Off-label utilization of antipsychotics

Résumé Ce travail s'inscrit dans un programme de recherche centré sur la pharmacovigilance en psychiatrie. Buts de l'étude Les nouveaux antipsychotiques atypiques sont prescrits avec beaucoup de succès, parce qu'ils présentent une sécurité dans leur emploi bien supérieure à celle des antipsychotiques classiques. Cette situation a conduit à une large prescription «off-label» (hors indication admise). Le but de ce travail a été d'étudier la pratique en matière de prescription des psychiatres hospitaliers en ce qui concerne les antipsychotiques en comparant des patients traités pour des psychoses ou d'autres indications officielles aux patients recevant un traitement antipsychotique «off-label». Méthode Dans le cadre d'un programme de pharmacovigilance - pharmacoépidemiologie, tous les médicaments prescrits à 5 jours de référence (entre 1999 et 2001) à l'hôpital psychiatrique universitaire de Lausanne (98 lits) ont été enregistrés, avec des données sur l'âge, le sexe et le diagnostic des patients. Les prescriptions de 202 patients ont été évaluées. Les patients ont été classés dans 3 groupes diagnostiques : (1) patient présentant des troubles psychotiques, (2) patient présentant des épisodes maniaques et des épisodes dépressifs avec des symptômes psychotiques, et (3) patient présentant d'autres troubles. Les groupes (1) et (2) forment une classe de patients recevant un antipsychotique pour une indication officielle, et les prescriptions dans le groupe (3) ont été considérées comme «off-label». Résultats principaux Moins de patients psychotiques ont reçu un antidépresseur (p<0.05) ou des hypnotiques non-benzodiazepine (p<0.001) comparés aux patients des deux autres groupes. Les patients présentant des troubles affectifs recevaient seulement exceptionnellement une combinaison d'un antipsychotique atypique et conventionnel, tandis qu'un nombre inférieur de patients avec des indications « off-label » ont reçu moins .souvent des antipsychotiques atypiques que ceux des deux groupes de comparaison (p<0.05). L'analyse statistique (stepwise logistic regression) a révélé que les patients présentant des troubles psychotiques avaient un risque plus élevé de recevoir un médicament antipsychotique d'une dose moyenne ou élevée, (p<0.001) en comparaison aux deux autres groupes. Conclusion Les nouveaux médicaments antipsychotiques semblent être prescrits avec moins d'hésitation principalement pour des indications admises. Les médecins prescrivent de nouveaux médicaments « off-label » seulement après avoir acquis une certaine expérience dans le domaine des indications approuvées, et ils étaient plus prudents en ce qui concerne la dose en traitant sur la base «off-label». Abstract Objective The new brands of atypical antipsychotics are very successfully prescribed because of their enhanced safety profiles and their larger pharmacological profile in comparison to the conventional antipsychotic. This has led to broad off-label utilisation. The aim of the present survey was to study the prescription practice of hospital psychiatrists with regard to antipsychotic drugs, comparing patients treated for psychoses or other registered indications to patients receiving an off-label antipsychotic treatment. Method As part of a pharmacovigilance/pharmacoepidemiology program, all drugs given on 5 reference days (1999 - 2001) in the 98-bed psychiatric hospital of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, were recorded along with age, sex and diagnosis. The prescriptions of 202 patients were assessed. Patients were classified in 3 diagnostic groups: (1) patient with psychotic disorders, (2) patients with manic episodes and depressive episodes with psychotic symptoms, and (3) patients with other disorders. Group (1) and (2) formed the class of patients receiving an antipsychotic for a registered indication, and the prescriptions in group (3) were considered as off-label. Main results A lesser number of psychotic patients received antidepressant (p<0.05) and nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics (p<0.001) compared to the patients of the other two groups. The patients with affective disorders received only exceptionally a combination of an atypical and a conventional antipsychotic, whereas a lesser number of patients with off-label indications received less often atypical antipsychotics than those of the two comparison groups (p<0.05). Stepwise logistic regression revealed that patients with psychotic disorder were at higher risk of receiving an antipsychotic medication in medium or high dose (p<0.001), in comparison to the two other groups. Conclusions The new antipsychotic drugs seem to be prescribed with less hesitation mainly for approved indications. Physicians prescribe new drugs on off-label application only after having gained some experience in the field of the approved indications, and were more cautious with regard to dose when treating on an off-label basis.

Off-label uses of anti-TNF therapy in three frequent disorders: Behçet's disease, sarcoidosis, and noninfectious uveitis.

Tumoral necrosis factor α plays a central role in both the inflammatory response and that of the immune system. Thus, its blockade with the so-called anti-TNF agents (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab) has turned into the most important tool in the management of a variety of disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthropatties, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis. Nonetheless, theoretically, some other autoimmune disorders may benefit from these agents. Our aim is to review these off-label uses of anti-TNF blockers in three common conditions: Behçet's disease, sarcoidosis, and noninfectious uveitis. Due to the insufficient number of adequate clinical trials and consequently to their lower prevalence compared to other immune disorders, this review is mainly based on case reports and case series.

Estudio de las prescripciones farmacológicas en niños a nivel de atención primaria: evaluación de los usos off-label o fuera de ficha técnica.

OBJECTIVE to evaluate the prescription profile and to assess the off-label and unlicensed uses of medicines among non-hospitalised pediatric patients. DESIGN cross-sectional study. SETTING pediatric units in two urban health centers and general emergency room (Hospital Materno-Infantil, Málaga). MAIN MEASUREMENTS sociodemographics variables, reasons for consultation and information about therapeutic medications. The classification of prescriptions was established according to information requirements contained in the Summary of Products Characteristics (SPC). RESULTS A total of 388 children were included (a subsample of 105 treated in the emergency room). Four hundred sixty-two prescriptions (involving 74 different active ingredients) were evaluated. Each infant received and average of 1,7 drugs (95% CI: 1,6-1,9). The most prescribed medicines were ibuprofen, paracetamol, amoxicillin-clavulanate and budesonide. The therapeutic group with the greatest variety of drugs was the respiratory group. 27,4% (95% CI: 23,5-31) of prescriptions were off-label and the main cause was different age (60%; 95% CI: 54,1-63), followed by different dose (21,5%; 95% CI: 18-25), different indication (12%; 95% CI: 9,2-15) and different route of administration (7%; 95% CI: 5,4-10). CONCLUSIONS The rate of off-label uses presents intermediate figures. Around one third of the paediatric outpatients in our sample are exposed to at least one off-label or unlicensed prescription. We should, however, point out that such usage is based on scant official, quality information, although it is not necessarily incorrect. Evidence-based medicine should be encouraged to improve drug therapy in children, as well as following the rules on drugs in special situations.

Off-label utilization of antidepressants

Rapport de synthèse : De nombreuses études sont effectuées sur les antidépresseurs avant leur mise sur le marché, puis des règles précises sont établies pour leur prescription dans des indications délimitées. Leur utilisation dans des indications «off-label » (hors indication officiellement admise) manque souvent de validation par des bases de données scientifiques et leur prescription se base le plus souvent sur un consensus proposé par des experts. Le but du présent travail a été d'étudier les habitudes de prescription de psychiatres d'hôpitaux en ce qui concerne les antidépresseurs, en comparant des patients traités pour une dépression et des troubles anxieux avec des patients recevant un traitement «off-label ». Pour cette étude, les données d'utilisation de médicaments sont celles recueillies lors de 6 jours de référence, entre avril 1999 et novembre 2001, à l'hôpital psychiatrique de Lausanne (Suisse) comprenant 98 lits. La prescription de médicaments chez 174 patients a été prise en compte. Tandis que le diagnostic n'influençait pas le choix entre des nouveaux et anciens antidépresseurs, les patients présentant un trouble anxieux avaient un risque 4.5 fois (p < 0.05) plus élevé et les patients présentant un autre diagnostic 8 fois plus élevé de recevoir une comédication antipsychotique, en comparaison avec des patients dont le diagnostic primaire était un trouble dépressif. De plus, les patients recevant comme comédication un hypnotique non-benzodiazépine avaient moins de risque que l'on prescrive un ancien antidépresseur (p < 0.05). Alors que les patients avec un trouble anxieux et ceux souffrant d'une dépression majeure recevaient un antidépresseur à des doses comparables, les patients répondant à une indication off-label étaient de préférence traités avec des doses plus faibles. Les résultats de cette étude suggèrent que les psychiatres d'hôpitaux développent des préférences en ce qui concerne le choix de la classe d'antidépresseurs, et qu'ils les utilisent alors aussi bien dans des indications reconnues que non-reconnues. Puis ils semblent adapter la dose et la comédication en tenant compte du diagnostic, ce qui confirme l'hypothèse initiale de l'étude,

Unlicensed and off-label drug use in a Swiss paediatric university hospital.

BACKGROUND: Many medicines used in newborns, infants, children and adolescents are not licensed ("unlicensed") or are prescribed outside the terms of the marketing authorization ("off-label"). Several studies have shown that this is a common practice in various healthcare settings in the USA, Europe and Australia, but data are scarce in Switzerland. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our prospective study was to determine the proportion of unlicensed or off-label prescriptions in paediatric patients. METHODS: This pilot study was conducted prospectively over a six month period in the department of paediatrics of a university hospital. RESULTS: Sixty patients aged from three days to 14 years were included in the study. A total of 483 prescriptions were written for the patients. More than half of all prescriptions (247; 51%) followed the terms of the marketing authorization. 114 (24%) were unlicensed and 122 (25%) off-label. All patients received at least one unlicensed or offlabel medicine. CONCLUSION: The use of unlicensed or off-label medicines to treat children was found to be common. Co-operation between the pharmaceutical industry, national regulatory authorities, clinical researchers, healthcare professionals and parents is required in order to ensure that children do not remain "therapeutic orphans".

Available evidence and outcome of off-label use of rituximab in clinical practice

Purpose: To analyze the therapeutic indications for off-label use of rituximab, the available evidence for its use, the outcomes, and the cost. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of patients treated with rituximab for off-label indications from January 2007 to December 2009 in two tertiary hospitals. Information on patient characteristics, medical conditions, and therapeutic responses was collected from medical records. Available evidence for the efficacy of rituximab in each condition was reviewed, and the cost of treatment was calculated. Results: A total of 101 cases of off-label rituximab use were analyzed. The median age of the patients involved was 53 [interquartile range (IQR) 37.568.0] years; 55.4 % were women. The indications for prescribing rituximab were primarily hematological diseases (46 %), systemic connective tissue disorders (27 %), and kidney diseases (20 %). Available evidence supporting rituximab treatment for these indications mainly came from individual cohort studies (53.5 % of cases) and case series (25.7 %). The short-term outcome (median 3 months, IQR 24 months) was a complete response in 38 % of cases and partial response in 32.6 %. The highest short-term responses were observed for systemic lupus erythematosus and membranous glomerulonephritis, and the lowest was for neuromyelitis optica, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, and miscellaneous indications. Some response was maintained in long-term follow-up (median 23 months IQR 1230months) in 69.2%of patients showing a short-term response. Median cost per patient was 5,187.5 (IQR 5,187.57,781.3). Conclusions: In our study, off-label rituximab was mainly used for the treatment of hematological, kidney, and systemic connective tissue disorders, and the response among our patient cohort was variable depending on the specific disease. The level of evidence supporting the use of rituximab for these indications was low and the cost was very high. We conclude that more clinical trials on the off-label use of rituximab are needed, although these may be difficult to conduct in some rare diseases. Data from observational studies may provide useful information to assist prescribing in clinical practice.