scholarly journals Addressing the “What do we have to lose? Just give the drug” rationale: making the case for clinical trials and against off-label use in COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 3031-3034
Author(s):  
Venktesh R. Ramnath ◽  
Heather J. Zar ◽  
Atul Malhotra
2020 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00131
Author(s):  
Seiko Bun ◽  
Kan Yonemori ◽  
Hiroko Sunadoi ◽  
Rena Nishigaki ◽  
Emi Noguchi ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: In Japan, for pharmaceutical products to be covered by public medical insurance, their efficacy and safety must first be confirmed in clinical trials. To our knowledge, this study is the first investigation into the off-label use of pharmaceutical products at a high-volume cancer treatment center in Japan. The objective of this study is to explore the framework necessary for future pharmaceutical development and regulatory approval in the field of oncology by surveying the frequency of and indications for off-label use of pharmaceutical products at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo, Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pharmaceutical products used off-label in daily practice from 2003 to 2015 at the National Cancer Center Hospital were retrospectively examined based on applications that had been submitted to an internal review committee requesting off-label use. RESULTS: A total of 1,390 applications were submitted during the study period. The most frequently used supporting documents were the results of phase II trials, followed by case series and phase III trials. The cancer most frequently treated with off-label drugs was sarcoma (15.1%), followed by urologic cancer (9.2%) and GI cancer (7.6%). CONCLUSION: As reported in previous studies, pharmaceutical products were generally used off-label for the treatment of rare cancers, for which large-scale clinical trials are difficult to conduct. Continued discussion of the types of frameworks that are needed to guide pharmaceutical development is necessary.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 409-430
Author(s):  
Giovanni Maria Cavo

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Micieli ◽  
Andrew Micieli

Introduction: Bevacizumab (Avastin; genetech Inc., South San fran- cisco, CA) and ranibizumab (Lucentis, genetech Inc.) are two anti-Vascular Endo- thelial growth factor (VEgf) agents used in increasing amounts off-label to treat  ocular conditions. To date, no study has quantifed how far reaching these therapies have been in treating eye disease and compared their off-label use to the number of clinical trials performed. Method: A systematic search of Ovid MEdLINE using the keywords bevacizumab and ranibizumab limited to “Case Reports” was used as an index of the number of diseases treated. Each keyword was also limited to “Clinical Trials, All” and “Phase III Clinical Trials” to discern the quality of evidence for these uses.Results: Bevacizumab has been utilized for the treatment of 58 different ocular conditions, but only 14 conditions were studied in a trial, and none were part of a phase III clinical trial. Ranibizumab has been used for 17 different eye conditions,  with only 6 studied in a trial and only 1 disease, “wet” age-related macular degenera- tion reported in 4 phase III trials. In the case reports, there were 21 different adverse  events ascribed to bevacizumab and 2 to ranibizumab with retinal pigment epithelial tears being the most common. Conclusion: Bevacizumab is one of the most far reaching drugs in ophthalmology and even medicine, but it is not yet supported by high quality evidence. The much higher cost of ranibizumab may be responsible for bevacizumab’s popularity among eye specialists. Patients should be fully informed about the off-label use of bevacizumab and the associated risks with its use.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 426-433
Author(s):  
Genevra Forwood ◽  
James Killick

In Europe, medicines can only be marketed once they have passed through a strict regulatory process, designed primarily to protect patient safety. It is only after in–depth testing on the targeted disease population, including three phases of clinical assessment and clinical trials, that a medicine will obtain a ‘marketing authorisation’. Given its primary goal of ensuring patient safety, EU law only allows a few narrow exceptions to the requirement of amarketing authorisation. Adrug can only be used “off–label”, meaning outside the limits of its marketing authorization, in authorised clinical trials or under one of the strictly defined exceptions, such as severe public health risk, compassionate use for groups of patients or for individual patients on a named patient basis.However, in recent years, a trend has emerged Among Member States to push the boundaries of the existing regulatory system, and actively promote the off–label use of medicines on the ground that they are cheaper than the alternative, authorised medicine. It is questionable whether this trend is in line with EU law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document