Off-label drug use in oncology: a systematic review of literature

Public Preference for Off-Label Use of Drugs for Cancer Treatment and Relative Importance of Associated Adverse Events: A Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Patients may get more treatment options with off-label use of drugs while exposed to unknown risks of adverse events. Little is known about the public or demand-side perspective on off-label drug use, which is important to understand how to use off-label treatment and devise financial assistance. This study aimed to quantify public preference for off-label cancer treatment outcomes, process, and costs, and perceived importance of associated adverse events.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment and a best-worst scaling were conducted in Hong Kong in December 2022. Quota sampling was used to randomly select the study sample from a territory-wide panel of working-age adults. Preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for treatment effectiveness, risk of adverse events, mode of drug administration, and availability of off-label treatment guidelines were estimated using a random parameter logit model and latent class model. The relative importance of different adverse events was elicited using Case 1 best-worst scaling.

RESULTS

A total of 435 respondents provided valid responses. In the discrete choice experiment, the respondents indicated that extra overall survival as treatment effectiveness (WTP: HK$448,000/US$57,400 for 12-month vs 3-month extra survival) was the most important attribute for off-label drugs, followed by the risk of adverse events (WTP: HK$318,000/US$40,800 for 10% chance to have adverse event vs 55%), mode of drug administration (WTP: HK$42,000/US$5300 for oral intake vs injection), and availability of guidelines (WTP: HK$31,000/US$4000 for available versus not available). Four groups with distinct preferences were identified, including effectiveness oriented, off-label use refusal, oral intake oriented, and adverse event risk aversion. In the best-worse scaling, hypothyroidism, nausea/vomiting, and arthralgia/joint pain were the three most important adverse events based on the perceptions of respondents. Risk-averse respondents, who were identified from the discrete choice experiment, had different perceived importance of the adverse events compared with those with other preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowing the preference and WTP for cancer treatment-related characteristics from a societal perspective facilitates doctors' communications with patients on decision making and treatment goal-setting for off-label treatment, and enables devising financial assistance for related treatments. This study also provides important insight to inform evaluations of public acceptance and information dissemination in drug development as well as future economic evaluations.

Pathways for non-manufacturers to drive generic drug repurposing for cancer in the U.S

Repurposing generic drugs as new treatments for life-threatening diseases such as cancer is an exciting yet largely overlooked opportunity due to a lack of market-driven incentives. Nonprofit organizations and other non-manufacturers have been ramping up efforts to repurpose widely available generic drugs and rapidly expand affordable treatment options for patients. However, these non-manufacturers find it difficult to obtain regulatory approval in the U.S. Without a straightforward path for approval and updating drug labeling, non-manufacturers have relied on off-label use of repurposed drugs. This limits the broad clinical adoption of these drugs and patient access. In this paper, we explore the regulatory landscape for repurposing of small molecule generic drugs within the U.S. We describe case studies of repurposed drugs that have been successfully incorporated into clinical treatment guidelines for cancer without regulatory approval. To encourage greater adoption of generic drugs in clinical practice-that is, to encourage the repurposing of these drugs-we examine existing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pathways for approval of new uses or indications for generic drugs. We show how non-manufacturers, who are generally more active in generic drug repurposing than manufacturers, could utilize existing regulatory authorities and pathways, and we describe the challenges they face. We propose an extension of the existing 505(b)(2) new drug application (NDA) approval pathway, called a "labeling-only" 505(b)(2) NDA, that would enable non-manufacturers to seek approval of new indications for well-established small molecule drugs when multiple generic products are already available. It would not require new chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) data or introducing new drug products into the marketplace. This pathway would unlock innovation broadly and enable patients to benefit from the enormous potential of low-cost generic drugs.

Envisioning how to advance the MASH field

Since 1980, the cumulative effort of scientists and health-care stakeholders has advanced the prerequisites to address metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), a prevalent chronic non-communicable liver disease. This effort has led to, among others, the approval of the first drug specific for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH; formerly known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis). Despite substantial progress, MASLD is still a leading cause of advanced chronic liver disease, including primary liver cancer. This Perspective contextualizes the nomenclature change from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease to MASLD and proposes important considerations to accelerate further progress in the field, optimize patient-centric multidisciplinary care pathways, advance pharmacological, behavioural and diagnostic research, and address health disparities. Key regulatory and other steps necessary to optimize the approval and access to upcoming additional pharmacological therapeutic agents for MASH are also outlined. We conclude by calling for increased education and awareness, enhanced health system preparedness, and concerted action by policy-makers to further the public health and policy agenda to achieve at least parity with other non-communicable diseases and to aid in growing the community of practice to reduce the human and economic burden and end the public health threat of MASLD and MASH by 2030.

Methodology of clinical trials on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The research on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors has been increasing rapidly in the last decade, as well as indications for their use. This study aimed to analyze the methodological characteristics of clinical trials on SGLT2 inhibitors registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional study of trials on SGLT2 inhibitors registered on ClinicalTrials.gov up to November 11, 2022. We included clinical trials that tested SGLT2 inhibitors for any clinical condition, as a single or combined SGLT2 therapy, compared to any other medication or placebo and mapped their characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 1102 eligible trials on 14 different SGLT2 inhibitors. The first trial registration was in 2005. There were 993 (90%) interventional and 109 (10%) observational trials. Most trials were in Phase 1 (29%), Phase 3 (23%), or Phase 4 (24%). Interventional trials were mostly randomized (85%); almost half of them did not use masking (44%). Trials on empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin accounted for 75% of all trials. More than 60% of trials included patients with diabetes mellitus, 13% included only healthy subjects, and 12% included patients with heart diseases. Overall, these trials included more than 9.5 million participants (~ 312,000 of which in interventional studies). Almost 65% of all clinical trials were industry-funded. Most trials were completed (60%) and 35% of those reported results. For trials that are obligated to report results by the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), 88% of them did so. Trials fully or partially funded by industry more frequently published results compared to non-industry funded trials (46.1% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of registered trials on SGLT2 inhibitors is increasing progressively along with expanding indications for its use, shifting from diabetes mellitus to cardiovascular and renal diseases. Public reporting of trial results improved with time but remains suboptimal.

Advancing perspectives on the off-label use of anticancer drugs: an updated classification and exploration of categories

To date, the definition that the off-label usage of drugs refers to the unapproved use of approved drugs, which covers unapproved indications, patient populations, doses, and/or routes of administration, has been in existence for many years. Currently, there is a limited frequency and prevalence of research on the off-label use of antineoplastic drugs, mainly due to incomplete definition and classification issues. It is time to embrace new categories for the off-label usage of anticancer drugs. This review provided an insight into an updated overview of the concept and categories of the off-label use of anticancer drugs, along with illustrating specific examples to establish the next studies about the extent of the off-label usage of anticancer drugs in the oncology setting. The scope of the off-label use of current anticancer drugs beyond the previous definitions not only includes off-label uses in terms of indications, patient populations, doses, and/or routes of administration but also off-label use in terms of medication course, combination, sequence of medication, clinical purpose, contraindications scenarios, etc. In addition, the definition of the off-label usage of anticancer drugs should be added to the condition at a given time, and it varies from approval authorities. We presented a new and relatively comprehensive classification, providing extensive analysis and illustrative examples of the off-label usage of antineoplastic drugs for the first time. Such a classification has the potential to promote practical adoption and enhance management strategies for the off-label use of antitumor drugs.

Navigating uncharted territory: a case report and literature review on the remarkable response to personalized crizotinib containing combinational therapy in a pazopanib refractory patient with novel alterations

This paper presents a patient with a novel Ig-like-III domain fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR2) alteration (W290_P307>C) along with CDKN2A/B alterations and a cadherin 1 (CDH1) alteration. Initial responsiveness to pazopanib monotherapy was encouraging, yet progression occurred after 7.5 months. Following progression, the molecular tumor board recommended a combination therapy approach comprising pazopanib, crizotinib, and palbociclib to target all of the changed pathways at the same time. Pazopanib was chosen to specifically target the FGFR2 alteration, while crizotinib was selected due to its potential synthetic lethality with the CDH1 alteration. In addition, the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib was administered to address the CDKN2A/B alterations. The patient exhibited a remarkable and sustained response to this innovative combination. This case not only underscores the potential of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, exemplified by pazopanib, as a viable alternative for patients without access to pan-FGFR inhibitors, but it also emphasizes their efficacy beyond commonly detected point mutations and rearrangements. Notably, the outstanding response to combination therapy, including crizotinib, in a patient with a CDH1 alteration, further substantiates the preclinical evidence of synthetic lethality between crizotinib and CDH1 alterations. To our knowledge, this represents the first clinical evidence demonstrating the efficacy of crizotinib in a patient with a CDH1 alteration. Through careful dosage adjustments and consideration of individualized genomic information, this case exemplifies the power of personalized medicine in achieving favorable treatment outcomes.

Co-design of a paediatric oncology medicines database (ProCure) to support complex care provision for children with a hard-to-treat cancer

Objectives

Paediatric oncologists often encounter challenges when seeking compassionate access to off-label therapies for their patients. This study employed implementation science and co-design techniques to develop the ProCure medicines database, with the goal of streamlining the application process and addressing identified barriers in paediatric oncology.

Methods

This study utilised an exploratory qualitative research design. Seventeen healthcare providers, including oncologists, nurse consultants, and allied health professionals, participated in semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and a visual process map aid. Deductive qualitative data analysis, according to the CFIR constructs, identified key barriers and facilitators. Collaborative design sessions engaged multidisciplinary teams to develop the ProCure beta version.

Results

Barriers to off-label therapy access included resource-intensive applications, time sensitive decision-making, and complex pharmaceutical information. Facilitators included Drug Access Navigators, Molecular Tumour Boards, and a multi-disciplinary approach. ProCure addressed end-user needs by centralising medicines information. Additional features suggested by healthcare providers included blood-brain-barrier penetrability data and successful application examples.

Conclusion

ProCure represents a promising solution to the challenges paediatric oncologists face in accessing off-label therapies. By centralising information, it simplifies the application process, aids decision-making, and promotes a collaborative approach to patient care. The potential of the database to stream and enhance off-label therapy access underscores its relevance in improving paediatric oncology practise. Further research and implementation efforts are warranted to assess ProCure's real-world impact and refine its features based on user feedback.

Systematic analysis of off-label and off-guideline cancer therapy usage in a real-world cohort of 165,912 US patients

Patients with cancer may be given treatments that are not officially approved (off-label) or recommended by guidelines (off-guideline). Here we present a data science framework to systematically characterize off-label and off-guideline usages using real-world data from de-identified electronic health records (EHR). We analyze treatment patterns in 165,912 US patients with 14 common cancer types. We find that 18.6% and 4.4% of patients have received at least one line of off-label and off-guideline cancer drugs, respectively. Patients with worse performance status, in later lines, or treated at academic hospitals are significantly more likely to receive off-label and off-guideline drugs. To quantify how predictable off-guideline usage is, we developed machine learning models to predict which drug a patient is likely to receive based on their clinical characteristics and previous treatments. Finally, we demonstrate that our systematic analyses generate hypotheses about patients' response to treatments.

Engaging Cancer Care Physicians in Off-Label Drug Clinical Trials: Human-Centered Design Approach

BACKGROUND

Using a human-centered design (HCD) approach can provide clinical trial design teams with a better understanding of the needs, preferences, and attitudes of clinical trial stakeholders. It can also be used to understand the challenges and barriers physician stakeholders face in initiating and completing clinical trials, especially for using off-label drugs (OLDs) to treat unmet clinical needs in cancer treatment. However, the HCD approach is not commonly taught in the context of clinical trial design, and few step-by-step guides similar to this study are available to demonstrate its application.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to demonstrate the feasibility and process of applying an HCD approach to creating clinical trial support resources for physician stakeholders to overcome barriers to pursuing clinical trials for OLDs to treat cancer.

METHODS

An HCD approach was used to develop OLD clinical trial support concepts. In total, 45 cancer care physicians were contacted, of which 15 participated in semistructured interviews to identify barriers to prescribing OLDs or participating in cancer OLD clinical trials. Design research is qualitative-it seeks to answer "why" and "how" questions; thus, a sample size of 15 was sufficient to provide insight saturation to address the design problem. The team used affinity mapping and thematic analysis of qualitative data gathered from the interviews to inform subsequent web-based co-design sessions, which included creative matrix exercises and voting to refine and prioritize the ideas used in the final 3 recommended concepts.

RESULTS

The findings demonstrate the potential of HCD methods to uncover important insights into the barriers physicians face in participating in OLD clinical trials or prescribing OLDs, such as recruitment challenges, low willingness to prescribe without clinical data, and stigma. Notably, only palliative care participants self-identified as "frequent prescribers" of OLDs, despite high national OLD prescription rates among patients with cancer. Participants found the HCD approach engaging, with 60% (9/15) completing this study; scheduling conflicts caused most of the dropouts. Over 150 ideas were generated in 3 co-design sessions, with the groups voting on 15 priority ideas that the design team then refined into 3 final recommendations, especially focused on increasing the participation of physicians in OLD clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Using participatory HCD methods, we delivered 3 concepts for clinical trial support resources to help physician stakeholders overcome barriers to pursuing clinical trials for OLDs to treat cancer. Overall, integrating the HCD approach can aid in identifying important stakeholders, such as prescribing physicians; facilitating their engagement; and incorporating their perspectives and needs into the solution design process. This paper highlights the process, methods, and potential of HCD to improve cancer clinical trial design. Future work is needed to train clinical trial designers in the HCD approach and encourage adoption in the field.

Access to innovative therapies in pediatric oncology: Report of the nationwide experience in Canada

BACKGROUND

The need for new therapies to improve survival and outcomes in pediatric oncology along with the lack of approval and accessible clinical trials has led to "out-of-trial" use of innovative therapies. We conducted a retrospective analysis of requests for innovative anticancer therapy in Canadian pediatric oncology tertiary centers for patients less than 30 years old between 2013 and 2020.

METHODS

Innovative therapies were defined as cancer-directed drugs used (a) off-label, (b) unlicensed drugs being used outside the context of a clinical trial, or (c) approved drugs with limited evidence in pediatrics. We excluded cytotoxic chemotherapy, cellular products, and cytokines.

RESULTS

We retrieved data on 352 innovative therapy drug requests. Underlying diagnosis was primary CNS tumor 31%; extracranial solid tumor 37%, leukemia/lymphoma 22%, LCH 2%, and plexiform neurofibroma 6%. RAS/MAP kinase pathway inhibitors were the most frequently requested innovative therapies in 28% of all requests followed by multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (17%), inhibitors of the PIK3CA-mTOR-AKT pathway (8%), immune checkpoints inhibitors (8%), and antibody drug conjugates (8%). In 112 out of 352 requests, innovative therapies were used in combination with another anticancer agent. 48% of requests were motivated by the presence of an actionable molecular target. Compassionate access accounted for 52% of all requests while public insurance was used in 27%. Mechanisms of funding varied between provinces.

CONCLUSION

This real-world data collection illustrates an increasing use of "out-of-trial" innovative therapies in pediatric oncology. This new field of practice warrants further studies to understand the impact on patient trajectory and equity in access to innovative therapies.

Real-world treatment outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors used off-label in oncology: A comprehensive cancer institution experience

Off-label use (OLU) is quite common in oncology due to the complexity of cancer and the time-consuming regulatory process. However, outcomes of OLU in cancer treatment remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), duration of treatment (DOT), and reason for treatment discontinuation in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as OLU for solid tumors from 2011 to 2020. The study collected data on 356 episodes (353 patients), with a median age of 64.4 years, 36.2% women, and 14.6% ECOG ≥ 2. Median OS was 15.7 (11.9-18.7) months, and median EFS was 5.4 (3.8-6.6) months. Men, patients with metastatic disease or ECOG-PS higher than 1, had worse survival outcomes. The findings derived from this study provide valuable information regarding the real-world use of ICI-OLU and contributes to enhancing the decision-making process for individuals with cancer. Further research on immunotherapy outcomes of OLU in cancer is needed.

Cellular Mass Response to Therapy Correlates With Clinical Response for a Range of Malignancies

PURPOSE

Cancer patients with advanced-stage disease have poor prognosis, typically having limited options for efficacious treatment, and genomics-based therapy guidance continues to benefit only a fraction of patients. Next-generation ex vivo approaches, such as cell mass-based response testing (MRT), offer an alternative precision medicine approach for a broader population of patients with cancer, but validation of clinical feasibility and potential impact remain necessary.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated the clinical feasibility and accuracy of using live-cell MRT to predict patient drug sensitivity. Using a unified measurement workflow with a 48-hour result turnaround time, samples were subjected to MRT after treatment with a panel of drugs in vitro. After completion of therapeutic course, clinical response data were correlated with MRT-based predictions of outcome. Specimens were collected from 104 patients with solid (n = 69) and hematologic (n = 35) malignancies, using tissue formats including needle biopsies, malignant fluids, bone marrow aspirates, and blood samples. Of the 81 (78%) specimens qualified for MRT, 41 (51%) patients receiving physician-selected therapies had treatments matched to MRT.

RESULTS

MRT demonstrated high concordance with clinical responses with an odds ratio (OR) of 14.80 (P = .0003 [95% CI, 2.83 to 102.9]). This performance held for both solid and hematologic malignances with ORs of 20.67 (P = .0128 [95% CI, 1.45 to 1,375.57]) and 8.20 (P = .045 [95% CI, 0.77 to 133.56]), respectively. Overall, these results had a predictive accuracy of 80% (P = .0026 [95% CI, 65 to 91]).

CONCLUSION

MRT showed highly significant correlation with clinical response to therapy. Routine clinical use is technically feasible and broadly applicable to a wide range of samples and malignancy types, supporting the need for future validation studies.

Clinical Issues - January 2024

Off-label medication use and prescribing practices Key words: off-label, licensed prescriber, approved, unapproved, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Prophylactic, therapeutic, and empiric use of antimicrobial agents Key words: prophylactic, therapeutic, empiric, infection, antimicrobial. Perioperative RN administration of antineoplastic agents Key words: antineoplastic medication, chemotherapy, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), instillation device, perfusionist. Minimum efficiency reporting values, parameters, and testing for air filters in heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems Key words: heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC); minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV); particle size removal efficiency; air filter; filtration.

Pharmacokinetic boosting of olaparib: A randomised, cross-over study (PROACTIVE-study)

BACKGROUND

Pharmacokinetic (PK) boosting is the intentional use of a drug-drug interaction to enhance systemic drug exposure. PK boosting of olaparib, a CYP3A-substrate, has the potential to reduce PK variability and financial burden. The aim of this study was to investigate equivalence of a boosted, reduced dose of olaparib compared to the non-boosted standard dose.

METHODS

This cross-over, multicentre trial compared olaparib 300 mg twice daily (BID) with olaparib 100 mg BID boosted with the strong CYP3A-inhibitor cobicistat 150 mg BID. Patients were randomised to the standard therapy followed by the boosted therapy, or vice versa. After seven days of each therapy, dense PK sampling was performed for noncompartmental PK analysis. Equivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the boosted versus standard therapy area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-12 h) within no-effect boundaries. These boundaries were set at 0.57-1.25, based on previous pharmacokinetic studies with olaparib capsules and tablets.

RESULTS

Of 15 included patients, 12 were eligible for PK analysis. The GMR of the AUC0-12 h was 1.45 (90% CI 1.27-1.65). No grade ≥3 adverse events were reported during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Boosting a 100 mg BID olaparib dose with cobicistat increases olaparib exposure 1.45-fold, compared to the standard dose of 300 mg BID. Equivalence of the boosted olaparib was thus not established. Boosting remains a promising strategy to reduce the olaparib dose as cobicistat increases olaparib exposure Adequate tolerability of the boosted therapy with higher exposure should be established.

Real-World Treatment Trends Among Patients with Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Results from an International Study

BACKGROUND

Continuous androgen deprivation therapy ± first-generation non-steroidal antiandrogen was previously the standard-of-care for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Treatment intensification with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) or taxane chemotherapy is now approved and guideline-recommended for these patients.

METHODS

Physician-reported data on adult patients with mCSPC from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme were analyzed descriptively. We evaluated real-world treatment trends for patients with mCSPC in 5 European countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy) and the United States (US), looking at differences between patients initiating treatment in 2016-2018 and in 2019-2020. We also investigated treatment trends by ethnicity and insurance status in the US.

RESULTS

This study found that most patients with mCSPC do not receive treatment intensification. However, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT and taxane chemotherapy was observed in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 across 5 European countries. In the US, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 was observed for all ethnicity groups and those with Medicare and commercial insurance status.

CONCLUSIONS

As the number of patients with mCSPC who receive treatment intensification increases, more patients who progress to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have been exposed to intensified treatments. Treatment options for patients with mCSPC and mCRPC overlap, suggesting that an unmet need will emerge for new therapies. Further studies are needed to understand optimal treatment sequencing in mCSPC and mCRPC.

Real-world treatment outcomes of medicines used in special situations (off-label and compassionate use) in oncology and hematology: A retrospective study from a comprehensive cancer institution

PURPOSE

Medicines in special situations (MSS) refer to off-label or to unlicensed drugs under investigation (compassionate use). Our objectives were to evaluate characteristics and to estimate overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and the duration of treatment (DT) of MSS used for cancer treatment at a multicentre comprehensive cancer institution.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study on adult cancer patients for whom an MSS treatment was requested (January 2011-December 2020). A descriptive analysis was performed and median OS and EFS and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Survival curves were stratified by type of tumor, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (PS), age, sex, treatment stage and type of drug (mechanism of action and target).

RESULTS

Treatment was initiated in 2092 episodes (1930 patients) out of 2377 MSS episodes (2189 patients) requested, 33% for hematological treatment and 87% for advanced stage cancer. Median OS (months) was 21.1 (95% CI 19.4-22.7), median EFS was 5.6 (95% CI 5.1-6.0) months, and median DT was 4.5 [0.0; 115.3] months. OS and EFS statistically significantly favored female patients, ECOG PS ≥2 episodes showed worse OS and EFS outcomes (p < 0.0001). Statistically significant differences in survival were found within solid and hematological cancer, disease stage, drug mechanism of action, and type of cancer (p < 0.001) but not for age. Survival outcomes by tumor subtype and drug are presented both globally and separately based on disease stage.

CONCLUSION

MSS uses are practiced across almost all cancer types, mostly for advanced disease. ECOG PS ≥2, along with advanced disease, was related to worse survival. Information about real-world outcomes is valuable and contributes to better decision-making regarding MSS and our experience in this field could be of interest for other colleagues.

Use of Off-Label Drugs in COVID-19: Clinicians' Perceptions Based on a Cross-Sectional Observational Study

Introduction The absence of a common National Treatment Guideline during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in India resulted in different treatment strategies, and the use of "off-label drugs" (OfLDs) was one of them. Aims This study aimed to assess the proportion of doctors who prescribed OfLDs, their perceived appropriateness, and the factors leading to their use. Settings and design This is an undergraduate student research project, in which a web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted on doctors who delivered care to COVID-19 patients during the second wave of the pandemic in Uttarakhand, India. Materials and methods The minimum sample size was 370 (for a 95% confidence level, an alpha error of 0.5, and a power of 80%). Data were collected electronically using a validated questionnaire after institutional ethical clearance and the participants' consent. Statistical analysis This is a descriptive-analytical study. Results We received 419 completed responses; all specialties had seen COVID-19 patients, and 91.4% (383) of the doctors had provided care to COVID-19 patients in some way or the other. About 90.7% (380) of the doctors used OfLDs; 62.5% (262) agreed that OfLDs were beneficial, and 78.9% (331) disagreed on universal steroid use. Only 34.1% (143) felt that using OfLDs was ethical. About 16.9% (71) of the doctors believed that alternative medicine was a useful treatment adjunct, and 20% (84) of doctors prescribed OfLDs under duress. About 21.2% (89) believed that Remdesivir was the main treatment for the disease, and 18.6% (78) believed that Tocilizumab was the main treatment for the disease. Personal experience, conviction, or advice from peers were among the various reasons that were put forward for using OfLDs. Conclusions The use of OfLDs during the COVID-19 pandemic in India was extensive. It was done sometimes under pressure and was largely based on confusion (multiplicity of guidelines, many times at variance with each other) as well as on a personal or low level of scientific evidence forwarded to support the use.

Analysis of medical malpractice liability disputes related to novel antineoplastic drugs and research on risk prevention and control strategies

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the general characteristics of litigation cases of medical malpractice liability disputes (MMLDs) related to novel antineoplastic drugs (NADs), the drugs involved, as well as the common types of medical errors related to NADs and their damages in the process of diagnosis and treatment, with the aims of improving the level of rational medication use in the clinical application of NADs and actively prevent medical disputes.

METHODS

The China Judgments Online was searched for the cause of action using the key word "MMLDs" along with the name of 77 kinds of NADs. A total of 39 NAD litigation cases meeting the inclusion criteria from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2021 were analyzed, and each potential adverse drug reaction (ADR) was reviewed to determine a causality assessment using the Naranjo algorithm for non-drug-induced liver injury (DILI) cases and the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) for the DILI cases. Risk prevention and control strategies were recommended.

RESULTS

Cases that met the inclusion criteria increased substantially each year during the last six years, from three cases in 2009-2015 to 36 cases in 2016-2021. There were more cases in Eastern China than in other geographic regions. Most cases involved tertiary hospitals, patients between 25 and 60 years of age, and patients who were predominately male. There were 18 kinds of NADs involved in medical errors. The most common consequences of NADs were closely related to the death, disability, and increased treatment costs caused by ADRs, inadequate indications, delayed diagnosis and treatment, and misdiagnosis and mistreatment. The most frequent medical errors were medical technology errors, medical ethics errors and medical record writing/safekeeping errors. In two cases involving DILI, one case was unable to undergo further RUCAM scoring because the liver function indicators of the patient before and after treatment were not published.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of mechanisms to reduce the risks associated with the clinical application of NADs is warranted. Healthcare services must maintain strict adherence to the specific requirements of GPCANADs and drug instructions and strictly grasp the indications, contraindications, usage, and dosage of drugs, and strengthen the notification and management of off-label drug use. Monitoring patients for ADRs and preparing rescue and treatment measures for high-risk drugs may serve to reduce damages related to NADs. For DILI cases, medical and appraisal institutions should use RUCAM score to assess causal relationships.

Ethical challenges of clinical trials with a repurposed drug in outbreaks

Drug repurposing is a strategy of identifying new potential uses for already existing drugs. Many researchers adopted this method to identify treatment or prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite the considerable number of repurposed drugs that were evaluated, only some of them were labeled for new indications. In this article, we present the case of amantadine, a drug commonly used in neurology that attracted new attention during the COVID-19 outbreak. This example illustrates some of the ethical challenges associated with the launch of clinical trials to evaluate already approved drugs. In our discussion, we follow the ethics framework for prioritization of COVID-19 clinical trials proposed by Michelle N Meyer and colleagues (2021). We focus on four criteria: social value, scientific validity, feasibility, and consolidation/collaboration. We claim that launching amantadine trials was ethically justified. Although the scientific value was anticipated to be low, unusually, the social value was expected to be high. This was because of significant social interest in the drug. In our view, this strongly supports the need for evidence to justify why the drug should not be prescribed or privately accessed by interested parties. Otherwise, a lack of evidence-based argument could enhance its uncontrolled use. With this paper, we join the discussion on the lessons learned from the pandemic. Our findings will help to improve future efforts to decide on the launch of clinical trials on approved drugs when dealing with the widespread off-label use of the drug.

COVID-19 off-label uses of medicines: the role of civil liability and regulation

Physicians can prescribe medicines for different indications than the tested and authorised ones. Such 'off-label' uses expand therapeutic options but also create uncertainties. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered new off-label uses and, despite issues being reported in the literature, these have not resulted in substantial personal injury litigation in the EU. Against this backdrop, this article argues that civil liability plays, in fact, a limited role in off-label uses. In particular, civil liability may incentivise health actors to follow and react to the development of the evidence basis for off-label uses. However, it is ultimately unable to incentivise the conduct of additional research on off-label uses. This is problematic, as off-label research is key to protecting patients and is recommended by international medical ethics. The article concludes by critically discussing proposed mechanisms to incentivise off-label research. It argues that extending civil liability for unknown risks may have undesired effects on insurability and innovation, and most regulatory proposals seem ineffective. Building on the 2014 Italian reform of off-label uses, the article proposes the establishment of a fund financed by mandatory contributions from the industry, which should be used by pharmaceutical regulators to promote off-label research and develop guidelines for prescribers.

Off-label use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of solid tumors: analysis of a nationwide patient sample

PURPOSE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become an indispensable part of clinical practice; however, off-label use of these agents is unknown. We aimed to define the patterns of off-label use of ICIs in a nationwide sample of patients.

METHODS

The online database (Reçetem) was retrospectively searched for off-label use cases related to ICIs approved during a 6-month period. Adult patients with metastatic solid tumors were included. Ethics approval was obtained. Reasons for off-label use were recorded in eight categories and cases were assessed for adherence to current guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed with GNU PSPP version 1.5.3.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-seven reasons for use were recorded for 538 cases related to 527 patients (67.5% male). Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (35.9%) was the most common cancer type. Nivolumab (49%), pembrolizumab (25.5%), and atezolizumab (25%) were commonly used. The top reason for off-label use was lack of approval for the cancer type (37.1%), followed by use beyond the approved treatment line (21%). Nivolumab was more frequently used than atezolizumab and/or pembrolizumab in patients with malignant melanoma, kidney cancer, head and neck cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma (Chi-square goodness-of-fit test, p < 0.001). The guideline adherence rate was 60.5%.

CONCLUSION

Off-label use of ICIs was primarily related to (NSCLC), and most patients were treatment-naïve in contrast to the acceptance that off-label use results from exhausted treatment options. Lack of approval is a significant reason for the off-label use of ICIs.

Against Authority: The Bioethics of Ivermectin Use for COVID-19 Infection

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought new ethical challenges to both health care professionals and the general public. Among the ethical problems amplified during this period were the making of medical decisions to quickly introduce some drugs into therapeutic practice with unproven or insufficiently proven effects (such as ivermectin), the validity of drug testing, and the allocation of limited resources.

FIELDS OF UNCERTAINTY

The COVID-19 pandemic brought to the attention of the entire scientific world a new problem, which exceeded the guidelines and rules known until then. Out of the desire to quickly solve this medical problem, a series of measures were taken, however not sufficiently validated in scientific terms; the recommendations regarding the use of drugs known for their properties to treat a greater number of conditions, such as ivermectin, was tried.

DATA SOURCES

A narrative review of the specialized literature was carried out using keywords such as COVID-19, ivermectin, ethics, and off-label medication from Scopus and Google Scholar but also of official documents developed at the international level (World Health Organization).

ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

The off-label use of ivermectin alone or in combination with other medications during COVID pandemic raised problems related to the demonstration of its effectiveness, but also to ethics, starting from the expectations that both the medical staff and the population had of it. Ivermectin therapy was also evaluated by analyzing the behavior of ivermectin based on ethical principles (nonmaleficence, beneficence, and respect for one's autonomy) or on justice. Even in times of pandemic, exceptionalism must not triumph, and finding an effective treatment must be done through studies that respect ethical standard.

CONCLUSIONS

The failures or rather lack of success in decision making during the pandemic showed that alongside scientific knowledge and the development of health policies, it is necessary to constantly evaluate the measures and decisions from an ethical point of view, and the prevention of slippages and abuses is not only necessary but even mandatory.

Population, Clinical, and Scientific Impact of National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network Treatment Studies

PURPOSE

In the United States, the National Cancer Institute National Cancer Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) groups have conducted publicly funded oncology research for 50 years. The combined impact of all adult network group trials has never been systematically examined.

METHODS

We identified randomized, phase III trials from the adult NCTN groups, reported from 1980 onward, with statistically significant findings for ≥ 1 clinical, time-dependent outcomes. In the subset of trials in which the experimental arm improved overall survival, gains in population life-years were estimated by deriving trial-specific hazard functions and hazard ratios to estimate the experimental treatment benefit and then mapping this trial-level benefit onto the US cancer population using registry and life-table data. Scientific impact was based on citation data from Google Scholar. Federal investment costs per life-year gained were estimated. The results were derived through December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-two trials comprised of 108,334 patients were analyzed, representing 29.8% (162/544) of trials conducted. The most common cancers included breast (34), gynecologic (28), and lung (14). The trials were cited 165,336 times (mean, 62.2 citations/trial/year); 87.7% of trials were cited in cancer care guidelines in favor of the recommended treatment. These studies were estimated to have generated 14.2 million (95% CI, 11.5 to 16.5 million) additional life-years to patients with cancer, with projected gains of 24.1 million (95% CI, 19.7 to 28.2 million) life-years by 2030. The federal investment cost per life-year gained through 2020 was $326 in US dollars.

CONCLUSION

NCTN randomized trials have been widely cited and are routinely included in clinical guidelines. Moreover, their conduct has predicted substantial improvements in overall survival in the United States for patients with oncologic disease, suggesting they have contributed meaningfully to this nation's health. These findings demonstrate the critical role of government-sponsored research in extending the lives of patients with cancer.

Healthcare Payer Perspectives on the Assessment and Pricing of Oncology Multi-Indication Products: Evidence from Nine OECD Countries

BACKGROUND

New pharmaceuticals are increasingly being developed for use across multiple indications. Countries across Europe and North America have adopted a range of different approaches to capture differences in the value of individual indications.

OBJECTIVE

The three aims of this study were (i) to review the price-setting practice over the past 5 years for multi-indication products across England, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Turkey, Canada and the USA; (ii) to assess the impact of current practices on launch strategy; and (iii) to identify issues in the implementation of indication-based pricing.

METHODS

Ten current and former members of health insurance organisations, healthcare payer organisations or health technology assessment agencies with expertise on pharmaceutical purchasing were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were imported into NVivo 12 for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The majority of countries studied require full assessments upon launch of a new indication. Five different approaches to pricing were identified: weighted pricing, differential discounting, mandatory discount, price anchoring and free pricing. Manufacturers show a tendency to launch first in niche indications with high unmet need to achieve a high price. Stakeholders from England, France, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland consider their current system fit for purpose, while other countries expressed concern over the administrative burden of monitoring products at indication level.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high administrative burden, it is questionable whether indication-based pricing would provide additional public benefit above and beyond current weighted dynamic single pricing and differential discounting practices for multi-indication products.

Off-label and compassionate use of targeted anticancer therapies: The experience of an Italian pediatric cancer center

INTRODUCTION

In Europe, despite recent advances in clinical development, most of the drugs currently used to treat childhood cancers are adult medicines, prescribed outside of the authorized indication. In this context, a monocentric retrospective cohort analysis was conducted, evaluating pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients affected by onco-hematologic disease, treated with targeted therapies used off-label or as compassionate use.

METHODS

The analysis was conducted on 45 patients aged less than or equal to 30 years with cancer, having received at least one targeted therapy prescribed as off-label or compassionate use at a large Italian pediatric center between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2021. Data collected included information on the patient and tumor, data on off-label/compassionate treatment, and data on safety and efficacy.

RESULTS

Total 25 out of 45 patients treated with off-label or compassionate targeted therapies were affected by onco-hematological diseases. Overall, 22 out of the 52 agents (42%) were prescribed in patients with relapsed neoplasm and 39% (20/52) in patients with refractory diseases. Complete response was observed in more than half (27/52) of treatments. At least one adverse reaction occurred in 76% (n = 22) of agents administered to patients with onco-hematological tumor and in 43% (n = 10) of agents prescribed to patients with solid tumor.

CONCLUSION

This work aims to provide a snapshot of off-label and compassionate use prescriptions in a large Italian pediatric cancer center. This study confirms that targeted agents for unauthorized indications are often prescribed in pediatric patients with cancer, especially after disease relapse and that these treatments are mostly tolerable and effective.

Structural Dynamics-Driven Discovery of Anticancer and Antimetastatic Effects of Diltiazem and Glibenclamide Targeting Urokinase Receptor

Diltiazem and glibenclamide are commonly used hypotensive and antidiabetic drugs. This study reports the discovery of the potential antitumor and antimetastatic effects of these two drugs using a structural dynamics-driven virtual screening targeting urokinase receptor (uPAR). Owing to uPAR's high flexibility, currently resolved crystal structures of uPAR, all in ligand-bound states, provide limited representations of its physiological conformation. To improve the accuracy of screening, we performed a long-timescale molecular dynamics simulation and obtained the representative conformations of apo-uPAR as the targets for our screening. Experimentally, we demonstrated that diltiazem and glibenclamide bound uPAR with K_D values in the micromolar range. In addition, both compounds effectively suppressed tumor growth and metastasis in a uPAR-dependent manner in vitro and in vivo. This work not only provides two potent uPAR inhibitors but also reports a proof-of-concept study on the potential off-label antitumor and antimetastatic uses of diltiazem and glibenclamide.

Off-label despite high-level evidence: a clinical practice review of commonly used off-patent cancer medicines

INTRODUCTION

Off-label use of medicines is generally discouraged. However, several off-patent, low-cost cancer medicines remain off-label for indications in which they are commonly used in daily practice, supported by high-level evidence based on results of phase III clinical trials. This discrepancy may generate prescription and reimbursement obstacles as well as impaired access to established therapies.

METHODS

A list of cancer medicines that remain off-label in specific indications despite the presence of high-level evidence was generated and subjected to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) expert peer review to assess for accountability of reasonableness. These medicines were then surveyed on approval procedures and workflow impact. The most illustrative examples of these medicines were reviewed by experts from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain the apparent robustness of the supporting phase III trial evidence from a regulatory perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 47 ESMO experts reviewed 17 cancer medicines commonly used off-label in six disease groups. Overall, high levels of agreement were recorded on the off-label status and the high quality of data supporting the efficacy in the off-label indications, often achieving high ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores. When prescribing these medicines, 51% of the reviewers had to implement a time-consuming process associated with additional workload, in the presence of litigation risks and patient anxiety. Finally, the informal regulatory expert review identified only 2 out of 18 (11%) studies with significant limitations that would be difficult to overcome in the context of a potential marketing authorisation application without additional studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We highlight the common use of off-patent essential cancer medicines in indications that remain off-label despite solid supporting data as well as generate evidence on the adverse impact on patient access and clinic workflows. In the current regulatory framework, incentives to promote the extension of indications of off-patent cancer medicines are needed for all stakeholders.

Influence of data disclosures on physician decisions about off-label uses: findings from a qualitative study

Background

Prescribing approved products for unapproved uses (off-label use) is not uncommon among physicians in certain medical specialties. Available evidence about an off-label use – both supportive and unsupportive – can influence prescribers’ decisions about a drug’s appropriateness for a particular case. The objectives of this study were: (1) to examine physician perceptions about off-label uses generally, including their awareness of unsupportive data; and (2) to explore the influence of disclosure information about unsupportive data on off-label prescribing decisions.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2019 and January 2020 with oncologists (n = 35) and primary care physicians (n = 35). Interviews explored general prescribing practices, understanding of and information sources for learning about off-label use of prescription drugs, awareness of unsupportive data related to off-label uses, and preferences and reactions to disclosure statements about the existence of unsupportive data related to an off-label use.

Results

Most participants reported prescribing drugs for off-label uses (with half reporting regular off-label prescribing). However, among those who prescribe off-label, approximately two-thirds had never seen unsupportive data about off-label uses. Physicians preferred a disclosure statement that provided a summary of the unsupportive data about the off-label use; this statement also led most physicians to say they were unlikely or less likely to prescribe the drug for that use.

Conclusions

This study suggests that physicians’ decision-making about prescribing for off-label uses of approved drugs may be influenced by awareness of unsupportive data. Our interviews also suggest that providing more information about unsupportive study findings may result in a reduction in reported prescribing likelihood.

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.

How to read a next-generation sequencing report—what oncologists need to know

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumor cell-derived DNA/RNA to screen for targetable genomic alterations is now widely available and has become part of routine practice in oncology. NGS testing strategies depend on cancer type, disease stage and the impact of results on treatment selection. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has recently published recommendations for the use of NGS in patients with advanced cancer. We complement the ESMO recommendations with a practical review of how oncologists should read and interpret NGS reports. A concise and straightforward NGS report contains details of the tumor sample, the technology used and highlights not only the most important and potentially actionable results, but also other pathogenic alterations detected. Variants of unknown significance should also be listed. Interpretation of NGS reports should be a joint effort between molecular pathologists, tumor biologists and clinicians. Rather than relying and acting on the information provided by the NGS report, oncologists need to obtain a basic level of understanding to read and interpret NGS results. Comprehensive annotated databases are available for clinicians to review the information detailed in the NGS report. Molecular tumor boards do not only stimulate debate and exchange, but may also help to interpret challenging reports and to ensure continuing medical education.

•

NGS is routinely carried out in the diagnostic work-up of several cancer types.

•

In many other malignancies NGS is carried out after exhaustion of standard therapy options.

•

Minimal requirements for the NGS report are detailed in this review.

•

Interpretation of NGS reports can be challenging and require interdisciplinary discussion.

Use of algorithms for identifying patients in a German claims database: learnings from a lung cancer case

BACKGROUND

The analysis of statutory health insurance (SHI) data is a little-used approach for understanding treatment and care as well as resource use of lung cancer (LC) patients in Germany. The aims of this observational, retrospective, longitudinal analysis of structured data were to analyze the healthcare situation of LC patients in Germany based on routine data from SHI funds, to develop an algorithm that sheds light on LC types (non-small cell / NSCLC vs. small cell / SCLC), and to gain new knowledge to improve needs-based care.

METHODS

Anonymized billing data of approximately four million people with SHI were analyzed regarding ICD-10 (German modification), documented medical interventions based on the outpatient SHI Uniform Assessment Standard Tariff (EBM) or the inpatient Operations and Procedure Code (OPS), and the dispensing of prescription drugs to outpatients (ATC classification). The study included patients who were members of 64 SHI funds between Jan-1st, 2015 and Dec-31st, 2016 and who received the initial diagnosis of LC in 2015 and 2016.

RESULTS

The analysis shows that neither the cancer type nor the cancer stage can be unambiguously described by the ICD-10 coding. Furthermore, an assignment based on the prescribed medication provides only limited information: many of the drugs are either approved for both LC types or are used off-label, making it difficult to assign them to a specific LC type. Overall, 25% of the LC patients were unambiguously identifiable as NSCLC vs SCLC based on the ICD-10 code, the drug therapy, and the billing data.

CONCLUSIONS

The current coding system appears to be of limited suitability for drawing conclusions about LC and therefore the SHI patient population. This makes it difficult to analyze the healthcare data with the aim of gathering new knowledge to improve needs-based care. The approach chosen for this study did not allow for development of a LC differentiation algorithm based on the available healthcare data. However, a better overview of patient specific needs could make it possible to modify the range of services provided by the SHI funds. From this perspective, it makes sense, in a first step, to refine the ICD-10 system to facilitate NSCLC vs. SCLC classification.

Characteristics and survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use-a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics and the survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use (OLU) cancer treatment and reimbursement request.

DESIGN

Cohort study using medical record data.

SETTING

Three major cancer centres in Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

519 patients with cancer and a reimbursement request for OLU between January 2015 and July 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Characteristics of patients with cancer with and without access to intended OLU. Characteristics included the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) which includes C reactive protein and albumin and discriminates prognostic groups.

RESULTS

OLU was intended for 519 (17%) of 3046 patients with cancer, as first-line treatment in 51% (n=264) and second-line in 31% (n=162). Of the 519 patients, 63% (n=328) were male, 63% (n=329) had solid cancer and 21% (n=111) had a haematological malignancy. Their median overall survival was 23.6 months (95% CI: 19.0 to 32.5). Access to OLU had 389 (75%) patients who were compared with patients without access on average 4.9 years younger (mean; 95% CI: 1.9 to 7.9 years), had a better overall prognosis according to the GPS (51% with GPS of 0 vs 39%; OR: 1.62 (95% CI: 1.01 to 2.59)), had less frequently solid cancer (62% vs 71%; OR: 0.66 (95% CI: 0.41 to 1.05)) and advanced stage cancer (53% vs 70%; OR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.75)), were more frequently treatment-naive (53% vs 43%; OR: 1.55 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.39)) and were more frequently in an adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment setting (14% vs 5%; OR: 3.39 (95% CI: 1.45 to 9.93)). Patients with access to OLU had a median OS of 31.1 months versus 8.7 months for patients without access (unadjusted HR: 0.54; (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.70)).

CONCLUSION

Contrary to the common assumption, OLU in oncology is typically not primarily intended for patients with exhausted treatment options. Patient characteristics largely differ between patients with and without access to intended OLU. More systematic evaluations of the benefits and harms of OLU in cancer care and the regulation of its access is warranted.

Use of Off-Label Drugs and Nutrition Supplements among Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in Norway

Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire study was performed, where 41 ALS patients reported their use of off-label treatments, as well as self-perceived HRQOL using the RAND-12 questionnaire.

Results

A majority of respondents used riluzole. Of the 41 respondents, 18 (43.9%) reported use of off-label medications and 18 (43.9%) used nutritional supplements. Low-dose naltrexone was the most commonly used off-label medication, whereas vitamins accounted for most of the nutritional supplements. The respondents' RAND-12 component scores were significantly lower than those of the general population. Low-dose naltrexone and vitamin B were associated with a better physical component score.

Conclusions

Most of the respondents in our study adhere to the recommended treatment protocols, as less than half of them reported using off-label medications or nutritional supplements against ALS. Positive correlations between physical HRQOL and use of low-dose naltrexone or vitamin B were demonstrated. These results warrant further investigations.

The Duogynon controversy and ignorance production in post-thalidomide West Germany

This article examines the West German controversy over Duogynon, a 'hormone pregnancy test' and the drug at the centre of the first major, international debate over iatrogenic birth defects in the post-thalidomide era. It recovers an asymmetrical power struggle over the uneven distribution of biomedical knowledge and ignorance (about teratogenic risk) that pitted parent-activists, whistleblowers and investigative journalists against industrialists, scientific experts and government officials. It sheds new light on the nexus of reproduction, disability, epidemiology and health activism in West Germany. In addition, it begins to recover an internationally influential discourse that, in the post-thalidomide world, seems to have resuscitated antenatal drug use as safe until proven harmful.

Real-World Analysis of Off-Label Use of Molecularly Targeted Therapy in a Large Academic Medical Center Cohort

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this study is to quantify the use of off-label molecularly targeted therapy and describe the clinical situations in which off-label targeted therapy are used. A key secondary objective is to report the outcomes of patients treated with off-label use of targeted therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We searched the electronic health record between 2000 and 2020 at our center to characterize the volume, clinical settings, and outcomes associated with off-label use of targeted therapies in different types of solid tumors.

RESULTS

Among 46,712 patients who received targeted therapies, we identified 119 instances of off-label use of targeted therapy. Colon cancer was the most common cancer type to receive off-label targeted therapy in 18 patients (15.1%), followed by 13 with non-small-cell lung cancer (10.9%), eight with cholangiocarcinoma (6.7%), and seven with glioblastoma (5.9%). The most frequent molecular rationale for off-label therapy came from a comprehensive next-generation sequencing test (53.7%). The most frequently mutated gene that provided the rationale for targeted therapy was BRAF (20.1%), with BRAFV600E being the most common molecular alteration overall (15.1%). The median duration of off-label targeted therapy was 3.58 months, and the overall survival of treated patients was 7.59 months. There were 37 patients (31.1%) treated for longer than 6 months, 23 patients (19.3%) who survived ≥ 2 years, and 13 patients who were still on therapy as of June 2020.

CONCLUSION

In this large cohort study of patients with solid tumors, off-label use of targeted therapy was uncommon. With that said, a notable proportion of patients had treatment durations ≥ 6 months and survivals of ≥ 2 years.

Switzerland's Narcotics Regulation Jungle: Off-Label Use, Counterfoil Prescriptions, and Opioid Agonist Therapy in the French-Speaking Cantons

The word "narcotic" is often first associated with "illicit drugs". Yet, many "narcotic" and psychotropic substances are, in fact, medicines. Controlled medicines (CM) are products that meet the legal definition of both a "narcotic" under the Swiss Narcotics Act and of a medicine under the Therapeutic Products Act. We aim to examine how similar and how different, respectively, the implementation of CM regulations is throughout French-speaking Switzerland. Based on a legal analysis of the cantonal regulations, we conducted semi-structured interviews with cantonal pharmacists and cantonal physicians. We asked them how they perceive and implement the federal legal requirements. We find that some of these requirements have fallen into disuse, notably the federal duty to notify off-label use of CM. We observe that counterfoil prescriptions in their current paper format are a veritable data graveyard in the sense that they are not actively used to monitor or supervise the market. Moreover, we detect different conditions for opioid agonist treatment authorization. Some cantons require additional physicians' training or written commitments by the person treated. Our mapping of the CM regulation implementation can serve as a basis for cantons to review their practices.

High incidence of major bleeding with off-label use of edoxaban

In clinical practice, edoxaban is sometimes prescribed for off-label use based on the hypothesis that it is as safe and effective as warfarin. However, there is limited safety information on off-label use due to lack of clinical trial. We aimed to analyze the tolerability of off-label use of edoxaban and to identify patient characteristics associated with major bleeding as adverse effects. Patients under edoxaban treatment between January 2017 and December 2017 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. The incidence of major bleeding with off-label use compared with on-label use was analyzed using by log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis were undertaken to detect independent variables with significant odds ratio that associated with major bleeding. After the exclusion criteria were applied, the patients were divided into two groups: off-label group (n = 30) and on-label group (n = 161). Incidence of major bleeding was found to be higher in the off-label group (13.3%) than in the on-label group (3.7%) (p<0.05). Multivariate adjustment showed that the off-label use or portal vein thrombosis and patients with history of major bleeding has significantly higher incidence of major bleeding. We demonstrated that off-label use of edoxaban may be a significant risk factor for major bleeding.

The extent to which off-patent registered prescription medicines are used for off-label indications in Australia: A scoping review

AIM

The aim of this scoping review was to determine the extent of off-patent prescription medicine use beyond registered indications in various Australian clinical settings.

METHOD

The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute approach and reported using PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. Online databases were used to identify published literature about off-patent registered prescription medicines used for off-label indications in Australian public hospital, community and primary healthcare settings. In addition, empirical data from the Queensland and the South Australian state-wide medicine formularies were screened for the same medication/off-label indication dyads identified in the literature, and other locally approved uses.

RESULTS

Overall, fourteen studies were included, conducted in public hospitals (n = 11), palliative care units (n = 2) and the community setting (n = 1). There were 213 reports extracted from the literature describing off-patent registered prescription medicines used for off-label indications, representing 128 unique medication/off-label indication dyads and 32 different medicines. Of these, just five medication/off-label indication dyads were approved for use on both the Queensland and South Australian state-wide medicine formularies, with 12 others only approved for use in Queensland and 16 others only approved for use in South Australia. Further examination of these state-wide formularies demonstrated that the use of off-patent registered prescription medicines beyond registered indications is more extensive than has been reported to date in the literature. There were 28 additional medication/off-label indication dyads approved on the Queensland state-wide medicine formulary and 14 such examples approved for use in South Australia. Of these, just two medication/off-label indication dyads were approved for use on both formularies.

CONCLUSION

The extent to which off-patent registered prescription medicines have been repurposed in clinical settings for off-label indications in Australia is greater than previously reported in the literature. Usage and funded availability of certain medication/off-label indication dyads, varies across Australia. These results further expose the two tiered system of medicines regulation in Australia, and its impact on equity of access to medicines. Further research is required to support policy change to encourage submission of registration updates for off-patent prescription medicines.

Factors Associated With Off-Label Oncology Prescriptions: The Role of Cost and Financing in a Universal Healthcare System

Purpose: Various solutions have been put forward for prescribing and reimbursing treatments outside their registered indications within universal healthcare systems. However, most off-label oncology prescriptions are not reimbursed by health funds. This study characterized the financing sources of off-label oncology use and the predictors of the decision to forego treatment.

Materials and Methods: All 708 off-label oncology requests submitted for approval in a large tertiary cancer center in Israel between 2016 and 2018 were examined for disease and patient sociodemographic characteristics, costs and financing sources, and the factors predicting actual off-label drug administration using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results: The mean monthly cost of a planned off-label treatment was ILS54,703 (SD = ILS61,487, median = ILS39,928) (approximately US$ 15,500). The main sources of funding were private health insurance (25%) and expanded access pharma company plans (30%). Approximately one third (31%) of the requests did not have a financing source at the time of approval. Of the 708 requests, 583 (or 82%) were filled and treatment was initiated. Predictors for forgoing treatment were the impossibility of out-of-pocket payments or the lack of a financing solution (OR = 0.407; p = 0.005 and OR = 0.400; p < 0.0005).

Conclusion: Although off-label recommendations are widespread and institutional approval is often granted, a large proportion of these prescriptions are not filled. In a universal healthcare system, the financing sources for off-label treatments are likely to influence access.

Off-label use of inhaled bronchodilators in hospitalised patients in Spain: a multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Off-label prescription of inhaled bronchodilators (IB) is frequent, despite the fact that they can be ineffective and increase avoidable healthcare costs.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the frequency of off-label prescription of IB in hospitalised patients. Indications and level of evidence, involved drugs, medical specialties prescribing off-label IB and patients' adherence to IBs were also evaluated.

METHOD

A descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study was performed in four tertiary hospitals in Spain. The main outcome measure was the number of patients prescribed off-label IBs. Prescriptions were checked against the European Medicines Agency-approved indications. The level of evidence supporting off-label prescription of IBs (according to MICROMEDEX 2.0) was also analysed. Patients were interviewed to test differences (off-label vs on-label) in adherence and knowledge about their inhaled therapy.

RESULTS

217 patients were prescribed IBs, 92 of whom were givend off-label IBs (54.7% men, mean age 73.9±12.9 years). The most common off-label prescriptions for IBs were: unspecified dyspnoea (not related to COPD or asthma) (27.2%), respiratory infections (23.9%) and heart failure (22.8%). 76.8% of patients did not have evidence supporting them. Beta2-agonist+corticosteroids and anticholinergics were most commonly prescribed off-label. Internal Medicine was the main medical specialty involved. There were no differences between off-label and on-label users in terms of patients' knowledge about treatment and adherence.

CONCLUSION

Off-label indications for IBs are common in hospitalised patients and are generally indicated without scientific support. Dyspnoea not related to COPD or asthma, respiratory infections and heart failure were the main off-label indications, most frequently treated with anticholinergics and beta2-agonists+corticosteroids, for which their efficacy and safety has not been proved. Our results show that prescribing needs to be improved to follow the evidence that exists. Moreover, further research focused on off-label indications is needed to clarify whether they are effective, safe and cost-effective.

Off-Label Medication: From a Simple Concept to Complex Practical Aspects

Off-label use of drugs is widely known as unapproved use of approved drugs, and it can be perceived as a relatively simple concept. Even though it has been in existence for many years, prescribing and dispensing of drugs in an off-label regimen is still a current issue, triggered especially by unmet clinical needs. Several therapeutic areas require off-label approaches; therefore, this practice is challenging for prescribing physicians. Meanwhile, the regulatory agencies are making efforts in order to ensure a safe practice. The present paper defines the off-label concept, and it describes its regulation, together with several complex aspects associated with clinical practices regarding rare diseases, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry therapeutic areas, and the safety issues that arise. A systematic research of the literature was performed, using terms, such as "off-label", "prevalence", "rare diseases", "oncology", "psychiatry", "pediatrics", and "drug repurposing". There are several reasons for which off-label practice remains indispensable in the present; therefore, efforts are made worldwide, by the regulatory agencies and governmental bodies, to raise awareness and to ensure safe practice, while also encouraging further research.

Pazopanib and Oral Cyclophosphamide in Women With Platinum-Resistant or -Refractory Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE

Women with recurrent, multiply-treated epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have unfavorable prognosis with limited treatment options after failure of platinum-based regimens. We report here a retrospective analysis of women with recurrent, platinum-resistant EOC treated with an oral regimen of pazopanib and cyclophosphamide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women with recurrent platinum-resistant or -refractory EOC were treated with pazopanib (600 mg orally daily in 2 divided doses, 400 and 200 mg) and cyclophosphamide (50 mg orally daily for 21 days every 28 days) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (17 with platinum-resistant and 3 with platinum-refractory disease) were treated between April 2014 and April 2018. Patients had a median age of 52 years (range, 40-60 years) and median of 4 previous lines of chemotherapy (range, 2-8 previous lines), including 3 patients with progressive disease on bevacizumab. Patients received a median of 6 cycles (range, 2-48 cycles) of pazopanib and cyclophosphamide, with best responses of partial response in 9 patients (45%, including 1 of 3 patients treated previously with bevacizumab), stable disease in 6 patients (30%), and disease progression in 5 patients (25%). The median progression-free survival time was 5.5 months, and median overall survival was 9.5 months. Common adverse events (grade 3 or 4) were fatigue (25%), diarrhea (15%), hand-foot syndrome (10%), mucositis (10%), transaminitis (5%), and hypertension (5%). Dose reduction as a result of toxicity was required in 14 patients (70%), and no patient stopped treatment as a result of toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Pazopanib plus oral cyclophosphamide is a well-tolerated regimen with clinically relevant benefit in patients with platinum-resistant or -refractory EOC.

Adherence to and determinants of guideline-recommended biomarker testing and targeted therapy in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: Insights from routine practice

BACKGROUND

Anti human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (anti-HER2) therapy with trastuzumab improves overall survival in patients with advanced, HER2-positive gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) and is now incorporated into national guidelines. However, little is known about adherence to and determinants of timely HER2 testing and trastuzumab initiation in routine practice.

METHODS

The authors performed a cross-sectional study of patients who had advanced GEA diagnosed between January 2011 and June 2019 in a nationwide electronic health record-derived database. The annual prevalences of both timely HER2 testing (defined within 21 days after advanced diagnosis) and timely trastuzumab initiation (defined within 14 days after a positive HER2 result) were calculated. Log-binomial regressions estimated adjusted prevalence ratios comparing timely HER2 testing and trastuzumab initiation by patient and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, the cohort included 6032 patients with advanced GEA of whom 1007 were HER2-positive. Between 2011 and 2019, timely HER2 testing increased from 22.4% to 44.5%, whereas timely trastuzumab initiation remained stable at 16.3%. No appreciable differences in timely testing or trastuzumab initiation were noted by age, sex, race, or insurance status. Compared with patients who had metastatic disease at diagnosis, patients who had early stage GEA who did not undergo surgery were less likely to receive timely HER2 testing and trastuzumab initiation (testing prevalence ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.75; treatment prevalence ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56), as were patients with early stage disease who subsequently developed a distant recurrence (testing prevalence ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47-0.65; treatment prevalence ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.24-1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with advanced GEA, guideline-recommended HER2 testing and anti-HER2 therapy remain underused. Uptake may improve with universal HER2 testing regardless of stage.

Global research publications on systemic use of off-label and unlicensed drugs: A bibliometric analysis (1990-2020)

BACKGROUND

Governmental regulations of drug registration and licensing are not always followed by healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the global research growth and patterns on systemic use of off-label and unlicensed drugs to gain knowledge about the magnitude of the problem and the main research themes encountered in this field.

METHODS

SciVerse Scopus was searched for papers on off-label and unlicensed drug use from 1990 until December 31, 2020, without any language limitations. A bibliometric methodology was adopted to present the following indicators: top-cited documents, the most productive countries, top active journals, international research collaboration, the most frequent author keywords, and research themes.

RESULTS

The search query returned 1320 papers with an h-index of 66, published in 721 different journals. The Hospital Pharmacy journal ranked first (n = 43, 3.3%). In total, 5777 authors (median = 3) from 85 different countries contributed to the retrieved papers. The USA (n = 381, 28.9%) ranked first, followed distantly by Germany and Italy. The percentage of documents with international authors for active countries was from 8.8% for China to 42.3% for the Netherlands. The most frequent author keyword next to off-label was children/pediatrics. The keyword unlicensed was less frequently encountered than that for off-label. Major research themes in the retrieved papers focused on off-label drug use in hospitalized children/pediatrics, biological drugs such as rituximab and rFVIIa, psychiatric disorders, regulations, and questionnaire-based knowledge/attitude studies among community pharmacists and physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Research activity on off-label drug use has witnessed a general increase in the past two decades. The major research theme was off-label drug use in hospitalized children/pediatrics/neonates. The USA and certain European countries made a major contribution to this field.

Proportion of Patients in Phase I Oncology Trials Receiving Treatments That Are Ultimately Approved

BACKGROUND

Phase I oncology trials are often regarded as a therapeutic option for patients. However, such claims have relied on surrogate measures of benefit, such as objective response.

METHODS

Using a systematic search of publications, we assessed the therapeutic value of phase I cancer trial participation by determining the probability that patients will receive active doses of treatments that eventually receive FDA approval or a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommendation for their indication. ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, American Society of Clinical Oncology reports, NCCN guidelines, and Drugs@FDA were searched between May 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

A total of 1000 phase I oncology trials initiated between 2005 and 2010 and enrolling 32 582 patients were randomly sampled from 3229 eligible trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 386 (1.2%) patients received a treatment that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for their malignancy at a dose delivered in the trial; including NCCN guideline recommendations, the number and proportion are 1168 (3.6%). Meta-regression showed a statistically significantly greater proportion of patients receiving a drug that was ultimately FDA approved in biomarker trials (rate ratio = 4.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.53 to 13.23; P = .006) and single-indication trials (rate ratio = 3.32, 95% CI = 1.21 to 9.15; P  = .02); proportions were statistically significantly lower for combination vs monotherapy trials (rate ratio = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.68; P  = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

One in 83 patients in phase I cancer trials received a treatment that was approved for their indication at the doses received. Given published estimates of serious adverse event rates of 10%-19%, this represents low therapeutic value for phase I trial participation.

Off-Label Use of COVID-19 Vaccines from Ethical Issues to Medico-Legal Aspects: An Italian Perspective

During the COVID-19 outbreak, the lack of official recommendations on the treatment has led healthcare workers to use multiple drugs not specifically tested and approved for the new insidious disease. After the availability of the first COVID-19 vaccines (Comirnaty Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID19 vaccine), an authorization was issued by national and international Drug Regulatory Agencies in order to speed up their introduction on the market and their administration on a large scale. Despite the authorization, the off-label use of these vaccines may still be possible especially to answer specific concerns as the lack of vaccine doses, the delay in the delivery of planned doses or the pressure from public opinion and political influence also in relation to the evolution of the pandemic. This paper aims to assess the possible off-label use of COVID-19 vaccines and the ethical and medico-legal implications of this eventuality. The scope of this paper is to point out the possible consequences of off-label use of COVID-19 vaccines and possible mitigation and preventive measures to be taken by healthcare workers involved in vaccination procedures.