Search

Abstract Background New prosthetic valves and surgical approaches that shorten operation time and improve the outcome of patients with aortic valve (AV) infective endocarditis (IE) and AV insufficiency (AVI) are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with AV IE or AVI treated with the EDWARDS INTUITY Rapid-Deployment AV prosthesis for this off-label indication. Methods This single-centre retrospective study analyzed data from patients who underwent AV replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Rapid-Deployment AV prosthesis for AV IE or regurgitation. (n = 8 for IE and n = 6 for AVI). Results Heart-lung machine times were significantly shorter in the AVI group (111.3 ± 20.7 min) compared to the IE group (171.9 ± 52.4 min) (p = 0.02). Aortic cross-clamp followed a similar trend (73.7 ± 9.9 min for AVI vs. 113.4 ± 35.6 min for IE) (p = 0.02). The length of ICU stay was also shorter in the AVI group (3.8 ± 2.6 days) compared to the IE group (16.9 ± 8.9 days) (p = 0.005). Postoperative echocardiography revealed no paravalvular leakage or significant valvular dysfunction in any patient. One patient died postoperatively from aspiration pneumonia. Conclusion The INTUITY valve demonstrates as a safe option for complex AV IE and AVI surgery. Further prospective studies with larger patient cohorts are necessary to confirm these findings and explore the long-term benefits of this approach.

Abstract Background Global antipsychotic usage, including off-label prescriptions, has increased in recent decades. However, trends in China, particularly for children and adolescents, remain unclear. This study explored these trends from 2016 to 2021 and identified factors associated with off-label prescriptions. Methods In this retrospective study, we analyzed on-label and off-label prescriptions based on drug information approved by the China National Medical Products Administration. To identify factors associated with off-label prescriptions, we conducted multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results Our study included 48,258 antipsychotic prescriptions, 52.4% (25,295) of which were prescriptions for males. Of these, 61.7% (29,813) were off-label. Over time, the number of antipsychotics and the percentage of off-label prescriptions for children and adolescents overall increased from 2016 to 2021. The use of atypical antipsychotics increased, whereas that of typical antipsychotics decreased. For off-label usage, all of the factors in our study were associated with off-label usage, including age, sex, year, region, department, reimbursement, antipsychotic type, drug expense, number of polypharmacy and diagnoses. Additionally, tiapride (15.8%) and aripiprazole (18.6%) were the most common typical and atypical antipsychotics, respectively. For pediatric diseases, common diagnoses included mood or affective disorders (31.7%) and behavioral and emotional disorders, with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence (29.1%). Furthermore, a depressive state was the most common diagnosis for which antipsychotic polypharmacy was used for treatment. Conclusion In this retrospective study, off-label antipsychotic prescriptions were common, with trends generally increasing among children and adolescents from 2016 to 2021. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting off-label usage, thus emphasizing the need for studies on the efficacy and safety of these treatments.

Abstract Background Paediatric patients are especially prone to experiencing adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and the surgical environment gathers many conditions for such reactions to occur. Additionally, little information exists in the literature on ADRs in the paediatric surgical population. We aimed to quantify the ADR frequency in this population, and to investigate the characteristics and risk factors associated with ADR development. Methods A prospective observational study was conducted in a cohort of 311 paediatric patients, aged 1–16 years, admitted for surgery at a tertiary referral hospital in Spain (2019–2021). Incidence rates were used to assess ADR frequency. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to evaluate the influence of potential risk factors on ADR development. Results Distinct ADRs (103) were detected in 80 patients (25.7%). The most frequent being hypotension (N = 32; 35%), nausea (N = 16; 15.5%), and emergence delirium (N = 16; 15.5%). Most ADRs occurred because of drug-drug interactions. The combination of sevoflurane and fentanyl was responsible for most of these events (N = 32; 31.1%). The variable most robustly associated to ADR development, was the number of off-label drugs prescribed per patient (OR = 2.99; 95% CI 1.73 to 5.16), followed by the number of drugs prescribed per patient (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.41), and older age (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.49). The severity of ADRs was assessed according to the criteria of Venulet and the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System. According to both methods, only four ADRs (3.9%) were considered serious. Conclusions ADRs have a high incidence rate in the paediatric surgical population. The off-label use of drugs is a key risk factor for ADRs development.

Resumen: Roflumilast es un inhibidor de la fosfodiesterasa-4 aprobado de forma oral para la prevención de exacerbaciones en pacientes con enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica y fenotipo de bronquitis crónica. En dermatología, el roflumilast tópico está aprobado por la Food and Drug Administration en psoriasis en placas y dermatitis seborreica leve/moderada. En cuanto a su uso fuera de indicación, hemos encontrado un ensayo clínico que avala la utilidad del roflumilast oral en psoriasis, así como pequeñas series de casos o casos clínicos aislados en hidradenitis supurativa, aftosis oral recurrente, eccema numular, liquen plano y enfermedad de Behçet. Su perfil de seguridad es favorable, similar al del apremilast, y su coste es considerablemente inferior a los de los fármacos de nueva generación, o incluso al de algunos inmunosupresores clásicos. Presentamos una revisión de roflumilast tópico y oral, en términos de farmacocinética y farmacodinámica, efectos adversos, usos dermatológicos aprobados y fuera de indicación. Roflumilast es un agente prometedor en dermatología. Abstract: Oral roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor approved for the prevention of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis. In dermatology, topical roflumilast is authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and mild to moderate seborrheic dermatitis. Several studies have described the off-label use of roflumilast in dermatology, including a randomized controlled trial showing its usefulness in the treatment of psoriasis; case reports and small series have also reported successful outcomes in hidradenitis suppurativa, recurrent oral aphthosis, nummular eczema, lichen planus, and Behçet disease. Roflumilast has a favorable safety profile, similar to that of apremilast, and it is considerably cheaper than new generation drugs and even some conventional immunosuppressants. We review the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of topical and oral roflumilast and discuss potential adverse effects and both approved and off-label uses in dermatology. Roflumilast is a promising agent to consider.

Background: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a rare, chronic immune-mediated disorder with limited treatment options. Despite the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of dupilumab for EoE, other monoclonal antibodies remain unapproved and are used off-label with limited evidence on their efficacy and safety. This systematic review rigorously and comprehensively evaluates the evidence for monoclonal antibody therapies used off-label to treat EoE. Methods: We conducted a systematic review across PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov, assessing the efficacy and safety of off-label monoclonal antibodies in EoE through clinical outcomes and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data. Results: Among ten monoclonal antibodies reviewed, mepolizumab that targets IL-5 showed the most promise with a moderate recommendation based on Level 2 evidence. Others like omalizumab (anti-IgE), dectrekumab (anti-IL-13), and reslizumab (anti-IL-5) showed limited utility. Safety evaluations via the FAERS database revealed significant adverse drug reactions, including serious events like asthmatic crises, pneumonia, and adrenal insufficiency for mepolizumab and reslizumab, as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and gastroenteritis for omalizumab. Dectrekumab’s safety profile remains unclear due to a lack of data. Conclusions: While mepolizumab demonstrates potential as an off-label treatment, none of the antibodies reviewed have FDA approval for EoE. Clinicians should consider the balance between local and systemic effects and exercise caution, closely monitoring for adverse effects, particularly in patients with respiratory comorbidities. Continued research is crucial to establish a more robust evidence base for these therapies.

Abstract Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have improved outcomes in a variety of adult cancers and are prescribed with increasing frequency across oncology. However, patterns of off‐label use of ICI in pediatrics remain unclear. Methods This is a single‐institution, retrospective cohort study evaluating off‐label ICI use in pediatric and young adult patients with cancer treated at our institution from 2014 to 2022. Response was based on clinician assessment derived from clinical records. Immune‐related adverse events (iRAEs) were classified according to CTCAE v5.0. Results We identified 50 unique patients treated with off‐label ICI (28 with solid tumors, 20 with central nervous system (CNS) tumors, 2 with hematologic malignancies). At time of ICI initiation, only five patients (10%) had localized disease, and all but one patient was treated in the relapsed/refractory setting. All patients were treated with the FDA‐approved weight‐based dosing recommendations. Overall, there was disease control in 21 patients (42%), with best response including one complete response (melanoma), two partial responses (high‐grade glioma, CNS nongerminomatous germ cell tumor), and 18 patients with stable disease. Forty‐four patients (88%) eventually experienced disease progression. Among 22 patients (44%) experiencing iRAEs, 10 (20%) had a grade ≥3 irAE, 12 (24%) required corticosteroids, and 14 (28%) required ICI discontinuation. irAE occurrence was associated with significantly improved progression‐free survival (HR 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.68; p = 0.002) and overall survival (HR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.66; p = 0.002). Conclusions At our institution, ICI was most commonly prescribed in the relapsed/refractory setting to patients with metastatic disease. The treatment was generally well‐tolerated in the pediatric population. The overall response rate was low, and the majority of patients eventually experienced disease progression. A few patients, however, had durable treatment responses. Further studies are needed to identify which pediatric patients are most likely to benefit from ICI.

Abrocitinib, an oral small-molecule Janus Kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, is primarily approved for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and adolescents aged 12 and older. This review examines the emerging off-label uses of Abrocitinib. We identified 37 papers reporting on the use of Abrocitinib in various conditions other than AD. The most commonly reported uses were for vitiligo, prurigo nodularis, and hand eczema, with 12 cases each. There were also 10 cases of lichen sclerosus and chronic pruritus of unknown origin and 5 cases each of pityriasis rubra pilaris alopecia areata. Additionally, erythematotelangiectatic rosacea and steroid-induced rosacea were reported in four cases each. Other conditions treated with Abrocitinib were noted, but these mostly had only one or two reported cases. Interestingly, out of the 103 patients reviewed, all studies reported favorable clinical outcomes and satisfactory results, with the exception of one isolated case where Abrocitinib was used to treat erythematotelangiectatic rosacea.

Abstract Background Antipsychotics are increasingly prescribed to children and adolescents worldwide, but little is known about reasons for prescribing. We aimed to examine patterns of paediatric antipsychotic prescribing in Australian primary care services in 2011 and 2017, including diagnoses, sociodemographic characteristics, off‐label prescribing, and psychotropic co‐prescribing. Methods Retrospective analysis of electronic health records (EHRs) using a large Australian general practice database (MedicineInsight). Diagnoses of mental disorders were extracted from EHRs and associated with antipsychotic prescriptions within the same calendar year for three age‐groups: 0–9, 10–14, and 15–18‐year‐olds. Results In 2017, children/adolescents with mental health diagnoses were more likely to be prescribed antipsychotics (2.9% of 27,412 patients) than in 2011 (2.0% of 8418 patients; absolute difference +0.9, 95% CI + 0.5, +1.4). The likelihood was greater for patients with bipolar disorders (21.6% vs. 41.5%), eating disorders (1.1% vs. 7.2%), and autism without behavioural problems (3.7% vs. 6.1%). Depression/anxiety (adjusted 26.8% of patients 2011; 30.8% 2017) was the most common diagnosis associated with antipsychotics in both years. Most antipsychotics were prescribed off‐label (69.8% 2011; 79.7% 2017; absolute difference +9.8, 95% CI + 1.54, +18.4). Off‐label prescribing increased most among those aged 15–18‐years, females, and patients living in outer regional/remote/very remote communities and the most disadvantaged areas. The three most frequently prescribed antipsychotics in both years were risperidone, quetiapine, and olanzapine. Psychotropic co‐prescribing among patients receiving antipsychotic prescriptions was approximately 69% in both years. Conclusions Prescribing antipsychotics for mental health diagnoses to children/adolescents attending Australian general practices was more frequent in 2017 than 2011, and most commonly associated with depression/anxiety diagnoses. In both years, most prescribing was off‐label. The majority of patients were co‐prescribed other classes of psychotropics along with antipsychotics.

With a global increased use of psychotropics in pediatrics, their off-label use is a concern due to uncertainty and risk. Data on psychotropics use in the Greek pediatric population do not exist to date. We analyzed retrospective data from the nationwide pharmacy claim database, to estimate the prevalence of psychotropics in pediatrics focusing on off-label use (March 2016-October 2019). In total 63,782 pediatric subjects had at least one identified psychotropic prescription. The prevalence of psychotropics use was 5.1–14.6/1,000 pediatric inhabitants. When excluding 42,508 subjects who received only short-time hydroxyzine, the prevalence was 3.1–6.5/1,000 pediatric inhabitants; adolescents and boys had higher exposures. An in-depth analysis of 21,274 subjects accounting for 222,307 psychotropic dispensations, showed antiepileptics as the most frequent psychotropics, consistently with the finding on epilepsy being the most frequent diagnosis; diazepam was the single drug with the highest exposure in almost all ages. 14% of subjects have received at least one medicine with no pediatric information in the labelling, corresponding to 5.5% of dispensed psychotropics. 7.6% of all dispensed psychotropics were used in a non-authorized age range with quetiapine being the most frequent psychotropic as off-label age range; antipsychotics and antidepressants were first as off-label for non-authorized indication. Data from Greece show that a relevant number of patients are prescribed psychotropics, with 1 in 7 being under off-label use. Due to the limitations inherent to pharmacy claims databases, further research using clinical data for a longer follow-up period could confirm and identify trends in psychotropics use in Greece.

Oral roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor approved for the prevention of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis. In dermatology, topical roflumilast is authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and mild to moderate seborrheic dermatitis. Several studies have described the off-label use of roflumilast in dermatology, including a randomized controlled trial showing its usefulness in the treatment of psoriasis; case reports and small series have also reported successful outcomes in hidradenitis suppurativa, recurrent oral aphthosis, nummular eczema, lichen planus, and Behçet disease. Roflumilast has a favorable safety profile, similar to that of apremilast, and it is considerably cheaper than new generation drugs and even some conventional immunosuppressants. We review the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of topical and oral roflumilast and discuss potential adverse effects and both approved and off-label uses in dermatology. Roflumilast is a promising agent to consider. Resumen: Roflumilast es un inhibidor de la fosfodiesterasa-4 aprobado de forma oral para la prevención de exacerbaciones en pacientes con enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica y fenotipo de bronquitis crónica. En dermatología, el roflumilast tópico está aprobado por la Food and Drug Administration en psoriasis en placas y dermatitis seborreica leve/moderada. En cuanto a su uso fuera de indicación, hemos encontrado un ensayo clínico que avala la utilidad del roflumilast oral en psoriasis, así como pequeñas series de casos o casos clínicos aislados en hidradenitis supurativa, aftosis oral recurrente, eccema numular, liquen plano y enfermedad de Behçet. Su perfil de seguridad es favorable, similar al del apremilast, y su coste es considerablemente inferior a los de los fármacos de nueva generación, o incluso al de algunos inmunosupresores clásicos. Presentamos una revisión de roflumilast tópico y oral, en términos de farmacocinética y farmacodinámica, efectos adversos, usos dermatológicos aprobados y fuera de indicación. Roflumilast es un agente prometedor en dermatología.

Background and objectiveThe safety and efficacy of on-label use of pipeline embolization devices (PEDs) are well established; however, there is much controversy over their off-label use. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the off-label use of PEDs for treating intracranial aneurysms.MethodsThis single-center study retrospectively included patients with digital subtraction angiography, computed tomographic angiography, or magnetic resonance angiography confirmed intracranial aneurysms treated with PEDs who were admitted to our institution between 1 January 2018 and 1 July 2022. Patients were divided into on- and off-label groups according to the Food and Drug Administration criteria published in 2021. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance disparities in baseline information between the two groups. Safety outcomes included postoperative mortality and complication rates, whereas effectiveness outcomes included aneurysm occlusion rate (O’Kelly-Marotta grading system C + D grades), retreatment rate within 12 months, and postoperative functional score [modified Rankin scale (mRS) score]. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Scientific Research and Clinical Trial of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (Ethics number: KY 2018–098-02). All patients provided informed consent.ResultsA total of 242 patients with 261 aneurysms (160 on-label and 101 off-label aneurysms) were included in this study. PSM yielded 81 pairs of patients matched for baseline information. Postoperative hemorrhagic, ischemic, and procedure-related complication rates did not reach statistical significance. In addition, no statistically significant differences in the aneurysm occlusion rate, retreatment rate within 12 months, postoperative functional score (mRS score), or mRS score deterioration rate were observed between the two groups. A higher incidence of in-stent stenosis was observed in the off-label (4.9% vs. 21%, p = 0.002) group than in the on-label group; however, all patients were asymptomatic.ConclusionCompared with on-label use, off-label use of PEDs for treating intracranial aneurysms did not increase the risk of complications, and the occlusion rates were comparable. Therefore, decisions regarding clinical management should not rely solely on on- or off-label indications.

Abstract Background In Switzerland, rituximab (RTX) is licenced for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) but is frequently used off-label to treat other auto-immune diseases (AID), especially connective tissue diseases (CTD). We aimed to characterise the use of RTX in AID in a real-life Swiss setting and compare RTX retention rates and safety outcomes between patients treated for RA, CTD and AAV. Methods A retrospective cohort study of patients who started RTX in the Rheumatology Department for RA or AID. The RTX retention rate was analysed using Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Occurrences of serious adverse events (SAE), low IgG levels and anti-drug antibodies (ADA) were reported. Results Two hundred three patients were treated with RTX: 51.7% had RA, 29.6% CTD, 9.9% vasculitis and 8.9% other AIDs. The total observation time was 665 patient-years. RTX retention probability at 2 years (95%CI) was similar for RA and CTD 0.65 (0.55 to 0.73), 0.60 (0.47 to 0.72) and lower for vasculitis 0.25 (0.09 to 0.45). Survival curves for RTX retention matched closely (p = 0.97) between RA and CTD patients but were lower for patients with vasculitis due to a higher percentage of induced remission. Patients with vasculitis (95%) and CTD (75%) had a higher rate of concomitant glucocorticoid use than RA (60%). Moderate to severe hypogammaglobulinaemia was observed more frequently in patients with vasculitis (35%) than with RA (13%) or CTD (9%) and was associated with an increased risk of presenting a first infectious SAE (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.91). The incidence rate of SAE was 23.3 SAE/100 patient-years (36% were infectious). When searched, ADAs were observed in 18% of the patients and were detected in 63% of infusions-related SAE. 10 patients died during RTX treatment and up to 12 months after the last RTX infusion, 50% from infection. Conclusion RTX retention rates are similar for patients with RA and CTD but lower for those with vasculitis due to more frequent remission. Patients treated with RTX for vasculitis present more SAE and infectious SAE than patients with RA and CTD, potentially due to a higher use of concomitant glucocorticoids and the occurrence of hypogammaglobulinaemia.

Abstract Early access programs (EAPs) generally refer to patient access to medicines/indications before marketing authorization, possibly extended to price and reimbursement approval. These programs include compassionate use, which is usually covered by pharmaceutical companies, and EAPs reimbursed by third-party payers. This paper aims at comparing EAPs in four European countries (France, Italy, Spain, UK) and providing empirical evidence on EAPs in Italy. The comparative analysis was conducted through a literature review (including scientific and grey literature), complemented by 30-min semi-structured interviews with local experts. The Italian empirical analysis employed data available on the National Medicines Agency website. Although EAPs are very different across countries, they exhibit some common features: (i) eligibility criteria refer to the absence of valid therapeutic alternatives and a presumed favourable risk–benefit profile; (ii) payers do not allocate a pre-determined budget to these programs; (iii) total spending on EAPs is unknown. The French EAPs seem to be the most structured, financed through social insurance, covering pre-marketing, post-marketing and pre-reimbursement phases and providing for data collection. Italy’s approach to EAPs has been varied, with several programs covered by different payers, including the cohort-based 648 List (for both early access and off-label use), the nominal-based 5% Fund, and Compassionate Use. Most applications to EAPs are from the Antineoplastic and immunomodulating drug class (ATC L). Some 62% of indications in the 648 List are either not under clinical development or have never been approved (pure off-label use). For those subsequently approved, most approved indications coincide with those covered through EAPs. Only the 5% Fund provides data on economic impact (€ 81.2 million in 2021; average cost per patient € 61.5K). Diverse EAPs are a possible source of inequalities in access to medicines across Europe. A harmonization of these programs, though difficult to achieve, could be modelled on the French EAPs and provide key advantages, not least of which a common effort to collect real-world data in parallel with clinical trials and clear separation between EAPs and off-label use programs.

Law 648 has been introduced in Italy in 1996. It allows early access and off label use of novel drugs that fulfill important unmet medical needs. Despite being live for almost twenty years, there are still several areas where the clinician does not have sufficient confidence for a proper use of the opportunities created by Law 648. In this review we describe the main points that a clinician should be aware of when demanding permission to use new drugs according to law 648. Roles and responsibilities of the prescribing centers and the individual physicians are illustrated and discussed in a Q&A format that clarifies some of the more complex scenarios that a physician may face in the use of Law 648. This should help the clinicians in fostering a proper use of this important pathway for early access of novel, innovative drugs in Italy.

AbstractBackground The immediacy of the onset of opioids may be associated with the risk of dependency and accidental overdose. Nasal and oromucosal fentanyl dosage forms are so called immediate release fentanyl (IRF). These IRFs have been approved to treat breakthrough pain in patients with cancer who are on chronic opioid treatment only. There are signals of increased off-label prescribing of IRFs in general practices.Objectives This study aims to provide insight into the frequency of IRF prescription in Dutch general practices and the extent to which IRF is prescribed off-label.Methods Routinely collected electronic health records of general practices (GPs) participating in Nivel Primary Care Database were used. Adult patients with IRF prescriptions in 2019 were selected from whom dispensing data on 2018 and 2019 was available. Diagnoses were recorded by GPs using International Classification of Primary Care. Descriptive analyses were performed.Results This study included 342 GPs with a patient population of 1,297,942 patients, 1,368 patients received at least one IRF prescription in 2019, which is equal to 1.1 patients per 1,000 registered patients. Most patients (74.9%) with an IRF prescription received an off-label prescription. A slight majority had a cancer diagnosis but nearly 65.2% did not have a maintenance therapy and 14% were opioid-naive before receiving their first IRF prescription.Conclusion IRFs are not prescribed frequently in Dutch general practices. However, when prescribed, a relatively large portion of patients received an off-label prescription.

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody against the receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB (RANK) ligand (RANKL) that significantly inhibits osteoclast activity and has been approved to treat osteoporosis, giant cell tumor of bone, and prophylactic as well as therapeutic entities for bone metastasis. However, the imbalance of RANKL/RANK/OPG has also been implicated in the pathogenesis of several other rare bone diseases and tumor-like disorders, including aneurysmal bone cyst, fibrous dysplasia of bone, and Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Nevertheless, there have been various clinical reports although these diseases have not been approved for indications. The review aims to summarize the available evidence for the off-label use of denosumab in metabolic bone diseases and tumor-like disorders and provide a reference for clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Abstract Objective Antiseizure medications (ASMs) remain the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. These ASMs have mainly been tested in trials in adults with epilepsy, which subsequently led to market authorization (MA). For treatment of – especially young – children with epilepsy, several ASMs do not have a MA and guidelines are lacking, subsequently leading to “off‐label” use of ASMs. Even though “off‐label” ASM prescriptions for children could lead to more adverse events, it can be clinically appropriate and rational if the benefits outweigh the risks. This could be the case if “on‐label” ASM, in mono‐ or polytherapy, fails to achieve adequate seizure control. Methods The Medical Therapies Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission for Pediatrics performed a survey to study the current treatment practices in six classic, early life epilepsy scenarios. Our aim was not only to study first‐ and second‐line treatment preferences but also to illustrate the use of “off‐label” drugs in childhood epilepsies. Results Our results reveal that several ASMs (e.g. topiramate, oxcarbazepine, benzodiazepines) are prescribed “off‐label” in distinct scenarios of young children with epilepsy. In addition, recent scientific guidelines were not always adopted by several survey respondents, suggesting a potential knowledge gap. Significance We report the relatively common use of “off‐label” prescriptions that underlines the need for targeted and appropriately designed clinical trials, including younger patients, which will also result in the ability to generate evidence‐based guidelines.

Abstract Background Alcohol use disorder is prevalent globally and in Kenya, and is associated with significant health and socio-economic consequences. Despite this, available pharmacological treatment options are limited. Recent evidence indicates that intravenous (IV) ketamine can be beneficial for the treatment of alcohol use disorder, but is yet to be approved for this indication. Further, little has been done to describe the use of IV ketamine for alcohol use disorder in Africa. The goal of this paper, is to: 1) describe the steps we took to obtain approval and prepare for off-label use of IV ketamine for patients with alcohol use disorder at the second largest hospital in Kenya, and 2) describe the presentation and outcomes of the first patient who received IV ketamine for severe alcohol use disorder at the hospital. Case presentation In preparing for the off-label use of ketamine for alcohol use disorder, we brought together a multi-disciplinary team of clinicians including psychiatrists, pharmacists, ethicists, anesthetists, and members of the drug and therapeutics committee, to spearhead the process. The team developed a protocol for administering IV ketamine for alcohol use disorder that took into account ethical and safety issues. The national drug regulatory authority, the Pharmacy and Poison’s Board, reviewed and approved the protocol. Our first patient was a 39-year-old African male with severe alcohol use disorder and comorbid tobacco use disorder and bipolar disorder. The patient had attended in-patient treatment for alcohol use disorder six times and each time had relapsed between one to four months after discharge. On two occasions, the patient had relapsed while on optimal doses of oral and implant naltrexone. The patient received IV ketamine infusion at a dose of 0.71 mg/kg. The patient relapsed within one week of receiving IV ketamine while on naltrexone, mood stabilizers, and nicotine replacement therapy. Discussion & conclusions This case report describes for the first time the use of IV ketamine for alcohol use disorder in Africa. Findings will be useful in informing future research and in guiding other clinicians interested in administering IV ketamine for patients with alcohol use disorder.

Off-label drug use is the prescription of drugs outside the indications approved by the authorized agency. The reasons for off-label drug use include a lack of clinical response to previous treatments, intolerance, or contraindications to drug therapy. The scientific evidence of off-label prescribing was lacking, and the risk of adverse events increased. This study aims to identify the off-label drug use for patients with neurological disorders at the Psychiatric Hospital “Grhasia” Yogyakarta. This study used a descriptive observational design with a cross-sectional method. Data collection was conducted retrospectively. Sampling was carried out by using the purposive sampling technique. The sample was patients who received a psychotropic prescription at the Psychiatric Hospital “Grhasia” Yogyakarta in January-December 2019. The data were analyzed by scrutinizing the therapeutic goals according to the diagnosis on the medical record. Prescriptions not matching the indications registered by NADFC are included in the off-label category. We used descriptive analytics for demographic data, disease diagnosis, and frequency of the off-label use of drug in neurological disorders. The research obtained a total sample of 662 patients that met the inclusion criteria, with 2,823 psychiatric drugs used. The off-label use of drug in neurological disorders at the Psychiatric Hospital “Grhasia” Yogyakarta was 884 (31%). The most frequent off-label use was lorazepam (17.53%). This study concludes that there is an off-label prescription at the Psychiatric Hospital “Grhasia” Yogyakarta. Some of the off-label use has no solid scientific evidence. These results require further research regarding the reasons for off-label prescribing and the patient's safety.

There are few data on yellow fever (YF) and hepatitis A (HA) off-label vaccination. Given the rising trend of travel to endemic countries, there is a growing necessity to broaden vaccination coverage among the pediatric population. For this reason, we aim to assess the adverse effects associated with off-label vaccination, with the ultimate purpose of expanding the vaccine spectrum. We analyzed ambispectively ninety-four children under 12 months of age who received YF or HA off-label vaccines. The YF vaccine was administered to children aged 6–9 months and those allergic to eggs (with a prior negative prick test and no history of anaphylaxis), while the HA vaccine was given to children aged 6–12 months. Overall, 71 (75%) were vaccinated against YF, and 57 (60%) against HA; 34 against both. All of them fulfilled off-label vaccination criteria. No immediate adverse effects (AEs) were reported. Mild common AEs (diarrhea, fever, or malaise) were experienced by 10.8% of patients within 10 days after vaccination. The rate of AEs associated with off-label vaccination for HA and YF is low, suggesting that the vaccines could be considered safe.

Depression is among the most common mental health disorders worldwide and treatment resistant depression (TRD) represents a major challenge for both patients and clinicians. In recent years ketamine has received attention as an antidepressant agent, demonstrating promising results in TRD in adults. To date, few attempts have been made in treating adolescent TRD with ketamine and none have used intranasal application. This paper discusses a case of a 17-year-old female adolescent suffering from TRD who underwent treatment with intranasal esketamine application (Spravato 28 mg). As symptoms showed clinically insignificant improvement despite modest gains in objective assessments (GAF, CGI, MADRS), treatment was prematurely discontinued. However, the treatment was tolerable and side effects were scarce and mild. Although this case report does not demonstrate clinical effectiveness, ketamine may nonetheless be a promising substance in treating TRD in other adolescents. Questions regarding the safety of ketamine use in the rapidly developing brains of adolescents still remain unanswered. To further explore the potential benefits of this treatment method a short term RCTs for adolescents with TRD is recommended.

IntroductionOff-label rituximab is commonly used for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with extrarenal disease activity.MethodsThe outcomes and tolerability of rituximab in adult patients with non-renal SLE treated at our hospital from 2013 to 2020 were described. Patients were followed-up until December 2021. Data were retrieved from electronic medical records. Response was classified into complete, partial or no response according to the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI 2 K)-based definitions.ResultsA total of 44 cycles were administered to 33 patients. Median age was 45 years and 97% were female. Median follow-up was 5.9 years (IQR 3.7–7.2). The most frequent symptoms that motivated rituximab use were thrombocytopenia (30.3%), arthritis (30.3%), neurological manifestations (24.2%) and cutaneous lupus (15.2%). After most treatment cycles a partial remission was achieved. The median SLEDAI-2 K score declined from 9 (IQR 5–13) to 1.5 (IQR 0–4) (p

IntroductionOff-label drug use is a global problem for which many countries and regions have issued legal provisions or reached an expert consensus. Off-label use is sometimes a necessity, especially since antibacterial drugs have become one of the most widely used drugs in pediatric settings and the issue of causing antimicrobial resistance has increasingly become unavoidable. It also poses additional risks, such as adverse drug reactions.MethodsOur study analyzed the antimicrobial prescriptions of pediatric inpatients in a large Chinese hospital in the first half of 2021. This retrospective investigation included 6,829 prescriptions, including 2,294 off-label prescriptions. We performed descriptive analyses of prescription antimicrobial agents among pediatric populations and reported the percentages and frequencies.Results It was found that off-label use of antibiotics was present in many children (n = 1,665, 48.9%) and was most common in newborns (n = 328, 82.8%). Among the commonly used antibiotics in pediatric patients, cephalosporins (n = 2,778, 40.7%) accounted for a relatively low proportion of offlabel use (n = 360, 15.7%), while macrolides (n = 628, 27.4%) and penicillins (n = 610, 26.6%) accounted for a higher proportion. The off-label type mainly referred to the appropriate population (46.5%) and dosage (dose, 10.0%; frequency of administration, 48.3%).DiscussionOff-label use was due to imperfect labels, improper medications, or medication errors. Only a few consensuses could apply to pediatric patients. More clinical trials are required to update the consensus, and drug labels must be continuously improved. The prescription behavior of doctors is also needed to be regulated. Rational use of drugs, especially antimicrobials, is the responsibility of all people, including the states, medical institutions, and individuals.

Abstract Introduction Information on the off–label use of Long–Acting Injectable (LAI) antipsychotics in the real world is lacking. In this study, we aimed to identify the sociodemographic and clinical features of patients treated with on– vs off–label LAIs and predictors of off–label First– or Second–Generation Antipsychotic (FGA vs. SGA) LAI choice in everyday clinical practice. Method In a naturalistic national cohort of 449 patients who initiated LAI treatment in the STAR Network Depot Study, two groups were identified based on off– or on–label prescriptions. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to test several clinically relevant variables and identify those associated with the choice of FGA vs SGA prescription in the off–label group. Results SGA LAIs were more commonly prescribed in everyday practice, without significant differences in their on– and off–label use. Approximately 1 in 4 patients received an off–label prescription. In the off–label group, the most frequent diagnoses were bipolar disorder (67.5%) or any personality disorder (23.7%). FGA vs SGA LAI choice was significantly associated with BPRS thought disorder (OR = 1.22, CI95% 1.04 to 1.43, p = 0.015) and hostility/suspiciousness (OR = 0.83, CI95% 0.71 to 0.97, p = 0.017) dimensions. The likelihood of receiving an SGA LAI grew steadily with the increase of the BPRS thought disturbance score. Conversely, a preference towards prescribing an FGA was observed with higher scores at the BPRS hostility/suspiciousness subscale. Conclusion Our study is the first to identify predictors of FGA vs SGA choice in patients treated with off–label LAI antipsychotics. Demographic characteristics, i.e. age, sex, and substance/alcohol use co–morbidities did not appear to influence the choice towards FGAs or SGAs. Despite a lack of evidence, clinicians tend to favour FGA over SGA LAIs in bipolar or personality disorder patients with relevant hostility. Further research is needed to evaluate treatment adherence and clinical effectiveness of these prescriptive patterns.

Objectives:To analyze the current preferences of ophthalmologists for the treatment of macular edema and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and to evaluate off-label use of bevacizumab in Turkey.Materials and Methods:All members of the Turkish Ophthalmological Association were contacted by e-mail to complete an anonymous, 47-question internet-based survey. The second part of the survey (questions 36-47) was evaluated.Results:When current legal regulations were considered, ophthalmologists used bevacizumab as the first-line agent in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME), AMD, and retinal vein occlusion (RVO) (58.25%, 55.89%, and 52.29%, respectively). When economic and legal constraints were disregarded, the participants’ preference for bevacizumab in the treatment of DME, AMD, and RVO decreased (11.64%, 10.58%, and 10.93%, respectively). Approximately three-quarters (75.75%) of ophthalmologists stated that dispensing multiple syringes from a single bevacizumab bottle could increase the risk of endophthalmitis. Most participants (93.68%) did not feel legally safe from harm caused by off-label bevacizumab use. However, 66.43% of ophthalmologists stated that bevacizumab is as effective as other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs.Conclusion:Bevacizumab is widely used as a first-line treatment for all indications of anti-VEGF use in the current reimbursement conditions, which preclude the right of ophthalmologists to treat according to their own preferences.

Background: Information regarding off-label and unlicensed medicine use among South African children is limited. This is a concern as the prescribing of off-label and unlicensed medicines can lead to issues of effectiveness and safety as well as raise liability issues in the event of adverse events. This potentially exposes physicians to legal penalties. Consequently, we sought to determine the prevalence of off-label and unlicensed medicine use among paediatric patients in South Africa to provide future direction. Methods: This study retrospectively examined the use of medicine in a point-prevalence survey study (PPS) involving paediatric patients aged (0–2 years) admitted to selected public hospitals in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Data were collected per hospital over two days between February 2022 and July 2022. Demographics, duration of treatment, diagnosis, and medicines prescribed were collected from patient medical records using a mobile application. Prescribed medicines were reviewed against the medicine formularies and other databases to assess their appropriateness. Results: From three academic hospitals, 184 patient records were reviewed. A total of 592 medicines were dispensed, of which 379 (64.0%) were licensed and 213 (36.0%) were used off-label/unlicensed for paediatric patients 0–2 years of age. The most prevalent off-label and unlicensed medicines were multivitamins (n = 32, 15.0%) and ampicillin injections (n = 15, 7.0%). Conclusion: The frequency of unlicensed and off-label medicine prescribing shown in this study is consistent with the literature and can be considered high. This practice can pose a risk because it adversely affects patients if not properly regulated. Attention is needed to ensure future high-quality, safe, and effective use of medicines.

The contribution originates from Track 1, “Genetics and biomedical innovation: Between risky and promising scenarios”, held within the VIII STS Italia conference. The session was intended to promote reflection on the implications of the latest innovations in genetic research and molecular biology for the formation of new care practices, as well as new surveillance and risk management. The objective of the paper is to highlights the contradictions and ambivalence that may rise from biomedical innovation through analysing two specific cases: 1) off-label practice in the context of rare disease in oncology and 2) pre-natal screening technology and surveillance practices. In both cases, these biomedical innovations, although very promising, produced high uncertainty, and the technologies and/or processes developed to cope with the “unknown” were challenging. However, at the same time, tensions and contradictions were observed that originated unexpected practices “from below”. In particular, the following section is focused on the ambivalence that has increasingly taken root in the management of risks related to health with respect to individual contributions and to research and scientific work practices.

This literature review provides information on the deficit of clinically proven data on the drugs use in pediatric practice. Issues on why children are widely administrated with drugs that are normally intended for use in adults without any prior qualitative estimation of their safety and efficacy in appropriate clinical studies involving children have been analyzed. The authors considered the issues of carrying out clinical trials with the participation of children as study subjects: ethical, regulatory, and psychological aspects of this complex task. There are decisions for every of the listed aspect. The authors of analyzed sources and the authors of this article believe that these decisions may help to address all the challenges and evade the incorrect assessment and interpretation of initial data by children’s parents and adoptive parents (legal representatives). Issues of doctors’ alertness were considered separately. Information and excerpts from regulatory acts were given, as well as information from publications on awareness raising and in support of doctors-researches. This literature review has been carried out to solve problems of information gap in the field of drugs safety and efficacy in pediatric practice. The disclosure of discussion points for clinical trials with children will ultimately help to improve the quality of healthcare provided to children in the future and take advantage of recent technologies used in patients’ cohorts of other age groups.

The lack of drugs containing adequate dosages for the treatment of pediatric patients is a problem frequently observed in hospitals, especially in the pediatric and neonatal intensive care unit (ICU) sectors. It is known that, for a treatment to be considered safe and effective, series of clinical studies are necessary, however, a low number of these studies involving children are reported, mainly due to ethical issues that make their conduct difficult. Thus, few drugs prove to be suitable for the treatment of these patients, making it necessary to resort to the use of off-label and unlicensed drugs. Drugs are classified as off-label when their use differs from their approved specifications, in turn, unlicensed products are classified in this way because they do not have approval for marketing in the country or do not have proof of safety and efficacy. Preparation of organized study protocols, reporting information to parents and the child in a clear and objective way, bringing researchers and parents closer to establish a relationship of trust and conducting research at moments when the family is available are important strategies to facilitate the conduct of clinical trials.

Antipsychotics (APs), especially second-generation antipsychotics, are being increasingly used around the world. At the same time their off-label use has also increased worldwide, as well as in Finland. The aim of our study was to find out the off-label prescribing of APs in Finland among physicians in different healthcare units. The study was conducted as a questionnaire survey. Particular attention was paid to practices between psychiatrists and other physicians (mostly general practitioners and occupational health doctors). Similar studies have not been conducted on this topic in Finland before. Altogether 216 physicians answered the questionnaire. The most common indications for off-label prescription were insomnia and anxiety, and this was evident for both psychiatrists as well as other physicians. Quetiapine was the one most commonly prescribed off-label AP. Over one-third of psychiatrists (39%) and about one-third of other physicians (30%) did not give instructions on the length of the treatment. The metabolic values were reported to be followed by 44% of the psychiatrists and by 18% of other physicians. Nearly two-thirds of all respondents thought that off-label use had more benefits than harms. Compared to other physicians, psychiatrists prescribed APs for off-label use more frequently and for more varied psychiatric conditions. Off-label use of APs seems to be a clinical reality in Finland. There is need for further studies on efficacy and adverse effects of APs in off-label use, and also a need for clinical guidelines on monitoring the patients using APs off-label.

Currently, due to the lack of specific etiotropic therapy, rituximab is widely used for the treatment of most autoimmune diseases of the central and peripheral nervous system. Rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody with specificity for CD20, the antigen found on the surface of normal and malignant B-lymphocytes. It is used mainly in hematological practice. It is used off-label for the treatment of neurological diseases. The world literature describes the use of rituximab for the treatment of such pathologies as autoimmune encephalitis, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, multiple sclerosis, primary angiitis of the central nervous system, immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathy, myasthenia gravis, refractory to basic immunosuppressive therapy. This article provides an overview of the world literature on the use of rituximab in neurological practice, describes our own experience of its use on the basis of the Department of Neurology № 1 of Pavlov University (Saint Petersburg, Russia).

Background: Special approval medicines (SAMs) are medicines used with approval from the Director General of Health Malaysia when the therapeutic options within regulatory and formulary boundaries appear unsuitable or ineffective to treat the patients. Objectives: To examine and characterize the use of SAMs among children in a Malaysian tertiary care hospital. Methods: The named-patient basis SAM application forms, cover letter, pharmacist review summary and patient monitoring forms available at the Pharmacy Department between 1st January 2019 and 31st December 2020 were reviewed. Unprocessed, unapproved and stock-basis applications were excluded. The outcome measures were categories, scope, off-label use and cost of SAM. Per-patient data were analyzed descriptively. Results: Overall, 1010 patients (mean age of 8.7 ± 5.6 years) were involved in 328 SAMs applications. The most common SAMs pharmacological groups were nervous system (n = 371, 36.7%) and antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 332, 32.9%). Top three SAMs were melatonin (11.5%), scopolamine (7.6%) and cholecalciferol (7.1%). A total of 837 (82.9%) and 513 (50.8%) patients were involved in the SAMs applications for non-formulary and unregistered medicines, respectively. Unregistered, non-formulary medicines were applied for 47.3% (n = 478) of the patients. The majority of the scope for SAMs (64.7%) were to substitute the available alternatives in the national formulary which were ineffective or sub-optimal for the patients. Among the 262 patients with repeat applications, 93.8% reported disease or symptom improvement while 1.9% experienced side effects. Up to 17% of SAMs analyzed in this study were used for off-label indications. The total cost of the SAMs was RM8,748,358.38 (USD 2,090,418.86). Conclusion: The use of SAMs among children in this hospital involved unregistered, non-formulary medicines used to substitute the available alternatives in the formulary. A concerted effort is warranted in exploring supplementary mechanisms to enhance the medicine registration process and formulary system towards facilitating enhanced provision of treatment for children.

Background: This analysis describes the use of riluzole in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) individuals with contraindications and off-label use for subjects with other motor neuron diseases (o-MND) in the Italian regions of Latium, Tuscany and Umbria.Methods: A cohort of adults with ALS prescribed with riluzole during the years 2016–2019 was enrolled from administrative healthcare databases, excluding subjects with o-MND in the preceding 5 years. Being affected by ALS for more than 5 years, presence of tracheostomy, renal or hepatic failure were considered as contraindications to the use of riluzole. A cohort of adults with o-MND was enrolled in 2016–2019 for whom off-label use of riluzole was retrieved up to 4 years, analysing over the time differences related to sex.Results: Among 206 ALS individuals prescribed with riluzole in Latium, 336 in Tuscany and 60 in Umbria, less than 1% were diagnosed with ALS for more than 5 years. Less than 2% were tracheotomised or affected by hepatic failure. Renal failure was documented for 1.9%, 2.7%, and 5.0% of ALS individuals in Latium, Tuscany and Umbria. The o-MND cohort comprised 264 subjects in Latium, 222 in Tuscany, and 66 in Umbria. Non-negligible off-label riluzole use was observed: 8.5%, 33.0%, and 4.2% in females, and 19.9%, 26.5% and 2.4% in males in Latium, Tuscany and Umbria.Discussion: Riluzole use in ALS individuals in the presence of contraindications is rare, with slightly higher numbers in presence of renal failure. Off-label use in o-MND was found to be non-negligible, with variations between sexes.

Compounds known to be successful in the treatment of alcohol use disorder include the aversive agent, Disulfiram, the glutamatergic NMDA receptor antagonist, Acamprosate, and the opioid receptor antagonists, Naltrexone and Nalmefene. Although all four are effective in maintaining abstinence or reduction of alcohol consumption, only a small percentage of patients receive pharmacological treatment. In addition, many other medications have been investigated for their therapeutic potential in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. In this review we summarize and compare Baclofen, Gabapentin, Topiramate, Ondansetron, Varenicline, Aripiprazole, Quetiapine, Clozapine, Antidepressants, Lithium, Neuropeptide Y, Neuropeptide S, Corticotropin-releasing factor antagonists, Oxytocin, PF-05190457, Memantine, Ifenprodil, Samidorphan, Ondelopran, ABT-436, SSR149415, Mifepristone, Ibudilast, Citicoline, Rimonabant, Surinabant, AM4113 and Gamma-hydroxybutyrate While some have shown promising results in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, others have disappointed and should be excluded from further investigation. Here we discuss the most promising results and highlight medications that deserve further preclinical or clinical study. Effective, patient-tailored treatment will require greater understanding provided by many more preclinical and clinical studies.

Jan Anker Jahnsen,1– 3 Sofia Frost Widnes,1,2 Jan Schjøtt1– 3 1Regional Medicines Information and Pharmacovigilance Centre (RELIS Vest), Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; 2Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; 3Department of Clinical Science, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, NorwayCorrespondence: Jan Anker JahnsenRegional Medicines Information and Pharmacovigilance Centre (RELIS Vest), Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, NorwayTel +47-48182071Email jan.anker.jahnsen@helse-bergen.noPurpose: The second-generation antipsychotic quetiapine has been associated with misuse and dependency. We aimed to review questions to the Norwegian network of drug information centers concerning this potential drug safety problem.Methods: We conducted a Boolean search in the database of the Regional Medicines Information and Pharmacovigilance Centres in Norway (RELIS) combining the indexed categories “quetiapine” and “adverse drug reaction” with the text words “misuse” or “dependency”. Question–answer pairs (Q/As) in the full-text, searchable RELIS database were defined as cases. Cases were analyzed for drug safety issues linked to use of quetiapine, including off-label use, polypharmacy and other patient risk factors.Results: The search resulted in 54 cases. Forty-six cases (85%) were patient-related, and a majority came from physicians working in hospitals. Twenty-nine cases (54%) concerned patients with a history of addiction, 14 cases (26%) had polypharmacy, and off-label use of quetiapine for insomnia was identified in 14 of the cases (26%). Only three of the cases included a specific question about patient dependency of quetiapine, and these cases were all associated with insomnia.Conclusion: We conclude that our case series from the Norwegian network of drug information centres reflects that quetiapine frequently involves clinical narratives of a history of addiction, polypharmacy or insomnia (off-label use). However, the case series did not reveal new information about the drug’s addictive potential.Keywords: off-label, insomnia, drug safety, addiction, abuse

Abstract Background The off-label use of antipsychotic medications is common in many countries, and the extent of such use in psychiatric inpatients in China has not been sufficiently studied. The purpose of this study was to survey the incidence and examine the correlates of off-label antipsychotic use in a large, nationally–representative sample in China. Methods This study included discharged psychiatric patients between March 19 and 31, 2019 from 41 tertiary psychiatric hospitals across 29 provinces in China. Their socio-demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed. Results After excluding patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder or bipolar disorder, 981 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, antipsychotics were prescribed to 63.2% (95%CI 60.2–66.2%) of the sample. Antipsychotics were used in a wide spectrum of psychiatric disorders, with the rate being the highest among patients with dissociative (conversion) disorders (89.9, 95%CI 83.0–94.8%), organic mental disorders (81.7, 95%CI 73.1–88.7%), dementia (79.0,95%CI 67.8–87.9%), obsessive-compulsive disorder (77.8, 95%CI 55.7–92.5%), mental disorders due to psychoactive substances (75.3,95%CI 64.7–84.2%), behavioural and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence (71.4, 95%CI 45.5–90.1%), somatoform disorders (63.2, 95%CI 40.8%–82..2%), major depression disorder (53.7,95%CI 48.8–58.6%), anxiety disorder (38.8,95%CI 30.5–47.7%), and insomnia (25.0, 95%CI 8.5–28.9%). The top three most commonly used antipsychotics were olanzapine (29.1%), quetiapine (20.3%) and risperidone (6.8%), and their corresponding average doses were 9.04 ± 5.80 mg/day, 185.13 ± 174.72 mg/day, and 2.98 ± 1.71 mg/day, respectively. A binary logistic regression showed that younger age, having the Employee Health Insurance or Residents Health Insurance, having psychotic symptoms and requiring restraint during hospitalization were significantly associated with off-label use of antipsychotics. Conclusion Off-label use of antipsychotics is very common in psychiatric inpatients in China, mainly with moderate-dose use of single agents. However, the efficacy and safety of this practice is uncertain for many diagnoses and for the elderly. Clinicians should be cautious about this practice while waiting for more research data.

O metilfenidato é um medicamento capaz de causar alterações comportamentais, de humor e, devido seus efeitos psicoestimulantes, vem sendo utilizado de forma indiscriminada entre os estudantes para melhorar o desempenho acadêmico. O estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a prevalência do uso de metilfenidato entre estudantes universitários, bem como, seus efeitos. A pesquisa é uma revisão sistemática de literatura, em que foram reunidos artigos de forma abrangente e não tendenciosa sobre o uso indiscriminado de metilfenidato entre estudantes universitários. Os artigos foram escolhidos a partir das bases eletrônicas SCIELO, Google Acadêmico e LILACS e selecionados 27, publicados entre os anos de 2008 e 2019. O Rio Grande do Sul apresentou a maior quantidade de artigos sobre o tema, entretanto, os estados do Rio de Janeiro e São Paulo manifestaram os maiores números para o uso indiscriminado do medicamento entre os estudantes, nos anos de 2013 e 2014. Registraram-se 17 efeitos negativos em relação ao consumo da droga. São eles: taquicardia/palpitação, boca seca, perda de apetite, ansiedade, cefaleia, insônia, cansaço após uso, náuseas, aumento do estresse, dose dependência, tremores, tremores nas mãos, arritmia, anorexia, declínio da sensação de bem-estar, visão turva e euforia. Nesse sentido, foi possível verificar um levantamento geral, do período de 2008 a 2019, sobre a prática do uso inadequado do metilfenidato pelos acadêmicos brasileiros, verificando os benefícios e os malefícios dessa prática inconsequente. Os dados compilados servirão como parâmetro para outras pesquisas, assim como para o desenvolvimento de medidas preventivas e de conscientização.

Resumen: Introducción: Las agencias reguladoras son responsables de enmarcar la prescripción de fármacos en condiciones off-label (OL) y unlicensed (UL) en los cuidados intensivos neonatales. No obstante, los criterios de aprobación establecidos pueden variar entre las agencias de distintos países. El objetivo del estudio fue determinar la frecuencia de la prescripción de fármacos OL y UL en una muestra de pacientes en cuidados intensivos neonatales según los criterios establecidos por la Food and Drug Administration (FDA) de Estados Unidos y la Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) de Brasil, analizando las diferencias en los resultados obtenidos con los criterios de cada agencia. Métodos: Estudio prospectivo de cohortes en neonatos ingresados más de 24 horas en la unidad de cuidados intensivos neonatales (UCIN) de un hospital universitario materno infantil entre agosto de 2017 y julio de 2018. Se obtuvo información sobre los fármacos incluidos en el análisis de prescripción OL y UL de las bases de datos DrugDex-Micromedex® y de la información oficial sobre fármacos de Brasil. La concordancia entre los criterios de la FDA y de la ANVISA se evaluó por medio del índice kappa. Los valores de kappa

Introduction: Regulatory agencies are responsible for defining the use of off-label (OL) and unlicensed (UL) drug prescription in neonatal intensive care. However, these regulatory criteria may differ between agencies in different countries. The aim of this study was to establish the frequency of OL and UL drug prescription in a sample of patients in a neonatal intensive care unit applying the criteria of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States and the Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) of Brazil, analysing the differences observed in the results based on the applied criteria. Methods: Prospective cohort study in neonates admitted for more than 24 h to the NICU of a teaching maternity hospital between August 2017 and July 2018. We obtained information concerning the drugs included in the analysis of OL and UL prescriptions from the DrugDex-Micromedex® and official information on pharmaceutical products in Brazil. We used the kappa correlation coefficient to assess the agreement between the FDA and ANVISA criteria. We defined disagreement as a kappa value of less than 0.200. Results: We evaluated 220 neonates admitted to the NICU and 17,421 items prescribed during the study period. We did not find a difference in the proportion of neonates in which at least 1 drug was prescribed under OL conditions applying the FDA versus the ANVISA criteria (96.4% vs. 98.6%). We found differences between the FDA and ANVISA in the OL classification based on the authorized age of use and indications for prescription, mainly in systemic antimicrobials and cardiovascular drugs. When we compared the prescribing information provided by the FDA and the ANVISA, we found that the criteria of the ANVISA were less specific. Conclusion: Off-label and unlicensed drug prescription are frequent in neonatal intensive care applying the criteria of either agency, although the FDA has established more detailed criteria in terms of the ages and indications for which prescription is authorized. Resumen: Introducción: Las agencias reguladoras son responsables de enmarcar la prescripción de fármacos en condiciones off-label (OL) y unlicensed (UL) en los cuidados intensivos neonatales. No obstante, los criterios de aprobación establecidos pueden variar entre las agencias de distintos países. El objetivo del estudio fue determinar la frecuencia de la prescripción de fármacos OL y UL en una muestra de pacientes en cuidados intensivos neonatales según los criterios establecidos por la Food and Drug Administration (FDA) de Estados Unidos y la Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) de Brasil, analizando las diferencias en los resultados obtenidos con los criterios de cada agencia. Métodos: Estudio prospectivo de cohortes en neonatos ingresados más de 24 horas en la unidad de cuidados intensivos neonatales (UCIN) de un hospital universitario materno infantil entre agosto de 2017 y julio de 2018. Se obtuvo información sobre los fármacos incluidos en el análisis de prescripción OL y UL de las bases de datos DrugDex-Micromedex® y de la información oficial sobre fármacos de Brasil. La concordancia entre los criterios de la FDA y de la ANVISA se evaluó por medio del índice kappa. Los valores de kappa < 0,200 se consideraron indicativos de discordancia. Resultados: Se evaluó a 220 neonatos ingresados en la UCIN y 17 421 prescripciones de fármacos individuales en el período de estudio. No hubo diferencias en la proporción de pacientes que recibieron al menos una prescripción OL según se aplicasen los criterios de la FDA o los de la ANVISA (96,4% vs. 98,6%). En cambio, se encontraron diferencias en el motivo de clasificación como OL en base a la edad o a la indicación entre las dos agencias reguladoras, principalmente en la prescripción de antiinfecciosos sistémicos y agentes cardiovasculares. Al comparar las condiciones de prescripción aprobadas por la FDA y la ANVISA, se observó que los criterios de la ANVISA eran menos específicos. Conclusiones: La prescripción de fármacos off-label y unlicensed es frecuente en los cuidados intensivos neonatales aplicando los criterios de cualquiera de las dos agencias, los criterios de la FDA son más específicos en cuanto a los grupos de edad y las indicaciones para los que se autoriza el uso de los fármacos.

The off-label use of medicines is neither prohibited nor explicitly allowed, according to the current European Union (EU) pharmaceutical legislation. This can cause confusion in physicians’ practice as well as lead to patients’ dissatisfaction. The purpose of this survey is to assess the knowledge and experience of Bulgarian physicians with the off-label use of medicines. The survey was performed at the beginning of 2020 in the biggest private hospital in South-Central Bulgaria. Ninety-six physicians from the inpatient and outpatient medical care participated in the survey and answered 10 questions. The data analysis was performed using the statistical program SPSS v19.0. The results are described as numbers and percentages for the qualitative variables and mean value (median due to their distribution) and a variance measure (range) for the quantitative ones. The distribution of the variables was tested with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The evaluation of the relationships between the qualitative variables was performed using the χ2 test or the Fisher's exact test, where applicable. The results showed that most of the participants (81%) have never prescribed medicines off-label and believe it is not allowed to use medicines off-label (73%). Physicians strongly support the introduction of clear rules for the off-label use (88%). In conclusion, physicians practicing outside of the capital city demonstrated good level of knowledge, but relatively low awareness and little experience with the off-label use of medicines. They feel also, uncertainty in their prescribing activities when they use medicines off-label and strongly support introduction of clear rules for the off-label use.

Introduction Off-label use of antipsychotics has increased in many countries. In adult populations antipsychotics off-label prescriptions varied from 40 to 75% of all AP users. Objectives To examine the off-label prescribing practices and experiences of antipsychotic medication in Finland. Methods An electronic questionnaire on physicians’ prescription practices of antipsychotics, especially for off-label use, was sent in 2019 for physicians (n=1195) in different health care facilities including primary health care, occupational health care, in- and outpatient mental health services and services for substance abuse. The sample was selected by systematic and convenience sampling covering five university hospital areas in Finland. Results In total, 216 physicians (18% of the target sample) participated in the study, and 94% had prescribed antipsychotics for off-label use. The most common off-label indications were insomnia and anxiety. The most common antipsychotic used was quetiapine. Off-label antipsychotics was not prescribed as a first-choice medication: 99% of the physicians reported that the patients with off-label use have previously had other medications for the corresponding symptoms. In all, 88% of clinicians monitored the patients’ clinical condition, whereas metabolic values were followed more rarely. About 68% of physicians reported more benefit than harm from the antipsychotics off-label use. Conclusions Antipsychotics are often prescribed for off-label use, most commonly for insomnia and anxiety. Most of the physicians see more benefits than harms for the patient in off-label use. There is a need to analyse the long-term benefits and harms of off-label use of antipsychotics and create more detailed treatment algorithms and clinical recommendations for such use. Disclosure No significant relationships.

Background: The acquisition of proper and relevant pediatric clinical data is essential to ensure tolerable and effective pediatric drug therapies. In the field of pharmacological treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders, the lack of sufficient high quality scientific evidence for pediatric age results in the frequent need to prescribe off-label drugs. With the aim of improving knowledge about safety profile of off-label drug prescription in children and adolescent with neurological and/or psychiatric disorders, we realized a multidisciplinary pharmacovigilance study.Materials and methods: An observational retrospective study was conducted to assess the safety of off-label pharmacological therapies in patients aged 0–18 years, admitted to the Neuropsychiatry Unit of the Institute for Maternal and Child Health - IRCCS “Burlo Garofolo” between January 2016 and December 2018. Prescription patterns and adverse drug reactions were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.Results: Overall, 230 patients were enrolled, 48% boys (N = 111), 52% girls (N = 119), average age of 10 years, and a total of 534 prescriptions was analyzed. 54.5% (N = 125) of patients had epilepsy, 37.5% (N = 86) suffered from psychiatric disorders, 8% (N = 19) had other neurological disorders. The prevalence of off-label prescriptions was 32% and 50% of the study population received at least one off-label drug. A total of 106 ADRs was detected: 57% of ADRs were due to drug-drug interactions, 30% were due to off-label prescriptions, 10% were due to overdose and 3% were due to improper use. No significant association between emerged ADRs and off label prescriptions was found (Fisher’s exact two-tailed test, p = 1.000). There was significant association between increasing number of administrated drugs and risk of ADRs (OR 1.99; IC95% 1.58–2.5; p = 0.000). Psychiatric disorders were associated with at least three times higher risk to be treated with an off-label drug (OR 3.30; IC95% 2.26–4.83; p = 0.000).Conclusions: This study shows that off-label prescribing in neuropsychiatric disorders does not pose a greater risk of ADRs than on-label prescribing and highlights unmet clinical needs in pediatric neuropsychopharmacology. The multidisciplinary approach can provide important contributions to improve therapeutic path of these already complex pathologies by careful monitoring of therapeutic appropriateness and drug interactions.

Use of intrathecal gadolinium for contrast-enhanced myelography and cisternography remains off-label and is currently not FDA-approved. We report a 70-year-old male who underwent CT myelogram utilizing off-label high-dose intrathecal gadolinium who developed altered mental status and bilateral hearing loss. Workup ruled out meningitis (infectious and aseptic), infectious encephalopathy, encephalitis, and hypothyroidism. MRI of the brain and lumbar spine without contrast displayed fluid collection in L4-5 interspace and diffuse cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) hyperdensity consistent with intrathecal gadolinium. The patient eventually improved with high-dose IV dexamethasone and supportive care and resolution of diffuse CSF hyperdensity was observed on repeat MRI. There are limited data demonstrating the safety of low-dose intrathecal gadolinium due to which usage remains off-label. Our case highlights the need for caution when using substances for off-label indications and reinforces the usage of less invasive and noninvasive diagnostic modalities when possible.

Introduction: Despite clinical trials, there are still no approved specific therapies or any vaccine against COVID-19. The only option available is using investigational drugs for compassionate use. The update of the existing regulation regarding compassionate use is to ensure the effective and sustainable development of health policies and technologies over the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.Aim: The present short communication aimed to highlight the need for early and expanded access to investigational drugs for compassionate use as well as a call for an update of the existing regulation in Bulgaria concerning compassionate use in the era of COVID-19.Materials and Methods: In EU and Bulgaria as well, the legal framework for compassionate use was introduced by Article 83 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council; in principle, Regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council are mandatory for all Member States. Remdesivir appears to have a favorable clinical and safety profile, as reported in a case involving patients with severe COVID-19 through a compassionate use programme.Results: The overall probability of clinical improvement observed in 36 of 53 COVID-19 patients received intravenous remdesivir as part of a compassionate use programme was 68% (95% CI 40% to 80%). Thirty two patients (60%) demonstrated at least one adverse event, twelve 12 patients (23%) experienced serious adverse events and seven patients (13%) died.Conclusion: The global pandemic mandates Bulgarian Drug Agency for a reasonable update of the existing national regulation concerning compassionate use and off-label therapies. In the era of COVID-19, it is important for Bulgarian patients to have early and expanded access to investigational drugs for compassionate use.

Anteneh Belayneh Department of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, EthiopiaCorrespondence: Anteneh Belayneh Tel +251 912844719Email antejour32@gmail.comAbstract: COVID-19 is continuing as a big challenge for the globe and several types of research are continued to find safe and effective treatment and preventive options. Although there is a lack of conclusive evidence of their benefit, there is worldwide controversy to use anti-malarial drugs, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, for the treatment of COVID-19. FDA issued an emergency use authorization to the use of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. On the contrary to the FDA, the European Medicines Agency has warned against the widespread use of these drugs to treat COVID-19. Finally, the WHO declared that clinical trials on these drugs are halted after the devastating findings of the study published in the medical journal called The Lancet. Against this fact, there are several rumors about the irresponsible use of these drugs in Africa for the treatment of COVID-19. This work aimed to review the off-label use of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 in African countries against WHO recommendation. Data on the use of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 in African countries were searched from credible sources including Scopus, PubMed, Hindawi, Google Scholar, and from local and international media. The study showed that many African countries have already approved at the national level to use these drugs to treat COVID-19 by opposing WHO warnings. In addition to this, falsified and substandard chloroquine products started to emerge in some African countries. The health sectors of the African government should critically compare the risks and benefits before using these drugs. The WHO and African drug regulatory organizations should intervene to stop the off-label use practice of these drugs against the licensed purpose and distribution of falsified and substandard products in the continent.Keywords: COVID-19, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, off-label, Africa

Alesha Wale,1 Mark Ireland,2 Rowan Yemm,1 Sarah Hiom,3 Alison Jones,3 John Paul Spark,3 Mark Francis,4 Karen May,5 Louise Allen,5 Steve Ridd,6 Efi Mantzourani1,7 1School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK; 2Community Pharmacy Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK; 3St. Mary’s Pharmaceutical Unit, Cardiff, Wales, UK; 4Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, Wales, UK; 5Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Swansea, Wales, UK; 6Mayberry Pharmacy, Cardiff, Wales, UK; 7NHS Wales Informatics Service, Cardiff, Wales, UKCorrespondence: Efi Mantzourani Email MantzouraniE1@cardiff.ac.ukObjective: Community pharmacy staff are responsible for obtaining and supplying unlicensed “special” medicines to patients in primary care. Less well-defined parameters for safe and effective use of unlicensed compared to licensed medicines, along with issues around maintaining consistency between care settings or among manufacturers, have been associated with increased risks. This study aimed to explore the views and experiences of community pharmacy staff on accessing and supplying unlicensed “special” medicines to patients in Wales and the perceived impact of challenges faced on patient care.Methods: A qualitative, phenomenological approach was employed, involving semi-structured interviews with pharmacists and pharmacy technicians working at one small chain of community pharmacies in Wales. The interview schedule focused on the personal experiences and perceptions of the participants on the processes involved in accessing and supplying unlicensed “special” medicines from a community pharmacy. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.Results: A total of six participants completed the interview. Three main themes were constructed from inductive thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews: requirement for additional patient responsibilities; influences on the confidence felt by pharmacy staff when accessing and supplying unlicensed “special” medicines; and continuity of supply.Conclusion: This study gives a preliminary insight into the views and experiences of community pharmacy staff in Wales when accessing and supplying unlicensed “special” medicines. Further research is required to see if these views and experiences are representative of community pharmacy staff across the country.Keywords: unlicensed medicines, “special” medicines, specials, community pharmacy, transfer of care, medicines supply, transmural care, off-label, compounding

Abstract Background Furosemide is approved in full term neonates to treat edema associated with congestive heart failure, cirrhosis and renal diseases. It is often administered off-label in premature neonates, to treat respiratory conditions and at doses greater-than-recommended. We conducted a national survey on behalf of the Neonatal Pharmacotherapy Study Group of the Italian Society of Neonatology (SIN), to investigate its use in Italian neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), in conformity with current guidelines. Methods Between December 2016 and June 2017, a 14-item multiple-choice online questionnaire was sent to all NICU directors from the SIN directory. Gestational age, route of administration, posology, indications, referenced guidelines, adverse effects monitoring and the presence of Paediatric Cardiology or Cardiosurgery service on site were assessed. A chi-square test was performed 1) to evaluate differences in the distribution of responses between NICUs administering furosemide at doses higher-than-recommended; 2) to compare the proportion of NICUs administering furosemide at high doses in institutions with versus without a Paediatric Cardiology or Cardiosurgery service. Results The response rate was 50% (57/114). The intravenous and oral routes were chosen primarily; the intravenous administration in single doses predominated over continuous infusion. Its main therapeutic indications were congestive heart failure/overload (94.7%) and oligo-anuria (87.7%) however furosemide was also frequently used for broncopulmonary dysplasia (50.9%) and respiratory distress syndrome and/or transient tachypnea of the newborn (24.6%). In 28/57 NICUs furosemide was administered at doses higher-than-recommended. In most NICUs the same posology was used in term and preterm neonates. Compared to the total sample, a larger proportion of NICUs administering doses greater-than-recommended referenced current literature for reasons to do so (19.3 and 32.1% respectively). The presence of a Paediatric Cardiology or Cardiosurgery service on site did not correlate with the chosen posology. The majority of NICUs performed acoustic test and renal ultrasound for furosemide exposure greater than 2 weeks. Conclusions In Italian NICUs, furosemide is commonly prescribed to term and preterm newborns for label and unlabeled indications. Doses greater-than-recommended are frequently administered. Such use is not necessarily inappropriate. More research is required to assess the efficacy and safety of unlabeled use.

Naltrexone is well-known opioid antagonist used in chronic or acute states of abuse, respectively. Nowadays the low doses of this drug are gaining popularity among researchers, doctors and patients seeking alternatives to well-known and widely used therapies in various indications. The low-dose naltrexone (LDN) is the therapy which involving the use of naltrexone at daily doses 10 times lower or even lower (usually 1 mg - 5 mg) than in the approved by Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency. The therapy is usually prepared by using pure substance (obtained from manufacturer) or by preparing appropriate dosage from drug available on the market. In accordance with available reports low dosage of naltrexone may acts through short-term and intermittent binding to opioid receptors causes a compensatory increase in endogenous opioids including β-endorphins and increase in expression of μ and δ receptors. The LDN also binds briefly the opioid growth factor receptor (OGFr), causing blockage of binding to opioid growth factor (OGF, met-enkephalin). The researchers also believe that low-dose naltrexone is antagonist of TLR4 receptor and acts as glial cells modulator. Based on the mechanism of action of low-doses of naltrexone, which is not fully known, researchers are trying to confirm reports concerning the efficacy and safety of the therapy in many diseases, including autoimmune disorders (including Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis), fibromyalgia and chronic pain, cancer or dermatological diseases. The safety profile of naltrexone at standard doses (50-100 mg) is well known when the drug is used in accordance with registered indications. The information on the safety of LDN treatment protocol is still limited and the data collected is insufficient. Preliminary reports may suggest that treatment is relatively safe however, to confirm safety profile and effects of chronic use it is necessary to conduct extensive, long-term studies in large, varied populations. Despite the lack of registration in any indication and necessity of conducting extensive research on the safety and effectiveness of its use, this therapy has gained a wide range of supporters among both doctors and patients and has been adopted as an alternative off-label treatment. If the effectiveness and safety of LDN are confirmed, it will be undoubtedly a breakthrough therapy, willingly used by patients around the world due to its low cost, availability, safety profile and easy to use.

Roflumilast, a highly selective oral phosphodiesterase IV inhibitor, exerts anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects. Oral roflumilast causes gastrointestinal side effects, especially vomiting, which could be reduced by administering roflumilast via off-label routes. Inhaled roflumilast reportedly improved inflammatory and histopathological changes in asthmatic mice. The current study investigated the effects of oral and rectal roflumilast on trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid (TNBS)-induced chronic colitis in rats, an experimental model resembling human Crohn's disease. Five groups of rats (n=8) were used: normal control, TNBS-induced colitis, and three TNBS-treated colitic groups, which received oral sulfasalazine (500 mg·kg-1·day-1), oral roflumilast (5 mg·kg-1·day-1), or rectal roflumilast (5 mg·kg-1·day-1) for 15 days after colitis induction. Then, the following were assessed: the colitis activity score, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-2, and IL-6 serum levels, colonic length, and myeloperoxidase, malonaldehyde, and glutathione levels. Histological examinations employed H&E, Masson trichrome, and PAS stains in addition to immunostaining for KI-67 and TNF-α. The TNBS-induced colitis rats showed significant increases in disease activity scores, serum TNF-α, IL-2, and IL-6 levels, and colonic myeloperoxidase and malonaldehyde content. They also showed significant decreases in colonic length and glutathione levels in addition to histopathological and immunohistochemical changes. All the treatments significantly improved all these changes. Sulfasalazine provided the greatest improvement, followed by oral roflumilast, and then rectal roflumilast. In conclusion, both oral and rectal roflumilast partially improved TNBS-induced chronic colitis, suggesting the potential of roflumilast as an additional treatment for Crohn's disease.

(1) Background: SARS-CoV-2 infection is notably mild in children, though comorbidities may increase the risk of hospitalization and may represent a risk for increased disease severity. There is an urgent need for targeted therapies with an acceptable efficacy and safety profile. To date, most of the medicines for COVID-19-specific treatment are prescribed off-label for children due to a lack of clinical trials and consequent evidence in this population. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study investigating the safety of treatments for the prevention of severe COVID-19 in fragile pediatric patients who received monoclonal antibodies and antivirals for mild-to-moderate symptoms between December 2021 and July 2022. (3) Results: Thirty-two patients were included. Monoclonal antibodies were prescribed to 62%, intravenous antivirals to 22%, and oral antivirals to 16% of children. Sotrovimab was the most frequently prescribed drug among monoclonal antibodies and overall (59%). The second most prescribed drug was remdesivir (22%). No severe adverse drug reaction was reported. There was no progression to severe disease and no death cases due to COVID-19 or drug administration. At drug-type stratification, resolution of symptoms and swab positivity time showed no difference between the two groups at 7 and 28 days. Off-label prescriptions were 84% overall, and in similar proportions between the two groups. (4) Conclusions: in this small sample, antivirals seemed safe and showed no differences in efficacy as compared to MAbs for the early treatment of COVID-19 in fragile children, thus representing a valuable choice, even when administered off-label.