Researchers propose new regulations for off-label uses of drugs and devices

January 14, 2015
Health care providers have to make their own decisions about using drugs off-label, often in the face of uncertain evidence.

Off-label use of drugs and medical devices—using approved remedies in unapproved ways—has long been a part of medicine. The practice provides public health benefits but also presents some risks.

For the most part, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allows physicians to prescribe drugs and devices off-label in the same way they are prescribed for their approved uses. The FDA couldn't require approval for each off-label use because the burden for approval would be so high that few off-label uses would be approved, which would deprive patients of effective treatments for which the drugs weren't originally intended.

As a result, have had to make their own decisions about using drugs off-label, often in the face of uncertain evidence.

To address that issue, researchers from the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA have proposed a system combining reporting, testing and enforcement regulations, and allowing interim periods of off-label drug prescription. Their recommendations, published in the Duke Law Journal, would give patients more treatment options while providing regulators with evidence of the drugs' safety and efficacy.

Much off-label prescribing of medications and medical devices is beneficial, but without rigorous study it is difficult to know what works and what doesn't, said Dr. Ryan Abbott, visiting assistant professor of medicine in UCLA's division of general internal medicine and health services research.

"Even though a or device has been approved for one indication, physicians can prescribe them for other uses as well—it's been part of medical practice for a long time," said Abbott, a physician and attorney who co-wrote the paper with Yale Law School's Ian Ayres. "Our proposals are important because there is a tension between providing access to the drugs and devices that could benefit patients in untested ways and the need to prevent harmful uses."

The authors' proposal comprises three elements:

  • Improved reporting of off-label use through disclosure of diagnostic codes in reports to the FDA, in detailing data that pharmaceutical companies obtain on physicians' prescribing habits, and in reports to the FDA and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement requests. This information, which would omit details that could identify individual patients, could then be shared with academics and pharmaceutical companies for use in research.
  • Expansion of post-market testing requirements for off-label use of drugs and .
  • A tiered labeling system for drugs consisting of "red box" warnings that prohibit certain off-label uses; informed consent from patients receiving prescriptions for off-label use of some drugs that currently carry "black box" warnings, which identify drugs that pose a significant risk of serious or life-threatening adverse effects; and the creation of a new "grey box" warning that blocks Medicare Part D and Medicaid reimbursements by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

"The improved reporting, testing and enforcement regulation would work together to produce a more layered range of regulatory responses," the authors write. "The FDA, armed with better information about the extent of off-label use and adverse effects, would be in a better position to require post-market testing and to discourage off-label use with new types of warnings if manufacturers fail to provide sufficient, timely evidence of safety and efficacy in that particular extrapolation."

Explore further: Off-label drug use common, but patients may not know they're taking them, study finds

More information: The recommendations are available online: scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3785&context=dlj

Related Stories

Safety concerns about new drugs revealed

August 4, 2014

What's safer: a newly approved drug or one that has been on the market much longer? Newer drugs have a one in three chance of acquiring a black box warning or being withdrawn for safety reasons within 25 years of their approval, ...

Recommended for you

Experts question push for 'abuse-deterrent' Rx opioids

June 1, 2017

In response to the rise in opioid overdose deaths nationwide, pharmaceutical companies have developed formulations of prescription opioids designed to prevent tampering or abuse. These "abuse-deterrent" forms, however, are ...

3 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

waynetrademarkmail
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2015
This sounds good except for when the government get involved. It would be much better if an organization or association were in charge of the data base.
g42l
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2015
I wish they would have done this 3 years ago. Dr in Alaska used " infuse" for my lumbar fusion. The manner in which it was used was way, way off label. Not only did he not follow manufacturers which were worded so that the Dr had to accept the terms to use the product, but he never disclosed the use of the product even after the procedure went south. Prior to surgery, he was asked specifically what he was going to use and he lied to get my consent. The hospital was prohibited from allowing it's use off label but failed to ensure it wasn't. 3 years and an additional surgery later, I'm in constant pain from the waist down. I've been restricted to light duty...for the remainder of my life. I've taken a 30%+ reduction in wages and incurred over 100 k in hospital bills.
The manufacturer pain hundreds of thousands to Drs to oversell the positives and hide the failures, deaths and disasters from clinical trials of this " biological agent".
g42l
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2015
Paid, not pain hundreds.....

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.