Patterns and Predictors of Off-Label Drug Prescribing in Psychiatric Practice: A Qualitative Study

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.

Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Toward Off-Label Medicine Use in Female Reproductive Health Issues

Background

Off-label medication usage (OLMU) is prevalent in the treatment of various diseases, including female reproductive health issues (FRHIs). However, there is a paucity of literature on the perspective of health professionals on this subject. The purpose of the current study was to assess gynecologists/obstetricians' knowledge, attitude and practice toward OLMU in the treatment of FRHIs.

Methods

The current cross-sectional study was conducted in September and October 2021, at five tertiary care hospitals (two public and three private sector), different clinics and maternity homes in a metropolitan city of Karachi, Pakistan. The target population was gynecologists, obstetricians and physicians/residents working in the ob/gyn department in various hospitals and clinical settings of Karachi.

Results

The overall response rate was 77.1%. The mean age of the study respondents was 36.1 ± 7.7 years; n = 85 (55.9%) respondents were working in primary patient care. The majorly reported OLMU by the respondents were clomiphene citrate in unexplained infertility (n = 66; 43.4%), metformin to improve cycle regularity in females with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) (n = 59; 38.8%) and letrozole to induce ovulation (n = 31; 20.4%). The majorly stated categories of OLMU were at a different dose (n = 95; 62.5%) and at different indications than approved to treat (n = 89; 58.5%). It was reported by the majority of the respondents (n = 95; 62.5%) that they do not follow any guidelines or regulations for OLMU in their work setting; however, the response was statistically varied with the working organization (CI 2.14–2.93; p = 0.037) and practice area (CI 2.85–4.32; p = 0.0001) of respondents.

Conclusions

The present study revealed that the respondents were well-familiar with the practice of OLMU in the treatment of FRHIs. They expressed their concerns about decreasing such practices by being involved in collective decision-making procedures, and they were inclined to accept initiatives aimed at ensuring drug safety in patients.