Off-Label Promotion of Prescription Medicine: Is It Ever Justifiable?

Do doctors have a responsibility to help patients import medicines from abroad?

Almost any medicine can be purchased online from abroad. Many high-income countries permit individuals to import medicines for their personal use. However, those who import medicines face the risk of purchasing poor-quality products that may not work, or that may even harm them. Many people are willing to accept this risk for the opportunity to purchase more affordable medicines. This is especially true of individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds who already struggle to afford the medicines they need if they are not subsidised by insurers or if copayments are high. As medicine prices and out-of-pocket healthcare spending continue to climb, the online marketplace provides an important alternative for individuals in high-income countries to source medicines. In this article, I argue that doctors have a responsibility to help patients access medicines online and I propose a framework that can be used to facilitate responsible personal importation.

Off-label Uses of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs)

Psychiatric drugs have primacy for off-label prescribing. Among those, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are highly versatile and, therefore, widely prescribed. Moreover, they are commonly considered as having a better safety profile compared to other antidepressants. Thus, when it comes to off-label prescribing, SSRIs rank among the top positions. In this review, we present the state of the art of off-label applications of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, ranging from migraine prophylaxis to SARS-CoV-2 antiviral properties. Research on SSRIs provided significant evidence in the treatment of premature ejaculation, both with the on-label dapoxetine 30 mg and the off-label paroxetine 20 mg. However, other than a serotoninergic syndrome, serious conditions like increased bleeding rates, hyponatremia, hepatoxicity, and post-SSRIs sexual dysfunctions, are consistently more prominent when using such compounds. These insidious side effects might be frequently underestimated during common clinical practice, especially by nonpsychiatrists. Thus, some points must be addressed when using SSRIs. Among these, a psychiatric evaluation before every administration that falls outside the regulatory agencies-approved guidelines has to be considered mandatory. For these reasons, we aim with the present article to identify the risks of inappropriate uses and to advocate the need to actively boost research encouraging future clinical trials on this topic.

Challenges to the validity of using medicine labels to categorize clinical behavior: An empirical and normative critique of "off-label" prescribing

This study aimed to determine whether the label status of a medicine penetrates into the clinical reasoning of Australian medical practitioners and to explore the possible reasons for our findings using semistructured interviews with 14 Australian physicians. The interviews revealed 3 broad catalysts for off-label prescribing. The first of these was lack of awareness or understanding of the regulatory process in general and labels more specifically. The second was the perception that labels are not meaningful guides for clinical practice. The third was the recognition of alternative mechanisms for ensuring safe, rational, and evidence-based prescribing occurs. This research suggests that Australian physicians do not consider whether a medicine is off-label to be a reliable measure of the appropriateness of their prescribing practices. Rather, the legitimacy of prescribing practices is determined by the abilities, skills, and knowledge base of particular prescribers by a culture that encourages and supports evidence-based practice, and safe prescribing. Although labels are of minimal clinical significance, there are real conceptual, practical, and moral problems associated with conflating "good" or "better" practice with "on-label" practice, and "bad" or "worse" practice with off-label prescribing as often occurs. To ascribe greater meaning to the term "off-label" than is warranted can have the unintended consequence of casting suspicion on and making it more difficult for physicians to provide appropriate clinical care. We conclude that labeling can, in some cases, provide assurances to both clinicians and patients that their medications have been demonstrated to be safe and effective, but that clinicians should be able to continue to prescribe responsibly off-label without having any stigma attached to their practice.

Off-label indications for antidepressants in primary care: descriptive study of prescriptions from an indication based electronic prescribing system

Objective To examine off-label indications for antidepressants in primary care and determine the level of scientific support for off-label prescribing.Design Descriptive study of antidepressant prescriptions written by primary care physicians using an indication based electronic prescribing system.Setting Primary care practices in and around two major urban centres in Quebec, Canada.Participants Patients aged 18 years or older who visited a study physician between 1 January 2003 and 30 September 2015 and were prescribed an antidepressant through the electronic prescribing system.Main outcome measures Prevalence of off-label indications for antidepressant prescriptions by class and by individual drug. Among off-label antidepressant prescriptions, the proportion of prescriptions in each of the following categories was measured: strong evidence supporting use of the prescribed drug for the respective indication; no strong evidence for the prescribed drug but strong evidence supporting use of another drug in the same class for the indication; or no strong evidence supporting use of the prescribed drug and all other drugs in the same class for the indication. Results 106 850 antidepressant prescriptions were written by 174 physicians for 20 920 adults. By class, tricyclic antidepressants had the highest prevalence of off-label indications (81.4%, 95% confidence interval, 77.3% to 85.5%), largely due to a high off-label prescribing rate for amitriptyline (93%, 89.6% to 95.7%). Trazodone use for insomnia was the most common off-label use for antidepressants, accounting for 26.2% (21.9% to 30.4%) of all off-label prescriptions. For only 15.9% (13.0% to 19.3%) of all off-label prescriptions, the prescribed drug had strong scientific evidence for the respective indication. For 39.6% (35.7% to 43.2%) of off-label prescriptions, the prescribed drug did not have strong evidence but another antidepressant in the same class had strong evidence for the respective indication. For the remaining 44.6% (40.2% to 49.0%) of off-label prescriptions, neither the prescribed drug nor any other drugs in the class had strong evidence for the indication.Conclusions When primary care physicians prescribed antidepressants for off-label indications, these indications were usually not supported by strong scientific evidence, yet often another antidepressant in the same class existed that had strong evidence for the respective indication. There is an important need to generate and provide physicians with evidence on off-label antidepressant use to optimise prescribing decisions.