AstraZeneca pays $520m fine for off label marketing

Research encouraging off-label use of quetiapine: A systematic meta-epidemiological analysis

BACKGROUND

Researchers often conduct small studies on testing a drug's efficacy in off-label indications. If positive results from these exploratory studies are not followed up by larger, randomized, double-blinded trials, physicians cannot be sure of a drug's clinical value. This may lead to off-label prescriptions of ineffective treatments. We aim to describe the way clinical studies fostered off-label prescription of the antipsychotic drug quetiapine (Seroquel).

METHODS

In this systematic meta-epidemiological analysis, we searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO databases and included clinical studies testing quetiapine for unapproved indications between May 1995 and May 2022. We then assessed the frequency with which publications providing low-level evidence suggesting efficacy of quetiapine for off-label indications was not followed up by large, randomized and double-blinded trials within 5 years.

RESULTS

In total, 176 published studies were identified that reported potential efficacy of quetiapine in at least 26 indications. Between 2000 and 2007, publication of exploratory studies suggesting promise for off-label indications rapidly outpaced publication of confirmatory trials. In the 24 indications with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up from the first positive exploratory study, 19 (79%) were not followed up with large confirmatory trials within 5 years. At least nine clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of quetiapine for seven off-label indications in which published confirmatory evidence is lacking.

CONCLUSION

Many small, post-approval studies suggested the promise of quetiapine for numerous off-label indications. These findings generally went unconfirmed in large, blinded, randomized trials years after first being published. The imbalance of exploratory and confirmatory studies likely encourages ineffective off-label treatment.

Trends in antipsychotic use among children and adolescents in Germany: a study using 2011-2020 nationwide outpatient claims data

Introduction

We aimed to provide an update on trends in antipsychotic (AP) use among children and adolescents in Germany.

Materials and methods

Based on nationwide outpatient claims data from Germany, we conducted a cross-sectional study. For each year from 2011 to 2020, we determined the prevalence of AP use, defined as the proportion of children and adolescents with at least one AP dispensation. We evaluated trends in AP use by age, sex, and AP class (typical vs. atypical). Additionally, we assessed trends in the specialty of AP prescribers and the frequency of psychiatric diagnoses among AP users.

Results

Overall, data from more than 12 million children and adolescents were included for each calendar year (2011: 12,488,827; 2020: 13,330,836). From 2011 to 2020, the overall prevalence of pediatric AP use increased from 3.16 to 3.65 per 1,000, due to an increase in use of both typical APs (from 1.16 to 1.35 per 1,000) and atypical APs (from 2.35 to 2.75 per 1,000). The largest increase in AP use was found among 15- to 19-year-old females, with an increase from 3.88 per 1,000 in 2011 to 7.86 per 1,000 in 2020 (+103%), mainly due to rising quetiapine use (from 1.17 to 3.46 per 1,000). Regarding prescribers' specialty, the proportion of APs prescribed by child and adolescent psychiatrists increased during the studied period (2011: 24.8%; 2020: 36.4%), whereas prescriptions by pediatricians (2011: 26.0%; 2020: 19.9%) and general practitioners (2011: 18.0%; 2020: 12.4%) decreased. Risperidone was the most commonly used AP in males, and quetiapine was the leading AP in females, each with the highest prevalence in 15- to 19-year-olds. In male risperidone users in this age group, the most frequent diagnosis was attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (50.4%), while in female quetiapine users it was depression (82.0%).

Discussion

Use of APs among children and adolescents in Germany has continued to increase over the last decade. The sharp increase in AP use among 15- to 19-year-old females, which is largely due to an increased use of quetiapine, is remarkable. Potential reasons for this increase-e.g., limited access to psychosocial treatments-should be carefully analyzed. Also, the introduction of more restrictive prescribing guidelines might be considered.

Off-label drug use in Psychiatry Outpatient Department: A prospective study at a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital

Introduction:

Off-label drug prescribing is very common in Psychiatry. US-Food and Drug Administration has defined off-label drug as “use of drugs for the indication, dosage form, regimen, patient or other use constraint not mentioned in the approved labeling.”

Objective:

The objective was to evaluate off-label drug use in patients attending Outpatient Department of Psychiatry.

Materials and Methods:

One year prospective, cross sectional study was conducted on patients attending Psychiatry Outpatient Department. Demographic data, clinical history, and complete prescription were noted in the predesigned proforma and prescriptions were analyzed for off-label drug use as per British National Formulary-2011.

Result:

A total of 250 patients were enrolled with mean age 40.36 ± 12.3 years. Most common diagnosis was major depressive disorder 101 (40.4%). A total of 980 drugs (mean 3.68 ± 1.42) were prescribed out of which 387 (39.5%) were off-label. Of 250 patients, 198 (79.2%) received at least one off-label drug. Psychopharmacological agents most frequently used in off-label manner were clonazepam 31 (12.4%), lorazepam 30 (12%), and trihexyphenidyl HCl 25 (10%). Prevalence of off-label use of these three drugs was significantly higher than other off-label drugs (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001 respectively). Inappropriate indication was the most common category of off-label use. There was positive and significant correlation between off-label prescribing and number of drugs (r = 0.722, P ≤ 0.000). Off-label prescribing was statistically significantly higher in 21–40 year age group, but no difference was seen in any co-morbid condition or in between any psychiatric disorder.

Conclusion:

Off-label drugs use is common in psychiatric OPD in our setup. Clonazepam, lorazepam, and trihexyphenidyl HCl were the most frequently used drugs in off-label manner.

Off-label use of atypical antipsychotics: cause for concern?

Licensed indications for medicines were designed to regulate the claims that can be made about a medicine by a pharmaceutical company. Off-label prescribing (i.e. prescribing a drug for an indication outside of that for which it is licensed) is legal and an integral part of medical practice. In psychiatry, off-label prescribing is common and gives clinicians scope to treat patients who are refractory to standard therapy or where there is no licensed medication for an indication. However, efficacy or safety of such off-label use may not be established. There is a growing list of licensed indications for atypical antipsychotics (AAP) beyond schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder, and also more evidence for other indications where pharmaceutical companies have not obtained a license. Pharmaceutical companies have promoted AAPs for off-label indications to increase sales and consequently have been fined by the US FDA for this. Since the 1990s, AAP use has expanded considerably, for example, the off-label use of quetiapine alone accounted for an estimated 17% of the AAP spend in New Zealand in 2010. There are a number of potential problems with the expanded use of AAPs outside of schizophrenia and related psychoses. A larger population will be exposed to their adverse effects, which include weight gain, type 2 diabetes mellitus, sudden cardiac death and increased mortality rates in the elderly with dementia. There are also concerns with the abuse of these agents, in particular quetiapine. Given that an increasing percentage of the population is being treated with these agents, off-label prescribing of AAPs is a cause for concern; they have a propensity to cause significant side effects and their efficacy and long-term safety for most off-label indications remains largely unknown, and therefore the risks and benefits of their use should be carefully weighed up prior to prescribing these agents off-label.