back to “Tips for Understanding Studies”
Prescription drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for specific uses (or indications) to treat specific conditions or diseases. Physicians may prescribe a drug for a use that’s not described in the approved labeling if it seems reasonable or appropriate to them. This is what’s called “off-label use.” For example, it is not uncommon for physicians to prescribe low doses of beta blocker drugs to help people overcome jitters before public speaking. Beta blockers are not formally approved for this use. The FDA advises doctors in such circumstances that “they have the responsibility to be well informed about the product, to base its use on firm scientific rationale and on sound medical evidence, and to maintain records of the product’s use and effects.”
A study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that about 21% of all estimated uses for commonly prescribed medications were off-label, and that 15% of all estimated uses lacked scientific evidence of any useful or beneficial effect. The authors concluded that “policy makers must begin to consider strategies for mandatory postapproval surveillance that focus on curtailing underevaluated off-label practices that jeopardize patient safety or represent economically wasteful prescribing practices.” Put another way, they recommend more careful monitoring of off-label uses that might waste money and harm patients.
Another important consumer issue regarding “off-label” prescribing is the fact that some insurance plans will not reimburse the cost of drugs prescribed for “off-label” use.
But while “off-label use” is permitted, marketing of a drug for an “off-label use” is not.
Perhaps the best known case of the dangers of off-label marketing is that of the drug Neurontin. Journalists and consumers should be aware of the potential pitfalls of “off-label” prescribing and should be wary of claims made for products being used “off-label.”
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.