The impact of unlicensed and off-label drug use on adverse drug reactions in paediatric patients

Presentation of the French Network of Paediatric Clinical Investigation Centres (CIC.P)

The network of Paediatric Clinical Investigation Centres (CIC.P) consists of eight research centres integrated into teaching hospitals. They collaborate with all medical and surgical departments, medico-technical departments, INSERM research units, and with university research units. The aims of the network were to conduct paediatric clinical research in the areas of drug evaluation and pathophysiology (primarily growth and neurosciences) and contribute to technical innovations. The CIC.P Network provides support to investigators, from design through the conduct of investigator-initiated or industrially sponsored clinical research protocols. It also provides physicians, pharmacists and nurses with specific training in paediatric clinical research. It has facilities specifically designed for the conduct of research in children. In accordance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines, the CIC Network also supports parents and their children during participation in medical research.

Clinical trials research in pediatrics: strategies for effective collaboration between investigator sites and the pharmaceutical industry

There is a paucity of clinical trials work in children, which leads to the frequent use of off-label and unlicensed medications in this very vulnerable group. Clinical trials work in children may be more difficult than in adults, and there are certainly ethical constraints. However, the differences between adults and children, and at different stages of childhood development, mandate strategies to improve this situation rather than continually relying on extrapolation from adult studies. Therefore, new strategies have to be established between the pharmaceutical industry and pediatric centers to facilitate effective trials work. These must be based on a clear and mutual understanding of the differences between working with children and adults. Disease phenotypes may be completely different in children; for example, wheeze in infants is not miniature adult asthma. Clinical trial design must be practical, and a trial is more likely to succeed if a simple design is utilized, with minimal interference with school work and the work of carers. The new UK initiative, 'Medicines for Children', should go a long way towards addressing the problem, and increase the evidence base for the utilization of medications in pediatric practice.

Ethical challenges in neonatal research: Summary report of the ethics group of the newborn drug development initiative

BACKGROUND

The Newborn Drug Development Initiative (NDDI) was established to address the lack of substantive data supporting efficacy and safety of drugs in the neonate.

OBJECTIVE

This commentary summarizes some of the ethical issues involved in neonatal drug development.

METHODS

At the NDDI workshop held March 29 and 30, 2004, in Baltimore, Maryland, members of the Ethics Group were dispersed among the subspecialty groups before convening to discuss common ethical themes. The Ethics Group then met together to identify and discuss those ethical themes that were both important and shared among the groups. These themes are discussed and illustrated with the other NDDI group reports. This workshop was cosponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the US Food and Drug Administration.

RESULTS

Neonatal drug research is scientifically and ethically necessary to establish the efficacy and safety of drugs widely used in newborn medicine. However, research involving neonates must be carefully designed to balance potential risks and benefits, with consideration given to the component analysis of risk. The protocols proposed by the NDDI groups would be considered greater than minimal risk and offering prospect for direct benefit, thus adhering to the Department of Health and Human Services' pediatric research regulations (Subpart D). The NDDI groups all proposed randomized controlled clinical trials, with careful attention to scientifically and ethically appropriate control groups. Multiple regulatory bodies have affirmed that in the absence of proven effective treatment or when a proven treatment offers marginal benefits, study designs with placebo controls are ethical. Obtaining parental permission is a complex issue, with a paucity of evidence describing the feasibility of informed and voluntary consent under conditions of duress and a short therapeutic window. The Subpart D regulations offer sufficient protection to critically ill neonates. The application of the revised Subpart B regulations would restrict the use of a waiver of consent for minimal risk research and for emergency research, and would not allow research that offers no direct benefit and no more than a minor increase over minimal risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Multisite collaboration involving standards of care and institutional review board procedures may be important for establishing scientific and ethical consistency. Ongoing dialogue among researchers, clinicians, parents, and other interested parties is essential to promoting ethically and scientifically sound neonatal clinical research.

Medicine for children: The European initiative in the regulation of new drugs and clinical studies

Over the last two years, a special field named the "Medicine for Children" has been intensively developed. It is particularly significant for professionals, parents, but also for politicians and high-level officials of the European Union and its constitutive institutions: the European Health Commission and the European Council. The main idea is to make a drastic change in the attitude toward children, as the most vulnerable members of the society, namely to create the "Medicine for Children" instead of the "Medicine in Children". This short report presents the draft and ideas of the new European legislation on the application of drugs for children, performance of clinical studies in pediatric population and mandatory inclusion into the international network of scientific experts, clinical centers capable of performing studies and the already completed or ongoing clinical study registers.

Off‐label use of medicines: consensus recommendations for evaluating appropriateness

Off-label prescribing is the prescription of a registered medicine for a use that is not included in the product information. The practice is common, with rates up to 40% in adults and up to 90% in paediatric patients. Off-label prescribing is not illegal and may sometimes be clinically appropriate, but is associated with a number of clinical, safety and ethical issues. To date, no explicit guidance has been available to help clinicians assess appropriateness in off-label prescribing. We describe the development of a guide for clinicians, policymakers and funders of health care in evaluating the appropriateness of medicines proposed for off-label use. Three broad categories of appropriate off-label use are identified:off-label use justified by high-quality evidence; use within the context of a formal research proposal; and exceptional use, justified by individual clinical circumstances. An appropriate process for informed consent is proposed for each category. If there is no high-quality evidence supporting off-label use, and the medicine is not suitable for exceptional or research indications, its use is generally not recommended. This will reduce inappropriate use, enhance patient safety by reducing exposure to unnecessary risk, and may stimulate more clinically relevant medicines research.

Trends in off-label β-blocker use: A secondary data analysis

BACKGROUND

The off-label use of beta-blockers might be prevalent, but no studies have provided empiric data on the off-label use based on utilization data.

OBJECTIVE

This secondary data analysis was conducted to describe the trends of off-label use of beta-blockers among ambulatory visits made to office-based physicians in the United States.

METHODS

Data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys from 1999 to 2002 were used in this study. Physician visits at which beta-blockers were prescribed (beta-blocker visits) were included and classified as within-label or off-label visits according to whether an approved indication for the beta-blocker was coded for the visits. Variables of patient demographic characteristics, diagnosis, prescriber's specialty, and concomitant medication use were also analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was employed to investigate the potential determinants for the off-label use of beta-blockers.

RESULTS

A total of 3349 million visits were made to office-based physicians during the study period. About 65% (2167 million) of all visits were prescribed with > or =1 medication (medication visits). Beta-blockers were prescribed in 5.9% (127.3 million) of all medication visits in the years 1999 to 2002. The 3 most frequently prescribed beta-blockers in this study were atenolol, metoprolol, and propranolol. The proportions of off-label use among beta-blocker visits were 44.3% (1999), 56.3% (2000), 62.3% (2001), and 46.9% (2002); overall, 52.0% (66.2 million). About 11% (75.7 million) of these off-label uses were prescribed to patients with concomitant conditions that required judicious use of beta-blockers. Specialists, such as cardiologists, were more likely to prescribe beta-blockers for off-label use than primary care physicians (odds ratio, 2.147; 95% CI, 2.1464-2.1473).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that the off-label use rate of beta-blockers was higher than what has been previously reported for other diseases and medications. Compared with visits made to general practitioners, visits made to specialists were more likely to be prescribed off-label use of beta-blockers. Future studies are needed to understand the legal, economic, and clinical impact of off-label use.

Off-label and unlicensed prescribing for newborns and children in different settings: a review of the literature and a consideration about drug safety

This review aims to give an updated overview of the worldwide situation of off-label and unlicensed drug use in the paediatric field, also taking into account the safety of this kind of treatment. A Medline and Embase search was performed between 1990 and 2006 and a total of 52 studies were identified and included in the systematic review. From the authors' analysis of the literature, the extent of paediatric unlicensed/off label use is higher in neonatal and paediatric intensive care units and oncology wards, compared with primary care. Moreover, among the nine studies reporting the contribution of an off-label/unlicensed drug use to the occurrence of adverse events, the percentage of unlicensed and/or off-label prescriptions involved in an adverse drug reaction ranged between 23 and 60%. To ensure that children are not exposed to unnecessary risks, controlled clinical trials are required. In addition, future research should be directed towards the identification of individual drugs that cause serious adverse drug reactions and lack product information.

Report of an Anaphylactoid and an Anaphylactic Reaction to Ketorolac in Two Pediatric Surgical Patients

Ketorolac is a potent analgesic drug that has been restricted in dosage and use because of its potential adverse effects. The diagnostic and ethical challenges of 2 children who had unpredictable adverse drug reactions to ketorolac are reported. Case 1: A 3-year-old boy received ketorolac 1 mg/kg for prevention of postoperative pain at the end of an orthopedic surgical procedure. Ten minutes later, he had bilateral palpebral edema, erythema in thorax, hypotension, and tachycardia. The adverse event was classified as a mixed reaction probably related to ketorolac. Case 2: A 7-year-old girl, who had previously received ketorolac in 2 different surgical procedures, underwent a third orthopedic surgery. She received ketorolac 1 mg/kg as pre-emptive analgesia at 1.5 hours of anesthetic time (approximately 1 hour of surgical time). The patient developed palpebral edema 5 minutes later in addition to erythema in thorax, hypotension, tachycardia, tachypnea, oxygen desaturation, and wheezing. The adverse event was classified as a systemic reaction probably related to ketorolac. The 2 patients were successfully treated with symptomatic therapy. Although rare in its frequency, ketorolac administration may be associated to anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions in children with or without history of previous exposure. Because ketorolac is off-licensed for pediatric patients, it should be administered only after the risks and benefits have been discussed with the child's parents in the preanesthetic consultation.

Off label and unlicensed drugs use in paediatric cardiology

OBJECTIVES

The use of drugs in an off label or unlicensed manner to treat children is a widespread phenomenon in Europe and the United States. The incidence of unlicensed and off label prescribing in paediatric cardiology practice has not been studied to date. This study was designed to assess the extent and nature of off label and unlicensed drug use in paediatric cardiology inpatients.

METHODS

In a prospective study, drug prescriptions in a paediatric cardiology ward were reviewed during a 2-year period. Data were collected and analyzed by special software created for this purpose.

RESULTS

The children (n = 544) studied varied in age from 4 h to 18 years. One or more off label and unlicensed prescriptions were given to 414 (76%) patients. Of the 2,130 prescriptions given during the 2-year period, more than one-half were unlicensed (11%) or off label (47%). While children aged 2-11 years received most of the unlicensed drug prescriptions (17%), neonates, who did not receive unlicensed drugs, led (64%) in the use of off label drugs. CONCLUSIONS. This study showed that the problem of off label and unlicensed drug use also exists in paediatric cardiology. The findings imply that the phenomenon of off label and unlicensed use of drugs in children can be correlated with the deficiency of paediatric drug formulations on the global market and insufficient data from clinical studies which must be performed to confirm the efficacy and safety of drugs in the paediatric population. Therefore, efforts to improve paediatric labelling are important and need the full support of all involved.

A literature review on off-label drug use in children

The aim was to compare results of studies performed in different settings worldwide and identify common therapeutic areas to allow for focused interventions, because off-label drug use can be a measure of the lack of knowledge concerning paediatric treatments. A secondary objective was to provide a brief review of efforts to date. A literature review of articles on off-label and unlicensed drug use in children involving general prescription samples was performed using Medline and Embase. In all, 30 studies from 1985-2004 were included. Eleven involved paediatric hospital wards, seven neonatal hospital wards, and 12 the community setting. The off-label and unlicensed classification methods varied, making results difficult to compare. In general, off-label/unlicensed prescription rates ranged from 11%-80%, and higher rates were found in younger versus older patients and in the hospital versus community settings. On the paediatric hospital wards, off-label/unlicensed prescriptions ranged from 16%-62% and most often concerned acetaminophen, cisapride, chloral hydrate, and salbutamol. In the neonatal wards, rates ranged from 55%-80% and often involved caffeine. In the community setting, rates ranged from 11%-37% and the most commonly implicated drugs were salbutamol and amoxicillin.

CONCLUSION

A lack of harmonization between the evidence, the information available to doctors, and its use in clinical practice exists and this is part of the reason off-label therapies are so common. Attempts have been made to improve knowledge concerning paediatric treatments, but more focused interventions are needed, also taking into consideration this lack of harmonization.

Detecting Adverse Drug Reactions on Paediatric Wards

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) contribute significantly to patient morbidity and mortality, as well as to costs for healthcare systems. Our aim was to evaluate the type and incidence of ADRs in a paediatric hospital population, comparatively ascertained by two different methodological approaches.

METHODS

Our prospective study enrolled all patients admitted to two of the general children wards (46 beds) and the paediatric intensive care unit (6 beds) at the HELIOS Klinikum Wuppertal teaching hospital in Germany, over the study period of 3 months. We used two methods to detect ADRs. The intensified surveillance system relied on a trained physician conducting ward rounds and assessing patient charts. The computer-assisted screening of pathological laboratory parameters used values slightly below or above the age-specific normal range as a trigger signal for a potential ADR, which was subsequently assessed by trained personnel.

RESULTS

By applying both methods simultaneously we observed that 14.1% of children experienced an ADR while they were hospitalised and 2.7% of children were admitted to hospital because of the ADR. Intensified surveillance resulted in the detection of 101 ADRs in 11.9% of patients, predominantly presenting with gastrointestinal symptoms, skin and CNS disorders; computer-assisted screening identified 45 ADRs in 5.7% of patients, mainly with drug-induced blood dyscrasia and liver damage. Furthermore, the ADRs detected by the intensified method were more severe, affected younger children and showed a closer causal attributability to the reaction than the ADRs observed by the computerised method. The spectra of drugs involved were similar, with the anti-infectives being suspected most frequently. The sensitivities of the intensified surveillance system and the computerised surveillance screening came to 67.2% and 44.8%, respectively, with computer-assisted screening having a specificity of 72.8%. The mean positive predictive value of the pathological laboratory values under surveillance by computer-assisted screening was 18.6%. Approximately 25% of ADR-related drugs administered were used for off-label indications.

CONCLUSION

Using the published literature for comparison, we found that ADRs occur as frequently in paediatric patients as in adult patients. Intensified surveillance and computerised surveillance applied in the paediatric setting show substantial differences in their detection specificities. A higher number of and more severe ADRs can be detected by intensified surveillance than by computerised surveillance, but require higher personnel resources.