Use of pharmaceuticals ‘Off-Label’ in the neonate

Recognition and Management of Delirium in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Case Series From a Single-Center Level 4 Intensive Care Unit

Delirium often goes unrecognized in neonates and children because of lack of experience in evaluating behavior and cognition, insufficient awareness of the prevalence, and nondistinctive symptoms in this population. Although there are increasing reports of the presence of delirium in neonates, there are few data to guide the pharmacologic treatment in this population. In this retrospective single-center case series, we present our experience using quetiapine to treat delirium in 9 medically complex neonates. Based on an extensive literature review, expert opinion, and institutional experience, we propose an approach for monitoring and treating delirium in neonates and infants.

Propofol-Related Infusion Syndrome: A Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most-Cited Articles

Propofol-related infusion syndrome (PRIS) is a rare, yet life-threatening sequelae to prolonged administration of the anesthetic propofol in mechanically intubated patients. The condition is characterized by progressive multi-system organ failure and eventual mortality; of note, the predominant characteristics of PRIS involve but are not limited to cardiovascular impairment and collapse, metabolic and lactic acidosis, rhabdomyolysis, hyperkalemia, and acute renal failure. While potent or extended doses of propofol have been found to be the primary precipitating factor of this condition, others such as age, critical illness, steroid therapy, and hyperlipidemia have been discovered to play a role as well. This bibliometric analysis was done to reflect the current relevance and understanding of PRIS in recent literature. The SCOPUS database was utilized to conduct a search for articles with keywords "propofol infusion syndrome" and "propofol syndrome" from February 24, 2001, until April 16, 2023, with parameters for article title, citation number, citation per year, author, institution, publishing journal, and country of origin. PRIS was first defined in 1990, just a year after its approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use as a sedative-hypnotic. Since then, interest in PRIS slowly rose up to 13 publications per year in 2013. Seven papers on the topic were published in Critical Care Medicine, six in Neurocritical Care, and four in Anesthesia. The most common institutions were Mayo Clinic, Northeastern University, and Tufts Medical Center. To our knowledge, this is the first bibliometric analysis to evaluate the most influential publications about PRIS. A majority of the research is case-based, possibly owing to the rarity of the condition. Our research suggests that confounding factors outside the precipitating dosage of propofol may be implicated in the onset and progression of PRIS. This study could therefore bring renewed interest to the topic and lead to additional research focused on fully understanding the pathophysiology of PRIS in order to promote the development of novel diagnostics and treatment.

Management guideline for the off-label use of medicine in China (2021)

BACKGROUND

Off-label drug use embodies a thorough clinical diagnosis and evaluation of treatment needs and should not be confused with unreasonable drug use, but it also faces potential risks with drug safety and legal issues.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We first established a guideline working group. Following the guideline development process recommended by the World Health Organization Handbook and the Chinese Medical Association, the key questions were determined through literature searches of PubMed, CNKI (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure) and other databases. Both the evidence and the clinicians' diagnosis and treatment workload were considered to formulate the initial recommendations. Finally, two rounds of Delphi surveys and one expert seminar were organized to determine the final recommendations of this guideline. Meanwhile, we graded the recommendations based on the body of evidence.

RESULTS

We determined nine questions and proposed a total of 23 recommendations regarding the definition of off-label use of drugs, applicable circumstances, classification of evidence, informed consent, legal basis, adverse drug reaction monitoring and evaluation, management procedure, responsibilities and obligations of different stakeholders, medical insurance reimbursement, and the national approval system.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline standardized clinical off-label drug use and provided suggestions and references for the management of off-label drug use.

Recommendations on Off-Label Drug Use in Pediatric Guidelines

Objective: To systematically analyze the supporting evidence, drug information, and the type of off-label drug use in recommendations on off-label drug use in pediatric guidelines. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed by systematic search through MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase databases to identify literature published from 1 January 2018, to 31 December 2020. Only pediatric clinical practice guidelines that included recommendations on off-label use of drugs were included. We present descriptive information on the sources of the included guidelines, country, publication year, evidence grading system used, details on the types of off-label drug use, and the types of studies used as references to support the recommendations. Results: A total of 66 pediatric guidelines with 605 recommendations were included. Eighty-seven (14.4%) recommendations did not cite any references; and the remaining 518 recommendations were supported by 2,240 references (mean 4.3 references/recommendation). The most common types of studies cited were pediatric RCTs (n = 314, 14.0%), pediatric case series studies (n = 260, 11.6%), and reviews (n = 255, 11.4%). Twenty-one percent (n = 470) of the references were studies on adults. One hundred and forty (23.1%) recommendations were graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system, of which 37 (26.4%) were graded as strong but supported with only C or D level of evidence. The most commonly reported type of information in the recommendations was indication (n = 499, 82.5%). The most commonly addressed type of off-label drug use in the 523 positive recommendations was unapproved population (n = 255, 48.8%). Sixty-nine (11.4%) recommendations explicitly reported the drug use as off-label. Conclusion: Children may be exposed to medical risks due to gaps in reporting and evidence of off-label drug use recommendations in pediatric guidelines.

Off-label use of dexmedetomidine in paediatric anaesthesiology: an international survey of 791 (paediatric) anaesthesiologists

PURPOSE

The purpose of this international study was to investigate prescribing practices of dexmedetomidine by paediatric anaesthesiologists.

METHODS

We performed an online survey on the prescription rate of dexmedetomidine, route of administration and dosage, adverse drug reactions, education on the drug and overall experience. Members of specialist paediatric anaesthesia societies of Europe (ESPA), New Zealand and Australia (SPANZA), Great Britain and Ireland (APAGBI) and the USA (SPA) were consulted. Responses were collected in July and August 2019.

RESULTS

Data from 791 responders (17% of 5171 invitees) were included in the analyses. Dexmedetomidine was prescribed by 70% of the respondents (ESPA 53%; SPANZA 69%; APAGBI 34% and SPA 96%), mostly for procedural sedation (68%), premedication (46%) and/or ICU sedation (46%). Seventy-three percent had access to local or national protocols, although lack of education was the main reason cited by 26% of the respondents not to prescribe dexmedetomidine. The main difference in dexmedetomidine use concerned the age of patients (SPA primarily < 1 year, others primarily > 1 year). The dosage varied widely ranging from 0.2-5 μg kg-1 for nasal premedication, 0.2-8 μg kg-1 for nasal procedural sedation and 0-4 μg kg-1 intravenously as adjuvant for anaesthesia. Only ESPA members (61%) had noted an adverse drug reaction, namely bradycardia.

CONCLUSION

The majority of anaesthesiologists use dexmedetomidine in paediatrics for premedication, procedural sedation, ICU sedation and anaesthesia, despite the off-label use and sparse evidence. The large intercontinental differences in prescribing dexmedetomidine call for consensus and worldwide education on the optimal use in paediatric practice.

Use and reimbursement of off-label drugs in pediatric anesthesia: the Italian experience

BACKGROUND

Most of the drugs used in anesthesia are off-label in children even if they present solid clinical evidence in adults. This lack of authorization is caused by multiple factors including the difficulty in conducting research in this area (due to the ethical concerns and/or the low number of available participants, the high variability of the outcome measures) and the lack of economic interest of the pharmaceutical companies (due to the limited market).

OBJECTIVE

Define a list of medicinal products commonly used off-label in pediatrics anesthesia to be reimbursed by Italian National Health System.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We hereby describe the methodological framework used to allow reimbursed use of a list of medicinal products, widely used off-label in pediatric patients, ensuring the best therapeutic results with the lowest possible risk for children. A task force of pediatric anesthesiologists from Italy petitioned the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) to allow a number of commonly utilized but off-label drugs for pediatric anesthesia to be reimbursed for specific indications. For each drug, both the supporting literature and expert opinion were used, and the resulting list of drugs allowed to be used/reimbursed officially by AIFA was significantly expanded. This paper documents one approach to the problem of off-label use of drugs for pediatric patients that can be a model for future efforts.

CONCLUSION

Continuous efforts are needed from government institutions and sponsors on drug development and on drug approval process in pediatrics, as research on drug effectiveness and safety is mandatory in children as in adults. At the same time, clinicians must become more familiar with the drug-approval process, participate to sponsored trials, and perform ztrials themselves.

Reducing the risk in neonatal anesthesia

Neonatal anesthesia is fraught with potential risk for the patient and stress for the anesthesiologist. Where possible, recognition of these risks, avoidance of, and being able to manage them appropriately, must impact positively on perioperative outcomes in this vulnerable group of patients. Good communication with the parents, as well as with other healthcare providers, is crucial to safe and successful anesthetic care.

Frequency of the off-label use of antibiotics in clinical practice: a systematic review

Antibiotics constitute a major class among drugs commonly prescribed either empirically or for microbiologically documented infections in clinical practice. In addition, due to medical necessity physicians are forced, at times, to prescribe medications for off-label indications. The authors sought to record the frequency of the off-label use of antibiotics among both adult and pediatric patients. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant studies. A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria (725,124,505 prescriptions); 16 were prospective and nine retrospective. Fifteen studies reported on the pediatric population, seven on adults who had received a specific antibiotic, two on adult critical-care patients, and one on the general outpatient population. In the pediatric population, the percentage of off-label prescriptions varied from 1 to 94%. Off-label prescriptions varied from 19 to 43% in adult critical-care patients. Last, one study reporting on general outpatient care showed that 23% of prescriptions were off-label. Antibiotics are frequently prescribed as off-label among patient populations. The wide variation observed in the off-label use of antibiotics among pediatric patients might be attributed to the heterogeneity among the study populations regarding the age of children. Although this unapproved manner of prescribing cannot always be avoided, clinicians should only use unapproved drugs in cases when there are no effective alternatives are available and based on scientific evidence regarding safety and effectiveness.