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

BACKGROUND

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

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

How often are antidepressants prescribed off-label among older adults in Germany? A claims data analysis

AIM

To estimate the extent of off-label prescribing of antidepressants in older adults and to characterize patients with off-label vs on-label prescriptions of antidepressants using a large German health claims database.

METHODS

Using data from the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (GePaRD), we conducted a cross-sectional study in adults aged 65 years or older with a dispensation of an antidepressant between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015 after a period of 365 days without such a dispensation. We assessed the overall and annual proportion of off-label prescriptions of antidepressants by class and individual substance.

RESULTS

Among 263 276 incident users of antidepressants, the proportion of off-label prescribing was 43.6% (95% CI 43.4-43.8%) with little variation between 2009 and 2015 (42.2-44.4%). The proportion of off-label use was higher in men (49%) than women (41%). While the proportion of off-label prescriptions was highest for tri- and tetracyclic antidepressants with 56.2% (amitriptyline 54.6%, maximum 65.9% for trimipramine), it amounted to 41.8% for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (citalopram 41.6%, maximum 46.0% for escitalopram) and was 51.2% for mirtazapine. Indicators of overall morbidity were similar in both groups, eg, pain was coded in 72% of off-label users vs 77% of on-label users (insomnia 20% vs 24%).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests a high prevalence of off-label antidepressant use among older adults in Germany, which was not restricted to certain classes of antidepressants or individual antidepressants. Given the unclear risk-benefit ratio, studies investigating the safety of off-label use among older adults for individual antidepressants are urgently needed.

Monitoring of drug misuse or potential misuse in a nationwide healthcare insurance database: A cross-sectional study in France

AIM OF THE STUDY

To provide a tool for drug misuse or potential misuse monitoring by using a healthcare insurance database.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study repeated quarterly from 2007 to 2014 was conducted using data from a 1/97th random sample of the French national healthcare reimbursement system. For each drug studied, ad hoc indicators were designed to assess drug misuse, defined as prescriptions that did not comply with the label stipulated in the summary of product characteristics, in terms of the drug (e.g., interactions) or the patient (age, medical history). We focused on specifically identified situations of drug misuse involving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antiemetics in patients with Parkinson's disease and antipsychotics in pediatrics; we also focused on direct anticoagulants, asthma and oral antidiabetic drugs but results for these latter are only shown in supplementary materials.

RESULTS

At-risk prescribing of NSAIDs in patients treated by diuretics or renin-angiotensin system inhibitors always remained higher than 14% over the study (maximum: 19%; 2014 quarter 4: 15.4%). Off-label prescribing of contraindicated anti-dopaminergic antiemetics with dopaminergic antiparkinson drugs was marginal (maximum: 2.2%; 2014 quarter 4: 0.5%) but represented at least 5.5% of antiemetic prescriptions. Despite the rise in antipsychotic prescriptions in pediatrics, no dramatic increase in misuse related to age was observed during the study period (2007 quarter 1: 16.1%; 2014 quarter 4: 11.1%). The highest degree of misuse was observed for aripiprazole and for second-generation antipsychotics other than risperidone and aripiprazole.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a simple tool to monitor drug misuse or potential misuse using information from a health insurance database. The results highlight the need for the Regulator to rethink risk management information campaigns and to modify the official information on products.

Parenteral Anticoagulants Use in General Practice

Using parenteral anticoagulants in compliance with their summaries of product characteristics (SPCs) and consensus guidelines is associated with decreased rates of adverse drug reactions. The objectives were to assess compliance of parenteral anticoagulants use with SPCs and 4 consensus guidelines in outpatients of general practice. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 112 teaching general practitioners’ offices, from May to October 2011. Among the 332 adult outpatients consecutively included, 108 (32.5%) had a parenteral anticoagulant therapy complying with SPCs for both indication and regimen. The rate of compliance increased when considering consensus guidelines (159 patients, 47.9%). Rate of adverse events was 5.4%, including 0.6% of serious adverse events. This study showed that the use of parenteral anticoagulants complies with indications and regimens of SPCs in only 1 of the 3 outpatients. Further studies should be conducted in primary care to explore reasons for such low compliance rates.

Outcomes of off-label drug uses in hospitals: a multicentric prospective study

PURPOSE

The study aims to assess the clinical evidence, outcome and cost of off-label use of medicines in the hospital setting.

METHODS

A multicentric prospective cohort study of patients treated with off-label medicines was carried out in five tertiary hospitals from May 2011 to May 2012. Information on clinical characteristics of patients, drugs, outcomes and costs was collected. Patients were followed up to 6 months, and information was assessed by reviewing clinical records and interviewing physicians.

RESULTS

A total of 226 patients were included. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) age of patients was 46 (33-62) years; 59 % were women. Patients had received a median of three previous treatments, and a lack of response (or suboptimal) was the main reason for off-label use (72.1 %). A total of 232 off-label medicines were administered for 102 different indications. The most frequent medicines were rituximab (49; 21.1 %), botulinum toxin (25; 10.7 %) and omalizumab (14; 6.0 %). In 117 (51.8 %) cases, the level of clinical evidence for their use was low. A partial clinical response was observed in 82 patients (36.3 %), complete response in 71 (31.4 %) and stabilization in 11 (4.9 %). A total of 58 (26.5 %) patients had adverse effects, which in 11 (4.9 %) were severe. The median (IQR) cost per patient was 2,943.07 (541.9-5,872.54).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high variability of off-label medicines and indications. Although the clinical evidence of off-label medicines was often low, clinical response was observed in many patients with previous multiple treatment failure, but at the expense of some adverse effects and a high cost. Registers of patients would be helpful for clinical decisions, although clinical trials are needed.