The Problem with Using Medical Boards to Regulate Misinformation.

Some stakeholders called on medical boards to sanction physicians for spreading misinformation during COVID-19 and discussing off-label medications. In 2022, California passed AB 2098, which classifies physician dissemination of misinformation as unprofessional conduct subject to discipline by the state medical board. This article describes the purpose and function of state medical boards, the law relating to off-label prescribing, and why using medical boards to discipline physicians for discussing controversial opinions exceeds the traditional role of state medical boards. Though physicians do have a duty to provide accurate information to the public, defining misinformation is difficult and poses five distinct problems. Although California's law was repealed, this article asserts that disciplining physicians for disseminating misinformation could pose Constitutional concerns, hinder physicians' ability to practice medicine, or suppress information that is important to the public interest.

Prospects for Enforcing Prohibitions on Off-Label Drug Promotion after United States v. Caronia: An Analysis of Litigated Cases.

CONTEXT: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules restrict pharmaceutical manufacturers from promoting drugs for non-FDA-approved (off-label) indications. When manufacturers violate this rule, it has in many cases led to unsafe prescribing. However, in 2012, a federal circuit court ruled in United States v. Caronia that truthful off-label promotion was protected under the First Amendment, threatening government enforcement in this area. METHODS: The authors extracted cases from the WestLawNext database that mentioned Caronia from 2012 to 2019. They collected information about plaintiff, procedural history, product and manufacturer involved, and case outcome. Cases were categorized as either "follows," "does not follow," or "distinguishes" from Caronia. The authors qualitatively reviewed the full text of each case to verify whether Caronia was given substantive discussion for perceptions of off-label promotion, application of commercial speech rights, and how courts interpreted Caronia. FINDINGS: Among 42 cases in the study cohort, 22 (52%) followed Caronia's core holding that truthful, non-misleading off-label promotion was not actionable under FDA rules. By contrast, 20 cases (48%) treated Caronia negatively, either declining to follow (9 cases) or distinguishing it (11 cases). CONCLUSIONS: Enforcement of restrictions on off-label marketing became more challenging after Caronia. This gives manufacturers greater flexibility to promote drugs for unapproved uses despite the substantial public health risks.

Pharmacoepidemiology of testosterone: Impact of reimbursement policy on curbing off-label prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact on testosterone prescribing over 3 years following the 2015 tightening of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) criteria. DESIGN: Analysis of testosterone prescribing data from PBS and private (non-PBS) sources between 2012 and 2018 covering 2015 change in PBS prescribing criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: New and total PBS testosterone prescriptions estimating usage by quarter analyzed by product type, patient age-group, indication and prescriber type. Total national testosterone prescriptions (private plus PBS) was verified from an independent data supplier (IQVIA). RESULTS: PBS usage peaked in 2014 declining by 30% in 2017-8 with PBS prescribing covering a fall from 97.6% by usage in 2014 to 74% in 2017-18 of all testosterone prescribing. The tighter 2015 PBS restrictions sustained the selective reduction in GP initiation of prescriptions for middle-aged men without pathological hypogonadism whereas specialist initiations and prescription for adult hypogonadism or pediatric/prepubertal indications were largely unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: The tightening of PBS criteria from 1 April 2015 to curb off-label prescribing remained effective and selective over 3 years yet total national testosterone prescribing continued with little change, reflecting a shift to private prescriptions. The continuation of off-label testosterone prescribing for unproven indications suggests that long-term androgen dependence is created in men without pathological hypogonadism who commence testosterone. This highlights the need to avoid prescribing testosterone to men without pathological hypogonadism in the absence of sound evidence of efficacy and safety, the latter including the little unrecognized risks of long-term androgen dependency when trying to quit.

Off-label use of bevacizumab for wet age-related macular degeneration in Europe.

PURPOSE: To analyse current off-label use of bevacizumab for wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in Europe. METHODS: The study was conducted as a combined survey and literature review. It included the 22 most populous countries in Europe. In each country, ophthalmologists with particular knowledge about off-label treatment responded to a questionnaire. RESULTS: Answers were obtained from twenty European countries. The off-label use of bevacizumab for wet AMD greatly differed between nations; the bevacizumab proportion varied from non-existent (0%) to very high (97%). There were also large disparities within single countries (e.g. 0-80%), which were attributable to differences in regional decision-making. Both governmental institutions and national ophthalmological societies expressed highly diverging opinions on the use of off-label treatment. Intravitreal administration of bevacizumab had been a matter of legal dispute in several countries. The question about responsibility for off-label therapy mainly remained unanswered. CONCLUSIONS: There was a highly varying utilization of bevacizumab between European countries. Despite an intention of a consistent approach to medical regulations, Europe has not yet reached a professional or political consensus on the ophthalmic off-label use of bevacizumab.

Level of evidence used in recommendations by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines beyond Food and Drug Administration approvals.

BACKGROUND: A previous analysis of 113 National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) recommendations reported that NCCN frequently recommends beyond Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications (44 off-label recommendations) and claimed that the evidence for these recommendations was weak. METHODS: In order to determine the strength of the evidence, we carried out an in-depth re-analysis of the 44 off-label recommendations listed in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). RESULTS: Of the 44 off-label recommendations, 14 were later approved by the FDA and/or are supported by randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. In addition, 13 recommendations were either very minor extrapolations from the FDA label (n = 8) or were actually on-label (n = 5). Of the 17 remaining extrapolations, 8 were for mechanism-based agents applied in rare cancers or subsets with few available treatment options (median response rate = 43%), 7 were based on non-RCT data showing significant efficacy (>50% response rates), and 2 were later removed from the NCCN Guidelines because newer therapies with better activity and/or safety became available. CONCLUSION: Off-label drug use is a frequent component of care for patients with cancer in the United States. Our findings indicate that when the NCCN recommends beyond the FDA-approved indications, the strength of the evidence supporting such recommendations is robust, with a significant subset of these drugs later becoming FDA approved or supported by RCT. Recommendations without RCT data are often for mechanism-based drugs with high response rates in rare cancers or subsets without effective therapies.

Off-label use of ketamine for treatment-resistant depression in clinical practice: European perspective.

Ketamine therapy for treatment-resistant depression in European national health systems may only be considered after attempting all evidence-based antidepressant strategies outlined in clinical guidelines. This paper seeks to explain the ethical, regulatory and procedural framework for the off-label use of ketamine for treatment-resistant depression within a public healthcare system.Declaration of interestNone.

Pediatric drug development in China: Reforms and challenges.

In China, child and adolescent pediatricians often face challenges in treating children with the appropriate medications. Within the last 8 years, the Chinese government has already initiated a series of policies to promote development of age-appropriate medicines for children. In this study,we introduced the current status of pediatric drugs, obstacles for pediatric drugs development and regulatory reforms in China. The lack of label information in drugs for children, inadequacy of age-appropriate dosage forms and strengths, and shortage of pediatric drugs are some of the problems commonly faced. There exists neither mandatory requirements nor enough financial drivers for development of pediatric medicines. Though some progress in terms of pediatric drugs development as well as distribution have been made by Chinese government over past years, further efforts are necessary to improve availability of pediatric medications.

The next forum for unraveling FDA off-label marketing rules: State and federal legislatures.

In a Guest Editorial, Aaron S. Kesselheim and Michael S. Sinha show how federal and state legislation to allow promotion of drugs for non-approved uses threatens to undermine the FDA's public health mission.

State insurance mandates and off-label use of chemotherapy.

Access to cancer drugs used off-label is important to cancer patients but may drive up healthcare costs with little evidence of clinical benefit. We hypothesized that state health insurance mandates for private insurers to provide coverage for off-label use of cancer drugs cause higher rates of off-label use. We used Truven MarketScan data from 1999 to 2007 on utilization of 35 infused chemotherapy drugs in private health plans in the United States, covering the period when eight states implemented off-label coverage laws. We studied trends in off-label use of drugs, distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate off-label use according to drug compendia, and estimated difference-in-difference regressions of the effect of state laws on off-label use. We estimate 41% of utilization was off-label, including 17% of use conservatively defined as inappropriate. Trends show gradual declines in off-label use over time. We also find no discernable effect of state laws mandating coverage of off-label use of cancer drugs on utilization patterns under multiple empirical specifications. Our conclusion is that policymakers should consider shifting away from mandating coverage as a way to ensure access to drugs off-label and towards incentivizing adherence to clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality and value of off-label use.

Trying to Sidestep Off-Label Dance-Around.

After years of court challenges, agency-imposed fines, and drugmaker lobbying, those restrictions on off-label marketing are loosening up. The agency is working on revisions to rules that govern how drug companies and their sales representatives can communicate with doctors and payers about off-label use.

Biomedical Enhancement of Warfighters and the Legal Protection of Military Medical Personnel in Armed Conflict.

Under international law, military medical personnel and facilities must be respected and protected in the event of an armed conflict. This special status only applies to personnel and facilities exclusively engaged in certain enumerated medical duties, especially the treatment of the wounded and sick, and the prevention of disease. Military medical personnel have, however, been called upon to engage in the biomedical enhancement of warfighters, as exemplified by the supply of central nervous system stimulants as a fatigue countermeasure. This article argues that international law of armed conflict does not recognise human enhancement as a medical duty, and that engaging in enhancement that is harmful to the enemy results in the loss of special protection normally enjoyed by military medical personnel and units.

[Research Status on Off-label Use in Appraisal for Medical Malpractice].

Off-label use is widely happened in medical practice. But for now, there is no clear legalistic demarcation for the behaviour of off-label use. Even in medical and legal fields, the consensus has not been reached. Once the behaviour of off-label use caused medical damage, it is difficult for appraisal profession to provide a clear demarcation. This article reviews the status of clinical domestic and foreign off-label use, the research status in the fields of laws and regulations and the basic consensus of domestic off-label use, for peer reference.

State Remedies For Costly Prescription Drugs.

(1) At least 74.7 million Americans use three or more prescription drugs in a 30-day period. (2) Eighty percent of the U.S. public views prescription drug costs as "unreasonable," while 17 percent say "reasonable," according to a recent poll. (3) An influenza drug has a cash price of $100, but a patient with insurance may pay $125 because of a "gag clause" that restricts pharmacists from disclosing price options.

United States v. Caronia: Off-Label Drug Promotion and First Amendment Balancing.

Off-label drug promotion is commonplace in the United States, but it is not without its dangers. While the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not explicitly ban off-label promotion, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)--in order to protect consumers from unsafe and ineffective drugs--has taken steps to regulate it. The FDA does so through its intended-use regulation, which lists the types of evidence the FDA can consider in determining whether a drug is misbranded. It is a crime to sell a misbranded drug into interstate commerce or to conspire to do so. On September 25, 2015, the FDA proposed an amendment to the regulation, which has drawn opposition from various industry groups due to its potential to restrict the type of speech that is often used in off-label promotion. The First Amendment challenge to the proposed amendment rests on United States v. Caronia, in which the FDA was prevented from using truthful, nonmisleading speech to convict a pharmaceutical representative of a conspiracy to sell a misbranded drug. This Note examines whether the amendment to the regulation is permissible under Caronia. It first contends that the regulation does not facially violate the First Amendment. It further argues that the rule is constitutional and does not pose the same First Amendment issue as was seen in Caronia as long as the FDA implements it with care. This Note concludes by exploring various ways that the FDA can constitutionally regulate off-label drug promotion under the proposed rule.

Unwarranted claims of drug efficacy in pharmaceutical sales visits: are drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes promoted appropriately?

AIMS: This study compares physicians' recall of the claims of benefits on cardiovascular disease and diabetes made by pharmaceutical sales representatives for drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate outcome, i.e., an off-label claim, compared with those approved on the basis of a serious morbidity or mortality (clinical) outcome. METHODS: Physicians in primary care practices in Montreal, Vancouver, Sacramento and Toulouse, who saw sales representatives as part of their usual practice and served a non-referral population, were contacted in blocks of 25 from a randomized list of all physicians practising in the relevant metropolitan area. We compared how frequently physicians reported that sales reps made claims of serious morbidity or mortality (clinically meaningful) benefits for drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes vs. drugs approved on the basis of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: There were 448 promotions for 58 unique brand name cardiovascular and diabetes drugs. Claims of clinically meaningful benefit were reported in 156 (45%) of the 347 promotions for surrogate outcome drugs, constituting unwarranted efficacy claims, i.e., off-label promotion. Claims of clinical benefit were reported in 72 of the 101 promotions (71%) for drugs approved on the basis of clinical outcomes, adjusted OR = 0.3 (95% CI 0.2, 0.6), P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Claims of efficacy made in sales visit promotions for drugs approved only on the basis of surrogate outcomes extended beyond the regulator-approved efficacy information for the product in almost half of promotions. Unapproved claims of drug efficacy constitute a form of off-label promotion and merit greater attention from regulators.

Unlicensed and off-label uses of medicines: definitions and clarification of terminology.

The terms 'licensed', 'unlicensed', and 'off-label', often used in relation to marketing and prescribing medicinal products, may confuse UK prescribers. To market a medicinal product in the UK requires a Marketing Authorization ('product licence') for specified indications under specified conditions, regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The Marketing Authorization includes the product's agreed terms of use (the 'label'), described in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). Prescribing a licensed product outside those terms is called 'off-label' prescribing. Products for which no-one holds a UK Marketing Authorization are unlicensed. Prescribers can prescribe authorized products according to the conditions described in the SmPC ('on-label') or outside those conditions ('off-label'). They can also prescribe unauthorized products, even if they are unlicensed in the UK, if they are licensed elsewhere or if they have been manufactured in the UK by a licensed manufacturer as a 'special'. The complexities of this system can be understood by considering the status of the manufacturer of the product, the company that markets it (which may or may not be the same), the product itself, and its modes of use, and by emphasizing the word 'authorized'. If a Marketing Authorization is granted to the supplier of a product, it will specify the authorized modes of use; the product will be prescribable as authorized (i.e. 'on-label') or in other modes of use, which will all be off-label. Unlicensed products with no authorized modes of use can be regarded as 'unauthorized products'. All 'specials' can be regarded as authorized products lacking authorized modes of use.

CURRENT ENVIRONMENT FOR INTRODUCING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN GREECE.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the current regulatory environment in Greece to evaluate the potential introduction of health technology assessment (HTA) for medicinal products for human use. METHODS: Data sources consist of national legislation on pricing and reimbursement of health technologies to identify the potential need of establishing HTA and its relevant structure. RESULTS: The pricing procedure regarding medicinal products for human use is based on an external reference pricing mechanism which considers the average of the three lowest Euorpean Union prices. Currently, a formal HTA procedure has not been applied in Greece, and the only prerequisite used for the reimbursement of medicinal products for human use is their inclusion in the Positive Reimbursement List. To restrict pharmaceutical expenditure, a variety of measures-such as clawback mechanisms, rebates, monthly budget caps per physician, generics penetration targeting-have been imposed, aiming mainly to regulate the price level rather than control the introduction of medicinal products for human use in the Greek pharmaceutical market. CONCLUSIONS: Greece has the opportunity to rapidly build capacity, implement, and take advantage of the application of HTA mechanisms by clearly defining the goals, scope, systems, context, stakeholders, and methods that will be involved in the local HTA processes, taking into account the country's established e-prescription system and the recently adapted legislative framework.

Off-label prescriptions and decisions on reimbursement requests in Germany - a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: "Off-label use" is defined as the prescription of pharmaceutical products outside their approved indications. Rare diseases frequently lack "on-label" treatment options. In order to avoid reimbursement claims following the prescription of off-label drugs, physicians in Germany can - on a case-by-case basis - file an application for cost coverage with the competent health insurance prior to treatment initiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a chart review for cost coverage requests submitted by two outpatient clinics at a university-affiliated dermatology department between 2010 and 2012 (clinic for autoimmune diseases and urticaria clinic). Insurance providers, acceptance rates, reasons for rejection, and processing times were analyzed. RESULTS: The analysis showed that 56.8 % of applications for off-label use (n = 44) were approved during the first round. The rate increased to 75.0 % when including approvals granted after up to two rejections. The time between initial application and the response of health insurers was 49 days (median). In case of cost coverage approval, treatments were initiated 92 days (median) after the initial request. CONCLUSIONS: The present case series shows that, in the majority of cases, health insurers in Germany have agreed to reimburse the costs of proposed off-label therapies. A prospective study is required in order to evaluate whether current changes to legal regulations (GKV-Versorgungsstrukturgesetz, Patientenrechtegesetz) adequately address the problems identified.

Pharmaceutical Industry Off-label Promotion and Self-regulation: A Document Analysis of Off-label Promotion Rulings by the United Kingdom Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority 2003-2012.

BACKGROUND: European Union law prohibits companies from marketing drugs off-label. In the United Kingdom--as in some other European countries, but unlike the United States--industry self-regulatory bodies are tasked with supervising compliance with marketing rules. The objectives of this study were to (1) characterize off-label promotion rulings in the UK compared to the whistleblower-initiated cases in the US and (2) shed light on the UK self-regulatory mechanism for detecting, deterring, and sanctioning off-label promotion. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted structured reviews of rulings by the UK self-regulatory authority, the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), between 2003 and 2012. There were 74 off-label promotion rulings involving 43 companies and 65 drugs. Nineteen companies were ruled in breach more than once, and ten companies were ruled in breach three or more times over the 10-y period. Drawing on a typology previously developed to analyse US whistleblower complaints, we coded and analysed the apparent strategic goals of each off-label marketing scheme and the practices consistent with those alleged goals. 50% of rulings cited efforts to expand drug use to unapproved indications, and 39% and 38% cited efforts to expand beyond approved disease entities and dosing strategies, respectively. The most frequently described promotional tactic was attempts to influence prescribers (n = 72, 97%), using print material (70/72, 97%), for example, advertisements (21/70, 30%). Although rulings cited prescribers as the prime target of off-label promotion, competing companies lodged the majority of complaints (prescriber: n = 16, 22%, versus companies: n = 42, 57%). Unlike US whistleblower complaints, few UK rulings described practices targeting consumers (n = 3, 4%), payers (n = 2, 3%), or company staff (n = 2, 3%). Eight UK rulings (11%) pertaining to six drugs described promotion of the same drug for the same off-label use as was alleged by whistleblowers in the US. However, while the UK cases typically related to only one or a few claims made in printed material, several complaints in the US alleged multifaceted and covert marketing activities. Because this study is limited to PMCPA rulings and whistleblower-initiated federal cases, it may offer a partial view of exposed off-label marketing. CONCLUSION: The UK self-regulatory system for exposing marketing violations relies largely on complaints from company outsiders, which may explain why most off-label promotion rulings relate to plainly visible promotional activities such as advertising. This contrasts with the US, where Department of Justice investigations and whistleblower testimony have alleged complex off-label marketing campaigns that remain concealed to company outsiders. UK authorities should consider introducing increased incentives and protections for whistleblowers combined with US-style governmental investigations and meaningful sanctions. UK prescribers should be attentive to, and increasingly report, off-label promotion.

Comprehensive analysis of clinical development and regulatory submission promotion schemes for oncologic drugs as the Japanese national projects.

To reduce the delay in marketing authorization of drugs in Japan, four Japanese national projects were instituted. We examined all oncologic drugs for adult patients approved or discussed through these schemes, for the first time. All the data are publicly available. In total, 197 applications/demands (181 indications and 16 dosages/uses) were collected. As of December 31, 2015, 64 indications and 10 dosages/uses were approved as off-label drugs through these schemes without conducting additional registration trials in Japan. Furthermore, 46 indications and two dosages/uses were approved after registration trials in Japan requested by the national scheme councils. Regarding the following 23 indications of the 197 applications/demands, registration trials in Japan were commenced after the national scheme council's request: 17 hematological malignancies and six orphan solid tumors. Moreover, 54 indications and three dosages/uses, for which demands were submitted, were regarded as not a high medical priority by the national scheme council. Regarding two hematological malignancy indications, the dosage approved in foreign countries was intolerable for the Japanese patients in Japanese registration trials and this stopped the clinical development in Japan. Our analysis showed that 110 indications and 12 dosages/uses were approved in Japan through these schemes. These national projects have provided numerous therapeutic options for Japanese patients and may be meaningful for promoting clinical development and regulatory approval especially in orphan diseases in countries other than Japan.