Off-label use

Last updated

Off-label use is the use of pharmaceutical drugs for an unapproved indication or in an unapproved age group, dosage, or route of administration. [1] Both prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs (OTCs) can be used in off-label ways, although most studies of off-label use focus on prescription drugs.

Contents

Off-label use is very common and generally legal unless it violates ethical guidelines or safety regulations. The ability to prescribe drugs for uses beyond the officially approved indications is commonly used to good effect by healthcare providers. For example, methotrexate is commonly used off-label because its immunomodulatory effects relieve various disorders. [2] However, off-label use can entail health risks and differences in legal liability. Marketing of pharmaceuticals for off-label use is usually prohibited.

Indications and labeling laws

An indication is when a drug is medically appropriate for a given condition; an approved indication is when a government drug regulatory agency formally agrees that the drug is medically appropriate for the named condition. Indications may depend not only upon the medical condition that is being treated, but also upon other factors, such as dose, the patient's age, size and sex, whether the patient is pregnant or breastfeeding, and other medical conditions. For example, aspirin is generally indicated for a headache, but it is not indicated for headaches in people with an allergic reaction to it.

When the drug's manufacturer has received a marketing authorisation from the government agency, then it is allowed to promote the drug for the specific, agreed-upon approved indications in that country. All legally approved indications are listed on the drug package insert or "label". Drug manufacturers are not legally permitted to encourage the use of regulated drugs for any indications that have not been formally approved by the country's government, even if significant scientific evidence exists for that unapproved indication, or if another country's drug agency has approved that indication.

However, healthcare providers are not required to limit prescriptions or recommendations to the indications approved by their country's drug regulatory body. In fact, the standard of care for many conditions involves off-label uses, either as first-line therapy or as a subsequent line. In other words, properly understanding why off-label use is common and usually appropriate, rather than rare and usually inappropriate, requires understanding that the distinction between regulatory-agency-approved use versus off-label use is not the same distinction as safe versus unsafe, tested versus untested, or good versus bad; it is a marker of increased certainty about a use being good (safe and effective), as opposed to less certainty—rather than a marker of good as opposed to bad. Regulatory approval for an indication requires a body of evidence that costs money to assemble, and as with evidence-based medicine generally, the desire for a vast, high-quality evidence base is an ideal that real-world practice can only aspire to and further approach, rather than completely match; there may not be enough resources to test every drug for every possible or logical indication to an exhaustive degree. Regulation of therapy freedom thus takes an approach in which anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed rather than an approach in which anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden, and it is accepted that drugs may be used in off-label ways as long as a competent professional prescribes them.

Frequency of off-label use

Off-label use is very common. Generic drugs generally have no sponsor as their indications and use expands, and incentives are limited to initiate new clinical trials to generate additional data for approval agencies to expand indications of proprietary drugs. [1] Up to one-fifth of all drugs are prescribed off-label and amongst psychiatric drugs, off-label use rises to 31%. [3]

Among use of antipsychotic medications in the United States, a shift occurred from typical agents in 1995 (84% of all antipsychotic visits) to atypical agents by 2008 (93%). Atypical use has grown far beyond substitution for the now infrequently used typical agents. [4]

A 2009 study found that 62% of U.S. pediatric office visits from 2001-2004 included off-label prescribing, with younger children having a higher chance of receiving off-label prescriptions. Specialist physicians also prescribed off-label more frequently than general pediatricians. [5] In 2003, passage of the Pediatric Research Equity Act gave the FDA power to require pharmaceutical companies to perform clinical trials in all age groups in which clinical use is reasonably foreseeable. By some estimates, the number of clinical trials performed in children from 2002–2012 exceeded that in the prior 50 years. [6]

In 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement regarding off-label use of pharmaceuticals in children. The article recommends to pediatricians that "Off-label use is neither incorrect nor investigational if based on sound scientific evidence, expert medical judgment, or published literature" and that "Evidence, not label indication, remains the gold standard from which practitioners should draw when making therapeutic decisions for their patients." The statement further advocates additional support and additional incentives for clinical testing of drugs in children, and publication of all results irrespective of positive outcome. [7]

A study published in 2006 found that off-label use was the most common in anticonvulsants. The study also found that 73% of off-label use had little or no scientific support. [3]

By default, use of non-approved drugs is common in obstetrics. By 2010, during almost five decades of activity, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved only two drugs for obstetrical indications, namely oxytocin and dinoprostone. [8] A small market and the high risk of medicolegal action, as exemplified by the Bendectin case, may explain the reluctance to develop drugs for approval. [8]

Some drugs are used more frequently off-label than for their original, approved indications. A 1991 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that one-third of all drug administrations to cancer patients were off-label, and more than half of cancer patients received at least one drug for an off-label indication. A 1997 survey of 200 cancer physicians by the American Enterprise Institute and the American Cancer Society found that 60% of them prescribed drugs off-label. [9] [10] In some cases, patients may perceive the efficacy of treatments for off-label purposes to be higher than for their indicated purpose. [11] Frequently, the standard of care for a particular type or stage of cancer involves the off-label use of one or more drugs. An example is the use of tricyclic antidepressants to treat neuropathic pain. This old class of antidepressants is now rarely used for clinical depression due to side effects, but the tricyclics are often effective for treating pain (e.g. neuropathy), [12] as well as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) particularly in adults. [13] [14] [15]

Society and culture

Drug manufacturers market drugs for off-label use in a range of ways. Marketing practices around off-label use have caused various of lawsuits and settlements about inappropriately promoting drugs. Some of those lawsuits have ended granting the largest pharmaceutical settlements in the world.

In the United States in 2017, the government is considering allowing direct-to-consumer advertising to promote off-label drug use. [16] The appointment of Scott Gottlieb to become head of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) furthered discussion, as this person advocates to allow that sort of promotion. [17] [18]

Regulation in the United States

In the United States, once a drug has been approved for sale for one purpose, physicians are free to prescribe it for any other purpose that in their professional judgment is both safe and effective, and are not limited to official, FDA-approved indications. [19] [20] Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to promote a drug for any other purpose without formal FDA approval. Marketing information for the drug will list one or more indications, that is, illnesses or medical conditions for which the drug has been shown to be both safe and effective.

This off-label prescribing is most commonly done with older, generic medications that have found new uses but have not had the formal (and often costly) applications and studies required by the FDA to formally approve the drug for these new indications. However, there is often extensive medical literature to support the off-label use.

A leading example of how regulatory agencies approach off-label use is provided by the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which reviews a company's New Drug Application (NDA) for clinical trial data to see if the results support the drug for a specific use or indication. [21] If satisfied that the drug is safe and effective, the drug's manufacturer and the FDA agree on specific language describing dosage, route of administration, and other information to be included on the drug's label. More detail is included in the drug's package insert.

The FDA approves a drug for prescription use, and continues to regulate the pharmaceutical industry's promotional practices for that drug through the work of the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP, formerly the Division for Drug Marketing, Advertisement and Communication (DDMAC). [22] The FDA does not have the legal authority to regulate the practice of the medicine, and the physician may prescribe a drug off-label. [19] Contrary to popular notion, it is legal in the United States and in many other countries to use drugs off-label, including controlled substances such as opiates. Actiq, for example, is commonly prescribed off-label even though it is a Schedule II controlled substance. While it would be legal for a physician to independently decide to prescribe a drug such as Actiq off-label, it is illegal for the company to promote off-label uses to prescribers. In fact, Cephalon, the maker of Actiq, was fined for illegal promotion of the drug in September 2008. [23] Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) at U.S.C. 21 §§301-97, manufacturers are prohibited from directly marketing a drug for a use other than the FDA-approved indication. However, in December 2012, the United States Second Circuit Court found that promotion of off-label uses by a company sales representative was considered to be protected speech per the First Amendment. [24] In addition, The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 created an exception to the prohibition of off-label marketing, allowing manufacturers to provide medical practitioners with publications on off-label uses of a drug, in response to an unsolicited request. [25] In 2004, the federal government and whistleblower David Franklin reached a $430 million settlement in Franklin v. Parke-Davis to resolve claims that Warner-Lambert engaged in off-label promotion of Neurontin in violation of the FDCA and the False Claims Act. At the time, the settlement was one of the largest recoveries against a pharmaceutical company in U.S. history, and the first off-label promotion settlement in U.S. history. [26]

Litigation around the marketing of ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid (E-EPA, branded as "Vascepa") by Amarin Corporation led to a 2015 court decision that has changed the FDA's approach to off-label marketing. E-EPA was the second fish oil drug to be approved, after omega-3 acid ethyl esters (GlaxoSmithKline's Lovaza which was approved in 2004 [27] ) and sales were not as robust at Amarin had hoped. The labels for the two drugs were similar, but doctors prescribed Lovaza for people who had triglycerides lower than 500 mg/dL based on some clinical evidence. Amarin wanted to actively market E-EPA for that population as well which would have greatly expanded its revenue, and applied to the FDA for permission to do so in 2013, which the FDA denied. [28] In response, in May 2015 Amarin sued the FDA for infringing its First Amendment rights, [29] and in August 2015 a judge ruled that the FDA could not "prohibit the truthful promotion of a drug for unapproved uses because doing so would violate the protection of free speech." [30] The ruling left open the question of what the FDA would allow Amarin to say about E-EPA, and in March 2016 the FDA and Amarin agreed that Amarin would submit specific marketing material to the FDA for the FDA to review, and if the parties disagreed on whether the material was truthful, they would seek a judge to mediate. [31]

Regulation in the United Kingdom

Physicians in the United Kingdom can prescribe medications off-label. According to General Medical Council guidance, the physician must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence or experience of using the medicine to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Prescribing may be necessary when no suitably licensed medicine is available to meet the patient's need (or when the prescribing is part of approved research). [32]

Veterinary medicines

The veterinarian has a much smaller pharmacopeia available than does the human practitioner. Therefore, drugs are more likely to be used "off-label" – typically, this involves the use of a human medication in an animal, where there is no corresponding medication licensed for that species. This problem is compounded in "exotic" species (such as reptiles and rodents) where there are very few, if any licensed medications. In addition, especially in Europe, equine veterinarians are forced to use many drugs off-label, as the horse is classified as a "food-producing animal" and many veterinary drugs are labeled specifically not for use in animals intended for human consumption.

This practice is permitted by the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-396). FDA specifically prohibits extralabel use of a number of antibiotics, anti-inflammatory drugs and hormones in food producing animals. FDA also tightly controls the use of certain veterinary-prescribed drugs when administered in the feed of food-producing animals. [33]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Over-the-counter drug</span> Medication available without a prescription

Over-the-counter (OTC) drugs are medicines sold directly to a consumer without a requirement for a prescription from a healthcare professional, as opposed to prescription drugs, which may be supplied only to consumers possessing a valid prescription. In many countries, OTC drugs are selected by a regulatory agency to ensure that they contain ingredients that are safe and effective when used without a physician's care. OTC drugs are usually regulated according to their active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) rather than final products. By regulating APIs instead of specific drug formulations, governments allow manufacturers the freedom to formulate ingredients, or combinations of ingredients, into proprietary mixtures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medical prescription</span> Health-care communication from a physician to a pharmacist

A prescription, often abbreviated ℞ or Rx, is a formal communication from a physician or other registered healthcare professional to a pharmacist, authorizing them to dispense a specific prescription drug for a specific patient. Historically, it was a physician's instruction to an apothecary listing the materials to be compounded into a treatment—the symbol ℞ comes from the first word of a medieval prescription, Latin recipere, that gave the list of the materials to be compounded.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prescription drug</span> Medication legally requiring a medical prescription before it can be dispensed

A prescription drug is a pharmaceutical drug that is permitted to be dispensed only to those with a medical prescription. In contrast, over-the-counter drugs can be obtained without a prescription. The reason for this difference in substance control is the potential scope of misuse, from drug abuse to practicing medicine without a license and without sufficient education. Different jurisdictions have different definitions of what constitutes a prescription drug.

Controversies regarding the use of human growth hormone (HGH) as treatment method have centered on the claims, products, and businesses related to the use of growth hormone as an anti-aging therapy. Most of these controversies fall into two categories:

  1. Claims of exaggerated, misleading, or unfounded assertions that growth hormone treatment safely and effectively slows or reverses the effects of aging.
  2. The sale of products that fraudulently or misleadingly purport to be growth hormone or to increase the user's own secretion of natural human growth hormone to a beneficial degree.

Pharmaceutical marketing is a branch of marketing science and practice focused on the communication, differential positioning and commercialization of pharmaceutical products, like specialist drugs, biotech drugs and over-the-counter drugs. By extension, this definition is sometimes also used for marketing practices applied to nutraceuticals and medical devices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dextropropoxyphene</span> Withdrawn opioid medication

Dextropropoxyphene is an analgesic in the opioid category, patented in 1955 and manufactured by Eli Lilly and Company. It is an optical isomer of levopropoxyphene. It is intended to treat mild pain and also has antitussive and local anaesthetic effects. The drug has been taken off the market in Europe and the US due to concerns of fatal overdoses and heart arrhythmias. It is still available in Australia, albeit with restrictions after an application by its manufacturer to review its proposed banning. Its onset of analgesia is said to be 20–30 minutes and peak effects are seen about 1.5–2.0 hours after oral administration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cilostazol</span> Chemical compound

Cilostazol, sold under the brand name Pletal among others, is a medication used to help the symptoms of intermittent claudication in peripheral vascular disease. If no improvement is seen after 3 months, stopping the medication is reasonable. It may also be used to prevent stroke. It is taken by mouth.

An approved drug is a medicinal preparation that has been validated for a therapeutic use by a ruling authority of a government. This process is usually specific by country, unless specified otherwise.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medication package insert</span> Document included in a package of medicine

A package insert is a document included in the package of a medication that provides information about that drug and its use. For prescription medications, the insert is technical, providing information for medical professionals about how to prescribe the drug. Package inserts for prescription drugs often include a separate document called a "patient package insert" with information written in plain language intended for the end-user—the person who will take the drug or give the drug to another person, such as a minor. Inserts for over-the-counter medications are also written plainly.

Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) refers to the marketing and advertising of pharmaceutical products directly to consumers as patients, as opposed to specifically targeting health professionals. The term is synonymous primarily with the advertising of prescription medicines via mass media platforms—most commonly on television and in magazines, but also via online platforms.

In medicine, an indication is a valid reason to use a certain test, medication, procedure, or surgery. There can be multiple indications to use a procedure or medication. An indication can commonly be confused with the term diagnosis. A diagnosis is the assessment that a particular [medical] condition is present while an indication is a reason for use. The opposite of an indication is a contraindication, a reason to withhold a certain medical treatment because the risks of treatment clearly outweigh the benefits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omega-3 acid ethyl esters</span>

Omega-3-acid ethyl esters are a mixture of ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid and ethyl docosahexaenoic acid, which are ethyl esters of the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) found in fish oil. Together with dietary changes, they are used to treat high blood triglycerides which may reduce the risk of pancreatitis. They are generally less preferred than statins, and use is not recommended by NHS Scotland as the evidence does not support a decreased risk of heart disease. Omega-3-acid ethyl esters are taken by mouth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid</span> Medication

Ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid, sold under the brand name Vascepa among others, is a medication used to treat dyslipidemia and hypertriglyceridemia. It is used in combination with changes in diet in adults with hypertriglyceridemia ≥ 150 mg/dL. Further, it is often required to be used with a statin.

Pharmaceutical fraud involves activities that result in false claims to insurers or programs such as Medicare in the United States or equivalent state programs for financial gain to a pharmaceutical company. There are several different schemes used to defraud the health care system which are particular to the pharmaceutical industry. These include: Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Violations, Off Label Marketing, Best Price Fraud, CME Fraud, Medicaid Price Reporting, and Manufactured Compound Drugs. Examples of fraud cases include the GlaxoSmithKline $3 billion settlement, Pfizer $2.3 billion settlement, and Merck $650 million settlement. Damages from fraud can be recovered by use of the False Claims Act, most commonly under the qui tam provisions which rewards an individual for being a "whistleblower", or relator (law).

<i>Franklin v. Parke-Davis</i>

Franklin v. Parke-Davis is a lawsuit filed in 1996 against Parke-Davis, a division of Warner-Lambert Company, and eventually against Pfizer under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. The suit was commenced by David Franklin, a microbiologist hired in the spring of 1996 in a sales capacity at Parke-Davis, a pharmaceutical subsidiary of Warner-Lambert. In denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court for the first time recognized off-label promotion of drugs could cause Medicaid to pay for prescriptions that were not reimbursable, triggering False Claims Act liability. The case was also significant in exposing the degree to which publication bias impacts the randomized controlled studies conducted by pharmaceutical companies to test the efficacy of their products. Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement agreement of $430 million to resolve all civil claims and criminal charges stemming from the qui tam complaint. At the time of the settlement in May 2004, it represented one of the largest False Claims Act recoveries against a pharmaceutical company in U.S. history, and was the first off-label promotion settlement under the False Claims Act.

Marketing of off-label use is advertising the use of drugs for purposes not approved by the regional government. The practice is often illegal and has led to most of the largest pharmaceutical settlements after Franklin v. Parke-Davis, in which a court ruled off-label marketing a violation of the False Claims Act.

Digital medicine refers to the application of advanced digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data analytics, to improve patient outcomes and healthcare delivery. It involves the integration of technology and medicine to facilitate the creation, storage, analysis, and dissemination of health information, with the aim of enhancing clinical decision-making, improving patient care, and reducing costs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug labelling</span>

Drug labelling is also referred to as prescription labelling, is a written, printed or graphic matter upon any drugs or any of its container, or accompanying such a drug. Drug labels seek to identify drug contents and to state specific instructions or warnings for administration, storage and disposal. Since 1800s, legislation has been advocated to stipulate the formats of drug labelling due to the demand for an equitable trading platform, the need of identification of toxins and the awareness of public health. Variations in healthcare system, drug incidents and commercial utilization may attribute to different regional or national drug label requirements. Despite the advancement in drug labelling, medication errors are partly associated with undesirable drug label formatting.

References

  1. 1 2 Randall S. Stafford (2008). "Regulating Off-Label Drug Use — Rethinking the Role of the FDA". N Engl J Med. 358 (14): 1427–1429. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0802107 . PMID   18385495.
  2. ↑ Briem, S; et al. (2011), "[Current "off label use" of methotrexate for chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases]", Z Rheumatol, 70 (2): 123–128, doi:10.1007/s00393-010-0685-2, PMID   21267732.
  3. 1 2 David C. Radley; Stan N. Finkelstein; Randall S. Stafford (2006). "Off-label Prescribing Among Office-Based Physicians". Archives of Internal Medicine . 166 (9): 1021–1026. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.9.1021. PMID   16682577.
  4. ↑ Alexander GC; Gallagher SA; Mascola A (2011). "Increasing off-label use of antipsychotic medications". Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety . 20 (2): 177–184. doi:10.1002/pds.2082. PMC   3069498 . PMID   21254289.
  5. ↑ Bazzano; Mangione-Smith, Rita; Schonlau, Matthias; Suttorp, Marika; Brook, Robert H. (2009). "Off-label prescribing to children in the United States outpatient setting". Ambulatory Pediatrics . 9 (2): 81–8. doi:10.1016/j.acap.2008.11.010. PMID   19329098.
  6. ↑ Christensen ML (2012). "Best pharmaceuticals for children act and pediatric research equity act: time for permanent status". J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 17 (2): 140–1. doi:10.5863/1551-6776-17.2.140. PMC   3470432 . PMID   23185144.
  7. ↑ Frattarelli DA, Galinkin JL, Green TP, Johnson TD, Neville KA, Paul IM, Van Den Anker JN (2014). "Off-label use of drugs in children". Pediatrics. 133 (3): 563–7. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-4060 . PMID   24567009.
  8. 1 2 Wing DA, Powers B, Hickok D (April 2010). "U.S. Food and Drug Administration Drug Approval: Slow Advances in Obstetric Care in the United States". Obstetrics & Gynecology . 115 (4): 825–33. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d53843. PMID   20308845.
  9. ↑ Day to Day (2008-10-22). "Prozac Isn't The Same In A Kid's Body". NPR. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
  10. ↑ "Why is off-label use of drugs so common in cancer treatment?". National Cancer Institute. Retrieved 2009-07-12.
  11. ↑ Jeana Frost; Sally Okun; Timothy Vaughan; James Heywood; Paul Wicks (2011). "Patient-reported Outcomes as a Source of Evidence in Off-Label Prescribing: Analysis of Data From PatientsLikeMe". Journal of Medical Internet Research . 13 (1): e6. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1643 . PMC   3221356 . PMID   21252034.
  12. ↑ Sindrup SH; et al. (June 2005). "Antidepressants in the treatment of neuropathic pain". Basic Clinical Pharmacology Toxicology. 96 (6): 399–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_96696601.x . PMID   15910402.
  13. ↑ "Medscape: Medscape Access". medscape.com.
  14. ↑ "Treatment Options for ADHD / ADD in Children and Teens". WebMD.
  15. ↑ "Nonstimulant Therapy (Strattera) and Other ADHD Drugs - MedicineNet". MedicineNet. Archived from the original on 2016-03-05. Retrieved 2015-02-03.
  16. ↑ Carr, Teresa (9 November 2016). "FDA Considers Allowing Drug Ads for Unapproved Treatments". Consumer Reports. Retrieved 3 April 2017.
  17. ↑ Brill, Steven (24 January 2017). "It's open season for off-label drug promotion". Axios. Retrieved 24 March 2017.
  18. ↑ McGinley, Laurie; Johnson, Carolyn Y. (10 March 2017). "Trump to select Scott Gottlieb, a physician with deep drug-industry ties, to run the FDA". Washington Post. Retrieved 24 March 2017.
  19. 1 2 Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm. , 531U.S.341 (U.S.S.Ct.2001)("the FDCA expressly states in part that "[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to limit or interfere with the authority of a health care practitioner to prescribe or administer any legally marketed device to a patient for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship." 21 U.S.C. § 396 (1994 ed., Supp. IV).").
  20. ↑ Beck, James M.; Azari, Elizabeth D. (1998). "FDA, Off-Label Use, and Informed Consent: Debunking Myths and Misconceptions" (PDF). Food and Drug Law Journal. 53 (1): 76–80. PMID   11795338 . Retrieved 21 Sep 2022.
  21. ↑ "Development & Approval Process (Drugs)". Fda.gov. 2009-10-27. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
  22. ↑ "The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP)". Fda.gov. 2008-03-25. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
  23. ↑ "Biopharmaceutical Company, Cephalon, to Pay $425 Million & Enter Plea to Resolve Allegations of Off-Label Marketing" (Press release). United States Department of Justice. September 29, 2008. Archived from the original on 2015-07-13.
  24. ↑ "Off-Label Use Promotion is Protected Free Speech". blogs.findlaw.com. 2012-12-04. Retrieved 2014-06-26.
  25. ↑ 21 U.S.C. §360aaa-6
  26. ↑ "Warner-Lambert to Pay $430 Million to Resolve Criminal & Civil Health Care Liability Relating to Off-Label Promotion" (Press release). United States Department of Justice. 2004-05-13. Retrieved 2013-04-30.
  27. ↑ VHA Pharmacy Benefits Management Strategic Healthcare Group and the Medical Advisory Panel. October 2005 National PBM Drug Monograph Omega-3-acid ethyl esters (Lovaza, formerly Omacor)
  28. ↑ Herper, Matthew (17 October 2013). "Why The FDA Is Right To Block Amarin's Push To Market Fish Oil To Millions". Forbes .
  29. ↑ Thomas, Katie (7 May 2015). "Drugmaker Sues F.D.A. Over Right to Discuss Off-Label Uses". New York Times. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
  30. ↑ Pollack, Andrew (7 August 2015). "Court Forbids F.D.A. From Blocking Truthful Promotion of Drug". New York Times .
  31. ↑ Thomas, Katie (8 March 2016). "F.D.A. Deal Allows Amarin to Promote Drug for Off-Label Use". New York Times .
  32. ↑ General Medical Council (December 2014) [first published February 2013]. "Good Practice in Prescribing and Managing Medicines and Devices" (PDF). General Medical Council (Published guidance). General Medical Council. pp. 10–11. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
  33. ↑ CRS Report for Congress: Agriculture: A Glossary of Terms, Programs, and Laws, 2005 Edition - Order Code 97-905 Archived 2013-09-23 at the Wayback Machine
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.