Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy has revolutionised the treatment of a variety of ophthalmic conditions and has become the first-line therapy for a range of retinal diseases. Bevacizumab, a VEGF inhibitor first approved for the treatment of colorectal cancer, has been shown to be nearly or virtually as effective and safe as other anti-VEGF therapies in the treatment of certain retinal diseases but is not approved or registered by the Food and Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency. (...) While other anti-VEGF options are approved and registered, they are generally more expensive and less accessible. Accordingly, despite its off-label status, bevacizumab is frequently used for a variety of disabling retinal diseases. Indeed, bevacizumab is included on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines. However, its use in some parts of the world remains restricted due to its off-label status. How, then, should healthcare authorities approach this situation? What are the ethical and societal implications of adhering to a standard and generally effective evaluation and approval system while restricting access to a potentially cost-saving therapy? In countries where its use is not restricted, how should providers approach off-label treatment with bevacizumab? By examining the evidence behind bevacizumab’s efficacy and safety and evaluating the individual and societal implications of off-label use and restriction, this paper illustrates the ethical factors providers and policy makers must consider in the off-label use of bevacizumab and ultimately argues for increased access to bevacizumab in the treatment of retinal disease. (shrink)

BackgroundDepressive disorders are a common form of psychiatric illness and cause significant disability. Regulation authorities, the medical profession and the public require high safety standards for antidepressants to protect vulnerable psychiatric patients. Ketamine is a dissociative anaesthetic and a derivative of a hallucinogen. Its abuse is a major worldwide public health problem. Ketamine is a scheduled drug and its usage is restricted due to its abuse liability. Recent clinical trials have reported that ketamine use led to rapid antidepressant effects in (...) patients suffering from treatment-resistant depression. However, various flaws in study designs, and possible biased reporting of results, may have influenced those findings. Further analyses of ketamine use are needed to ensure patient safety.DiscussionThe use of ketamine in research and treatment of depressive disorders is controversial. Recently, mental health professionals raised ethical concerns about an ongoing ketamine trial in the UK. Also, a Canadian agency reviewed the existing evidence and did not recommend prescribing ketamine to treat depressive disorders. Findings obtained from tightly controlled research settings cannot be easily translated to clinical practice as substance abuse is commonly comorbid with depressive disorders. An effective antidepressant should reduce severity of depressive symptoms without liability problems. Although the US FDA has not approved the use of ketamine to treat depressive disorders, some psychiatrists offer off-label repeat prescription of ketamine. Prescribing ketamine for treating depressive disorders requires substantial empirical evidence. Clinicians should also consider research findings on ketamine abuse. Depressive disorders can be chronic conditions and the current evidence does not rule out the risk of substance abuse after repeat prescription of ketamine. Off-label ketamine use in treating depressive disorders may breach ethical and moral standards, especially in countries seriously affected by ketamine abuse. This article presents two real-world clinical vignettes which highlight ethical principles and theories, including autonomy, nonmaleficience, fidelity and consequentialism, as related to off-label ketamine use.ConclusionWe urge clinicians to minimise the risk of harming patients by considering the empirical evidence on ketamine properties and attempting all standard antidepressant therapies before considering the off-label use of ketamine. (shrink)

Polish medical law does not explicitly regulate the possibility of off-label use of medicines. Such procedures therefore raise doubts in medical practice, where medicines are often prescribed beyond the Characteristic of Medicinal Product. This phenomenon particularly affects the treatment of children, as there is a lack of registered medicines in this age group, but they are registered for use in adults. Since such treatment goes beyond the scope of registration, a dilemma arises as to whether it is (...) permissible and, if so, under what conditions and whether sanctions are imposed on the medical professional using the off-label medicine. These issues are addressed in an article by Dr Maria Gutowska-Ibbs, entitled 'Off label - practical consequences of unclear legislation". The present study complements these considerations and is in part an ad vocem statement. The article attempts to differentiate between the use of off-label medicines and medical experiments, following the criterion of the purpose for which a given medical action is performed. The limits of admissibility of such actions under criminal law are also discussed in more detail. Off-label treatment is considered through the prism of the required precautionary rules, compliance with which is the antithesis of inadvertence. It is assumed that if the drug was administered in accordance with current medical knowledge and the treatment is adequate to the patient's condition, there is no violation of these rules, which excludes the imputation of inadvertence. An extensive section of the study is devoted to the issue of the patient's consent to treatment outside the indications. Above all, it emphasises the need to explain in detail to the patient the circumstances of prescribing such a drug and, on this basis, to obtain informed consent. It also stresses the importance of the written form of consent, which can have a significant evidentiary impact in potential litigation. (shrink)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a fast-developing viral pandemic spreading across the globe. Due to lack of availability of proven medicines against COVID-19, physicians have resorted to treatments through large trials of investigational drugs with poor evidence or those used for similar diseases. Large trials randomize 100–500+ patients at multiple hospitals in different countries to either receive these drugs or standard treatment. In order to expedite the process, some regulatory agencies had also given permission to use drugs approved for (...) other diseases, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy in COVID-19. In this review, we highlight the potential ethical issues that should be addressed during the use of investigational drugs with little prior evidence as a treatment options during a pandemic. We discuss the impact of design of randomized clinical trials using LOTUS trial as an example and that of off-label use of drugs like chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (CQ/HQ) on the safety of patients during COVID-19. We conclude that the adaptive randomized clinical trial designs offer a flexible and efficient approach, enabling patients to quickly switch to successful treatments, while minimizing the number of patients on standard of care. Randomized clinical trial design should consider blinding of investigators and only representative patients who can provide consent should be included. We also conclude the emergency approvals of drugs should be carefully issued and off-label use should be restricted in pandemics. Streamlined regulatory guidelines for emergency drug use in a pandemic can also help in providing benefit and minimizing harm to patients in the future. (shrink)

Introduction Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is approved under a humanitarian device exemption to manage treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (TR-OCD) in adults. It is possible that DBS may be trialed or used clinically off-label in children and adolescents with TR-OCD in the future. DBS is already used to manage treatment-resistant childhood dystonia. Evidence suggests it is a safe and effective intervention for certain types of dystonia. Important questions remain unanswered about the use of DBS in children and adolescents with (...) TR-OCD, including whether mental health clinicians would refer pediatric patients for DBS, and who would be a good candidate for DBS.Objectives To explore mental health clinicians’ views on what clinical and psychosocial factors they would consider when determining which children with OCD would be good DBS candidates.Materials and Methods In depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with n = 25 mental health clinicians who treat pediatric patients with OCD. The interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Three questions focused on key, clinical, and psychosocial factors for assessing candidacy were analyzed to explore respondent views on candidacy factors. Our analysis details nine overarching themes expressed by clinicians, namely the patient’s previous OCD treatment, OCD severity, motivation to commit to treatment, presence of comorbid conditions, family environment, education on DBS, quality of life, accessibility to treatment, and patient age and maturity.Conclusions Clinicians generally saw considering DBS treatment in youth as a last resort and only for very specific cases. DBS referral was predominantly viewed as acceptable for children with severe TR-OCD who have undertaken intensive, appropriate treatment without success, whose OCD has significantly reduced their quality of life, and who exhibit strong motivation to continue treatment given the right environment. Appropriate safeguards, eligibility criteria, and procedures should be discussed and identified before DBS for childhood TR-OCD becomes practice. (shrink)

It is common for drug trials to exclude older people, usually over 65 or 70. Many of the drugs which are successfully tested are then registered and become available either on prescription or over the counter. Healthcare professionals are left in a bind: either they do not prescribe the medications to those in the excluded age groups because of the lack of age-relevant data, or they prescribe, off-label, despite the lack of systematic collection of age-relevant data. Alternatively, if the (...) pharmaceutical is available without prescription, older people may be buying without any inkling or warning that the drug was never tried on people of their own age. Either way, our older fellow citizens are not getting the same ethical treatment as younger adults. Compounding the questionable ethics involved is the fact that as age increases, the ratio of women to men increases. Amplified by the fact that women consume more pharmaceuticals than do men, the discrimination takes on a distinctly sexist slant as well as an ageist one.Two other groups often excluded from trials are (a) minors and (b) pregnant or lactating women. But the rationale for their exclusion is different from that for the exclusion of seniors. A major reason for these two groups’ exclusion is the legal incapacity of the young to consent and the concomitant flow-on liability for injuries and damages to the youngsters. The potential exposure to later legal claims may be a strong motivating force for pharmaceutical companies to exclude from their trials people without legal capacity to consent. But the third group of people, seniors, is excluded by reference to their seniority not their inability to give informed consent. While the other two exclusions can be explained in terms of moral, social and legal conventions, seniority alone is based on two practical concerns: firstly, whether seniors are likely to die before the end of the trial, and secondly, the compounding effects of the so-called diseases of old age. Together, these concerns are thought to justify seniority exclusion in the interests of clean science. This paper explores some of the ethical issues, the implicit ageism and sexism in the exclusion of seniors. The discussion considers the ethical consequences of the exclusion, where seniors are either taking drugs in the absence of evidence-based trials on their age groups, or are denied drugs because they are untried on the age groups. (shrink)

The year 2020 is facing one of the worst public health situations in decades. The world is experiencing a pandemic that has triggered significant challenges to healthcare systems in both high and low‐middle income countries (LMICs). Government policymakers and healthcare personnel are experiencing real‐life ethical dilemmas and are pressed to respond to these situations. Many possible treatments are being investigated, one of which is the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine. These drugs are approved for use by patients with systemic lupus (...) erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis, and malaria. The demand for these products has increased, and the stocks are depleting for the patient population for whom the drugs are intended initially. Although both innovator and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers are making plans for increased production, there are challenges with global supply chains disruption and the retention of supplies for local markets. This may cause countries that rely on the importation of pharmaceuticals to be out of stock of supplies for an extended period. There are allegations of off‐label prescribing and hoarding. Pharmacists are the custodians and dispensers of medications and are faced with the task of assessing prescriptions and making decisions about the allocation of these products. This paper seeks to 1) highlight some of the ethical challenges of dispensing hydroxychloroquine by pharmacists during the COVID‐19 pandemic, 2) identify some of the responses to these issues from various regulatory authorities in the USA, and 3) recommend approaches to assist pharmacists in their decision‐making process, especially in LMICs. (shrink)

BackgroundThis paper highlights the issues that one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees (RECs) might encounter during the approval phase of a clinical trial to identify corrective and preventive actions for promoting a more efficient review process and ensuring review quality. Publications on the subject from Italy and the rest of Europe are limited; encouraging constructive debate can improve RECs’ service to the subject of the clinical trial.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed a cohort of 822 clinical trial protocols, initially reviewed by (...) REC, from June 2014 to December 2018. Data collected for each protocol were type of trial, sample size, use of placebo, number and kind of revisions requested by the REC before approval, and time taken for approval. Data for each protocol were collected by a trained clinical research assistant using the REC’s files and electronic archives.ResultsAlmost 45% of the reviewed studies (374/822) required clarifications, significant changes to the documentation, or minor changes before final approval.ConclusionsPreventive measures are needed to reduce the number of requested corrections and thus also the time required for approval, while maintaining review quality. All critical points and proposals presented in this paper require harmonization through updates to European regulations, as regulatory harmonization produces better compliance with rules and reduces the number of changes required before the trials’ final approval. Such updates include the development of standardized formats for informed consent, the verification of any evidence in favor of using off-label treatments over placebo as comparators, using multidisciplinary staff in clinical trials with children and adolescents, improving the legal definition of RECs to assign responsibilities and ensure independence, and providing guidance for RECs to engage clinical research assistants in internal audits. (shrink)

Off-label prescribing is an integral part of contemporary medicine. Many patients benefit when they receive drugs or devices under circumstances not specified on the label approved by the Food and Drug Administration. An off-label use may provide the best available intervention for a patient, as well as the standard of care for a particular health problem. In oncology, pediatrics, geriatrics, obstetrics, and other practice areas, patient care could not proceed without off-label prescribing. When scientific and medical (...) evidence justify off-label uses, physicians promote patients’ interests by prescribing products off label.Off-label prescribing can also harm patients, however. The potential for harm is greatest when an offlabel use lacks a solid evidentiary basis. A 2006 study examining prescribing practices for 169 commonly prescribed drugs found high rates of off-label use with little or no scientific support. Researchers examining off-label use in U.S. children’s hospitals concluded, “[W]e still have incomplete knowledge about the safety and efficacy of many medications commonly used to treat children across a range of drug classes and clinical diagnoses.”. (shrink)

There are numerous ways people can improve their cognitive capacities: good nutrition and regular exercise can produce long-term improvements across many cognitive domains, whilst commonplace stimulants such as coffee temporarily boost levels of alertness and concentration. Effects like these have been well-documented in the medical literature and they raise few ethical issues. More recently, however, clinical research has shown that the off-label use of some pharmaceuticals can, under certain conditions, have modest cognition-improving effects. Substances such as methylphenidate and modafinil (...) can improve capacities such as working memory and concentration in some healthy individuals. Unlike their more mundane predecessors, these methods of “cognitive enhancement” are thought to raise a multitude of ethical issues. This paper presents the six principal ethical issues raised in relation to pharmacological cognitive enhancers —issues such as whether: the medical safety-profile of PCEs justifies restricting or permitting their elective or required use; the enhanced mind can be an “authentic” mind; individuals might be coerced into using PCEs;, there is a meaningful distinction to be made between the treatment vs. enhancement effect of the same PCE; unequal access to PCEs would have implications for distributive justice; and PCE use constitutes cheating in competitive contexts. In reviewing the six principal issues, the paper discusses how neuroscientific research might help advance the ethical debate. In particular, the paper presents new arguments about the contribution neuroscience could make to debates about justice, fairness, and cheating, ultimately concluding that neuroscientific research into “personalized enhancement” will be essential if policy is to be truly informed and ethical. We propose an “ethical agenda” for neuroscientific research into PCEs. (shrink)

Many drugs used in paediatric medicine are off-label. There is a rising call for the use of adaptive clinical trial designs in responding to the need for safe and effective drugs given their potential to offer efficiency and cost-effective benefits compared with traditional clinical trials. ADs have a strong appeal in paediatric clinical trials given the small number of available participants, limited understanding of age-related variability and the desire to limit exposure to futile or unsafe interventions. Although the ethical (...) value of adaptive trials has increasingly come under scrutiny, there is a paucity of literature on the ethical dilemmas that may be associated with paediatric adaptive designs. This paper highlights some of these ethical concerns around safety, scientific/social value and caregiver/guardian comprehension of the trial design. Against this background, the paper develops a non-static conceptual lens for understanding PADs. It shows that ADs are epistemically open and reduce some of the knowledge-associated uncertainties inherent in clinical trials as well as fast-track the time to draw conclusions about the value of evaluated drugs/treatments. On this note, the authors argue that PADs are ethically justifiable given they have multiple layers of safety, exposing enrolled children to lesser potential risks, create social/scientific value generally and for paediatric populations in particular, specifically foster the flourishing of paediatric populations and can significantly improve paediatric trial efficiency when properly designed and implemented. However, because PADs are relatively new and their regulatory, ethical and logistical characteristics are yet to be clarified in some jurisdictions, the cooperation of various public and private stakeholders is required to ensure that the interests of children, their caregivers and parents/guardians are best served while exposing paediatric research subjects to the most minimal of risks when they are enrolled in paediatric trials that use ADs. Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study. Not applicable. (shrink)

Artykuł dotyczy instytucji pozarejestracyjnego stosowania produktów leczniczych oraz problemów w rozgraniczeniu sytuacji, w których taka forma leczenia ma charakter terapii innowacyjnej od normalnej praktyki leczniczej. Poruszona została kwestia istotnego ryzyka kwalifikacji rutynowej terapii przy użyciu produktów leczniczych jako eksperymentu medycznego oraz relacja pomiędzy pojęciem aktualnej wiedzy medycznej a Charakterystyką Produktu Leczniczego. Omówione zostały trudności w ustaleniu, czy proponowany sposób leczenia jest metodą nową lub częściowo wypróbowaną oraz przedstawiono postulat zwiększenia aktywności lekarskich towarzystw naukowych w tym zakresie. Przedstawiono implikacje kwalifikacji leczenia (...) off-label jako eksperymentu leczniczego w zakresie konieczności uzyskania opinii komisji bioetycznej oraz zawarcia ubezpieczenia odpowiedzialności cywilnej podmiotu przeprowadzającego eksperyment medyczny oraz ich wpływ na bezpieczeństwo pacjenta, bezpieczeństwo prawne lekarza oraz dostępność do świadczeń medycznych. (shrink)

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive neurostimulatory and neuromodulatory technique increasingly used in clinical and research practices around the world. Historically, the ethical considerations guiding the therapeutic practice of TMS were largely concerned with aspects of subject safety in clinical trials. While safety remains of paramount importance, the recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of the Neuronetics NeuroStar TMS device for the treatment of specific medication-resistant depression has raised a number of additional ethical concerns, including marketing, off- (...) class='Hi'>label use and technician certification. This article provides an overview of the history of TMS and highlights the ethical questions that are likely arise as the therapeutic use of TMS continues to expand. (shrink)

There is a paucity of treatment options for cognitively normal individuals with drug resistant genetic generalized epilepsy. Centromedian nucleus of the thalamus deep brain stimulation may be a viable treatment for GGE. Here, we present the case of a 27-year-old cognitively normal woman with drug resistant GGE, with childhood onset. Seizure semiology are absence seizures and generalized onset tonic clonic seizures. At baseline she had 4–8 GTC seizures per month and weekly absence seizures despite three antiseizure medications and (...) vagus nerve stimulation. A multidisciplinary committee recommended off-label use of CM DBS in this patient. Over 12-months of CM DBS she had two GTC seizure days, which were in the setting of medication withdrawal and illness, and no GTC seizures in the last 6 months. There was no significant change in the burden of absence seizures. Presently, just two studies clearly document CM DBS in cognitively normal individuals with GGE or idiopathic generalized epilepsy [in contrast to studies of cognitively impaired individuals with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies ]. Our results suggest that CM DBS can be an effective treatment for cognitively normal individuals with GGE and underscore the need for prospective studies of CM DBS. (shrink)

This paper explores the role of regulation and legislation on influencing the development and diffusion of technologies and methods of crop production. To do this, the change in pesticide registration under European Regulation 1107/2009 ‘Placing Plant Protection Products on the Market’ was followed through the UK’s agricultural system of innovation. Fieldwork included: a series of interviews conducted with scientists, agronomists and industry organisations; a programme of visiting agricultural events; as well as sending an electronic survey to British potato growers. The (...) innovation system is noted to have made the legislation less restrictive than originally proposed. The most notable system response to the legislation is the adjustment of agrochemical company pesticide discovery strategy and their expansion into biologically derived treatments. There have also been other innovation responses: agricultural seed companies have been breeding in pathogen resistance in their cultivars; agricultural consultancies are prepared to recommend pathogen-resistant seeds; scientists are using the change as justification for adopting their solutions; the agricultural levy boards funded research into off-label pesticide uses; and producers, potato growers in particular, have been seeking advice, but not changing their growing practices. (shrink)

Drug repurposing is a strategy of identifying new potential uses for already existing drugs. Many researchers adopted this method to identify treatment or prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite the considerable number of repurposed drugs that were evaluated, only some of them were labeled for new indications. In this article, we present the case of amantadine, a drug commonly used in neurology that attracted new attention during the COVID-19 outbreak. This example illustrates some of the ethical challenges associated (...) with the launch of clinical trials to evaluate already approved drugs. In our discussion, we follow the ethics framework for prioritization of COVID-19 clinical trials proposed by Michelle N Meyer and colleagues (2021). We focus on four criteria: social value, scientific validity, feasibility, and consolidation/collaboration. We claim that launching amantadine trials was ethically justified. Although the scientific value was anticipated to be low, unusually, the social value was expected to be high. This was because of significant social interest in the drug. In our view, this strongly supports the need for evidence to justify why the drug should not be prescribed or privately accessed by interested parties. Otherwise, a lack of evidence-based argument could enhance its uncontrolled use. With this paper, we join the discussion on the lessons learned from the pandemic. Our findings will help to improve future efforts to decide on the launch of clinical trials on approved drugs when dealing with the widespread off-label use of the drug. (shrink)

Neurotherapies for diagnostics and treatment—such as electroencephalography (EEG) neurofeedback, single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) imaging for neuropsychiatric evaluation, and off-label/experimental uses of brain stimulation—are continuously being offered to the public outside mainstream healthcare settings. Because these neurotherapies share many key features of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) techniques—and meet the definition of CAM as set out in Kaptchuk and Eisenberg—here we refer to them as “alternative neurotherapies.” By explicitly linking these alternative neurotherapy practices under a common conceptual framework, (...) this paper draws attention to, and critically considers, the cross-cutting ethical and legal issues related to the provision of these services. The first section of this paper provides an updated empirical overview of uses of SPECT neuropsychiatric evaluations, EEG neurofeedback, and experimental/off-label forms of brain stimulation. Next, drawing on CAM bioethics scholarship, we highlight the pertinent ethical issues in the alternative neurotherapy context, including the truthful representation of evidence base, marketing to vulnerable populations, potential harms, provider competency, and conflicts of interest. Finally, we consider the principal legal issues at stake for the provision of alternative neurotherapies in the U.S., namely those related to licensing and scope-of-practice considerations. We conclude with recommendations for future research in this domain. (shrink)

IntroductionResponsive neurostimulation is an evolving therapeutic option for patients with treatment-refractory epilepsy. Open-loop, continuous stimulation of the anterior thalamic nuclei is the only approved modality, yet chronic stimulation rarely induces complete seizure remission and is associated with neuropsychiatric adverse effects. Accounts of off-label responsive stimulation in thalamic nuclei describe significant improvements in patients who have failed multiple drug regimens, vagal nerve stimulation, and other invasive measures. This systematic review surveys the currently available data supporting the use of responsive (...) thalamic neurostimulation in primary and secondary generalized, treatment-refractory epilepsy.Materials and MethodsA systematic review was performed using the following combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary: OR ) OR [responsive neurostimulation AND thalamus AND ]. In addition, a search of the publications listed under the PubMed “cited by” tab was performed for all publications that passed title/abstract screening in addition to manually searching their reference lists.ResultsTen publications were identified describing a total of 29 subjects with a broad range of epilepsy disorders treated with closed-loop thalamic neurostimulation. The median age of subjects was 31 years old. Of the 29 subjects, 15 were stimulated in the anterior, 11 in the centromedian, and 3 in the pulvinar nuclei. Excluding 5 subjects who were treated for 1 month or less, median time on stimulation was 19 months. Of these subjects, 17/24 experienced greater than or equal to 50%, 11/24 least 75%, and 9/24 at least 90% reduction in seizures. Although a minority of patients did not exhibit significant clinical improvement by follow-up, there was a general trend of increasing treatment efficacy with longer periods on closed-loop thalamic stimulation.ConclusionThe data supporting off-label closed-loop thalamic stimulation for refractory epilepsy is limited to 29 adult and pediatric patients, many of whom experienced significant improvement in seizure duration and frequency. This encouraging progress must be verified in larger studies. (shrink)

The concept of moralisation of health behaviours was introduced in social psychology to describe the attribution of moral properties to habits and conditions like smoking or being a vegetarian. Moral properties are powerful motivators for people and institutions, as they may trigger blame, stigma, and appraisal, as well as the polarisation of interest and scientific hype. Here I extend the concept and illustrate how medicines and treatments can be seen as if they had moral properties, too, when they come to (...) be regarded as good or bad in the moral sense, and not just in the instrumental sense of benefiting or harming health. I propose the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) controversy of 2020 as an example of moralisation of a medicine. HCQ and chloroquine are anti-malarial drugs, whose off-label use for Covid-19 was hotly discussed in the early months of the pandemic, both in the media and within the scientific community, and eventually dismissed when robust evidence came out. The point of the paper is to show that moralisation of health products and treatments may influence individual and institutional decisions in significant ways, and also affect research. For these reasons, it should be carefully monitored and critically assessed. (shrink)

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is a developmental disorder with an age onset prior to 7 years. Children with ADHD have significantly lower ability to focus and sustain attention and also score higher on impulsivity and hyperactivity. Stimulants, such as methylphenidate, have remained the mainstay of ADHD treatment for decades with evidence supporting their use. However, recent years have seen emergence of newer drugs and drug delivery systems, like osmotic release oral systems and transdermal patches, to mention a few. The (...) use of nonstimulant drugs like atomoxetine and various other drugs, such as a-agonists, and a few antidepressants, being used in an off-label manner, have added to the pharmacotherapy of ADHD. This review discusses current trends in drug therapy of ADHD and highlights the promise pharmacogenomics may hold in the future. (shrink)

The term “off-label drug use” refers to drugs that have not yet acquired “approved” status or drugs that have acquired “approved” status but are used with a different dosage, route, or administration method other than that for which the drug has been approved. In New Zealand, the Medicines Act 1981 specifically allows for off-label drug use. However, this authority is limited by the Health and Disability Commissioner Regulations 1996 and the common law, which require that off-label drug (...) use is of an acceptable standard, that the patient should be fully informed, and that the patient should give informed consent. Off-label drug use is an important issue because the current law provides medical practitioners very wide discretionary power, without providing clarification for what is required of the practitioner in exercising his or her discretion in prescribing off-label. This paper discusses possible solutions to this issue, for example, establishing protocol for off-label use, an electronic database of off-label use, and the amendment of legal provisions. (shrink)

Reports in the popular press suggest that smart drugs or “nootropics” such as methylphenidate, modafinil and piracetam are increasingly being used by the healthy to augment cognitive ability. Although current nootropics offer only modest improvements in cognitive performance, it appears likely that more effective compounds will be developed in the future and that their off-label use will increase. One sphere in which the use of these drugs may be commonplace is by healthy students within academia. This article reviews the (...) ethical and pragmatic implications of nootropic use in academia by drawing parallels with issues relevant to the drugs in sport debate. It is often argued that performance-enhancing drugs should be prohibited because they create an uneven playing field. However, this appears dubious given that “unfair” advantages are already ubiquitous and generally tolerated by society. There are concerns that widespread use will indirectly coerce non-users also to employ nootropics in order to remain competitive. However, to restrict the autonomy of all people for fear that it may influence the actions of some is untenable. The use of potentially harmful drugs for the purposes of enhancement rather than treatment is often seen as unjustified, and libertarian approaches generally champion the rights of the individual in deciding if these risks are acceptable. Finally, whether the prohibition of nootropics can be effectively enforced is doubtful. As nootropics use becomes widespread among students in the future, discussion of this issue will become more pressing in the years to come. (shrink)

In the United States, while it is legal for physicians to prescribe drugs for “off-label” indications (uses for which the drugs do not have Food and Drug Administration approval), it is largely—though not entirely—illegal for drug manufacturers to promote off-label uses of their drugs to physicians. In recent months, the rules against off-label marketing have been rigorously enforced: in October, Allergan reached a $375 million settlement over off-label promotion of Botox; in September, Novartis settled an off- (...) class='Hi'>label marketing dispute for $422.5 million, and Forest Laboratories settled one for $313 million. These were only the latest in a series of criminal and civil settlements on off-label promotion, the most .. (shrink)

ABSTRACT I argue that this examination and appreciation for the shift to abductive reasoning should be extended to the intersection of neuroscience and novel brain-computer interfaces too. This paper highlights the implications of applying abductive reasoning to personalized implantable neurotechnologies. Then, it explores whether abductive reasoning is sufficient to justify insurance coverage for devices absent widespread clinical trials, which are better applied to one-size-fits-all treatments. INTRODUCTION In contrast to the classic model of randomized-control trials, often with a large number of (...) subjects enrolled, precision medicine attempts to optimize therapeutic outcomes by focusing on the individual.[i] A recent publication highlights the strengths and weakness of both traditional evidence-based medicine and precision medicine.[ii] Plus, it outlines a tension in the shift from evidence-based medicine’s inductive reasoning style (the collection of data to postulate general theories) to precision medicine’s abductive reasoning style (the generation of an idea from the limited data available).[iii] The paper’s main example is the application of precision medicine for the treatment of cancer.[iv] I argue that this examination and appreciation for the shift to abductive reasoning should be extended to the intersection of neuroscience and novel brain-computer interfaces too. As the name suggests, brain-computer interfaces are a significant advancement in neurotechnology that directly connects someone’s brain to external or implanted devices.[v] Among the various kinds of brain-computer interfaces, adaptive deep brain stimulation devices require numerous personalized adjustments to their settings during the implantation and computation stages in order to provide adequate relief to patients with treatment-resistant disorders. What makes these devices unique is how adaptive deep brain stimulation integrates a sensory component to initiate the stimulation. While not commonly at the level of sophistication as self-supervising or generative large language models,[vi] they currently allow for a semi-autonomous form of neuromodulation. This paper highlights the implications of applying abductive reasoning to personalized implantable neurotechnologies. Then, it explores whether abductive reasoning is sufficient to justify insurance coverage for devices absent widespread clinical trials, which are better applied to one-size-fits-all treatments.[vii] ANALYSIS I. The State of Precision Medicine in Oncology and the Epistemological Shift While a thorough overview of precision medicine for the treatment of cancer is beyond the scope of this article, its practice can be roughly summarized as identifying clinically significant characteristics a patient possesses (e.g., genetic traits) to land on a specialized treatment option that, theoretically, should benefit the patient the most.[viii] However, in such a practice of stratification patients fall into smaller and smaller populations and the quality of evidence that can be applied to anyone outside these decreases in turn.[ix] As inductive logic helps to articulate, the greater the number of patients that respond to a particular therapy the higher the probability of its efficacy. By straying from this logical framework, precision medicine opens the treatment of cancer to more uncertainty about the validity of these approaches to the resulting disease subcategories.[x] Thus, while contemporary medical practices explicitly describe some treatments as “personalized”, they ought not be viewed as inherently better founded than other therapies.[xi] A relevant contemporary case of precision medicine out of Norway focuses on the care of a patient with cancer between the ventricles of the heart and esophagus, which had failed to respond to the standard regimen of therapies over four years.[xii] In a last-ditch effort, the patient elected to pay out-of-pocket for an experimental immunotherapy (nivolumab) at a private hospital. He experienced marked improvements and a reduction in the size of the tumor. Understandably, the patient tried to pursue further rounds of nivolumab at a public hospital. However, the hospital initially declined to pay for it given the “lack of evidence from randomised clinical trials for this drug relating to this [patient’s] condition.”[xiii] In rebuttal to this claim, the patient countered that he was actually similar to a subpopulation of patients who responded in “open‐label, single arm, phase 2 studies on another immune therapy drug” (pembrolizumab).[xiv] Given this interpretation of the prior studies and the patient’s response, further rounds of nivolumab were approved. Had the patient not had improvements in the tumor’s size following a round of nivolumab, then pembrolizumab’s prior empirical evidence in isolation would have been insufficient, inductively speaking, to justify his continued use of nivolumab.[xv] The case demonstrates a shift in reasoning from the traditional induction to abduction. The phenomenon of ‘cancer improvement’ is considered causally linked to nivolumab and its underlying physiological mechanisms.[xvi] However, “the weakness of abductions is that there may always be some other better, unknown explanation for an effect. The patient may for example belong to a special subgroup that spontaneously improves, or the change may be a placebo effect. This does not mean, however, that abductive inferences cannot be strong or reasonable, in the sense that they can make a conclusion probable.”[xvii] To demonstrate the limitations of relying on the abductive standard in isolation, commentators have pointed out that side effects in precision medicine are hard to rule out as being related to the initial intervention itself unless trends from a group of patients are taken into consideration.[xviii] As artificial intelligence (AI) assists the development of precision medicine for oncology, this uncertainty ought to be taken into consideration. The implementation of AI has been crucial to the development of precision medicine by providing a way to combine large patient datasets or a single patient with a large number of unique variables with machine learning to recommend matches based on statistics and probability of success upon which practitioners can base medical recommendations.[xix] The AI is usually not establishing a causal relationship[xx] – it is predicting. So, as AI bleeds into medical devices, like brain-computer interfaces, the same cautions about using abductive reasoning alone should be carried over. II. Responsive Neurostimulation, AI, and Personalized Medicine Like precision medicine in cancer treatment, computer-brain interface technology similarly focuses on the individual patient through personalized settings. In order to properly expose the intersection of AI, precision medicine, abductive reasoning, and implantable neurotechnologies, the descriptions of adaptive deep brain stimulation systems need to deepen.[xxi] As a broad summary of adaptive deep brain stimulation, to provide a patient with the therapeutic stimulation, a neural signal, typically referred to as a local field potential,[xxii] must first be detected and then interpreted by the device. The main adaptive deep brain stimulation device with premarket approval, the NeuroPace Responsive Neurostimulation system, is used to treat epilepsy by detecting and storing “programmer-defined phenomena.”[xxiii] Providers can optimize the detection settings of the device to align with the patient’s unique electrographic seizures as well as personalize the reacting stimulation’s parameters.[xxiv] The provider adjusts the technology based on trial and error. One day machine learning algorithms will be able to regularly aid this process in myriad ways, such as by identifying the specific stimulation settings a patient may respond to ahead of time based on their electrophysiological signatures.[xxv] Either way, with AI or programmers, adaptive neurostimulation technologies are individualized and therefore operate in line with precision medicine rather than standard treatments based on large clinical trials. Contemporary neurostimulation devices are not usually sophisticated enough to be prominent in AI discussions where the topics of neural networks, deep learning, generative models, and self-attention dominate the conversation. However, implantable high-density electrocorticography arrays (a much more sensitive version than adaptive deep brain stimulation systems use) have been used in combination with neural networks to help patients with neurologic deficits from a prior stroke “speak” through a virtual avatar.[xxvi] In some experimental situations, algorithms are optimizing stimulation parameters with increasing levels of independence.[xxvii] An example of neurostimulation that is analogous to the use of nivolumab in Norway surrounds a patient in the United States who was experiencing both treatment-resistant OCD and temporal lobe epilepsy.[xxviii]Given the refractory nature of her epilepsy, implantation of an adaptive deep brain stimulation system was indicated. As a form of experimental therapy, her treatment-resistant OCD was also indicated for the off-label use of an adaptive deep brain stimulation set-up. Another deep brain stimulation lead, other than the one implanted for epilepsy, was placed in the patient’s right nucleus accumbens and ventral pallidum region given the correlation these nuclei had with OCD symptoms in prior research. Following this, the patient underwent “1) ambulatory, patient-initiated magnet-swipe storage of data during moments of obsessive thoughts; (2) lab-based, naturalistic provocation of OCD-related distress (naturalistic provocation task); and (3) lab-based, VR [virtual reality] provocation of OCD-related distress (VR provocation task).”[xxix] Such signals were used to identify when to deliver the therapeutic stimulation in order to counter the OCD symptoms. Thankfully, following the procedure and calibration the patient exhibited marked improvements in their OCD symptoms and recently shared her results publicly.[xxx] In both cases, there is a similar level of abductive justification for the efficacy of the delivered therapy. In the case study in which the patient was treated with adaptive deep brain stimulation, they at least had their neural activity tested in various settings to determine the optimum parameters for treatment to avoid them being based on guesswork. Additionally, the adaptive deep brain stimulation lead was already placed before the calibration trials were conducted, meaning that the patient had already taken on the bulk of the procedural risk before the efficacy could be determined. Such an efficacy test could have been replicated in the first patient’s cancer treatment, had it been biopsied and tested against the remaining immunotherapies in vitro. Yet, in the case of cancer with few options, one previous dose of a drug that appeared to work on the patient may justify further doses. However, as the Norwegian case presents, corroboration with known responses to a similar drug (from a clinical trial) could be helpful to validate the treatment strategy. (It should be noted that both patients were resigned to these last resort options regardless of the efficacy of treatment.) There are some elements of inductive logic seen with adaptive deep brain stimulation research in general. For example, abductively the focus could be that patient X’s stimulation parameters are different from patient Y’s and patient Z’s. In contrast, when grouped as subjects who obtained personalized stimulation, patients X, Y, and Z demonstrate an inductive aspect to this approach’s safety and/or efficacy. The OCD case holds plenty of abductive characteristics in line with precision medicine’s approach to treating cancer and as more individuals try the method, there will be additional data. With the gradual integration of AI into brain-computer interfaces in the name of efficacy, this reliance on abduction will continue, if not grow, over time. Moving forward, if a responsive deep brain stimulation treatment is novel and individualized (like the dose of nivolumab) and there is some other suggestion of efficacy (like clinical similarities to other patients in the literature), then it may justify insurance coverage for the investigative intervention, absent other unrelated reasons to deny it. III. Ethical Implications and Next Steps While AI’s use in oncology and neurology is not yet as prominent as its use in other fields (e.g., radiology), it appears to be on the horizon for both.[xxxi] AI can be found in both the functioning of the neurotechnologies as well as the implementation of precision medicine. The increasing use of AI may serve to further individualize both oncologic and neurological therapies. Given these implications and the handful of publications cited in this article, it is important to have a nuanced evaluation of how these treatments, which heavily rely on abductive justification, ought to be managed. The just use an abductive approach may be difficult as AI infused precision medicine is further pursued. At baseline, such technology relies on a level of advanced technology literacy among the general public and could exclude populations who lack access to basic technological infrastructure or know-how from participation.[xxxii] Even among nations with adequate infrastructure, as more patients seek out implantable neurotechnologies, which require robust healthcare resources, the market will favor patient populations that can afford this complex care.[xxxiii] If patients already have the means to pay for an initial dose/use of a precision medicine product out of pocket, should insurance providers be required to cover subsequent treatments?[xxxiv] That is, if a first dose of a cancer drug or a deep brain stimulator over its initial battery life is successful, patients may feel justified in having the costs of further treatments covered. The Norwegian patient’s experience implies there is a precedent for the idea that some public insurance companies ought to cover successful cancer therapies, however, insurance companies may not all see themselves as obligated to cover neurotechnologies that rely on personalized settings or that are based on precision/abductive research more than on clinical trials. CONCLUSION The fact that the cases outlined above rely on abductive style of reasoning implies that there may not be as strong a justification for coverage by insurance, as they are both experimental and individualized, when compared to the more traditional large clinical trials in which groups have the same or a standardized protocol (settings/doses). If a study is examining the efficacy of a treatment with a large cohort of patients or with different experimental groups/phases, insurance companies may conclude that the resulting symptom improvements are more likely to be coming from the devices themselves. A preference for inductive justification may take priority when ruling in favor of funding someone’s continued use of an implantable neurostimulator. There are further nuances to this discussion surrounding the classifications of these interventions as research versus clinical care that warrant future exploration, since such a distinction is more of a scale[xxxv] than binary and could have significant impacts on the “right-to-try” approach to experimental therapies in the United States.[xxxvi] Namely, given the inherent limitations of conducting large cohort trials for deep brain stimulation interventions on patients with neuropsychiatric disorders, surgically innovative frameworks that blend abductive and inductive methodologies, like with sham stimulation phases, have traditionally been used.[xxxvii] Similarly, for adaptive brain-computer interface systems, if there are no large clinical trials and instead only publications that demonstrate that something similar worked for someone else, then, in addition to the evidence that the first treatment/dose worked for the patient in question, the balance of reasoning would be valid and arguably justify insurance coverage. As precision approaches to neurotechnology become more common, frameworks for evaluating efficacy will be crucial both for insurance coverage and for clinical decision making. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This article was originally written as an assignment for Dr. Francis Shen’s “Bioethics & AI” course at Harvard’s Center for Bioethics. I would like to thank Dr. Shen for his comments as well as my colleagues in the Lázaro-Muñoz Lab for their feedback. - [i] Jonathan Kimmelman and Ian Tannock, “The Paradox of Precision Medicine,” Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology 15, no. 6 (June 2018): 341–42, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-018-0016-0. [ii] Henrik Vogt and Bjørn Hofmann, “How Precision Medicine Changes Medical Epistemology: A Formative Case from Norway,” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 28, no. 6 (December 2022): 1205–12, https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13649. [iii] David Barrett and Ahtisham Younas, “Induction, Deduction and Abduction,” Evidence-Based Nursing 27, no. 1 (January 1, 2024): 6–7, https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2023-103873. [iv] Vogt and Hofmann, “How Precision Medicine Changes Medical Epistemology,” 1208. [v] Wireko Andrew Awuah et al., “Bridging Minds and Machines: The Recent Advances of Brain-Computer Interfaces in Neurological and Neurosurgical Applications,” World Neurosurgery, May 22, 2024, S1878-8750(24)00867-2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2024.05.104. [vi] Mark Riedl, “A Very Gentle Introduction to Large Language Models without the Hype,” Medium (blog), May 25, 2023, https://mark-riedl.medium.com/a-very-gentle-introduction-to-large-language-models-without-the-hype-5 f67941fa59e. [vii] David E. Burdette and Barbara E. Swartz, “Chapter 4 - Responsive Neurostimulation,” in Neurostimulation for Epilepsy, ed. Vikram R. Rao (Academic Press, 2023), 97–132, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91702-5.00002-5. [viii] Kimmelman and Tannock, 2018. [ix] Kimmelman and Tannock, 2018. [x] Simon Lohse, “Mapping Uncertainty in Precision Medicine: A Systematic Scoping Review,” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 29, no. 3 (April 2023): 554–64, https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13789. [xi] Kimmelman and Tannock, “The Paradox of Precision Medicine.” [xii] Vogt and Hofmann, 1206. [xiii] Vogt and Hofmann, 1206. [xiv] Vogt and Hofmann, 1206. [xv] Vogt and Hofmann, 1207. [xvi] Vogt and Hofmann, 1207. [xvii] Vogt and Hofmann, 1207. [xviii] Vogt and Hofmann, 1210. [xix] Mehar Sahu et al., “Chapter Three - Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Precision Medicine: A Paradigm Shift in Big Data Analysis,” in Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science, ed. David B. Teplow, vol. 190, 1 vols., Precision Medicine (Academic Press, 2022), 57–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2022.03.002. [xx] Stefan Feuerriegel et al., “Causal Machine Learning for Predicting Treatment Outcomes,” Nature Medicine 30, no. 4 (April 2024): 958–68, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02902-1. [xxi] Sunderland Baker et al., “Ethical Considerations in Closed Loop Deep Brain Stimulation,” Deep Brain Stimulation 3 (October 1, 2023): 8–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdbs.2023.11.001. [xxii] David Haslacher et al., “AI for Brain-Computer Interfaces,” 2024, 7, https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.dnb.2024.02.003. [xxiii] Burdette and Swartz, “Chapter 4 - Responsive Neurostimulation,” 103–4; “Premarket Approval (PMA),” https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P100026. [xxiv] Burdette and Swartz, “Chapter 4 - Responsive Neurostimulation,” 104. [xxv] Burdette and Swartz, 126. [xxvi] Sean L. Metzger et al., “A High-Performance Neuroprosthesis for Speech Decoding and Avatar Control,” Nature 620, no. 7976 (August 2023): 1037–46, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06443-4. [xxvii] Hao Fang and Yuxiao Yang, “Predictive Neuromodulation of Cingulo-Frontal Neural Dynamics in Major Depressive Disorder Using a Brain-Computer Interface System: A Simulation Study,” Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 17 (March 6, 2023), https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2023.1119685; Mahsa Malekmohammadi et al., “Kinematic Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation for Resting Tremor in Parkinson’s Disease,” Movement Disorders 31, no. 3 (2016): 426–28, https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26482. [xxviii] Young-Hoon Nho et al., “Responsive Deep Brain Stimulation Guided by Ventral Striatal Electrophysiology of Obsession Durably Ameliorates Compulsion,” Neuron 0, no. 0 (October 20, 2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2023.09.034. [xxix] Nho et al. [xxx] Nho et al.; Erik Robinson, “Brain Implant at OHSU Successfully Controls Both Seizures and OCD,” OHSU News, accessed March 3, 2024, https://news.ohsu.edu/2023/10/25/brain-implant-at-ohsu-successfully-controls-both-seizures-and-ocd. [xxxi] Awuah et al., “Bridging Minds and Machines”; Haslacher et al., “AI for Brain-Computer Interfaces.” [xxxii] Awuah et al., “Bridging Minds and Machines.” [xxxiii] Sara Green, Barbara Prainsack, and Maya Sabatello, “The Roots of (in)Equity in Precision Medicine: Gaps in the Discourse,” Personalized Medicine 21, no. 1 (January 2024): 5–9, https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2023-0097. [xxxiv] Green, Prainsack, and Sabatello, 7. [xxxv] Robyn Bluhm and Kirstin Borgerson, “An Epistemic Argument for Research-Practice Integration in Medicine,” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 43, no. 4 (July 9, 2018): 469–84, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhy009. [xxxvi] Vijay Mahant, “‘Right-to-Try’ Experimental Drugs: An Overview,” Journal of Translational Medicine 18 (June 23, 2020): 253, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-020-02427-4. [xxxvii] Michael S. Okun et al., “Deep Brain Stimulation in the Internal Capsule and Nucleus Accumbens Region: Responses Observed during Active and Sham Programming,” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 78, no. 3 (March 1, 2007): 310–14, https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2006.095315. (shrink)

Since the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, an array of off-label interventions has been used to treat patients, either provided as compassionate care or tested in clinical trials. There is a challenge in determining the justification for conducting randomised controlled trials over providing compassionate use in an emergency setting. A rapid and more accurate evaluation tool is needed to assess the effect of these treatments. Given the similarity to the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) pandemic in Africa in 2014, we (...) suggest using a tool designed by the WHO committee in the aftermath of the EVD pandemic: Monitored Emergency Use of Unregistered and Investigational Interventions (MEURI). Considering the uncertainty around SARS-CoV-2, we propose using an improved MEURI including the Plan–Do–Study–Act tool. This combined tool may facilitate dynamic monitoring, analysing, re-evaluating and re-authorising emergency use of unproven treatments and repeat it in cycles. It will enable adjustment and application of outcomes to clinical practice according to changing circumstances and increase the production of valuable data to promote the best standard of care and high-quality research—even during a pandemic. (shrink)

In this article, the authors explore the impact of a potential future regulatory decision by FDA whether or not to continue its enforcement discretion policy allowing physicians to perform, and stool banks to sell, stool product for fecal microbiota transplantation as a treatment for recurrent Clostridium Difficile infection without an Investigative New Drug application. The paper looks at the Agency's regulatory options in light of the current gut microbiota based products that are in the FDA pipeline for drug approval (...) and the potential impact and repercussions of their approval on FDA action. In laying out FDA's options we consider the implications of market exclusivity and off-label use of newly approved drugs. Ultimately, we explore the potential impact of FDA's decision on patients, research, and innovation. (shrink)

While ethics and evidence‐based medicine are often viewed as separate domains of inquiry and practice, what we know influences what we can ethically justify doing, and what we see as our moral obligations shapes the way we interpret evidence. The boundaries between the moral and epistemic spheres become particularly blurred when the health of people is at stake and even more so when no “officially” recommended medical intervention is available to help a patient in need. The treatment of major (...) hemorrhages using recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa), which was originally approved under orphan drug legislation to treat hemophilia, is a case in point.Following reports in the late 1990s that rFVIIa was success­fully used to stop bleeding in gunshot trauma, there was much excitement about its potential to help patients with uncontrolled bleeding in other clinical settings, leading to wide‐spread off‐label use of the drug. In recent years, new evidence has raised questions about the off‐label use of rFVIIa for severe bleeding. Nonetheless, while some clini­cians are now adamantly opposed to prescribing rFVIIa for massive bleed­ing, many remain determined to continue the practice. This raises the question: why do clinicians have such variable responses to the same body of evidence?We analyzed the debate around off‐label use of rFVIIa and character­ized its main conceptual features and tensions. We did not seek to provide a normative analysis as to whether the evidence supports the case for off‐label prescribing, nor did we try to provide a historical analysis of how attitudes and clinical practice have changed. Rather, we sought to make visible the moral and epistemic values underpinning stakeholders’ opinions and practices. On the basis of our analysis, which is described in this ar­ticle, we suggest that debates such as those surrounding rFVIIa will not be resolved simply by conducting more studies and that, therefore, there is also a need for conceptual and pro­cedural frameworks that more sys­tematically incorporate values into clinical policy‐making. (shrink)

Can Covid-19 vaccines be used off-label? Should they be? These were questions on the minds of parents, pediatricians, and the media when the FDA fully approved the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for people aged 16 and up. Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics cautioned against pediatric off-label use of the vaccine, and the CDC Covid-19 Vaccine Provider Agreement appears to prohibit it. After briefly contextualizing ethical and legal precedents regarding off-label use, we offer an analysis of the ethical (...) permissibility of and considerations for pediatric off-label Covid-19 vaccination based on individual benefits, risks, and available alternatives. Our analysis challenges the ethics of a blanket prohibition on off-label pediatric Covid-19 vaccination, as it limits clinician ability to provide care they may determine to be clinically and ethically appropriate. At the same time, our analysis acknowledges that Covid-19 creates population-level ethical considerations that are at times in tension with individual health interests. (shrink)

We argue that the universal recommendations against “off-label” pediatric use of approved COVID-19 issued by the FDA, CDC, and AAP are overbroad. Especially for higher-risk children, vaccination can be ethically justified even before FDA authorization or approval – and similar reasoning is relevant for even younger patients. Legal risks can also be managed, although the FDA, CDC, and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should move quickly to provide clarity.

This paper aims to analyze the ethical challenges in experimental drug use during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, using Germany as a case study. In Germany uniform ethical guidelines were available early on nationwide, which was considered as desirable by other states to reduce uncertainties and convey a message of unity. The purpose of this ethical analysis is to assist the preparation of future guidelines on the use of medicines during public health emergencies. The use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir (...) and COVID-19 convalescent plasma in clinical settings was analyzed from the perspective of the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and autonomy. We observed that drug safety and drug distribution during the pandemic affects all four ethical principles. We therefore recommend to establish ethical guidelines (i) to discuss experimental treatment options with patients from all population groups who are in urgent need, (ii) to facilitate the recording of patient reactions to drugs in off-label use, (iii) to expand inclusion criteria for clinical studies to avoid missing potentially negative effects on excluded groups, and (iv) to maintain sufficient access to repurposed drugs for patients with prior conditions. (shrink)

Providing in-utero treatments to target specific conditions in the fetus is a relatively new approach in perinatal care, with the vast majority of these treatments being used off-label. The high degree of off-label medication use in the perinatal and neonatal settings raises concern for the safety of both the fetuses and expectant mothers. This report presents two examples of intra-amniotic drug administration based on reported clinical cases. From the ethical framework of medical principlism, we examine the competing ethical (...) duties of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence in this setting. We then lay out three fundamental ethical principles for obtaining informed consent and maximizing clinical benefit. (shrink)

Unter Off-Label-Use versteht man den zulassungsüberschreitenden Einsatz eines Arzneimittels außerhalb der von Zulassungsbehörden genehmigten Anwendungsgebiete. Er ist in der medizinischen Praxis weit verbreitet und fächerübergreifend zu beobachten. Der Beitrag gibt eine Einschätzung der Off-Label-Anwendung aus ethischer Sicht. Dazu wird die Off- Label-Anwendung zunächst von anderen, sachlich verwandten Anwendungsweisen abgegrenzt. Danach wird über die aktuelle Verbreitung des Off-Label- Use informiert. Sodann wird gezeigt, dass sich bekannte Problemlagen aus der Medizinethik bei der Off-Label-Anwendung in spezifischer Weise verschärfen. (...) Schließlich wird diskutiert, wie eine ethisch akzeptable Off-Label-Anwendung von Arzneimitteln ausgestaltet werden könnte und auf welchen Ebenen sie ansetzen müsste. (shrink)

Although there are exceptions, the principle of primum nil nocere remains the cornerstone of the practice of medicine. In the well known handbook, Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics1 a case is presented which raises doubts about the permissibility of off-label administration of certain drugs to healthy troops as a preventive measure. The following citation from this handbook gives a clear description of the problem:"Prophylaxis in cholinesterase inhibitor poisoning. Studies in experimental animals have shown that pretreatment with (...) pyridostigmine reduces the incapacitation and mortality associated with “nerve agent” poisoning, particularly for agents, such as soman, that … ". (shrink)

The Food and Drug Administration authorizes the marketing of a drug only for uses that the manufacturer has demonstrated to be safe and effective, based on evidence from at least two clinical trials. However, the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine, so physicians may prescribe drugs in any manner they choose. Prescribing drugs in ways that deviate from the uses specified in the FDA-approved drug label, package insert, and marketing authorization is referred to as off-label prescribing. (...) This occurs when physicians prescribe a drug for a therapeutic purpose other than the one approved by the FDA; treat patients in a different age cohort or gender than the population on which it was tested; or prescribe a different dose, for a different duration of use, or a different mode of administration than indicated on the label. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 6, June 2019, Page 22-25.

Previous research conducted in 1999 highlighted ethical concerns behind challenge studies inducing psychosis with ketamine and made recommendations to enhance ethical standards. Recently, a plethora of clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of ketamine to treat mood disorders, which lead to complex ethical issues. Pharmaceutical companies and researchers hope to profit by developing patentable variations on ketamine for treating depression. Media have labeled ketamine as a “miracle” antidepressant. Some clinics offer expensive off-label use of ketamine to treat mood disorders. (...) This article examines the ecological validity of ketamine trials, measures to protect patients, informed consent procedures, financial inducements to participants and conflict of interest of researchers, therapeutic misconception, concealment, and deception. Further recommendations are purposed to improve ethical standard of clinical research involving ketamine. (shrink)

Last year I described in this journal1 an unacceptable influence of a pharmaceutical company on the off-label use of one of its products. Now I would like to report on an acceptable and even praiseworthy initiative of a pharmaceutical manufacturer in monitoring the use of its drug. The devastating action of thalidomide on the human embryo caused its withdrawal from the market in ….

We wish to point out an additional consequence of the Catch-22 described by Andreae and colleagues (Andreae et al. 2016). The decades-long research gridlock of controlled drugs has unintentionally...

People have a love/hate relationship with rapidly changing healthcare technology. While consumer demand for medical apps continues to grow as rapidly as does supply, healthcare professionals and safety experts worry about the impact of these apps on the health consumer. In response to the rapidly growing mobile healthcare sector, the Food and Drug Administration has put forth guidelines to regulate ‘mobile medical apps’, those health-related apps that are designated as medical devices. In this article, I argue that this decision, to (...) only regulate apps that bill themselves as medical devices, will create a market for ‘off-label’ app use. Further, I will talk about the oft used analogy between off-label apps and off-label pharmaceuticals, showing that off-labeling apps will provide patients none of the benefits that come with a physician prescribing a drug off-label, while exposing the mobile healthcare consumer to significant risks that go significantly beyond those that we know of from prescription drugs. Recognizing that the Food and Drug Administration is not going to be able to significantly change its policies on oversight, I will suggest specific actions to at least mitigate some of the risks associated with off-label app use. (shrink)

Gebhardt draws attention to an important issue. The responsibility for informing and warning patients about adverse effects and how to prevent them, or ….