Healthcare professional experiences and attitudes on unlicensed/off-label paediatric prescribing and paediatric clinical trials.

Objectives: To investigate the knowledge and views of a range of healthcare professionals (consultant paediatricians, general practitioners (GPs), community pharmacists and paediatric nurses) regarding the use of unlicensed/off-label medicines in children and the participation of children in clinical trials.

Methods: A regional study in which a survey instrument with 39 items was issued to 500 randomly selected GPs, all community pharmacists (n?=?512), 50 hospital consultants and 150 paediatric nurses in Northern Ireland.

Results: Approximately half (46.5%) of the 1,212 healthcare professionals approached responded to the questionnaire. The majority of respondents indicated their familiarity with the term unlicensed (82.9%) or off-label (58.6%) prescribing with the most frequently quoted reason for such prescribing being younger age (33.6%). Apart from community pharmacists, most respondents reported having gained their knowledge through personal experience. Even though a large percentage of respondents expressed concerns about the safety (77.8%) or efficacy (87.9%) of unlicensed/off-label prescribing in children, only 30.7% reported informing parents/guardians of these concerns on the use of such medicines in children. In addition, only 56% of respondents believed that unlicensed/off-label medicines should undergo clinical trials in children. Overall, 28.4% of respondents (20.1% of GPs, 41.4% of community pharmacists, 27.7% of paediatric nurses and 94% of consultant paediatricians) indicated their willingness to be actively involved in, and recruit their patients for paediatric clinical research.

Conclusion: The use of unlicensed and off-label medicines remains a major issue in paediatric medicine. Until such times as more licensed medicines are available for children, clear guidance should be developed to allow consistency in practice across the spectrum of healthcare professionals who are involved with such medicines in their routine practice.

Extent and nature of unlicensed and off-label medicine use in hospitalised children in Palestine

Objective of the study: To determine the extent and nature of unlicensed/off-label prescribing patterns in hospitalised children in Palestine. Setting: Four paediatric wards in two public health system hospitals in Palestine [Caritas children’s hospital (Medical and neonatal intensive care units) and Rafidia general hospital (Medical and surgical units)]. Method: A prospective survey of drugs administered to infants and children <18 years old was carried out over a five-week period in the four paediatric wards. Main outcome measure: Drug-licensing status of all prescriptions was determined according to the Palestinian Registered Product List and the Physician’s Desk Reference. Results: Overall, 917 drug prescriptions were administered to 387 children. Of all drug prescriptions, 528 (57.5%) were licensed for use in children; 65 (7.1%) were unlicensed; and 324 (35.3%) were used off-label. Of all children, 49.6% received off-label prescriptions, 10.1% received unlicensed medications and 8.2% received both. Seventy-two percent of off-label drugs and 66% of unlicensed drugs were prescribed for children <2 years. Multivariate analysis showed that patients who were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit and infants aged 0–1 years were most likely to receive a greater number of off-label or unlicensed medications (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.03–3.59 and OR 1.99; 95% CI 0.88–3.73, respectively). Conclusion: The present findings confirmed the elevated prevalence of unlicensed and off-label paediatric drugs use in Palestine and strongly support the need to perform well designed clinical studies in children.

Children’s views on unlicensed/off-label paediatric prescribing and paediatric clinical trials.

Objectives: To explore the views and perspectives of children on the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children and on the participation of children in clinical trials. Methods: Focus-group discussions, involving school children, were carried out in a range of primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland. A purposeful sample was chosen to facilitate representation of various socioeconomic groupings. Results: A total of 123 pupils, aged from 10 to 16 years, from six schools, participated in 16 focus groups. In general, pupils viewed the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children as unsafe and unethical and felt it is necessary to test medicines in children to improve the availability of licensed products. The majority felt that older children should be told, and that parents should be told, about the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children, yet they recognised some implications of this, such as potential medication non-adherence. Conclusions: This is the first study to explore the views of healthy children on unlicensed medicine use in children. Children were able to recognise potential risks associated with the unlicensed use of medicines and felt it is necessary to test and license more medicines in children. Practice implications Health care professionals should consider the views of children in decisions that affect their health.

Perceptions and attitudes of Jordanian paediatricians towards off-label paediatric prescribing

Objective To assess current experiences and attitudes of hospital based paediatricians towards off-label medicine prescribing. Setting Paediatric hospital wards and out-patient clinics. Design A prospective, questionnaire based study. Results A 30 item questionnaire was sent to 300 hospital based paediatricians and 250 (83%) were returned completed. Over 69% of responders were familiar with the term off-label medicines. However, only 28% were knowingly prescribing off-label medicines to children. The majority of respondents (90%) expressed concerns about the safety and efficacy of off-label medicines. Only 15% had observed Adverse Drug Reactions, and 31% a treatment failure. The vast majority of respondents (83%) did not obtain informed consent or tell parents they were prescribing off label medicines to their children. Conclusions Off-label prescribing of medicines to children is a familiar concept to the majority of paediatricians in Jordan although only a smaller number are aware that it is common in their practice. Respondents showed concern about off label prescribing, although the majority do not consider it necessary to inform parents. More comprehensive research is needed in this area in Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries.

Human growth hormone and the temptations of biomedical enhancement

It is likely that humans have sought enhancements for themselves or their children for as long as they have recognised that improvements in individuals are a possibility. One genre of self-improvement in modern society can be called 'biomedical enhancements'. These include drugs, surgery and other medical interventions aimed at improving the mind, body or performance. This paper uses the case of human growth hormone (hGH) to examine the social nature of enhancements. Synthetic hGH was developed in 1985 by the pharmaceutical industry and was approved by the FDA for very specific uses, particularly treatment of growth hormone deficiency. However, it has also been promoted for a number of 'off label' uses, most of which can be deemed enhancements. Drugs approved for one treatment pave the way for use as enhancements for other problems. Claims have been made for hGH as a treatment for idiopathic shortness, as an anti-ageing agent and to improve athletic performance. Using the hGH case, we are able to distinguish three faces of biomedical enhancement: normalisation, repair and performance edge. Given deeply ingrained social and individual goals in American society, the temptations of biomedical enhancements provide inducement for individuals and groups to modify their situation. We examine the temptations of enhancement in terms of issues such as unnaturalness, fairness, risk and permanence, and shifting social meanings. In our conclusions, we outline the potentials and pitfalls of biomedical enhancement.

Psychotropic prescribing patterns among adolescents in Northern Ireland presenting with psychotic symptoms during a 5-year period

Objective: To report new prescriptions of psychotropic medications among adolescents presenting with new onset psychotic symptoms during a 5-year period.
Methods: The Northern Ireland Early Onset Psychosis Study is a naturalistic longitudinal observational study of patients with an early onset first psychotic episode. All patients aged <18 years presenting to specialist mental health services across Northern Ireland with new onset psychotic symptoms between 2001 and 2006 were recruited (n = 113). Clinical case notes were analysed retrospectively for details of subsequent treatment with psychotropic medications.
Results: A total of 100 patients (88.5%) were prescribed some form of psychotropic medication. Over three-quarters of patients received an antipsychotic as their first medication. Risperidone (45.8%), olanzapine (24.0%) and chlorpromazine (12.5%) were the most commonly prescribed first-line antipsychotic medications. Of a total of 160 antipsychotic prescriptions,81 (50.6%) were off-label. Prescriptions were most likely to have been deemed off-label owing to medications not being licensed in under-18s (71.6% of off-label prescriptions) but other reasons were medications being used outsidelicensed age ranges (23.5%) and outside licensed indications (4.9%).
Conclusions: This is the first study examining psychotropic prescribing patterns in a complete sample of all children and adolescents presenting with early onset psychotic episodes in a single geographical area. The observation of risperidoneas the most commonly prescribed antipsychotic was in keeping with previous studies in child and adolescent populations. Rates of off-label prescribing were lower than previously observed although our study was the first to investigateoff-label prescribing solely in children and adolescents presenting with psychotic symptoms.

Corneal complications associated with topical ophthalmic use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.

PURPOSE:

To explore the potential association between adverse corneal events and the use of topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

SETTING:

Practice-based reports.

METHODS:

A detailed case-reporting form and request for medical records were sent to all practices reporting cases of corneal or conjunctival pathology in association with the use of topical NSAIDs to the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. Cases were classified as "mild," "moderate," or "severe" according to predetermined clinical criteria.

RESULTS:

Records of 140 eyes (129 patients) were reviewed; 51 cases (36.4%) were mild, 55 (39.3%) moderate, and 34 (24.3%) severe. An association with a specific topical NSAID was confirmed in 117 cases (81.8%). Most confirmed cases (53.8%) involved generic diclofenac (Falcon). Cases associated with brand diclofenac (Voltaren, CIBA Vision) and ketorolac (Acular, Allergan) were more likely to have ocular comorbidity and to have received significantly higher total doses of NSAIDs. Neither "off-label" use nor use of any specific agent was associated with severe compared to mild or moderate disease. However, patients with more severe adverse events were more likely to have a history of diabetes, previous surgery in the affected eye, and surgery other than cataract. Cases not occurring in the perioperative period had significantly worse outcomes, had significantly more ocular comorbidities, and received nearly 3 times the dose of NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS:

While topical NSAIDs as a class may be associated with severe adverse events, such events appeared to require potentiation in the form of high total doses, ocular comorbidities, or both with Acular and Voltaren. Severe adverse events might have been more likely to occur at lower doses and in routine postoperative settings with generic diclofenac.