STUDY OBJECTIVE: To develop a prioritized list of individual drugs for which future research regarding off-label uses is warranted. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. DATA SOURCES: Commercial database that provides ongoing estimates of drug prescribing practices of office-based physicians in the United States and an Internet database of comprehensive evidence-based drug information. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The base analyses incorporated three key factors based on the theory of value of information: volume of off-label use with inadequate evidence, drug safety, and cost and market considerations. Nationally representative prescribing data were used to estimate the number of off-label drug uses by indication from January 1, 2005-June 30, 2007, in the United States, and these indications were then categorized according to the adequacy of scientific support. Black-box warnings and safety alerts, drug cost, date of market entry, and marketing expenditures were also incorporated into the final model to produce a priority score. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying key model parameters. Our findings identified a high volume of off-label prescribing in the absence of good evidence for a substantial number of drugs, particularly antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anxiolytic-sedatives. Drugs that consistently ranked high in both our base model and sensitivity analyses were quetiapine, warfarin, escitalopram, risperidone, montelukast, bupropion, sertraline, venlafaxine, celecoxib, lisinopril, duloxetine, trazodone, olanzapine, and epoetin alfa. CONCLUSION: Future research into off-label drug use should focus on drugs used frequently with inadequate supporting evidence, particularly if further concerns are raised by known safety issues, high drug cost, recent market entry, and extensive marketing. Our quantitative analysis identified particular concerns with the off-label use of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs. Targeted research and policy activities on our list of prioritized drugs have high potential value.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To develop a prioritized list of individual drugs for which future research regarding off-label uses is warranted. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. DATA SOURCES: Commercial database that provides ongoing estimates of drug prescribing practices of office-based physicians in the United States and an Internet database of comprehensive evidence-based drug information. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The base analyses incorporated three key factors based on the theory of value of information: volume of off-label use with inadequate evidence, drug safety, and cost and market considerations. Nationally representative prescribing data were used to estimate the number of off-label drug uses by indication from January 1, 2005-June 30, 2007, in the United States, and these indications were then categorized according to the adequacy of scientific support. Black-box warnings and safety alerts, drug cost, date of market entry, and marketing expenditures were also incorporated into the final model to produce a priority score. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying key model parameters. Our findings identified a high volume of off-label prescribing in the absence of good evidence for a substantial number of drugs, particularly antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anxiolytic-sedatives. Drugs that consistently ranked high in both our base model and sensitivity analyses were quetiapine, warfarin, escitalopram, risperidone, montelukast, bupropion, sertraline, venlafaxine, celecoxib, lisinopril, duloxetine, trazodone, olanzapine, and epoetin alfa. CONCLUSION: Future research into off-label drug use should focus on drugs used frequently with inadequate supporting evidence, particularly if further concerns are raised by known safety issues, high drug cost, recent market entry, and extensive marketing. Our quantitative analysis identified particular concerns with the off-label use of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs. Targeted research and policy activities on our list of prioritized drugs have high potential value.
Authors: Elliott M. Antman; Daniel T. Anbe; Paul Wayne Armstrong; Eric R. Bates; Lee A. Green; Mary Hand; Judith S. Hochman; Harlan M. Krumholz; Frederick G. Kushner; Gervasio A. Lamas; Charles J. Mullany; Joseph P. Ornato; David L. Pearle; Michael A. Sloan; Sidney C. Smith; Joseph S. Alpert; Jeffrey L. Anderson; David P. Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Raymond J. Gibbons; Gabriel Gregoratos; Jonathan L. Halperin; Loren F. Hiratzka; Sharon Ann Hunt; Alice K. Jacobs; Joseph P. Ornato Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-08-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Daniel Pilsgaard Henriksen; Jesper Rømhild Davidsen; Christian B Laursen; Anders Christiansen; Per Damkier; Jesper Hallas; Anton Pottegård Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Joseph T Hanlon; Xiaoqiang Wang; Nicholas G Castle; Roslyn A Stone; Steven M Handler; Todd P Semla; Mary Jo Pugh; Dan R Berlowitz; Maurice W Dysken Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-08-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Robert Hilt; Christine Wolf; Kent Koprowicz; Elizabeth Thomas; Mary Chandler; Xiao Lei Hao; Matthew Russell; Tung Le; Lee Hooks; Bryan King Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2013-12-10
Authors: Rena Conti; David L Veenstra; Katrina Armstrong; Lawrence J Lesko; Scott D Grosse Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 2.583