Off-label drug use in dermatology

Background In 2010, 1% of our pharmaceutical expenditure corresponded to off-label use, except for cytostatics. The dermatology department has increased drug costs due to the off-label use. Purpose To assess the applications and costs of off-label drug use in dermatology. To check the therapeutic re...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice Vol. 19; no. 2; p. 218
Main Authors Martin, A., Sala, F., Vilavella, M., Borràs, R., Bosch, M., Bonafont, X.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London BMJ Publishing Group LTD 01.04.2012
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Background In 2010, 1% of our pharmaceutical expenditure corresponded to off-label use, except for cytostatics. The dermatology department has increased drug costs due to the off-label use. Purpose To assess the applications and costs of off-label drug use in dermatology. To check the therapeutic results obtained and the number of available reports. Materials and methods The authors reviewed off-label requests from Dermatology during 2009 and 2010. The authors reviewed the reports compiled in Medline from 1997 to 2010 and classified according to reported cases number in N < 10, N between 10 and 50, N between 51 and 100, and N>100. The results were classified as effective if dermatologists achieved the therapeutic objective, partially effective if they reached the initial objective at least in 50% and ineffective when they didn't achieved the therapeutic purpose. Results In 2009, 95 drugs were requested for an off-label use representing 404,909 €; 7 were requests from Dermatology at a cost of 49,218 €. In 2010, 134 drugs were requested for off-label use representing 410,716 €; 5 were requests from Dermatology represented 117,565 €. Conclusions During 2010 there was an increase in the cost of off-label use in dermatology due to lenalidomide. Half of the treatments were effective, 25% partially effective and 25% ineffective. One third of the requests were supported by fewer than 10 reported cases. Table 1 European standards to test and use disinfectants, as applied in our hospital Year Drug – Indication Results Number of case reports 2009 8-methoxypsoralen – scleromyxedema Effective N < 10 Ustekinumab – psoriasis (3 cases) One case effective; one partially effective; one ineffective. N > 100 Propranolol – haemangioma Effective N > 100 Etanercept – hidradenitis suppurativa (HI) Ineffective N between 51 – 100 Etanercept – pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) Ineffective N between 10 – 50 2010 Infliximab – PG Effective N > 100 Lenalidomide – lupus erythematosus (2 cases) Effective N < 10 Alitretinoin – psoriasis Partially effective N < 10 Infliximab – HI. Partially effective N between 51 – 100
ISSN:2047-9956
2047-9964
DOI:10.1136/ejhpharm-2012-000074.350