MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2027560681 · doi:10.1177/2150135113485764

Off-Label Drug Use in the Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

2013· letter· en· W2027560681 sur OpenAlexaff
Sarah Tabbutt, Peter C. Laussen

Notice bibliographique

RevueWorld Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery · 2013
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePharmaceutical studies and practices
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineIntensive care unitCoronary care unitIntensive care medicineDrugOff-label usePediatric intensive care unitEmergency medicineInternal medicinePharmacologyMyocardial infarction

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Off-label drug use in pediatrics has challenged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Historically, pharmaceutical companies have been willing to fund pediatric safety and efficacy trials but only for medications with a large market (vaccines and antibiotics). In the field of pediatric cardiac intensive care, the small number of patients and the widely varying physiologies challenge prospective clinical drug trials. There is a limited, if any, return on investment for the pharmaceutical company. However, in the past decade, there has been an increase in pediatric safety and efficacy trials as a result of the 1997 FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) that was extended in 2002 under the Best Pharmaceutical for Children Act. The FDAMA allows companies performing an FDA-approved pediatric drug trial to extend their patent for an additional six months. Unfortunately, even well-run exclusivity clinical trials under the FDAMA do not necessarily result in a FDA-approved pediatric drug label. An example is milrinone, that has been shown to decrease low cardiac output syndrome in young infants following biventricular repair but remains off-label. Of perhaps greater challenge are drugs that are available in generic form (dopamine for example), where the incentives of the FDAMA do not apply. Maltz and associates, in a study published in this issue of World Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery, investigated off-label drug use in a pediatric cardiac intensive care unit (PCICU). They found that 36% of the prescribed drugs were off-label, with 94% of the patients receiving at least one off-label drug and 46% of the patients receiving greater than three off-label drugs. This is an important educational point, as most practitioners are likely unaware of which pharmaceutical agents are FDA approved for pediatrics. Not surprising, patients at higher risk were shown to receive more medications and more off-label medications. Other publications have described the off-label drug use in pediatric anesthesia and intensive care and in hospitalized children with congenital and acquired heart disease. Offlabel drug use is not confined to the pediatric critical care population but has also been described in adult critical care units. The report by Maltz and associates offers a description of the frequency of off-label drug use in one PCICU. It is important to discount any conclusion that off-label drug use was a causative factor for increased length of stay. Increased length of stay has been shown to be a surrogate for complexity of disease and intensity of care. In the study by Maltz and associates, there are far too many risk variables that were not included in the analysis. In addition, the number of patients enrolled in their study was small. It is primarily an observational study. The descriptive analysis does not control for severity of illness and complexity of disease. One should not conclude that the off-label drug use was unsafe or contributed to harm. The field of pediatric cardiac critical care has evolved since its infancy three decades ago. Due in part to advancements in pharmaceutical options, survival following neonatal heart surgery has improved, hospital length of stay has become shorter, and our ability to recover a patient from a significant event has improved. Many drugs used in pediatric cardiac critical care are brought into our environment through the expertise of other specialties (pediatric critical care, neonatology, adult critical care, anesthesiology), with modifications in their dosage and indications over time. A current example is the rapidly increasing use of dexmedetomidine, despite limited trials evaluating dose ranging or efficacy, complications, or potential drug interactions. Thus, safety and efficacy for many drugs used in pediatric cardiac critical care are a result of years of experience rather than clinical trials. The use of off-label medications is to benefit the individual patient, and the FDA is very clear that practitioners are able to use their professional judgment to determine these uses. Offlabel drug use is therefore common in both pediatric and adult critical care settings. Does this mean patients are at risk? There is no plausible data to support such a contention. Obviously, we all want to prescribe drugs that have been adequately tested so that we understand their safety and efficacy. We also want protection from litigation if there is an adverse event perceived to be related to off-label use of a medication. How do we get this data? Clinical trials are the gold standard for changes in

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,408
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,089
Tête enseignante GPT0,338
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueWorld Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart SurgeryMême sujetPharmaceutical studies and practicesTravaux en français237 207