to patient care. In articulating this duty, we take account of important epistemic and control conditions that must be met for the attribution of this duty to be justified.

"Some sort of fantasy land": A qualitative investigation of appropriate prescribing in cancer care

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Increasing the appropriateness of prescribing has long been a focus of government, non-government, and professional organizations. Progress towards this is made difficult by the fact appropriate prescribing remains inconsistently defined and is the subject of ongoing intense disagreement. In this study, we attempted to understand why this is the case within the context of oncology and haematology.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative empirical analysis of semi-structured interviews with 16 Australian oncologists and haematologists.

RESULTS

We found that oncologists framed appropriate prescribing in terms of the following inter-related, and at times opposed, values: civic mindedness, hope and compassion, realism, and virtue in motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

These values cannot be ranked a priori, and therefore, any definition of appropriate prescribing must be aligned with what communities want from their health system. When one value is privileged over another in any specific context, a compelling argument must be provided to justify the choice. In an era of shared decision making, patient rights, and high-cost medicines, we need to reassess what we mean by appropriate prescribing in cancer care.

The significant cost of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A call for greater involvement of machine learning to assess the promise of clinical trials

Background

More than 90% of clinical-trial compounds fail to demonstrate sufficient efficacy and safety. To help alleviate this issue, systematic literature review and meta-analysis (SLR), which synthesize current evidence for a research question, can be applied to preclinical evidence to identify the most promising therapeutics. However, these methods remain time-consuming and labor-intensive. Here, we introduce an economic formula to estimate the expense of SLR for academic institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

Methods

We estimate the manual effort involved in SLR by quantifying the amount of labor required and the total associated labor cost. We begin with an empirical estimation and derive a formula that quantifies and describes the cost.

Results

The formula estimated that each SLR costs approximately $141,194.80. We found that on average, the ten largest pharmaceutical companies publish 118.71 and the ten major academic institutions publish 132.16 SLRs per year. On average, the total cost of all SLRs per year to each academic institution amounts to $18,660,304.77 and for each pharmaceutical company is $16,761,234.71.

Discussion

It appears that SLR is an important, but costly mechanisms to assess the totality of evidence.

Conclusions

With the increase in the number of publications, the significant time and cost of SLR may pose a barrier to their consistent application to assess the promise of clinical trials thoroughly. We call on investigators and developers to develop automated solutions to help with the assessment of preclinical evidence particularly. The formula we introduce provides a cost baseline against which the efficiency of automation can be measured.

Issues around the Prescription of Half Tablets in Northern Switzerland: The Irrational Case of Quetiapine

BACKGROUND

Prescription of fragmented tablets is useful for individualisation of dose but includes several drawbacks. Although without score lines, the antipsychotic drug quetiapine was in 2011 the most often prescribed 1/2 tablet in discharge prescriptions at the University Hospital in Basel (USB, 671 beds). We aimed at analysing the prescription patterns of split tablets in general and of quetiapine in particular in Switzerland.

METHODS

All orders of community pharmacies for unit-of-use soft pouch blisters placed at Medifilm AG, the leader company in Switzerland for repackaging into pouch blisters, were analysed.

RESULTS

Out of 4,784,999 tablets that were repacked in 2012 in unit-of-use pouch blisters, 8.5% were fragmented, mostly in half (87.6%), and were predominantly psycholeptics (pipamperone 15.8%). Prescription of half quetiapine appears to be a Basel specificity (highest rates of fragments and half quetiapine).

CONCLUSIONS

Prescription of fragmented tablet is frequent. It represents a safety issue for the patient, and a pharmaceutical care issue for the pharmacist. In ambulatory care, the patient's cognitive and physical capacities must be clarified, suitability of the splitting of the tablet must be checked, appropriate aids must be offered, like a pill-splitting device in order to improve accuracy, and safe use of the drug must be ensured.

'Out of the frying pan': the challenges of prescribing for insomnia in psychiatric patients

OBJECTIVES

Managing insomnia is a common challenge for psychiatrists and their patients. We have observed an increasing use of quetiapine as a hypnosedative.

METHODS

We conducted an audit with the aim of establishing the prescribing patterns of local general psychiatrists in New Zealand, comparing them with established guidelines and determining the extent of the prescribing of quetiapine as a hypnosedative. Participant psychiatrists were recruited from peer review groups. Each participant provided anonymised prescribing information from 10 patients and noted their intention when prescribing.

RESULTS

Twenty-five clinicians (58% response rate) responded with prescriptions for 100 in-patients and 177 community mental health patients. 60% of in-patients and 62% of community patients were prescribed medications to aid with sleep. The most commonly prescribed medications were zopiclone, quetiapine and benzodiazepines. Prescribing adhered with the recommended guidelines for 20% of benzodiazepine and 35% of zopiclone prescriptions. Two thirds (60%) of the community prescriptions for quetiapine were primarily for hypnosedation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little concordance between guidelines for hypnosedative prescribing and the practices of general psychiatrists. Less zopiclone and fewer benzodiazepines were prescribed than in other studies, while more quetiapine was prescribed. The 'off-label' use of quetiapine and the duration of zopiclone and benzodiazepine use are discussed.

Ethical justifications for access to unapproved medical interventions: an argument for (limited) patient obligations

Many health care systems include programs that allow patients in exceptional circumstances to access medical interventions of as yet unproven benefit. In this article we consider the ethical justifications for-and demands on-these special access programs (SAPs). SAPs have a compassionate basis: They give patients with limited options the opportunity to try interventions that are not yet approved by standard regulatory processes. But while they signal that health care systems can and will respond to individual suffering, SAPs have several disadvantages, including the potential to undermine regulatory and knowledge-generation structures that constitute significant public goods. The "balance" between these considerations depends in part on how broadly SAPs are used, but also on whether SAPs can be made to contribute to the generation of knowledge about the effects of health interventions. We argue that patients should usually be required to contribute outcome data while using SAPs.

The spot sign and tranexamic acid on preventing ICH growth--AUStralasia Trial (STOP-AUST): protocol of a phase II randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial

RATIONALE

No evidence-based acute therapies exist for intracerebral hemorrhage. Intracerebral hemorrhage growth is an important determinant of patient outcome. Tranexamic acid is known to reduce hemorrhage in other conditions.

AIM

The study aims to test the hypothesis that intracerebral hemorrhage patients selected with computed tomography angiography contrast extravasation 'spot sign' will have lower rates of hematoma growth when treated with intravenous tranexamic acid within 4.5-hours of stroke onset compared with placebo.

DESIGN

The Spot sign and Tranexamic acid On Preventing ICH growth--AUStralasia Trial is a multicenter, prospective, 1:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, investigator-initiated, academic Phase II trial. Intracerebral hemorrhage patients fulfilling clinical criteria (e.g. Glasgow Coma Scale >7, intracerebral hemorrhage volume <70 ml, no identified secondary cause of intracerebral hemorrhage, no thrombotic events within the previous 12 months, no planned surgery) and demonstrating contrast extravasation on computed tomography angiography will receive either intravenous tranexamic acid 1 g 10-min bolus followed by 1 g eight-hour infusion or placebo. A second computed tomography will be performed at 24 ± 3 hours to evaluate intracerebral hemorrhage growth and patients followed up for three-months.

STUDY OUTCOMES

The primary outcome measure is presence of intracerebral hemorrhage growth by 24 ± 3 hours, defined as either >33% or >6 ml increase from baseline, and will be adjusted for baseline intracerebral hemorrhage volume. Secondary outcome measures include growth as a continuous measure, thromboembolic events, and the three-month modified Rankin Scale score.

DISCUSSION

This is the first trial to evaluate the efficacy of tranexamic acid in intracerebral hemorrhage patients selected based on an imaging biomarker of high likelihood of hematoma growth. The trial is registered as NCT01702636.

Off-label use of recombinant factor VIIa in two tertiary hospitals in Queensland

BACKGROUND

Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) is used for many off-label indications without high quality evidence to support its efficacy. The aim of this study was to determine indications for use of off-label rFVIIa, efficacy and safety, and adherence to institutional guidelines.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of off-label rFVIIa at two tertiary hospitals from 2007 to 2010.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five administrations were identified and analysed. Haemorrhage associated with cardiac surgery made up one-third of all rFVIIa usage, with trauma (20%) and other surgery (11%) the next most frequent indications. Compared with all others, cardiac surgery patients were older (60.0 years versus 47.4 years, P < 0.001) and had lower pre-rFVIIa transfusion requirements, a higher subjective response rate (88% versus 46%, P < 0.001) and lower mortality rates (6.1% versus 33%, P < 0.001), but higher rates of arterial thrombormbolic events (16.7% versus 2.1%, P = 0.002). Most patients received only one or two doses (n = 137; 95%), with no subject receiving a third or subsequent dose having an appreciable reduction in bleeding. Only a small number of patients (n = 15; 10.3%) had rFVIIa administered in accordance with our institutions' guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Patients administered rFVIIa for haemorrhage not associated with cardiac surgery were severely unwell. Despite lack of evidence, administration of rFVIIa may be justified by the high mortality rate, but more than two doses are unlikely to provide further benefit. The high rate of arterial thromboembolism in cardiac surgical patients raises risk-benefit considerations. Adherence to our institutions' guidelines was poor.