Prevalencia de dolor y su abordaje terapéutico en niños pasibles de cuidados paliativos asistidos en un centro de referencia de Uruguay / Prevalence of pain and its therapeutic approach in children eligible for assisted palliative care in a reference hospital center in Uruguay / Prevalência de dor e sua abordagem terapêutica em crianças submetidas a cuidados paliativos atendidas em um centro hospitalar de referência no Uruguai

Introducción: el tratamiento del dolor es un derecho humano y constituye un pilar de los cuidados paliativos (CP). Este síntoma en niños suele ser subestimado e insuficientemente tratado. Objetivo: conocer la prevalencia del dolor y describir el perfil de uso de fármacos analgésicos, coadyuvantes y procedimientos invasivos en niños asistidos en la Unidad de Cuidados Paliativos Pediátricos del Centro Hospitalario Pereira Rossell (UCPP-CHPR) durante el período 2019-2021. Metodología: se realizó un estudio observacional, descriptivo y retrospectivo mediante revisión de historias clínicas. Resultados: se incluyeron 317 niños, 58% de sexo masculino, con una mediana de edad 6,9 años. Eran portadores de enfermedades neurológicas severas no evolutivas 64%, utilizaban prótesis o tecnología médica 51%. Se encontró registro de presencia de dolor en 35%, de tipo crónico 87%, mixto 55% y de fuentes múltiples 54%. Se detectó uso de escala para evaluación del dolor en 61%, la más utilizada fue r-FLACC. En el grupo de niños con dolor se encontró prescripción de analgésicos en 43% (48/111) y de coadyuvantes 87% (97/111), gabapentina en 78. En todos la vía de administración fue la oral/enteral. Se encontró uso off label de fármacos en 79% y polifarmacia en 82%. Se registraron efectos adversos en 10%. Conclusión: un tercio de los niños asistidos por la UCPP-CHPR, presentaba registros de presencia dolor. La mayoría de tipo crónico, mixto y de fuentes múltiples. Se encontró amplio uso de escalas validadas para evaluación del dolor y alta prescripción de coadyuvantes en relación a la de analgésicos.

Introduction: pain treatment is a human right and a pillar of palliative care (PC). This symptom in children is often underestimated and insufficiently treated. Objective: learn about the prevalence of pain and describe the analgesic drugs' usage profile, adjuvants and invasive procedures in children assisted in the Pediatric Palliative Care Unit of the Pereira Rossell Hospital Center (UCPP-CHPR) during the period 2019-2021. Methodology: observational, descriptive and retrospective study based on the review of medical records. Results: 317 children were included, 58% male, with a median age of 6.9 years. 64% were carriers of severe non-progressive neurological diseases, 51% used prosthetics or medical technology. A record of the presence of pain was found in 35%, chronic type 87%, mixed 55% and multiple sources 54%. The use of a pain assessment scale was detected in 61%, the most used was r-FLACC. In the group of children with pain, analgesics were prescribed in 43% (48/111) and adjuvants in 87% (97/111), gabapentin in 78. In all of them, the administration route was oral/enteral. Off-label use of drugs was found in 79% and polypharmacy in 82%. Adverse effects were recorded in 10%. Conclusion: a third of the children assisted by the UCPP-CHPR showed records of pain presence. Most chronic type, mixed and multiple sources. We found a vast use of validated scales for pain assessment and high prescription of adjuvants in relation to analgesics.

Introdução: o tratamento da dor é um direito humano e constitui um pilar dos Cuidados Paliativos (CP). Este sintoma em crianças é geralmente subestimado e insuficientemente tratado. Objetivo: conhecer a prevalência da dor e descrever o perfil do uso de medicamentos analgésicos, adjuvantes e procedimentos invasivos em crianças atendidas na Unidade de Cuidados Paliativos Pediátricos do Centro Hospitalar Pereira Rossell (UCPP-CHPR) durante o período de 2019-2021. Metodologia: foi realizado um estudo observacional, descritivo e retrospectivo por meio de revisão de prontuários. Resultados: foram incluídas 317 crianças, 58% do sexo masculino, com idade mediana de 6,9 anos. 64% eram portadores de doenças neurológicas graves não evolutivas, 51% usavam próteses ou tecnologia médica. Registro da presença de dor foi encontrado em 35%, do tipo crônica 87%, mista 55% e de origem múltipla 54%. A utilização de escala para avaliação da dor foi detectada em 61%, sendo a mais utilizada a r-FLACC. No grupo de crianças com dor, a prescrição de analgésicos foi encontrada em 43% (48/111) e adjuvantes em 87% (97/111), gabapentina em 78. Ao todo, a via de administração foi oral/enteral. Uso off-label de medicamentos foi encontrado em 79% e polifarmácia em 82%. Efeitos adversos foram registrados em 10%. Conclusão: um terço das crianças atendidas pela UCPP-CHPR apresentou registro da presença de dor. A maioria do tipo crônica, mista e de fontes múltiplas. Encontrou-se ampla utilização de escalas validadas para avaliação da dor e elevada prescrição de coadjuvantes em relação aos analgésicos.

Outside any therapeutic trial prescription of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients with covid-19 during the first wave of the pandemic: A national inquiry of prescription patterns among French hospitalists.

INTRODUCTION: During the first wave of the coronavirus-disease 2019 (covid-19) pandemic in early 2020, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was widely prescribed in light of in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Our objective was to evaluate in early 2020 the rate of French hospitalists declaring having prescribed HCQ to treat covid-19 patients outside any therapeutic trial, compare the reasons and the determinants for having prescribed HCQ or not. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A national inquiry submitted by email from May 7 to 25, 2020, to a sample of French hospitalists: doctors managing patients hospitalized for covid-19 in a French department of internal medicine or infectious diseases and identified in the directories of French hospitals or as a member of the French Infectious Diseases Society (SPILF). Primary outcome was the percentage of hospitalists declaring having prescribed HCQ to covid-19 patients. Secondary outcomes were reasons and determinants of HCQ prescription. RESULTS: Among 400 (22.8%) responding hospitalists, 45.3% (95% CI, 40.4 to 50.1%) declared having prescribed HCQ to covid-19 patients. Two main profiles were discerned: HCQ prescribers who did not raise its efficacy as a motive, and non-prescribers who based their decision on evidence-based medicine. Multivariate analysis retained the following prescription determinants (adjusted odds ratio; 95% confidence interval): a departmental procedure for HCQ prescription (8.25; 4.79 to 14.20), having prescribed other treatments outside a therapeutic trial (3.21; 1.81 to 5.71), prior HCQ prescription (2.75; 1.5 to 5.03) and HCQ prescribed within the framework of a therapeutic trial (0.56; 0.33 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: Almost half of the hospitalists prescribed HCQ. The physician's personality (questioning or not evidence-based-medicine principles in the context of the pandemic) and departmental therapeutic procedures were the main factors influencing HCQ prescription. Establishment of "therapeutic" procedures represents a potential means to improve the quality of therapeutic decision-making during a pandemic.

Prevalence and Appropriateness of Antipsychotic Prescribing in an Italian Prison: Is Everything Always Really Overprescribed?

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Although the prevalence of mental disorders in prisoners is known to be higher than in the general population, less is known about the antipsychotic (AP) prescribing rate in jail. The aim of this research was to investigate prevalence and appropriateness of AP prescription in an Italian prison to expand our understanding on this crucial area of clinical-forensic practice. METHODS/PROCEDURES: A cross-sectional (census day) design was used among male adults in the Parma Penitentiary Institutes (PPI). Sociodemographic, clinical and prescription data were collected from the PPI electronic clinical database management system. The AP prescribing appropriateness was examined in accordance with the therapeutic indications included in the Italian National Formulary. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. FINDINGS/RESULTS: A total of 98 (14.1%) of 696 PPI prisoners were taking AP medications. Moreover, 90 (91.8%) of the 98 PPI participants were also taking other psychotropic medications concurrently. Quetiapine and olanzapine were the most common prescribed APs. Antipsychotic medications were most likely to be prescribed for off-label indications (74.4%). Less than one fifth of all AP prescriptions were for psychotic disorders. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotic medications are widely used in prison, often together with other psychotropic drugs. Considering their common adverse effects, it is crucial to longitudinally monitor their potential risk of metabolic, cardiovascular, and extrapyramidal symptoms and signs, as well as their early risk of mortality. Given the high prevalence of AP off-label prescription, the rationale for AP prescribing should be clearly documented and regularly reviewed within the prison by mental health professionals.

Off-label drug use in neonates and infants in Spain: A five-year observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To provide information about the off-label rate of all drug prescriptions in neonates and infants up to 1 year in Spain. Also, to analyse the off-label prescription of medicines under current practice in this age group according to different evidence sources. STUDY DESIGN: A five-year (2015-2019) exploratory observational study about off-label prescription in neonates and infants (0 to 1 year) at primary health care in Spain. All drug prescriptions in this age group were analysed and classified according to their labelling in off-label or on-label. The drugs prescribed off-label were subsequently reviewed in national formularies and other databases to assess its evidence of use beyond what is recommended in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). RESULTS: On average 34.50% of total prescriptions were prescribed off-label according to the SmPC. 17.93% of total prescriptions in neonates and infants up to 1 year old were not based on clinical evidence from SmPC, Pediamécum, BNF or DailyMed. In more than 88% of cases, off-label use was related to the posology section of the SmPC, followed by the therapeutic indications and contraindications sections, in 35.20% and 24.10% of cases, respectively. Almost 13% of off-label drugs were over-the-counter. Salbutamol followed by topical tobramycin and colecalciferol were the drugs most prescribed off-label. CONCLUSIONS: Off-label use of drugs remains as an important public health concern, especially for neonates and infants up to 1 year, who receive the greatest proportion of off-label prescriptions. The evidence-based off-label prescription is a widespread practice that has shown a stable trend during the 5-year study period providing also a certain extent of flexibility to paediatricians in some therapeutic decisions.

Percepções e uso do metilfenidato entre universitários da área da Saúde em Ceilândia, DF, Brasil / Perceptions and use of methylphenidate among health students in Ceilândia, DF, Brazil / Percepciones y uso del metilfenidato entre universitarios del área de la salud en Ceilândia, Distrito Federal - DF, Brasil

As percepções e o uso de metilfenidato entre universitários foram investigados em estudo descritivo realizado em duas etapas. A primeira, quantitativa, foi realizada por meio do preenchimento de um questionário semiestruturado on-line. Para a segunda etapa, qualitativa, foi realizado um grupo focal. Dos 337 participantes da primeira etapa, 14,5% relataram usar o metilfenidato. Entre os usuários, a prevalência de uso sem prescrição foi maior para o sexo masculino (65,3%), após ingresso na faculdade (57,1%), e 61,2% relataram eventos adversos. O principal motivo de uso foi o doping intelectual (65,3%). Já na etapa qualitativa, além de reforçar os achados anteriores, foram identificados tópicos temáticos como a pressão externa exercida por familiares, sociedade e a rotina universitária. Esses achados apontam para a necessidade de medidas de apoio e orientação aos universitários e de reformulação do processo ensino-aprendizagem.(AU)

This descriptive study investigated the use and perceptions of methylphenidate among university students. The study was conducted in two stages. In the first stage (quantitative), the students completed an online semi-structured questionnaire. The second stage (qualitative) consisted of focus group discussions. Of the 337 participants in the first stage, 14.5% reported using methylphenidate. The prevalence of methylphenidate use without a prescription was greater among men (65.3%) and after starting university (57.1%); 61.2% of the students reported adverse events. The main reason for using the drug was intellectual doping (65.3%). In the qualitative stage, which reinforced the findings of the quantitative stage, we identified themes such as external pressure from family, society and university routine. The findings underline the need to provide student support and advice and reformulate the teaching and learning process.(AU)

Se investigaron las percepciones y el uso del metilfenidato entre universitarios, en un estudio descriptivo realizado en dos etapas. La primera, cuantitativa, se realizó por medio del llenado de un cuestionario semiestructurado online. Para la segunda etapa, cualitativa, se realizó un grupo focal. De los 337 participantes de la primera etapa, el 14,5% relató que usaba metilfenidato. Entre los usuarios, la prevalencia de uso sin prescripción fue mayor para el sexo masculino (65,3%), después del ingreso en la facultad (57,1%) y el 61,2% relataron eventos adversos. El principal motivo de uso fue el dopping intelectual (65,3%). En la etapa cualitativa, además de reforzar los hallazgos anteriores, se identificaron tópicos temáticos tales como la presión externa ejercida por los familiares, la sociedad y la rutina universitaria. Esos hallazgos señalan la necesidad de medidas de apoyo y orientación a los universitarios y de reformulación del proceso enseñanza-aprendizaje.(AU)

Off-label drug use in an adult intensive care unit of a Brazilian hospital

Abstract The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and describe the factors associated with off-label drug use in an adult intensive care unit (ICU) of a Brazilian hospital. An analytical, cross-sectional, prospective study was conducted in the adult ICU population from March 2018 to May 2018. Off-label use of medication was classified by indication, dosage, route of administration, type and volume of diluent, and duration of administration. Most patients were female (57.89%), non-elderly (56.14%), and had a mean age of 54.44 ± 17.15 years. The prevalence of off-label drug use was 70.31%, but was not associated with the clinical severity of the patients. A statistically significant association was observed between label use of drugs and prescribing potentially inappropriate medicines (PIM). The most common reasons for off-label drug use were therapeutic indication (19.58%) and volume of diluent (23.30%). Drug administration by enteral tubes accounted for the largest number of off-label uses due to route of administration (90.85%). There was a higher prevalence of off-label use of systemic antimicrobials (14.44%) and norepinephrine (9.28%). Our study provided a broad characterization of off-label drug use in an adult ICU and showed why it is important for health professionals to evaluate the specific risks and benefits of this practice

The extent to which off-patent registered prescription medicines are used for off-label indications in Australia: A scoping review.

AIM: The aim of this scoping review was to determine the extent of off-patent prescription medicine use beyond registered indications in various Australian clinical settings. METHOD: The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute approach and reported using PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. Online databases were used to identify published literature about off-patent registered prescription medicines used for off-label indications in Australian public hospital, community and primary healthcare settings. In addition, empirical data from the Queensland and the South Australian state-wide medicine formularies were screened for the same medication/off-label indication dyads identified in the literature, and other locally approved uses. RESULTS: Overall, fourteen studies were included, conducted in public hospitals (n = 11), palliative care units (n = 2) and the community setting (n = 1). There were 213 reports extracted from the literature describing off-patent registered prescription medicines used for off-label indications, representing 128 unique medication/off-label indication dyads and 32 different medicines. Of these, just five medication/off-label indication dyads were approved for use on both the Queensland and South Australian state-wide medicine formularies, with 12 others only approved for use in Queensland and 16 others only approved for use in South Australia. Further examination of these state-wide formularies demonstrated that the use of off-patent registered prescription medicines beyond registered indications is more extensive than has been reported to date in the literature. There were 28 additional medication/off-label indication dyads approved on the Queensland state-wide medicine formulary and 14 such examples approved for use in South Australia. Of these, just two medication/off-label indication dyads were approved for use on both formularies. CONCLUSION: The extent to which off-patent registered prescription medicines have been repurposed in clinical settings for off-label indications in Australia is greater than previously reported in the literature. Usage and funded availability of certain medication/off-label indication dyads, varies across Australia. These results further expose the two tiered system of medicines regulation in Australia, and its impact on equity of access to medicines. Further research is required to support policy change to encourage submission of registration updates for off-patent prescription medicines.

Off-label reduced-dose apixaban does not reduce hemorrhagic risk in Taiwanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A retrospective, observational study.

ABSTRACT: East Asians are reportedly at high risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding; therefore, some physicians prefer to prescribe low-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Little is known about the therapeutic effectiveness and safety of off-label reduced-dose apixaban in East Asians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of off-label reduced-dose apixaban in Taiwanese patients with nonvalvular AF.This retrospective cohort study enrolled 1073 patients with nonvalvular AF who took apixaban between July 2014 and October 2018 from 4 medical centers in southern Taiwan. The primary outcomes included thromboembolic events (stroke/transient ischemic attack or systemic embolism), major bleeding, and all-cause mortality.Among all patients, 826 (77%) patients were classified as the "per-label adequate-dose" treatment group (i.e., consistent with the Food and Drug Administration label recommendations) while 247 (23%) patients were the "off-label reduced-dose" treatment group. The mean follow-up period was 17.5 ±â€Š13 months. The "off-label reduced-dose" group did not have a lower major bleeding rate than the "per-label adequate-dose" group (4.8% vs 3.8%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-2.09), but had a nonsignificantly higher incidence of thromboembolic events (4.23% vs 3.05%, adjusted HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.71-2.34).An off-label reduced-dose apixaban treatment strategy may not provide incremental benefits or safety for Taiwanese patients with nonvalvular AF.

An institutional audit of the use of novel drugs in pediatric oncology.

BACKGROUND: Significant challenges persist in treating children with rare, relapsed, or refractory malignancies. Novel molecularly targeted drugs promise improved outcomes for these children with reduced toxicity. However, there is often limited evidence to substantiate their clinical efficacy and guide their use. This raises issues for clinical decision-making, ethical concerns surrounding equity of access to these often-expensive agents, and the management of families' expectations for cure. This audit evaluated the off-label use of novel drugs and associated clinical outcomes in order to guide the development of future clinical and ethical guidelines. AIM: To evaluate the patterns in the off-label use of novel drugs for treating childhood cancer and the associated clinical outcomes to guide prospective studies and inform ethical and clinical governance protocols for the use of these agents. METHODS: A retrospective audit was performed for all patients who received novel drugs off-label as treatment for their malignancy at an Australian pediatric oncology center between 2010 and 2019. RESULTS: One hundred patients with 32 unique diagnoses received 133 novel drugs across 124 regimens. Eighty-four patients received these drugs at the second line of treatment or greater. Novel drug median cost was $15 521 AUD (Range: $6.53 AUD to $258 339 AUD) and was primarily funded by the hospital (N = 60/133, 45.1%) or compassionate access from pharmaceutical companies (N = 52/133, 39.1%). Decision-making related to novel drugs was inconsistently documented. Ninety-one of 124 treatment regimens commenced between 2010 and 2019 resulted in objective responses (73.4%), but only 35 were still ongoing upon review in June 2020 (38.5%). Median response duration was 12.6 months (Range: 0-93.2 months). CONCLUSIONS: While novel drugs were largely unable to definitively cure patients, most achieved objective responses. Prospective trials and more rigorous documentation are needed to fully inform the future use of these agents given the heterogeneity of their applications.

[Drug use during the covid-19 pandemic in Italy.] / L'uso dei farmaci durante la pandemia di covid-19 in Italia.

The Italian Medicines Agency has started, since the first months of 2020, a monitoring of drug use during the covid-19 pandemic. This made it possible to identify specific trends in hospital and local purchases, such as the extensive use of off-label drugs with little evidence of efficacy during the first weeks of the epidemic, and to progressively assess the degree of implementation of regulatory and ministerial recommendations.Fin dalle prime fasi dell'emergenza covid-19 è emersa per l'Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) la necessità di monitorare in modo specifico l'uso dei farmaci utilizzati nel corso dell'epidemia. È infatti fondamentale, in un contesto caratterizzato da grande incertezza e da continui aggiornamenti delle linee guida, disporre di informazioni utili a una corretta lettura e interpretazione dei dati. È stato quindi realizzato un primo rapporto dell'Osservatorio Nazionale sull'Impiego dei Medicinali (OsMed) sull'uso dei farmaci utilizzati, a livello ospedaliero e territoriale, nella fase iniziale dell'epidemia1. Questo metteva a confronto i consumi relativi al periodo compreso tra marzo a maggio del 2020 con quelli del trimestre immediatamente precedente, da dicembre 2019 a febbraio 2020. In seguito, il 4 marzo 2021, è stato pubblicato un aggiornamento dei dati in riferimento alle fasi successive dell'epidemia2. Il monitoraggio ha preso in considerazione diverse categorie di farmaci, andando a valutare le oscillazioni negli acquisti in riferimento al progressivo aggiornamento degli indirizzi regolatori. I volumi osservati per ciascun farmaco sono stati standardizzati per 10.000 abitanti/die, andando a valutare le differenze pre- e post-covid-19 in termini di differenza assoluta, differenza percentuale e di p-value (p).

Off-label postpartum use of domperidone in Canada: a multidatabase cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Trends in off-label postpartum use of domperidone and the impact of safety advisories on its use remain unknown. Our objectives were to describe postpartum use of domperidone in Canada, to evaluate the impact of Health Canada advisories on prescribing patterns, and to describe the association between domperidone use and a composite end point of sudden cardiac death or ventricular tachycardia (VT) among postpartum patients. METHODS: We conducted a multidatabase cohort study involving pregnant patients with live births between 2004 and 2017 using administrative health databases from 5 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario). We excluded patients with less than 1 year of prepregnancy database history and with approved indications for domperidone. We assessed domperidone use in the 6 months postpartum and the impact of the 2012 and 2015 Health Canada advisories on prescribing via interrupted time series analysis. We estimated crude rates of VT and sudden cardiac death. RESULTS: We included 1 190 987 live births. Mean maternal age was 28.6 (standard error 0.6) years. Domperidone use increased over time, from 7% in 2003-2005 to 12% in 2009-2011, when it plateaued. The 2012 advisory was followed by a drop in use and a reduction in slope, and the 2015 advisory had a more modest impact. Crude analysis suggests that domperidone may be associated with increased VT or sudden cardiac death (0.74 v. 0.37 per 10 000 person-years; difference per 10 000 person-years: 0.37, 95% confidence interval -0.67 to 1.41). INTERPRETATION: Postpartum domperidone use increased between 2004 and 2017, with prescribing attenuated after Health Canada advisories and a very low absolute rate of VT or sudden cardiac death. These findings suggest that Health Canada advisories affected prescribing; any potential increase in VT or sudden cardiac death with use of domperidone is small and could not be confirmed in this large study STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04024865.

Use of antipsychotics in Denmark 1997-2018: a nation-wide drug utilisation study with focus on off-label use and associated diagnoses.

AIMS: Antipsychotics are primarily labelled for the treatment of severe mental illness and have documented clinical utility in certain neurological disorders or palliative care. However, off-label use of antipsychotics is common and increasing, and prior studies on antipsychotic utilisation have not specifically assessed users in neurology, palliative care or general practice. We aimed to explore diagnoses associated with antipsychotic use, treatment patterns and characteristics of users without diagnoses relevant to antipsychotic treatment. METHODS: Population-based study identifiying all users of antipsychotics in Denmark (pop 5.7 mio.) 1997-2018 in the Danish National Prescription Register (DNPR). Possible indications for antipsychotic therapy were evaluated using in- and outpatient contacts from the DNPR. Users were divided hierarchically into six groups: severe mental disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar-spectrum disorders), chronic mental disorders (dementias, mental retardation, autism), other mental disorders (depression-spectrum, anxiety and personality disorders, etc.), selected neurological diseases, cancer and antipsychotic users without any of these diagnoses. This last group was characterised regarding demographics, antipsychotic use, health care utilisation and likely antipsychotic treatment initiator in 2018. RESULTS: Altogether, 630 307 antipsychotic users were identified, of whom 127 649 had filled prescriptions during 2018. Users without diagnoses relevant to antipsychotic treatment comprised of the largest group (37%), followed by schizophrenia and bipolar-spectrum disorders (34%), other mental disorders (15%), dementia, autism and mental retardation (11%), cancer (2.2%) and neurological diagnoses (2.0%). Of 37 478 incident users in 2018, 39% had no diagnosis relevant to antipsychotic treatment, 7.9% had major depression, 7.7% neurotic/stress-related disorders and 7.5% dementia. Quetiapine was most commonly used, both overall (51%) and among users without diagnoses relevant to antipsychotic treatment (58%). Of 14 474 incident users in 2018 without diagnoses relevant to antipsychotic treatment, treatment was most likely initiated by a general practitioner (65%), with only 17% seeing a psychiatrist during the following year. As many as 18% of patients with adjustment disorders and 14% of those without relevant diagnoses for antipsychotic use, remained on antipsychotic treatment 5 years after their first prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Over one-third of antipsychotic users in Denmark did not have psychiatric, neurological or cancer diagnoses as possible indications for antipsychotic therapy. Many antipsychotics are initiated or prescribed in general practice, and a concerningly large subgroup without documented diagnoses relevant for antipsychotics continued to receive them. Rational prescribing, adequate side effect monitoring and further research into reasons for the observed antipsychotic use patterns and their risk-benefit ratio are needed.

Off-label use of second-generation antipsychotics in borderline personality disorder: a comparative real-world study among oral and long-acting injectables in Spain.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the use of oral vs. long-acting injectables (LAIs) antipsychotics, as well as, to compare the effectiveness of different LAI antipsychotics [aripiprazole-1-month, paliperidone-1-month (PP1M), paliperidone-3-month (PP3M) and risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI)] in patients diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD), by evaluating the following clinical outcomes: (1) the number of hospital admissions; (2) the number of documented suicidal behaviour/attempts; and (3) the use of concomitant treatments, including benzodiazepines, oral antipsychotics and biperiden. We included a total of 116 patients diagnosed with BPD and treated with antipsychotic medication: 50 using a LAI antipsychotic formulation and 66 using the equivalent main oral antipsychotic. Patients treated with LAIs showed a decreased ratio of visits to emergency compared with the oral treatment group, and between LAIs, PP3M vs. aripiprazole-1-month group. Furthermore, patients treated with LAIs used lower number and dose of concomitant antipsychotics compared with patients treated with oral antipsychotics. Moreover, PP1M and PP3M used lower daily dose of diazepam equivalents compared with the aripiprazole-1-month and RLAI treatment groups. In conclusion, the use of LAIs may play a role in the management of BPD.

High Fluctuation Between Anticoagulants, Frequent Off-Label Dosing, and No Difference Concerning Outcomes: Results of a Real-Life Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Recently published studies indicated a high proportion of patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are off-label under- or overdosed. The present study aimed at investigating whether off-label dosages are corrected over time and whether off-label doses are associated with differences in bleeding rates, ischemic stroke, or venous thromboembolism. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients presenting to our emergency department between January 1 and December 31, 2018, with therapeutic oral anticoagulation were included (ie, vitamin-K antagonists [VKAs], rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran) and follow-up for a maximum of 2 years until December 31, 2019, was made. Detailed chart reviews were performed for each case concerning characteristics, indication, bleeding complications, or changes in the used substance or dosage. RESULTS: We reviewed 2588 consultations of 1228 patients receiving therapeutic oral anticoagulation. During the maximum follow-up period of 2 years vitamin K antagonists and rivaroxaban lost the largest proportions in favor of apixaban. The overall distribution of dosage correctness remained almost unimproved (correct dosing in 62.5%, underdosing in 23.6%, coverdosing in 13.9%).The corresponding outcomes did not differ with respect to bleeding events, ischemic stroke, or venous thromboembolism among various anticoagulants as well as between correct and off-label doses. CONCLUSIONS: A rising proportion of existing oral anticoagulation regimes was changed to apixaban, while the proportion of off-label dosages of all oral anticoagulants remained stable. No difference in bleeding rates, de novo strokes, or thromboembolisms was found between anticoagulants as well as between correct and off-label doses.

Utilization of biotechnological drugs in rare diseases requiring the use of off-label drugs in children in Turkey

Background/aim: Pediatric patients, especially those with rare diseases, represent a population that has a high tendency towards off- label drug use (OLDU) and needs a more careful practice of pharmacotherapy than in adults. We aimed to investigate biotechnological drug use in children with rare diseases requiring OLDU. Materials and methods: This retrospective study examined all single-diagnosed OLDU applications (n = 5792) for 4992 children (<18- year) in Turkey. Applications of rare diseases were selected, and their descriptive characteristics were examined, including demographic features of patients, biotechnological drug utilization status, and disease categories. The off-label statuses of the drugs at the end of 2020 were also examined. Results: In total, 77.7% (n = 4501) of OLDU applications were made for rare diseases. Biotechnological drug use was higher in rare disease applications than in nonrare diseases (37.9% vs. 19.2%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Canakinumab was the top applied biotechnological drug (73.2%). Compared to that in small-molecule drugs, the mean age of patients was higher in biotechnological drug-containing applications (8.1 ± 5.3 vs. 9.7 ± 4.9, respectively; p < 0.0001). Biotechnological drug use was higher in nonneoplastic rare diseases (40.3%) than in neoplastic rare diseases (26.4%), (p < 0.0001). At the end of 2020, the approval status of the off-label indications covered in 2016 was significantly higher for rare (24.4%) vs. nonrare (5.2%, p < 0.0001) diseases and for biotechnological (32.3%) vs. small- molecule (13.9%, p < 0.0001) drugs. In total, 87.7% of the drugs would have to be still used in the off-label setting at the end of 2020. Conclusion: It was seen that more than three-quarters of the pediatric OLDU applications are for rare diseases, and the need for biotechnological OLDU in this group is almost 2-fold of small-molecule drug use. While further projected findings imply a higher approval tendency for rare diseases and biotechnological drugs, there seems to be more room for improvement for pediatric drug use.

[Off-label pediatric medicines in Spain]. / Medicamentos fuera de ficha técnica en Pediatría.

Since 2009, the use of off-label and unlicensed drugs has been regulated in Spain. In pediatrics, this exceptional use is more common than in other medical specialties. It varies from 10% to 90% of all prescriptions in children. This variability is due to differences in methodology, classification and sources of information used, and also to the different pediatrics subspecialties. In addition, the knowledge of several pediatricians on this issue is limited and more than half do not comply with the law, in many cases due to ignorance. However, the use of off-label and unlicensed drugs is legal and necessary. The Medicines Committee of the Spanish Association of Pediatrics (CM-AEP) considers that it is necessary to improve the existing information on medicines in the pediatric population. Therefore, the CM-AEP works out a document where suggestions and actions are proposed to achieve it, because children's health deserves it.

USE OF OFF-LABEL MEDICATIONS IN A NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to analyze the use of off label (OL) medicines, according to the National Regulatory Agency, in a neonatal intensive care unit of a high-risk maternity hospital in Northeast Brazil. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out, using a convenience sample of newborns that used mechanical ventilation at the Intensive Care Unit. As a reference, OL medications were considered for those without an approval for newborn usage by the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária - ANVISA) and by the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA). RESULTS: The sample consisted of 158 newborns, 58.3% male, 87.7% premature, and 70.2% of low or very low birth weight. According to ANVISA, 440 out of the 1,167 prescriptions analyzed were OL, with 98.1% of newborns exposed to at least one of these drugs. According to the FDA, 484 prescriptions were OL, with 75.8% of newborns exposed to at least one of them. Anti-infectives were the most prescribed OL medications. Neonates who presented respiratory failure and pneumonia used these drugs more often; and there was no relation between their use and the number of deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all newborns at the Intensive Care Units, mainly preterm infants, are exposed to at least one off-label (OL) medication during hospital stay, according to the national and international regulatory agencies. No association was found between off-label prescriptions and the frequency of complications or neonatal deaths.

Trends in prescribing anti-obesity pharmacotherapy for paediatric weight management: Data from the POWER Work Group.

INTRODUCTION: To better inform the field of obesity medicine, we set out to describe the current use of pharmacotherapy meant to improve patient weight status among a group of clinicians connected through the Paediatric Obesity Weight Evaluation Registry (POWER), as well as reasons behind clinicians' use or non-use of the medications. METHODS: Paediatric weight management (PWM) programs participating in POWER were asked to complete a program profile survey in 2014 (n = 30) and 2017 (n = 33); questions about pharmacotherapy use were included. Descriptive statistics were used to identify: (a) the proportion of PWM programs offering obesity pharmacotherapy; (b) the medications most commonly prescribed; and (c) reasons among non-prescribers for not offering pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: The 2014 and 2017 surveys were completed by 29 PWM programs (97%) and 30 PWM programs (91%), respectively. Twenty-one programs completed both surveys. In 2014, 10 (34%) programs reported offering pharmacologic agents specifically for weight control, whereas in 2017, 16 (53%) reported offering pharmacotherapy for a primary indication of weight loss. Metformin was reported as the most commonly used agent in 2014, and topiramate in 2017. Largest reported increases in use over time were for topiramate and phentermine. DISCUSSION: Our survey results demonstrate that a majority of this group of PWM programs offered pharmacotherapy to promote weight loss in patients with complications or associated medical conditions. There was a trend indicating increasing use over time, despite the significant gap regarding pharmacotherapy use in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest the need for (a) additional robust paediatric drug trials to further develop the evidence base guiding use or non-use of pharmacotherapy in paediatric weight management, and (b) increased understanding of both facilitators and barriers to prescribing anti-obesity pharmacotherapy for youth with obesity.

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

PURPOSE: The purpose of this international study was to investigate prescribing practices of dexmedetomidine by paediatric anaesthesiologists. METHODS: We performed an online survey on the prescription rate of dexmedetomidine, route of administration and dosage, adverse drug reactions, education on the drug and overall experience. Members of specialist paediatric anaesthesia societies of Europe (ESPA), New Zealand and Australia (SPANZA), Great Britain and Ireland (APAGBI) and the USA (SPA) were consulted. Responses were collected in July and August 2019. RESULTS: Data from 791 responders (17% of 5171 invitees) were included in the analyses. Dexmedetomidine was prescribed by 70% of the respondents (ESPA 53%; SPANZA 69%; APAGBI 34% and SPA 96%), mostly for procedural sedation (68%), premedication (46%) and/or ICU sedation (46%). Seventy-three percent had access to local or national protocols, although lack of education was the main reason cited by 26% of the respondents not to prescribe dexmedetomidine. The main difference in dexmedetomidine use concerned the age of patients (SPA primarily < 1 year, others primarily > 1 year). The dosage varied widely ranging from 0.2-5 µg kg-1 for nasal premedication, 0.2-8 µg kg-1 for nasal procedural sedation and 0-4 µg kg-1 intravenously as adjuvant for anaesthesia. Only ESPA members (61%) had noted an adverse drug reaction, namely bradycardia. CONCLUSION: The majority of anaesthesiologists use dexmedetomidine in paediatrics for premedication, procedural sedation, ICU sedation and anaesthesia, despite the off-label use and sparse evidence. The large intercontinental differences in prescribing dexmedetomidine call for consensus and worldwide education on the optimal use in paediatric practice.