Search

Antipsychotic prescribing trends vary internationally, albeit off-label use remains high (i.e., target symptoms). We aim to describe antipsychotic use, target conditions, target symptoms and dosing regimens in children and adolescents in Ireland. We used a sampled cohort from a national audit of children and adolescents attending mental health services with predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria from Jul-2021 to Dec-2021 who were prescribed at least one psychotropic medication and up to and including 17-years of age (n = 3528). Each service provided anonymised data. We described the frequency of antipsychotic medication, medication type, target condition, target symptom and medication doses. We used multivariable logistic regression, adjusted with available co-variates to assess the association of being prescribed an antipsychotic medication. Twelve percentage (n = 437) were prescribed an antipsychotic and 16–17-years (n = 211, 48.3%) was the most common age category. The commonest reason for prescribing an antipsychotic was target symptoms (i.e., off-label use) (n = 329; 75.%) and of these symptoms, agitation (n = 77/329; 25%) and irritability (56/239; 25%) were the most common. Quetiapine (n = 127; 29%) was the most common antipsychotic, followed by risperidone (n = 125; 28.6%), aripiprazole (n = 107; 24.5%), and olanzapine (n = 66; 15.1%). In adjusted analysis, having a psychotic disorder ((adjusted-odds-ratio) aOR: 39.63, CI 95%, 13.40–117.22), bipolar disorder (aOR: 16.96, CI 95%, 3.60–80.00), autism spectrum disorder (aOR: 3.24, CI 95%, 2.45–4.28) or aggression symptoms (aOR: 16.75, CI 95%, 7.22–38.89) was associated with prescribing an antipsychotic medication. This is the first study in children and adolescents that describes the target conditions and target symptoms for antipsychotic use in Ireland. Our results show a high proportion of antipsychotic prescribing based on target symptoms rather than target condition or diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ketamine is a versatile anesthetic that has been widely used off-label to treat a variety of indications. Esketamine, a derivative of ketamine, is FDA-approved to treat treatment-resistant depression. This report compares statewide prescription ketamine and esketamine trends. Using PDMP data from 2017–2023, prescription and prescriber characteristics, and patient demographics were compared between esketamine and ketamine prescriptions. During this time, ketamine prescriptions, patients, and providers rose 55.8%, 30.6%, and 2.8% since 2017. Esketamine prescriptions increased 1289.4% since 2019. In 2023, ketamine prescriptions were primarily in powder form (98.7%) and paid for out-of-pocket (83.9%), whereas esketamine prescriptions were primarily paid for by insurance (80.2%). The proportion of ketamine prescribed in RI but dispensed out-of-state have increased 22% since 2022 (18% of total dispensations). As more people seek treatment for mental health disorders, ketamine and esketamine prescriptions continue to rise. Understanding ketamine and esketamine use can help mitigate associated adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Immunology Quarterly / Immunológiai Szemle is the property of Medicina Konyvkiado Zrt. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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 FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Practical Pharmacy & Clinical Remedies is the property of Editorial Department of Practical Pharmacy & Clinical Remedies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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.

Purpose: Although dalbavancin is currently approved for the treatment of ABSSIs, several studies suggest its efficacy and tolerance as long-term therapy for other off-label indications requiring prolonged intravenous antibiotic administration. Methods: We conducted a prospective nationwide study of dalbavancin use in real-life settings for both approved and off-label indications analysing for each case the clinical and microbiological characteristics of infection the efficacy and safety of treatments. Results: During the study period (from December 2018 to July 2021), the ID specialists from 14 different centres enrolled 223 patients treated with dalbavancin [141 males (63%) and 82 females (37%); male/female ratio 1.72; mean age 59 (SD 17.2) years, (range 15–96). Most patients in the study population (136/223; 61.0%) came from community rather than health care facilities and most of them were visited in Infectious Diseases wards (93/223; 41.7%) and clinics (55/223; 24.7%) even though some patients were cured in other settings, such as surgery wards (18/223; 8.1%), orthopaedic wards (11/223; 4.9%), Emergency Rooms (7/223; 3.1%) and non-surgical other than ID wards (6/223; 2.7%). The most common ID diagnoses were osteomyelitis (44 cases/223; 19.7%; of which 29 acute and 15 chronic osteomyelitis), cellulitis (28/223; 12.5%), cutaneous abscess (23/223; 10.3%), orthopaedic prosthesis-associated infection (22/223; 9.9%), surgical site infection (20/223; 9.0%) and septic arthritis (15/223; 6.7%). Conclusion: In conclusion, by virtue of its PK/PD properties, dalbavancin represents a valuable option to daily in-hospital intravenous or outpatient antimicrobial regimens also for off-label indications requiring a long-term treatment of Gram-positive infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuous pulse oximetry (Sp o 2) is a commonly utilized tool to obtain an indirect, noninvasive measurement of hemoglobin oxygen saturation. Difficulty obtaining measurement with Sp o 2 sensors can lead nurses to try off-label sites until they find placement that provides a signal. Currently, there is limited evidence to support this application. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of off-label placement of pulse oximetry sensors in comparison to on-label placement in adult cardiac intensive care patients. Methods: Data were collected on 24 participants. At the time of a medically necessary arterial blood gas laboratory draws, 4 Sp o 2 measurements were gathered from an on-label finger sensor, an off-label finger sensor, an on-label ear sensor, and an off-label ear sensor. Results were analyzed using 4 Pearson correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and 2 linear mixed-effect models. Results: Our study found that while both our on-label finger and off-label finger pulse oximetry sensor overestimated when compared to the arterial hemoglobin saturation (gold standard), there was greater overestimation found with the off-label placement. Though there was not a significant difference observed between the ear probe on the nose and the gold standard, figures examining off-label ear probe and gold standard measures show that, in lower ranges of oxygen saturation, the off-site probe substantially overestimates true oxygen saturation, while in higher ranges of oxygen saturation, the off-site ear probe underestimates true oxygen saturation. Conclusions: No changes should be made to the current practice of using pulse oximetry sensor placement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThe management of severe/prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections in immunocompromised hosts is still challenging. We describe nine patients with hematologic malignancies with a history of unsuccessful SARS-CoV-2 treatment receiving antiviral combination treatment for persistent infection at a tertiary hospital in central Italy (University Hospital of Careggi, Florence). Combination treatments consisted of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus molnupiravir (n = 4), nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus remdesivir (n = 4) or remdesivir plus molnupiravir (n = 1) for 10 days, in some cases associated with sotrovimab. Combinations were generally well tolerated. One patient obtained viral clearance but died due to the underlying disease. In eight cases, clinical and virological success was confirmed by radiological follow-up. Antivirals combination is likely to become a mainstay in the future management of COVID-19 among immunocompromised patients, but knowledge in this field is still very limited and prospective studies on larger cohorts are urgently warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Off‐label use of Ciprodex® (ciprofloxacin‐dexamethasone: CPD), an antibiotic‐steroid combination solution, in the airway has been reported by pediatric otolaryngologists with anecdotal success. We examined national trends regarding off‐label CPD use including prevalence, common indications, prescriber patterns, adverse events, and accessibility. Methods: 15‐item cross‐sectional survey was distributed to American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology members from January–April 2022. Univariate analyses were performed to compare responses for users of off‐label CPD versus non‐users. Ease of access was compared across geographies and practice types using multivariate logistic regressions. Results: Of the 163 complete responses (26.6% response rate), 156 (95.7%) reported using off‐label CPD. Most common indications for off‐label CPD were tracheal granulation (87.8%, n = 137) and choanal atresia (82.1%, n = 128). Ease of access was significantly increased in the Midwest (OR:18.79, 95%CI:3.63–1.24, p = 0.001) and West (OR:29.92, 95%CI:3.55–682.00, p = 0.006). Ease of access was significantly lower at tertiary referral centers (OR:0.11, 95%CI:0.01–0.64, p = 0.041) and private practices (OR:0.04, 95%CI:0.002–0.33, p = 0.009) compared to academic free‐standing children's hospitals. Two‐thirds of respondents reported feeling "Very Comfortable" with the safety profile of off‐label CPD; 99.4% (n = 156) felt that the benefits outweighed the risks of off‐label use. Seven respondents (4.5%) reported adverse events (e.g., local allergic reaction, cushingoid symptoms) from off‐label use. Conclusions: Our findings (26.6% response rate) suggest that off‐label CPD is commonly used by pediatric otolaryngologists, many of whom reported feeling that the benefits of off‐label CPD outweigh the risks. Our results establish a baseline for future efforts to assess the efficacy and safety of off‐label CPD and to improve its accessibility. Level of Evidence: V Laryngoscope, 134:2922–2930, 2024 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess the extent of off‐label drug use and the occurrence of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among paediatric patients in Italian hospitals. Methods: We conducted a 2‐year prospective cohort study across 22 Italian hospital wards from September 2020 to September 2022. As part of the surveillance project, we performed a 6‐month retrieval of all reported ADRs and evaluated all drug prescriptions for their possible off‐label use. Following an educational project on pharmacovigilance addressed to healthcare professionals in participating wards, the same data collection was performed. Results: Among the 892 patients included in the study, 64% were admitted to paediatric wards and 36% to neonatal wards. Fifty per cent of all drugs prescribed were used off‐label and mainly concerned the administration of a different dose from the one authorized. In neonatal wards, off‐label prescriptions occurred slightly more often, with antibacterials being the most frequently used off‐label drugs. A total of 35 reports of suspected ADRs were collected, five before the educational project and 30 afterwards. Based on product licence, 10 of the total 35 reports concerned at least one off‐label drug use. Conclusions: The off‐label use of drugs in treating paediatric patients was extensive in Italian hospitals. Regulatory interventions are needed to promote the use of drugs based on the latest available literature and improve ADR reporting on children. Paediatric indications and dosages of the drugs most commonly used in children should be supported by appropriate ad hoc studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many common drugs have not been registered for use in children. Therefore, they are sometimes prescribed as unlicensed or off-label. This study, performed at the Department of Paediatrics, University Hospital Olomouc, Czech Republic, evaluated off-label and unlicensed prescriptions. A similar study, conducted in 2013 by the same authors (P. Matalová – maiden name P. Langerová), showed that the number of off-label and unlicensed prescriptions was relatively low, compared to other studies. The goal of this study was to compare the frequency of off-label and unlicensed drug prescriptions, and to assess whether these prescriptions have declined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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.

Objective: The objective of this article is to present a decision aid in the form of a flowchart, designed to assist psychiatrists in navigating the challenges of off-label medication use. This tool is believed to be the only one currently available that combines guidance from medical indemnity insurers, RANZCP guidelines, CATG frameworks, and relevant legislation to provide a practical guide for everyday psychiatric practice. Conclusions: There are clinical, legal, ethical, and financial considerations to take into account each time an off-label prescription is ordered. There is no legal barrier to prevent psychiatrists from prescribing off-label in Australia and New Zealand. The medication should be utilised if it is in the best interests of the patient. However, practitioners must be able to defend the rationale for their off-label medication use with evidence of sound quality. Off-label use medication use can lead to improved patient outcomes and quality of life. On the other hand, poor practice in off-label prescribing can result in adverse events, patient harm, legal implications, and damage to professional reputation. By evaluating available evidence, considering patient characteristics, obtaining informed consent, and documenting the rationale for off-label use, clinical decision-making can be enhanced whilst mitigating the risks associated with off-label prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systemic calcineurin inhibitors, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and voclosporin, have been utilized in various dermatologic conditions. Although there have been numerous off-label dermatologic indications with published guidelines for cyclosporine, there is no established strong consensus for tacrolimus and voclosporin. To conduct a review of off-label use of systemic tacrolimus and voclosporin in various dermatoses to better inform treatment methods. A literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar. Relevant clinical trials, observational studies, case series, and reports regarding off-label dermatologic uses of systemic tacrolimus and voclosporin were included. Tacrolimus shows promise for numerous dermatologic conditions, including psoriasis, atopic dermatitis/eczema, pyoderma gangrenosum, chronic urticaria, and Behcet's disease. Randomized controlled trial data are only available for voclosporin in psoriasis, which showed efficacy but did not meet noninferiority to cyclosporine. Data were limited and extracted from published papers. Studies differed in methodology, and nonstandardized outcomes limited the conclusions drawn. In comparison to cyclosporine, tacrolimus can be considered for treatment-refractory disease or in patients with cardiovascular risk factors or inflammatory bowel disease. Voclosporin has only been utilized in psoriasis currently, and clinical trials in psoriasis show voclosporin's efficacy. Voclosporin can be considered for patients with lupus nephritis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unlicensed and off-label (UL/OL) prescriptions have been associated with an increased risk of drug-related problems. Data of their prevalence at hospital discharge remain insufficient. We aimed to describe the prevalence of UL/OL drugs in outpatient prescriptions at discharge in children. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using the routinely collected health data of children at discharge from 2014 to 2016. The primary reference source for determining licensed labelling was the summaries of product characteristics (SPCs) in a French industry-independent formulary named Thériaque. We described the characteristics of UL/OL prescriptions at discharge and looked for predictors of UL/OL prescriptions. Results: We included 2536 prescriptions of 479 children. Licensed, OL, and UL prescriptions accounted for 58.6% (95% CI: 56.7–60.5), 39.2% (95% CI: 37.3–41.1), and 2.3% (95% CI: 1.7–2.9), respectively. A total of 323 (74%) children received at least one UL/OL drug. Among the licensed drugs, bronchodilators (8.8%) and analgesics (8.6%), and among the OL drugs, antibiotics (2.8%), were the most prescribed. The younger age of the children and higher number of drugs they received increased the probability of UL/OL prescriptions (unadjusted p-value of ≤0.05). Conclusion: The prevalence of UL/OL prescriptions is about 40% at discharge from a pediatric university hospital in France. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: The 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. Methods: This 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. Results: A total of 242 patients with 261 aneurysms (160 on-label and 101 offlabel 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 offlabel (4.9% vs. 21%, p = 0.002) group than in the on-label group; however, all patients were asymptomatic. Conclusion: Compared 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 FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dupilumab is approved for moderate‐severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients aged ≥6 months by the US Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada; however, there are little real‐world data because providers have limited practical experience with this recently approved therapy. Objectives: To describe the real‐world effectiveness and safety in patients aged <12 years with moderate‐severe AD currently receiving or previously having received dupilumab. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted at six Canadian sites. Cases were divided into Group 1 ≤2 years old, Group 2 >2 to <6 years old, and Group 3 ≥6 to <12 years old. Medical history and details of dupilumab treatment were collected. The primary outcome was to measure the improvement in eczema area and severity index. Secondary outcomes examined included the children's dermatology life quality index/infant's dermatitis quality of life, peak pruritus numerical rating scale, and delay to dupilumab access for patients who were considered off‐label for dupilumab due to their age. Results: Sixty three pediatric patients (37 males) with moderate‐to‐severe AD were included; the mean age was 6.4 years old (range: 2–11) when dupilumab treatment was started. Overall, 75% (36/48) achieved EASI‐75% and 71% (34/48) achieved EASI‐90. EASI‐75 and EASI‐90 were achieved in 90% (17/19) and 73% (12/19) in patients <6 years old, and 76% (22/29) and 59% (17/29) in patients >6 years old, respectively. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Dupilumab is safe and effective for patients under the age of 12. However, even for experienced providers, access to the medication was challenging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although it was originally developed and approved for the treatment of various psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder, recent studies have identified the role of olanzapine in the treatment of intensive care unit (ICU)-related delirium and nausea and vomiting. Unfortunately, olanzapine is currently only indicated to be administered via the intramuscular (IM) route or enteral route, limiting the opportunity of its use in certain pediatric patients. IM injections are typically avoided in pediatrics whenever possible, and it is not uncommon for pediatric patients, especially those in an ICU setting, to be restricted to nothing by mouth. Studies in the adult population have demonstrated both safety and efficacy for the administration of reconstituted olanzapine powder by the intravenous (IV) route, which would provide an ideal administration route for pediatric patients unable to receive IM or enteral administration. We report a case series of 4 pediatric patients who received at least 1 dose of IV olanzapine. All 4 patients reported a positive response from the medication and no safety concerns were noted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Children have been mostly excluded from COVID-19 clinical trials, and, as a result, most medicines approved for COVID-19 have no pediatric indication. In addition, access to COVID-19 therapeutics remains limited. Collecting physicians' experiences with off-label use of therapeutics is important to inform global prioritization processes and better target pediatric research and development. A standardized questionnaire was designed to explore the use of therapeutics used to treat COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) in pediatric patients globally. Seventy-three physicians from 29 countries participated. For COVID-19, steroids were used by 75.6% of respondents; remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies were prescribed by 48.6% and 27.1% of respondents, respectively. For MIS-C, steroids were prescribed by 79.1% of respondents and intravenous immunoglobulins by 69.6%. The use of these products depended on their pediatric approval and the limited availability of antivirals and most monoclonal antibodies in Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe. Off-label prescription resulted widespread due to the paucity of clinical trials in young children at the time of the survey; though, based on our survey results, it was generally safe and led to clinical benefits. Conclusion: This survey provides a snapshot of current practice for treating pediatric COVID-19 worldwide, informing global prioritization efforts to better target pediatric research and development for COVID-19 therapeutics. Off-label use of such medicines is widespread for the paucity of clinical trials under 12 years and 40 kg, though appears to be safe and generally results in clinical benefits, even in young children. However, access to care, including medicine availability, differs widely globally. Clinical development of COVID-19 antivirals and monoclonal antibodies requires acceleration to ensure pediatric indication and allow worldwide availability of therapeutics that will enable more equitable access to COVID-19 treatment. What is Known: • Children have been mostly excluded from COVID-19 clinical trials, and, as a result, most medicines approved for COVID-19 have no pediatric indication. • Access to care differs widely globally, so because of the diversity of national healthcare systems; the unequal availability of medicines for COVID-19 treatment represents an obstacle to the pediatric population's universal right to health care. What is New: • Off-label COVID-19 drug prescription is widespread due to the lack of clinical trials in children younger than 12 years and weighing less than 40 kg, but relatively safe and generally leading to clinical benefit. • The application of the GAP-f framework to COVID-19 medicines is crucial, ensuring widespread access to all safe and effective drugs, enabling the rapid development of age-appropriate formulations, and developing specific access plans (including stability, storage, packaging, and labeling) for distribution in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Antivirals and monoclonal antibodies may benefit from the acceleration to reach widespread and equal diffusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The large-scale utilization of immunoglobulins in patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEIs) since 1952 prompted the discovery of their key role at high doses as immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory therapy, in the treatment of IEI-related immune dysregulation disorders, according to labelled and off-label indications. Recent years have been dominated by a progressive imbalance between the gradual but constant increase in the use of immunoglobulins and their availability, exacerbated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Objectives: To provide pragmatic indications for a need-based application of high-dose immunoglobulins in the pediatric context. Sources: A literature search was performed using PubMed, from inception until 1st August 2023, including the following keywords: anti-inflammatory; children; high dose gammaglobulin; high dose immunoglobulin; immune dysregulation; immunomodulation; immunomodulatory; inflammation; intravenous gammaglobulin; intravenous immunoglobulin; off-label; pediatric; subcutaneous gammaglobulin; subcutaneous immunoglobulin. All article types were considered. Implications: In the light of the current imbalance between gammaglobulins' demand and availability, this review advocates the urgency of a more conscious utilization of this medical product, giving indications about benefits, risks, cost-effectiveness, and administration routes of high-dose immunoglobulins in children with hematologic, neurologic, and inflammatory immune dysregulation disorders, prompting further research towards a responsible employment of gammaglobulins and improving the therapeutical decisional process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become an indispensable part of clinical practice; however, off-label use of these agents is unknown. We aimed to define the patterns of off-label use of ICIs in a nationwide sample of patients. Methods: The online database (Reçetem) was retrospectively searched for off-label use cases related to ICIs approved during a 6-month period. Adult patients with metastatic solid tumors were included. Ethics approval was obtained. Reasons for off-label use were recorded in eight categories and cases were assessed for adherence to current guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed with GNU PSPP version 1.5.3. Results: Five hundred seventy-seven reasons for use were recorded for 538 cases related to 527 patients (67.5% male). Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (35.9%) was the most common cancer type. Nivolumab (49%), pembrolizumab (25.5%), and atezolizumab (25%) were commonly used. The top reason for off-label use was lack of approval for the cancer type (37.1%), followed by use beyond the approved treatment line (21%). Nivolumab was more frequently used than atezolizumab and/or pembrolizumab in patients with malignant melanoma, kidney cancer, head and neck cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma (Chi-square goodness-of-fit test, p < 0.001). The guideline adherence rate was 60.5%. Conclusion: Off-label use of ICIs was primarily related to (NSCLC), and most patients were treatment-naïve in contrast to the acceptance that off-label use results from exhausted treatment options. Lack of approval is a significant reason for the off-label use of ICIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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.