Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Off-label use

Off-label use denotes the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs for medical conditions, dosages, or patient demographics not explicitly authorized in the product's regulatory labeling, as determined by agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).^[1] This practice hinges on physicians' clinical discretion, drawing from emerging evidence, case studies, or extrapolations from approved uses, particularly when no labeled alternatives exist for serious or rare conditions.^[2] While the FDA approves drugs based on specific trials for safety and efficacy in defined contexts, off-label application shifts responsibility to the prescriber, who weighs potential benefits against unestablished risks absent comprehensive randomized data.^[1] In the United States, off-label prescribing remains legally permissible for licensed physicians, as federal regulations govern drug manufacturing, approval, and promotional claims rather than the autonomous practice of medicine.^[3] Prevalence varies by setting but constitutes 20% to 32% of overall prescriptions, rising to over 50% in oncology and frequently exceeding 70% in pediatrics due to limited pediatric-specific trials.^[4]^[5] Such uses have facilitated therapeutic advances, including repurposed agents for unmet needs like certain chemotherapies extended across cancer types or immunomodulators for orphan diseases, often evolving into standard care through post-market evidence accumulation.^[6] Nonetheless, empirical analyses reveal that approximately 79% of off-label prescriptions lack strong supporting scientific evidence from rigorous trials, correlating with a 44% elevated incidence of adverse drug events compared to on-label uses.^[7]^[8] Key controversies center on evidentiary gaps, potential for harm in vulnerable populations, and disparities in regulatory scrutiny: while patient access to innovative treatments underscores off-label use's pragmatic value, heightened adverse event risks and incomplete data necessitate vigilant monitoring, informed consent, and institutional review to mitigate liabilities.^[9] Pharmaceutical firms face strict prohibitions on off-label promotion, with violations incurring substantial penalties, yet prescriber accountability relies on adherence to evidence-based standards rather than blanket restrictions.^[10] This duality—enabling adaptive medicine while exposing causal uncertainties—defines off-label use's role in bridging approval limitations and real-world exigencies.^[11]

Definition and Legal Foundations

Core Definitions and Principles

Off-label use refers to the prescription or administration of an FDA-approved drug or medical device for an indication, dosage, schedule of administration, patient population, or method of administration not specified in the product's official labeling.^[1] This includes scenarios such as treating a different disease than the approved one (e.g., using a chemotherapy agent approved for one cancer type in another), employing a dosage higher or lower than labeled, or applying it to age groups or conditions excluded from the original approval trials.^[1]^[12] Regulatory labeling, derived from manufacturer-submitted data demonstrating safety and efficacy in controlled trials, establishes a baseline for approved uses but does not encompass all potential applications emerging from subsequent clinical observations or research.^[1] In the United States, off-label prescribing is legally permissible under the practice of medicine doctrine, which reserves to licensed physicians the discretion to determine treatments based on individual patient needs, unbound by FDA pre-market approvals that focus solely on marketing authorization rather than clinical utilization.^[13] The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act empowers the FDA to regulate drug promotion and labeling but explicitly defers to professional medical judgment for post-approval use, recognizing that scientific knowledge advances independently of regulatory timelines.^[2] Manufacturers, however, face strict prohibitions against off-label promotion to avoid circumventing approval requirements, as evidenced by enforcement actions under the misbranding provisions of the Act.^[13] Foundational principles of off-label use prioritize empirical evidence from sources beyond labeling—such as peer-reviewed studies, pharmacodynamic principles, or expert consensus—while weighing causal risks and benefits through first-principles evaluation of drug mechanisms and patient physiology.^[6] This approach accommodates therapeutic innovation where randomized controlled trial data lag behind real-world needs, as in pediatrics or rare diseases where dedicated trials are infeasible, but demands rigorous documentation of rationale to mitigate uncertainties in long-term safety or efficacy absent label-specific validation.^[6]^[14] Informed consent remains a ethical cornerstone, requiring disclosure of off-label status and evidentiary limitations to align treatment with patient autonomy and causal accountability.^[15] Distinct from investigational use, which involves unproven agents under institutional review board protocols, off-label application of approved products operates within routine care without mandatory research oversight, though it invites post-market surveillance to refine causal understandings.^[16]

Indications, Labeling, and Regulatory Distinctions

Drug indications specify the medical conditions, patient populations, dosages, routes of administration, or durations of treatment for which a pharmaceutical product has been evaluated in clinical trials and deemed safe and effective by regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).^[17] These are established through substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled studies submitted during the approval process, as required under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.^[18] For example, a chemotherapy agent might be indicated for a specific cancer type in adults but not for pediatric use or alternative malignancies without separate approval.^[1] Labeling constitutes the official documentation accompanying the drug, including the package insert or prescribing information, which details approved indications in a dedicated "Indications and Usage" section, alongside contraindications, warnings, dosage instructions, and clinical pharmacology data.^[19] FDA regulations mandate that labeling reflect the conditions under which the drug's benefits outweigh risks, derived from pre-approval data, and it serves as the primary reference for prescribers.^[20] Deviations from labeling—such as using a different dosage form or frequency—qualify as off-label, even if the core indication aligns partially.^[10] Regulatory frameworks distinguish on-label use, which aligns with approved labeling and benefits from full agency review of safety and efficacy data, from off-label use, where the application lacks equivalent pre-market scrutiny for that context.^[1] In the United States, off-label prescribing by licensed physicians is permissible under standards of medical practice, as affirmed by courts like in Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee (2001), but manufacturers face strict prohibitions on off-label promotion to avoid misleading claims without FDA verification.^[4] This distinction underscores that off-label applications rely on post-approval evidence accumulation, such as emerging clinical data, rather than mandatory randomized trials for each variant use.^[10] Internationally, distinctions vary; in the European Union, off-label use is not uniformly defined at the supranational level, allowing member states flexibility, but promotional activities are broadly restricted under Directive 2001/83/EC, with national bodies like the EMA emphasizing evidence-based justification to mitigate unassessed risks.^[21] Unlike investigational uses requiring institutional review board oversight or expanded access protocols, routine off-label prescribing operates within clinical discretion but without implied regulatory endorsement of efficacy or safety for the unlabeled purpose.^[16] These separations incentivize supplemental approvals for expanded indications while permitting adaptive practice amid evolving medical needs.^[22]

Historical Evolution

Early Medical Practices

In the 18th and 19th centuries, physicians prescribed natural extracts and early pharmaceuticals for diverse conditions guided by clinical observation, case studies, and inherited traditions, unconstrained by regulatory requirements for labeled indications or pre-market validation of efficacy. Without federal standards in the United States until the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906—which addressed only purity, strength, and basic labeling without mandating proof of therapeutic claims—drug application fell to individual judgment, often extending substances beyond initial documented uses to address urgent patient needs.^[23]^[24] This era's practices inherently mirrored modern off-label use, as standardized approvals did not exist, fostering innovation through trial but also risks from unverified dosing and effects. Digitalis, extracted from the foxglove plant (Digitalis purpurea), illustrates early empirical extension. In 1785, William Withering published findings from a decade-long study of over 200 cases, establishing its value for dropsy (congestive heart failure-related edema) after refining folk applications into a controlled infusion, noting benefits in urinary output and heart rate alongside toxicity risks like nausea and arrhythmias.^[25] By the early 19th century, practitioners adapted digitalis for irregular heart rhythms and other edematous states, adjusting regimens via patient response despite variable potency from plant sourcing.^[26] Quinine, derived from cinchona bark and isolated in impure form by 1820, provides another case. Initially targeted at malaria's paroxysms since Jesuit introductions in the 17th century, it was routinely prescribed in the 19th century for non-malarial fevers, neuralgias, and prophylactically—such as in the American Civil War, where Union and Confederate forces distributed millions of doses to curb intermittent fevers and sustain operations, often at 3 grains daily regardless of confirmed diagnosis.^[27]^[28] These adaptations, while effective against symptoms in some contexts, highlighted reliance on experiential data over causal mechanisms, predating rigorous testing and contributing to both therapeutic advances and occasional cinchonism from overuse.^[29]

Key Regulatory Milestones and Shifts

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 established the foundational requirement for drugs to be proven safe before marketing and prohibited misbranding, including promotions inconsistent with approved labeling, thereby implicitly distinguishing labeled from unlabeled uses.^[24]^[30] The Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951 further delineated prescription-only drugs, granting physicians professional judgment in their use while reserving FDA oversight to manufacturing, labeling, and promotion rather than individual prescribing decisions.^[24] The Kefauver-Harris Amendments of 1962 mandated proof of both safety and efficacy for drug approvals, solidifying the scope of official labeling and rendering uses beyond those indications as off-label, though FDA policy has consistently permitted physicians to prescribe approved drugs for unapproved uses when deemed medically appropriate.^[24]^[1] This permissive stance on prescribing contrasted with strict enforcement against manufacturer promotion of off-label uses, viewed as potential misbranding under the 1938 Act.^[31] A significant shift occurred with the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, which introduced a temporary safe harbor allowing manufacturers to disseminate peer-reviewed journal articles and reference texts reprinting off-label information, provided they submitted supplemental applications for new indications within specified timelines; these provisions expired in 2006 but influenced subsequent policies.^[32]^[33] Concurrently, the 1998 Washington Legal Foundation v. Friedman ruling declared certain FDA restrictions on off-label commercial speech unconstitutional under the First Amendment, prompting FDA to refine its approach and recognize protections for truthful, non-misleading disseminations.^[34]^[35] The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 marked another liberalization by amending the FDCA to permit manufacturers to provide health care economic information on off-label uses to payors and formulary managers under defined conditions, aiming to facilitate reimbursement discussions without constituting promotion.^[36]^[37] In January 2025, FDA issued final guidance outlining enforcement discretion for firms communicating scientific information on unapproved uses of approved drugs, emphasizing case-by-case evaluations based on evidence quality and context to balance innovation with public health safeguards.^[38] These developments reflect an evolving tension between restricting unproven promotion and accommodating First Amendment protections and practical needs in medical practice.

Prevalence and Usage Patterns

Frequency in Human Medicine

Off-label prescribing accounts for a substantial share of drug utilization in human medicine, with estimates indicating that 21% to 32% of prescriptions overall involve off-label uses.^[4] In the United States, analysis of outpatient prescriptions for 160 commonly prescribed drugs from 2001 data revealed that approximately 21% were off-label, though this rate exceeded 50% for specific classes including anticonvulsants, antipsychotics, and proton pump inhibitors.^[39] These figures underscore the routine integration of off-label practices, particularly in fields lacking extensive labeled options, such as psychiatry and oncology, where evidence from smaller trials or clinical experience often drives decisions despite regulatory distinctions.^[39] Prevalence varies by region and setting. In French general practice, a 2018-2019 study of over 4,900 prescriptions identified 18.5% as off-label, primarily due to unapproved indications (17.6%) rather than dosage or patient factors.^[40] European inpatient data similarly show elevated rates in specialized populations; for instance, off-label use in neonates and infants ranged from 31.7% to 93.5% across retrospective analyses in Spain from 2011-2016.^[41] Recent syntheses confirm broader patterns, with off-label prescriptions comprising 20% to 40% globally, surpassing 50% in select categories like certain antidepressants or analgesics.^[42] Pediatric medicine exhibits particularly high frequencies, reflecting limited pediatric-specific labeling. A meta-analysis of global pediatric and neonatal departments reported an average off-label and unlicensed prescription rate of 56%, with hospital-based studies often documenting 70% or more in vulnerable subgroups.^[43] In contrast, adult outpatient settings tend toward lower but persistent levels, as evidenced by Quebec data from 2005-2009 showing 11% off-label use, highlighting how resource constraints and evolving evidence sustain these practices despite potential risks.^[44] Such disparities emphasize off-label use's role as a pragmatic response to evidentiary gaps, though tracking remains inconsistent due to reliance on claims data and voluntary reporting.^[4]

Application in Veterinary Medicine

In veterinary medicine, extra-label drug use (ELDU), also known as off-label use, is a common practice necessitated by the limited number of drugs specifically approved for animal species, conditions, or routes of administration compared to human pharmaceuticals. Under the U.S. Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA) of 1994, licensed veterinarians may prescribe approved human or animal drugs outside their labeled indications within a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR), provided no approved alternative exists, the health of the animal is threatened, and use does not endanger public health, such as through drug residues in food-producing animals.^[45]^[46] ELDU is particularly prevalent in companion animal practices, where surveys indicate that up to 86% of human-registered medications are used off-label, often for antimicrobials, analgesics, or behavioral therapies due to gaps in veterinary-specific formulations.^[47] Patterns of ELDU vary by animal type and production system. In small companion animals like dogs and cats, antimicrobial administrations constitute about 18% of total drug uses in some clinics, with off-label human antibiotics (e.g., amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, doxycycline, metronidazole) frequently employed for infections where veterinary equivalents are unavailable or suboptimal.^[48] Psychoactive drugs, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or tricyclic antidepressants originally approved for humans, are commonly prescribed off-label for anxiety or aggression, reflecting a reliance on extrapolated efficacy data.^[49] In contrast, food-producing animals face stricter constraints; ELDU is prohibited for certain drugs (e.g., chloramphenicol, clenbuterol) to mitigate risks of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) or violative residues in meat, milk, or eggs, with over-the-counter antimicrobials like penicillin or oxytetracycline often used extra-label under withdrawal periods calculated by resources like FARAD.^[45]^[50] Prevalence data underscore ELDU's integral role, with U.S. veterinary teaching hospitals reporting routine incorporation of compounded or human medications to address unmet needs, though exact national figures remain elusive due to decentralized record-keeping.^[51] In equine and exotic species practices, off-label applications extend to anesthetics and anti-inflammatories licensed for other animals or humans, enabling therapeutic flexibility but requiring judicious oversight to balance benefits against potential adverse effects like toxicity or inefficacy from untested pharmacokinetics.^[52] Regulatory bodies emphasize that ELDU should be exceptional, with veterinarians documenting rationale and monitoring outcomes to safeguard animal welfare and human food safety.^[53]

Empirical Benefits and Innovations

Therapeutic Successes and Case Examples

Off-label use of thalidomide in multiple myeloma patients demonstrated early therapeutic efficacy prior to its formal approval for this indication in 2006. In a study of 84 refractory patients, thalidomide achieved an overall response rate of 32%, including two complete responses, highlighting its potential in advanced disease settings where standard therapies failed.^[54] Subsequent clinical trials incorporating thalidomide into induction and maintenance regimens post-autologous stem cell transplantation reported median progression-free survival of 34 months compared to 23 months in control groups, with hazard ratios indicating significant delays in disease progression.^[55] These outcomes contributed to extended median overall survival exceeding seven years when combined with agents like bortezomib, underscoring off-label innovation's role in transforming myeloma management.^[56] Ketamine, approved solely for anesthesia, has shown substantial benefits when administered off-label via low-dose intravenous infusions for treatment-resistant depression. A prospective study reported significant reductions in depressive symptoms, anxiety, and illness severity persisting for one month post-treatment, with response rates exceeding 50% in many cohorts.^[57] In a randomized, double-blind trial comparing repeated ketamine infusions to midazolam, ketamine yielded superior antidepressant effects after five doses, with rapid symptom relief often within hours to days.^[58] Real-world data from treatment-resistant patients indicated 52% achieving remission after three infusions over 11 days, providing a critical option for those unresponsive to conventional antidepressants.^[59] Such applications leverage ketamine's glutamatergic mechanism to bypass monoamine pathways, offering faster onset than standard therapies despite lacking label endorsement for psychiatric use.^[60] In pediatric oncology, off-label rituximab for Behçet's disease—an orphan condition—has provided symptomatic relief where approved alternatives were absent, supported by case series demonstrating reduced vasculitis and mucocutaneous lesions.^[10] Similarly, aspirin, originally indicated for analgesia and fever, proved effective off-label in Kawasaki disease, mitigating coronary artery aneurysms through anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet effects, as evidenced by reduced complication rates in empirical protocols before guideline adoption.^[10] These instances illustrate how off-label prescribing, grounded in emerging clinical evidence, can address unmet needs in rare or refractory conditions, often preceding formal label expansions.^[6]

Evidence from Clinical Data and Studies

Clinical studies evaluating off-label drug use have demonstrated that, in scenarios with direct comparative trial data, off-label applications do not consistently underperform approved uses in terms of efficacy or safety; approval status alone does not predict superiority.^[61] For instance, a review of randomized controlled trials comparing off-label versus labeled treatments found no reliable pattern favoring one over the other, indicating that physician-selected off-label options can yield comparable therapeutic results when supported by available evidence.^[61] In oncology, particularly pediatric cases, off-label prescribing of immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown feasibility and safety, with retrospective analyses at specialized centers reporting tolerable adverse event profiles and potential response rates aligning with adult-approved indications.^[62] One study of 22 pediatric patients treated off-label with these agents for refractory solid tumors or lymphomas documented partial responses in 18% and stable disease in 32%, underscoring efficacy signals in unapproved settings where standard options are limited.^[62] Observational data further link off-label prescriptions to tangible health improvements, including reduced contraindication rates (48.8% versus 56.2% for labeled uses) and associations with better patient-reported health status alongside lower medical costs.^[44] This suggests that, in practice, off-label decisions informed by clinical judgment can optimize outcomes, particularly in subpopulations underrepresented in pre-approval trials.^[44] Pediatric meta-analyses highlight high off-label prevalence—up to 40-50% in hospitalized children—but also effective real-world application, as systematic reviews of utilization patterns reveal no disproportionate failure rates when uses align with extrapolated adult data or smaller pediatric studies.^[63] In fields like oncology and rare diseases, such practices have facilitated access to therapies preceding label expansions, with post-marketing evidence often validating initial off-label successes through subsequent approvals.^[64]

Risks, Harms, and Criticisms

Safety and Efficacy Concerns

Off-label drug use inherently lacks the rigorous pre-market evaluation of safety and efficacy required for approved indications, as regulatory bodies like the FDA mandate substantial evidence from controlled clinical trials demonstrating benefits outweighing risks for specific uses.^[5] Without such data, prescribers rely on extrapolations from limited studies, case reports, or mechanistic assumptions, which may not accurately predict outcomes in diverse patient populations, leading to uncertainties in dosing, interactions, and long-term effects.^[33] This evidentiary gap contributes to a higher incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs), with cohort analyses indicating off-label prescriptions are associated with elevated risks compared to on-label use.^[8] Empirical studies consistently link off-label prescribing to increased ADE prevalence and severity. A large-scale review of adult electronic health records found off-label use correlated with a 44% additional risk of adverse events on average, often due to unestablished pharmacokinetic profiles or contraindications overlooked in unapproved contexts.^[65] In pediatric populations, where off-label prescribing exceeds 50% of prescriptions in some settings, unlicensed or off-label drugs are implicated in ADRs at a relative risk of 1.67 (95% CI 1.38-2.02) versus authorized medicines, with factors like polypharmacy and immature organ systems amplifying vulnerabilities.^[66] Meta-analyses further substantiate these patterns, showing off-label utilization in children tied to greater toxicity and failure rates absent confirmatory trials.^[43] Efficacy concerns parallel safety issues, as many off-label applications rest on weak or absent evidence bases. Systematic reviews reveal that supporting data for off-label pediatric uses often comprise low-quality studies, such as small cohorts or expert opinion, rather than randomized controlled trials, resulting in unproven therapeutic value and potential for ineffective treatments delaying proven alternatives.^[67] Adult off-label prescribing similarly shows inconsistent efficacy signals, with analyses indicating only a subset backed by strong evidence (e.g., meta-analyses favoring the indication), while others expose patients to risks without commensurate benefits, exacerbating healthcare costs and morbidity.^[8] These patterns underscore a causal link: regulatory safeguards ensure on-label uses meet probabilistic thresholds of net benefit, whereas off-label deviations introduce unquantified variances that can manifest as harms when scaled across populations.^[9] Contraindicated off-label use compounds these risks, correlating with poorer health outcomes in outpatient settings, including prolonged hospitalizations and diminished quality-of-life metrics.^[44] While some off-label practices evolve into approved indications through post-market research, initial deployments without prospective validation prioritize expediency over empirical caution, as evidenced by historical failures where unanticipated toxicities emerged only after widespread adoption.^[4] Addressing these concerns demands clinician vigilance, informed consent emphasizing evidentiary limitations, and incentives for generating real-world data to bridge knowledge gaps.^[68]

Documented Adverse Events and Failures

Off-label drug use has been associated with a higher incidence of adverse drug events compared to on-label prescribing. A cohort study of over 1.6 million adults found that off-label use correlated with a 44% increased likelihood of adverse effects, including hospitalizations and emergency visits, attributed to insufficient pre-approval safety data for untested indications.^[8] Similarly, in pediatric populations, off-label prescribing—common in up to 60% of childhood prescriptions—links to elevated risks of severe adverse events, such as allergic reactions and organ toxicity, due to physiological differences not evaluated in original trials.^[9] These patterns underscore how the absence of regulatory scrutiny for novel uses can amplify harms when extrapolated from approved contexts. A prominent example involves atypical antipsychotics prescribed off-label for behavioral disturbances in elderly dementia patients, despite lacking FDA approval for this indication. Multiple studies document increased all-cause mortality, with hazard ratios up to 1.6-2.0 times higher among users versus non-users, alongside risks of stroke, myocardial infarction, and venous thromboembolism.^[69]^[70] In response, the FDA issued a black-box warning on April 11, 2005, citing analyses of 17 placebo-controlled trials showing a 1.6-1.7-fold elevated death risk, primarily from cardiovascular or infectious causes, affecting an estimated 20-30% of nursing home residents at the time.^[71] Post-warning reductions in usage correlated with modest declines in mortality rates, though off-label prescribing persists due to limited alternatives.^[71] Antidepressant use in children and adolescents represents another documented failure, where off-label prescribing for depression—prior to limited approvals like fluoxetine in 2003—prompted regulatory action after emerging suicidality signals. FDA-mandated analyses of 24 trials involving over 4,400 pediatric patients revealed a twofold increase in suicidal ideation and behavior (from 2% to 4%) during early treatment phases, leading to a class-wide black-box warning on October 15, 2004, extended to young adults in 2007.^[72]^[73] This warning highlighted risks absent in adult data, with post-marketing surveillance confirming rare but severe outcomes, including completed suicides, in off-label contexts lacking pediatric-specific efficacy evidence. Cardiovascular interventions provide further cases, such as off-label deployment of drug-eluting stents, which comprised 60% of placements in 2007 and correlated with higher rates of stent thrombosis and target vessel revascularization compared to on-label uses.^[74] In pharmacotherapy, compounded ketamine for treatment-resistant depression—used off-label intravenously or nasally—has yielded reports of psychiatric dissociation, hypertension spikes, and abuse potential, with FDA alerts in 2023 noting respiratory depression and misuse in unregulated settings.^[75] These events, drawn from spontaneous reporting and cohort data, illustrate how off-label extrapolation can precipitate failures when benefits remain unproven against amplified harms.

Regulatory and Policy Landscape

Framework in the United States

In the United States, the regulatory framework for off-label use of prescription drugs is primarily established under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA approves drugs for specific indications, dosages, routes of administration, and patient populations only after manufacturers demonstrate safety and efficacy through clinical trials, as required by sections 505 and 505A of the Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 355, 355a). Off-label use occurs when an approved drug is prescribed for an unapproved indication, such as a different disease, age group, or dosage, and is explicitly permitted for licensed physicians exercising clinical judgment, since the FDA defers regulation of the practice of medicine to state medical boards and professional standards.^[1]^[14]^[76] Manufacturers face strict prohibitions on promoting or distributing drugs for off-label purposes, as such activities render the product misbranded under section 502 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. § 352), which mandates that labeling be truthful and not omit material facts regarding intended uses. Violations, including off-label marketing via sales representatives, publications, or websites, can lead to injunctions, seizures, fines up to $250,000 per violation for individuals or $500,000 for corporations, and imprisonment up to one year for misdemeanors or three years for felonies, enforced through civil actions by the FDA and criminal prosecutions by the Department of Justice. Limited exceptions exist, such as responding to unsolicited requests from healthcare professionals with truthful, non-promotional information, or disseminating peer-reviewed journal articles and reference texts under policies derived from the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (though its formal regulations expired in 2006).^[76]^[4]^[33] No federal mandate requires specific informed consent for off-label prescribing, distinct from investigational uses under FDA's expanded access or clinical trial regulations, though physicians must adhere to general ethical duties of disclosure under state laws and standards from bodies like the American Medical Association. Off-label prescriptions lack pre-market FDA review of safety and efficacy data for the unapproved context, potentially elevating risks without the agency's validation, and insurance coverage varies, often denying reimbursement absent compelling evidence. Oversight relies on post-market surveillance via the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), voluntary reporting, and liability under tort law, where manufacturers generally shield from suits for unpromoted off-label uses per interpretations of federal preemption doctrines like Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee (2001).^[15]^[76]

Regulations in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, off-label use of medicines—defined as the prescription, administration, sale, or supply of a licensed medicine outside the terms of its marketing authorisation, such as for an unapproved indication, dosage, or patient population—is permitted under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (HMR 2012), subject to clinical justification and heightened professional responsibilities.^[77]^[78] The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) oversees the regulatory framework, emphasizing that licensed medicines should be prioritized over off-label or unlicensed alternatives whenever possible to ensure established safety, quality, and efficacy data.^[77] Schedule 17 of the HMR 2012 provides exemptions allowing off-label medicines to be sold, supplied, or administered by healthcare professionals when no suitable licensed option exists and the use aligns with best clinical practice supported by evidence, such as national guidelines or peer-reviewed data.^[78]^[79] Prescribers, including doctors, dentists, and certain nurse or pharmacist prescribers, bear primary legal and ethical responsibility for off-label decisions, which must demonstrably serve the patient's best interests and involve evaluation of available evidence on risks and benefits.^[77]^[80] The General Medical Council (GMC) mandates that off-label prescribing occur only after confirming no licensed alternative meets the clinical need, with prescribers required to inform patients (or their guardians) of the unlicensed/off-label status, potential uncertainties in safety or efficacy, and any increased risks of adverse reactions compared to authorized uses.^[80] Documentation of the rationale, evidence reviewed, and patient discussions is essential, alongside ongoing monitoring for adverse effects, which should be reported via the MHRA's Yellow Card scheme.^[77] Non-medical prescribers must operate within their competence and may require additional oversight.^[80] Pharmaceutical manufacturers and marketing authorisation holders are strictly prohibited from promoting off-label uses, with all promotional materials confined to the approved indications specified in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC).^[81] Violations can result in enforcement actions by the MHRA or the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), reflecting the framework's aim to prevent unsubstantiated dissemination of unapproved claims while allowing clinical discretion for prescribers.^[81] In contexts like Patient Group Directions (PGDs), off-label inclusion requires explicit justification, risk assessment, and alignment with legal exemptions, ensuring non-prescribing professionals do not administer without prescriber direction.^[82] This structure balances access to innovative treatments—common in areas like paediatrics and oncology—with safeguards against unverified applications, as affirmed in MHRA guidance unchanged in core principles since 2012 despite post-Brexit adaptations to the authorisation process.^[77]^[78]

International Variations and Harmonization Efforts

In the European Union, off-label prescribing is permitted under national laws but lacks harmonization across member states, with regulations varying significantly; for example, a 2017 study found that 10 out of 21 participating countries had specific policy tools such as compassionate use programs or reimbursement criteria, while others like Portugal and Ireland rely primarily on physician discretion without dedicated legislation.^[83]^[84] In Germany, off-label use often requires approval through named patient programs, whereas in France it is allowed for unmet needs with informed consent and pharmacovigilance reporting.^[85] In Canada, off-label prescribing is legal and not prohibited by Health Canada, occurring commonly across medical specialties, though physicians bear responsibility for informed consent, adverse event reporting, and ensuring evidence-based justification, with promotion by manufacturers strictly forbidden under the Food and Drugs Act.^[86]^[87] Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) similarly does not regulate prescribing practices, allowing off-label use when approved drugs are unavailable, ineffective, or unsuitable, provided clinicians document clinical rationale and monitor outcomes, though manufacturer promotion of unapproved indications is banned.^[88]^[89] Japan maintains a more restrictive framework, where off-label indications often require review by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare for insurance reimbursement or public approval via re-examination processes, with the 2021 Physician Law introducing further oversight to limit unverified uses despite evidence from abroad.^[90]^[91] These differences stem from varying emphases on insurance coverage, liability, and evidence thresholds, leading to disparities in access; for instance, drugs approved off-label in Western countries may remain uncompensated in Japan pending domestic trials.^[92] Global harmonization efforts for off-label prescribing remain limited, with bodies like the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) prioritizing alignment in drug approval standards and post-marketing safety surveillance—including off-label data in reports—rather than standardizing national prescribing rules.^[93]^[94] Initiatives such as ICH pediatric guidelines aim to reduce off-label reliance through expanded approvals, particularly for children, but do not address prescribing variations directly.^[95] The World Health Organization has not issued binding frameworks for off-label use, focusing instead on pharmacovigilance to monitor risks across borders, while regional collaborations like EU-wide pharmacovigilance highlight ongoing challenges in reconciling member state divergences without supranational mandates.^[96]

Controversies and Ethical Debates

Pharmaceutical Promotion and Incentives

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates pharmaceutical promotion under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which indirectly prohibits manufacturers from actively marketing approved drugs for off-label uses by deeming such promotion as misbranding if it lacks substantial evidence of safety and efficacy for those indications.^[13] This framework aims to ensure promotional materials align with FDA-approved labeling, though exceptions exist for distributing certain peer-reviewed scientific or clinical practice guidelines under strict conditions, such as when the material is truthful, non-misleading, and not used to promote the product directly.^[97] Violations have led to substantial enforcement actions, including criminal and civil penalties, reflecting the high financial stakes involved. Pharmaceutical companies face strong economic incentives to encourage off-label adoption, as it can extend product revenue streams without the substantial costs—often exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars—and timelines (typically years) required for FDA supplemental approvals through additional clinical trials.^[98] For instance, off-label prescribing accounts for up to 20-30% of overall drug use in some therapeutic areas, potentially generating billions in unapproved sales that bolster profitability, particularly for older, generic-competing drugs nearing patent expiration.^[99] These incentives persist despite legal risks, as evidenced by major settlements: Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion in 2009 for off-label promotion of drugs including Bextra and Geodon; GlaxoSmithKline paid $3 billion in 2012, the largest healthcare fraud settlement at the time, partly for promoting Paxil and Avandia off-label; AstraZeneca settled for $520 million in 2010 over Seroquel; and Johnson & Johnson paid $2.2 billion in 2013 for Risperdal and other drugs.^[100]^[101]^[102] To navigate prohibitions, companies have employed indirect strategies, such as funding continuing medical education (CME) programs, research grants, or speakers' bureaus that feature key opinion leaders discussing off-label applications, which can subtly influence prescriber behavior without overt marketing.^[103] Implicit promotion—hinting at unapproved uses through selective data presentation or device demonstrations—has also drawn scrutiny, as it evades direct claims while potentially driving off-label prescriptions.^[104] These tactics underscore a tension: while off-label use can address unmet needs, unchecked incentives risk prioritizing sales over rigorous evidence, leading to overprescribing and associated public health costs, as seen in cases where fines, though record-breaking, represent a fraction of generated revenues.^[105] Recent FDA guidance, finalized in January 2025, clarifies allowable off-label communications like responses to unsolicited provider inquiries but reinforces bans on proactive promotion, aiming to balance information access with regulatory safeguards.^[106]

Patient Autonomy vs. Oversight Conflicts

In the context of off-label drug use, conflicts arise between patients' rights to exercise autonomy through informed consent and regulatory oversight aimed at ensuring treatments are supported by rigorous evidence to minimize harm. Under U.S. law, physicians retain the authority to prescribe approved drugs for unapproved indications based on their professional judgment, reflecting a prioritization of medical discretion over strict labeling adherence.^[6] This autonomy enables personalized care, particularly when standard treatments fail or when patient-specific factors, such as rare conditions or comorbidities, necessitate deviations from approved uses.^[33] However, regulators like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emphasize that off-label prescribing often lacks the randomized controlled trial data required for approval, potentially exposing patients to unverified risks without the safeguards of formal evaluation. Ethical debates center on the adequacy of informed consent as a mechanism to reconcile these tensions, with proponents arguing that full disclosure of off-label status—including limited evidence, potential alternatives, and risks—empowers patients to make autonomous decisions while mitigating regulatory concerns over uninformed use.^[107] For instance, in pediatric care, where up to 80% of prescriptions may be off-label due to ethical barriers in pediatric trials, autonomy advocates highlight the need for physician flexibility to address unmet needs, yet critics contend this practice heightens vulnerability without enhanced oversight, such as mandatory reporting of outcomes.^[108] Regulatory bodies counter that unrestricted autonomy could undermine public health by encouraging uses akin to experimentation, as seen in calls for heightened professional scrutiny and government monitoring to track adverse events from off-label applications.^[109] These conflicts intensify during public health emergencies, where patient demand for unproven off-label options clashes with oversight caution; for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, off-label uses of drugs like hydroxychloroquine were justified by some on grounds of potential benefit in severe cases absent alternatives, but regulatory warnings highlighted insufficient evidence and documented cardiac risks, illustrating the trade-off between rapid access and evidence-based restraint.^[110] Legal frameworks, such as the FDA's prohibition on manufacturer promotion of off-label uses while permitting physician discretion, further underscore this divide, as patients may face barriers like insurance denials for unapproved indications despite informed choice.^[2] Proposals to resolve such tensions include expanding informed consent mandates to explicitly cover off-label risks and establishing post-market surveillance for common off-label practices, aiming to preserve autonomy without eroding accountability.^[111]

Recent High-Profile Cases

One prominent case involved the off-label use of ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug approved for conditions like intestinal strongyloidiasis, for preventing or treating COVID-19. During the pandemic from 2020 onward, some physicians and public figures advocated its use based on early observational data and small trials suggesting potential benefits, leading to widespread prescriptions and self-administration despite lacking FDA authorization for this indication.^[112] However, large-scale randomized trials, including a 2024 Oxford-led study, found no clinically meaningful reduction in hospitalization or mortality risks, prompting regulatory bodies like the FDA to issue warnings against its use for COVID-19 due to insufficient evidence and risks of toxicity from veterinary formulations.^[113] The controversy escalated with misinformation claims, resulting in a 2024 federal lawsuit settlement where the FDA removed social media posts discouraging its use after physicians argued they overstepped authority.^[114] A 2023 survey indicated 6% of U.S. COVID-19 patients used ivermectin, often linked to lower trust in institutions and higher endorsement of unverified treatments.^[115] Another high-profile example is the off-label prescribing of semaglutide (marketed as Ozempic for type 2 diabetes) for weight loss, surging from 2021 amid celebrity endorsements and social media hype. While a higher-dose formulation (Wegovy) gained FDA approval for chronic weight management in 2021, Ozempic's off-label use for obesity without diabetes led to national shortages by 2023, prioritizing cosmetic applications over approved diabetic patients and raising ethical concerns about resource allocation.^[116] This practice has been associated with adverse events, including gastroparesis and non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), prompting over 2,190 lawsuits by October 2025 alleging inadequate warnings from manufacturer Novo Nordisk.^[117] Compounded versions of semaglutide, not FDA-approved, have been linked to at least 10 U.S. deaths and 100 hospitalizations as of November 2024, highlighting risks from unregulated off-label formulations amid demand exceeding supply.^[118] Studies show 42% of off-label users achieve over 15% body weight loss, but two-thirds regain it within a year post-discontinuation, questioning long-term efficacy.^[42] The off-label administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, known as puberty blockers, to minors with gender dysphoria has also drawn significant scrutiny since the mid-2010s, intensifying post-2020. These drugs, approved for precocious puberty or adult conditions like prostate cancer, lack pediatric FDA approval for gender dysphoria and are used off-label to suppress puberty, with limited long-term safety data for this cohort.^[119] The 2024 Cass Review in the UK, analyzing over 100 studies, found weak evidence for benefits and recommended halting routine NHS prescriptions due to risks like bone density loss and fertility impacts, influencing restrictions in Europe.^[120] In the U.S., by 2025, over 20 states enacted bans or limits on such use for minors, citing insufficient rigorous trials and potential irreversibility, amid lawsuits challenging medical protocols as experimental.^[121] Critics, including some endocrinologists, argue the practice bypasses standard approval processes, with U.S. prescriptions rising sharply from 2017 to 2021 despite unresolved debates over desistance rates in youth gender dysphoria.^[122]

Broader Impacts and Future Directions

Societal and Economic Dimensions

Off-label drug prescribing constitutes approximately 20-40% of all prescriptions in developed economies, with rates exceeding 50% in specialties such as pediatrics and oncology.^[42]^[44] This prevalence reflects its societal role in addressing unmet medical needs, particularly for rare diseases, pediatric populations, and conditions lacking approved therapies, where clinicians rely on emerging evidence from peer-reviewed studies to extend drug applications.^[123] Such use promotes therapeutic flexibility and patient access to potentially beneficial interventions ahead of formal regulatory approvals, fostering incremental innovation through drug repurposing rather than solely new molecular entity development.^[124] However, it also introduces societal risks, including a 44% higher likelihood of adverse drug reactions compared to on-label use, which can erode public trust in healthcare providers and exacerbate disparities in treatment outcomes across demographics.^[125]^[126] Economically, off-label utilization supports cost efficiencies by leveraging existing drugs for new indications, avoiding the full expense of de novo development, which averages $2-3 billion per new drug.^[127] Repurposed generics, often prescribed off-label, incur development costs 50-60% lower, around $300 million, enabling faster market availability and reduced overall healthcare spending in scenarios like substituting lower-cost alternatives for high-cost on-label options.^[124]^[128] For instance, off-label use of bevacizumab (Avastin) for wet age-related macular degeneration has demonstrated substantially lower per-treatment costs than the on-label alternative ranibizumab (Lucentis), despite similar efficacy profiles supported by clinical data.^[129] This approach aligns with causal mechanisms of resource allocation, prioritizing evidence-based extensions over redundant R&D investments estimated at $314 million to $4.46 billion per approval.^[130] Conversely, empirical analyses indicate that off-label prescribing frequently elevates economic burdens through heightened disability rates, medical expenditures, and work-loss costs stemming from adverse events and suboptimal efficacy.^[131]^[132] A nationwide study found off-label use associated with increased healthcare utilization and disability, contrasting with on-label applications that correlate with improved health status and lower expenditures.^[44] Insurance coverage compounds these effects, as many payers restrict reimbursement for off-label uses absent compelling peer-reviewed evidence or compendia support, leading to out-of-pocket costs that deter access and inflate total societal spending—exemplified by $247 million in U.S. Medicaid expenditures on off-label trazodone prescriptions in recent years.^[133]^[134] Prior authorization requirements further amplify administrative overhead, potentially offsetting any upfront savings.^[135] These dimensions underscore a tension between off-label use's role in accelerating therapeutic adaptation and its potential to impose uncompensated externalities, such as liability for prescribers and systemic inefficiencies from unproven applications.^[136] While it mitigates gaps in approved therapies—critical in fields like oncology where off-label rates surpass 50%—unregulated expansion risks overprescribing and resource misallocation, as evidenced by contraindicated uses comprising up to 54% of certain prescription cohorts.^[137]^[44] Future economic modeling should weigh these trade-offs against innovation incentives, recognizing that empirical data from large-scale datasets reveal net cost increases in aggregate health outcomes without rigorous post-market surveillance.^[131]

Policy Reforms and Emerging Trends

In January 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized guidance on firm-initiated communications to health care providers regarding scientific information on unapproved uses of approved drugs, establishing an enforcement discretion policy that permits such sharing when it adheres to specified criteria, including reliance on peer-reviewed publications and avoidance of promotional intent.^[138] This update relaxes prior restrictions, aiming to facilitate evidence-based discussions while mitigating risks of misleading information, as evidenced by the guidance's emphasis on truthful, non-misleading data from systematic reviews or well-controlled studies conducted in humans.^[138] The policy builds on the FDA Amendments Act of 2007, which enhanced post-market surveillance, and responds to ongoing debates over balancing physician autonomy with public safety.^[6] Legislative efforts have included proposals for targeted exemptions from off-label promotion prohibitions, particularly for vulnerable populations such as those with rare diseases or terminal conditions, requiring FDA oversight of safety data and patient safeguards to encourage innovation without undermining regulatory standards.^[139] The Right-to-Try Act of 2018 expanded access to investigational drugs for terminally ill patients, indirectly supporting off-label applications in compassionate use scenarios, though it does not alter core FDA approval processes.^[76] Internationally, China's Physician Law of 2021 introduced explicit requirements for off-label prescribing, mandating informed consent, evidence of necessity, and documentation to curb unregulated use while permitting it in evidence-supported cases.^[91] Emerging trends indicate rising off-label prescribing for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), such as semaglutide (Ozempic), for weight management in non-diabetic patients, with patterns showing increased utilization despite pending label expansions, driven by clinical demand and real-world evidence accumulation.^[140] In parallel, there is growing emphasis on real-world evidence and pharmacovigilance to evaluate off-label efficacy, as seen in guidelines from organizations like the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), which advocate systematic pharmacist-led assessments in inpatient settings to prioritize uses backed by high-quality data over anecdotal practice.^[11] These developments reflect a broader shift toward data-driven reforms, including potential harmonization efforts under frameworks like those of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for compassionate access, amid pressures from personalized medicine and drug repurposing initiatives.^[85]

References

[1]
Understanding Unapproved Use of Approved Drugs "Off Label" - FDA
Feb 5, 2018 · Unapproved use of an approved drug is often called “off-label” use. This term can mean that the drug is: Used for a disease or medical ...
[2]
The Law and Practice of Off-Label Prescribing and Physician ...
Sep 1, 2025 · In effect, off-label prescribing by physicians is legal and common, but it is often done in the absence of adequate supporting data.Abstract · Applicable Laws And... · Physician Liability
[3]
Staying on Track When Prescribing Off-Label - AAFP
Jan 1, 2014 · Off-label prescribing is legal in the United States under the premise that regulatory agencies do not have authority to control the practice of ...
[4]
Off-Label Use vs Off-Label Marketing of Drugs: Part 1
Feb 27, 2023 · Off-label prescriptions for drugs are common, occurring overall in 21% to 32.3% of prescriptions overall. Prevalence of off-label prescribing ...
[5]
[PDF] Off-Label Use of Prescription Drugs - Congress.gov
May 21, 2025 · For example, this is the case with oncology drug use, more than half of which is off-label. Off-label prescribing can be a reasonable choice ...
[6]
Off-Label Prescribing: A Call for Heightened Professional and ... - NIH
An off-label use may provide the best available intervention for a patient, as well as the standard of care for a particular health problem. In oncology, ...
[7]
Drug, Patient, and Physician Characteristics Associated With Off ...
Apr 16, 2012 · Results The prevalence of off-label use was 11.0%; of the off-label prescriptions, 79.0% lacked strong scientific evidence. Off-label use was ...<|separator|>
[8]
Off-label Drug Use and Adverse Drug Events in Adults - JAMA Network
This cohort study of off-label use of prescription drugs assesses the risks for and prevalence of adverse drug events documented in the electronic health.
[9]
Benefit‐Risk Assessment of Off‐Label Drug Use in Children: The ...
Jun 18, 2021 · Studies show that off-label drug use is associated with an increased frequency and severity of adverse events Therefore, evidence for potential ...Abstract · HOW TO ASSESS THE... · TRADE-OFFS: BALANCING...
[10]
Ten Common Questions (and Their Answers) About Off-label Drug ...
Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to promote their medications for an off-label use, which has lead to several large settlements for illegal marketing.
[11]
[PDF] ASHP Guidelines on the Evaluation of Off-Label Medication Use in ...
4 One study reported that off-label medication use accounts for up to 21% of outpatient prescribing, ... differences in the prevalence and urgency of off-label ...
[12]
Off-Label Drug Use in Cancer Treatment - NCI
Jan 13, 2022 · Off-label drug use refers to the practice of prescribing a drug for a different purpose than what the FDA approved. This practice is called “off ...<|separator|>
[13]
Off-Label Drug Information: Regulation, Distribution, Evaluation, and ...
According to FDA regulations, physicians may prescribe drugs for off-label use, but drug manufacturers may not promote such uses.Table 1 · Table 2 · Figure 2
[14]
Off-Label Drugs: What You Need to Know - AHRQ
This practice is legal and common. In fact, one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label use.
[15]
Informed Consent for Off-Label Use of Prescription Medications
Off-label use becomes an ethical, not a legal, issue when the principle of informed consent is introduced. The concept of informed consent as it is currently ...
[16]
"Off-Label" and Investigational Use of Approved Drugs and Biologics
“Off-label” use occurs when an FDA-approved drug or biologic is utilized outside of its approved labeling. IRB oversight is only required when the drug or ...
[17]
Indications and Usage Section of Labeling for Human Prescription ...
Oct 18, 2019 · This guidance is intended to assist applicants in drafting the INDICATIONS AND USAGE section of labeling as described in the regulations.
[18]
[PDF] Indications and Usage Section of Labeling for Human Prescription ...
Jul 3, 2018 · product or drug will be used to refer to human prescription drug and biological products that are regulated as drugs, except when there is a ...
[19]
FDA's Labeling Resources for Human Prescription Drugs
Jul 1, 2025 · FDA's labeling resources for human prescription drugs are primarily directed to industry staff who develop human prescription drug labeling.Patient Labeling Resources · Carton and Container... · Prescribing Information
[20]
21 CFR Part 201 -- Labeling - eCFR
(a) The label of prescription and insulin-containing drugs in package form shall bear as one of its principal features a statement of the identity of the drug.
[21]
[PDF] A Comparative Review of Off-Label Pharmaceutical Use and ...
Despite off-label pharmaceutical use being common practice, there is very little regulation on an EU-wide basis. For example, there is no legal definition of ...
[22]
On-Label or Off-Label? Overcoming Regulatory and Financial ...
While off-label use could provide timely access to treatments for patients with urgent medical needs, it also entails important safety, liability and financial ...
[23]
Promoting Safe & Effective Drugs for 100 Years - FDA
Apr 23, 2019 · An overview of the history of FDA's regulation of drugs, originally published in FDA Consumer magazine.
[24]
Milestones in US Food and Drug Law - FDA
Jan 30, 2023 · The following chronology describes some of the milestones in the history of food and drug regulation in the United States.
[25]
William Withering and the beginnings of modern therapeutics
Jan 27, 2015 · The book basically details a 10 year clinical trial of digitalis (the modern name for the drug after the Latin name for the plant, Digitalis ...
[26]
Digitalis – from Withering to the 21st century
Whilst medicinal use of digitalis dates back to antiquity, William Withering is credited with the first systematic investigation of its use for the treatment of ...
[27]
“The Popular Dose with Doctors”: Quinine and the American Civil War
Dec 7, 2013 · Quinine did not cure the disease, but suppressing its symptoms was enough to keep a Civil War army on the march and in combat. Astute military ...
[28]
Historical Review: Problematic Malaria Prophylaxis with Quinine - NIH
“Prophylactic rations” of quinine were tried in the British/Indian Army during its campaigns in China in the 1860s.
[29]
Quinine Substitutes in the Confederate Army - Oxford Academic
During the Civil War, the unreliable supply and high cost of quinine forced the Confederate Army to use alternative treatments for malaria. Many quinine ...
[30]
The Past, Present, and Future of Government Regulation of ... - Mintz
May 12, 2017 · As with most issues related to FDA, the basic origins of the Agency's off-label promotion policy trace back to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ...
[31]
Origins of the prohibition against off-label promotion - PubMed
The principal purpose of both efforts was to prevent inappropriate self-medication. This article describes the history of those strategies, including expansion ...
[32]
FDA Backgrounder on FDAMA
Mar 28, 2018 · The act allows a firm to disseminate peer-reviewed journal articles about an off-label indication of its product, provided the company commits ...Missing: harbor | Show results with:harbor
[33]
Regulating Off-Label Drug Use — Rethinking the Role of the FDA
Apr 3, 2008 · In an examination of off-label prescribing of 160 common drugs, off-label use was also found to account for 21% of all prescriptions, and most ...
[34]
Washington Legal Foundation v. Friedman, 13 F. Supp. 2d 51 ...
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the FDA policies expressed in the Guidance Documents violate the rights of its members under the First Amendment of ...
[35]
Decision in Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney
Mar 16, 2000 · A use that does not appear in the labeling is not approved as safe and effective by FDA and is known as an “unapproved” or “off-label” use.<|separator|>
[36]
Key Implications of the 21st Century Cures Act for Medical Devices
Dec 9, 2016 · The Act amends the FDCA's prohibition on misbranding to expand the scope of off-label information that manufacturers can share with payors.
[37]
Off-Label Marketing's Audiences: The 21st Century Cures Act and ...
Jan 6, 2021 · The 21 st Century Cures Act removed many of the constraints intended to prevent all three of these audiences—patients, doctors, and formulary ...
[38]
[PDF] FDA Finalizes Guidance on Communications of Scientific ...
Jan 14, 2025 · The final guidance describes FDA's enforcement discretion policy for sharing scientific information on unapproved uses of approved products and ...
[39]
Off-label Prescribing Among Office-Based Physicians - JAMA Network
May 8, 2006 · The magnitude of off-label use varied widely among specific medications and drug classes, exceeding 50% for some anticonvulsants, psychiatric ...
[40]
Off-label drug prescriptions in French general practice - BMJ Open
Among the 4932 drug prescriptions registered, 911 (18.5% [95% CI 17.4% to 19.6%]) were off-label, of which 865 (17.6%) due to the indication of the drug and 58 ...Missing: prevalence | Show results with:prevalence
[41]
Off‐label drug use in neonates and infants in Spain: A five‐year ...
Sep 9, 2021 · The prevalence of off-label drugs ranged from 31.7% to 93.5% in relation to the total number of drugs prescribed (retrospective analysis). The ...
[42]
The prevalence and consequences of support for off-label Ozempic ...
Jan 7, 2025 · With off-label prescribing accounting for 20–40 percent of prescription use in the United States and less than 50 percent of Americans in ...
[43]
Off‑label and unapproved pediatric drug utilization: A meta‑analysis
Aug 30, 2024 · The global prevalence of off‑label and unlicensed drug prescriptions to children in pediatrics or neonatal departments was 56%. Patient sample ...
[44]
Prevalence and relationship with health of off-label and ... - NIH
Mar 6, 2025 · While off-label prescribing is legal and common in medical practice, it means the drug is being used without the same level of evidence ...
[45]
The Ins and Outs of Extra-Label Drug Use in Animals - FDA
Jun 2, 2023 · The AMDUCA provisions of the FD&C Act allow extra-label drug use only on the lawful order of a licensed veterinarian in the context of a valid ...
[46]
Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA)
The AMDUCA amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to legalize such “extralabel drug use” (ELDU) under a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship ...
[47]
An investigation of antimicrobial usage patterns by small animal ...
Jan 1, 2017 · ... off label use (86.19%) of human registered medication was common practice. A worrying finding was that a large number of clients attempted ...
[48]
Evaluation of Antimicrobial Usage in Dogs and Cats at a Veterinary ...
Jun 22, 2021 · In 2017, 78,076 drug administrations were documented for 5,471 dogs and cats, of which 14,020 (17.96%) were antimicrobial drugs (AMs) ...
[49]
Pharmacological treatment of canine and feline undesirable ...
Undesirable behaviors of dogs and cats were treated with a wide variety of medicines. Off-label use of psychoactive medicinal substances was common.Pharmacological Treatment Of... · Results · Discussion
[50]
Prohibited and Restricted Drugs in Food Animals - FARAD
Under provisions of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA) and 21 CFR part 530, FDA can prohibit use of an entire class of drugs in ...
[51]
Compounding and Use of Human Medicinal Products in Small ...
Compounded medications (CMs) have become increasingly relevant in veterinary pharmacotherapy, particularly due to the limited availability of licensed ...
[52]
[PDF] Why we use “Off Label” drugs in our treatment of pets
Example categories of “Off Label” drugs we use. Anaesthetics. These are all licensed for human use, or are licensed for use in other veterinary species. We ...
[53]
FAQs about extralabel drug use
The overarching premise of the AMDUCA is that extralabel use is acceptable when filling a medical need for an animal whose health is threatened. Veterinarians ...
[54]
The evolving role and utility of off-label drug use in multiple myeloma
Among 84 patients with refractory MM, thalidomide had an overall response rate (ORR) of 32% with two complete responses [38]. A number of studies compared ...
[55]
Thalidomide Added to Induction and Maintenance Therapy in ...
Nov 12, 2018 · The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 34 months in the thalidomide group and 23 months in the control group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52- ...
[56]
The Curious Case of Thalidomide in Multiple Myeloma - ScienceDirect
Jan 13, 2014 · The use of these IMiDs along with the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib has extended the median survival of MM patients to greater than 7 years.Missing: success | Show results with:success
[57]
Efficacy of ketamine therapy in the treatment of depression - PMC
There was a significant improvement in depression, anxiety, and the severity of illness after 2 weeks and 1 month of the last dose of ketamine. Significant ...
[58]
A randomized, double-blind, active placebo-controlled study of ...
Jun 26, 2020 · Repeated ketamine showed greater antidepressant efficacy compared to midazolam after five infusions before receiving single ketamine infusion.
[59]
Ketamine's promise for severe depression grows, but major ...
Feb 8, 2024 · After just three infusions of ketamine over 11 days, 52% of participants saw their severe depression ease so much they achieved remission.
[60]
Ketamine treatment for depression: a review - PMC - NIH
Apr 15, 2022 · Initial studies found that a single subanesthetic-dose IV ketamine infusion rapidly (within one day) improved depressive symptoms in individuals ...
[61]
Off-label treatments were not consistently better or worse than ...
In six of 25 comparisons (24%), off-label drugs were significantly superior (five of 25) or inferior (one of 25) to approved treatments. There was substantial ...Review · Abstract · Introduction
[62]
Off‐label prescribing of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at a ...
Apr 17, 2024 · In conclusion, this study describes patterns of off-label ICI prescribing at a large pediatric cancer center and reaffirms the safety of ICI in ...
[63]
Off‑label and unapproved pediatric drug utilization: A meta‑analysis
The present study aimed to assess the global prevalence of off-label and unlicensed prescriptions among hospitalized children via meta-analysis.Missing: oncology | Show results with:oncology
[64]
Off‐Label, but on‐Evidence? A Review of the Level of Evidence for ...
Sep 7, 2022 · As off-label drug use supported by weak scientific evidence is thought to compromise efficacy and safety, knowledge on the level of evidence ...
[65]
Public Preference for Off-Label Use of Drugs for Cancer Treatment ...
Sep 10, 2024 · This study aimed to quantify public preference for off-label cancer treatment outcomes, process, and costs, and perceived importance of associated adverse ...<|separator|>
[66]
Adverse drug reactions and off-label and unlicensed medicines in ...
Off-label and unlicensed medicines were more likely to be implicated in an ADR than authorized medicines (relative risk 1.67, 95% CI 1.38, 2.02, P < 0.001).
[67]
Off‐Label, but on‐Evidence? A Review of the Level of Evidence for ...
Our study demonstrates that the underlying evidence pertaining off‐label drug use in children is low across ages and drug classes. Furthermore, we confirm that ...
[68]
Optimizing therapeutic decision‐making for off‐label medicines use ...
May 19, 2023 · Off-label medicines use is a critical issue in modern medicine, with important clinical, safety, ethical, and financial consequences for ...
[69]
Association Between Antipsychotics and All-Cause Mortality Among ...
In a large cohort of older adults, antipsychotics were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.
[70]
Multiple adverse outcomes associated with antipsychotic use in ...
Apr 17, 2024 · Antipsychotic use compared with non-use in adults with dementia was associated with increased risks of stroke, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, ...
[71]
Antipsychotic Drug Warning, Medication Use, and Health Outcomes ...
Apr 28, 2020 · The 2005 FDA boxed warning was associated with a reduced prevalence of atypical antipsychotic use in elderly patients with dementia and with long-term ...
[72]
Suicidality in Children and Adolescents Being Treated With ... - FDA
Feb 5, 2018 · The analysis showed a greater risk of suicidality during the first few months of treatment in those receiving antidepressants.Missing: off- | Show results with:off-
[73]
The FDA “Black Box” Warning on Antidepressant Suicide Risk in ...
May 3, 2019 · The decision made in the year 2004 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require a boxed warning on antidepressants regarding the risk of suicidality ...Missing: off- | Show results with:off-
[74]
Part 2: Off-Label Marketing—Consequences for Patients, Clinicians ...
Mar 27, 2023 · From 2011-2015 spending on RC in the United States increased 10-fold with aggressive marketing to more than $1 billion. In 2015 ...
[75]
FDA warns about compounded ketamine for psychiatric disorders
Oct 10, 2023 · Known safety concerns associated with the use of ketamine products include abuse and misuse, psychiatric events, increases in blood pressure, ...
[76]
Off-Label Use of Prescription Drugs | Congress.gov
Off-label use is when a physician prescribes a drug for reasons not specified in the FDA approval or labeling, such as for different populations or doses.Off-Label Use: Description and... · Benefits and Risks of Off-Label...
[77]
Off-label or unlicensed use of medicines: prescribers' responsibilities
Dec 11, 2014 · Healthcare professionals may have more responsibility to accurately prescribe an unlicensed medicine or an off-label medicine than when they prescribe a ...In practice · Examples of off-label use of... · Example of use of unlicensed...
[78]
Off-label or unlicensed product use under HMR 2012 exemptions
Jan 8, 2020 · The MHRA has confirmed that medicines listed in the exemptions can be used off-label. To be considered only when such use is clearly justified ...
[79]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/schedule/17/made
[80]
Prescribing unlicensed medicines - professional standards - GMC
In this guidance, the term 'unlicensed medicine' is used to describe medicines, which are used outside the terms of their UK licence or that have no licence ...<|separator|>
[81]
Pharmaceutical Industry Off-label Promotion and Self-regulation
European Union law prohibits companies from marketing drugs off-label. In the United Kingdom—as in some other European countries, but unlike the United States— ...
[82]
Off label medicine use under a Patient Group Direction – SPS
Jun 2, 2025 · This article explains the legislation and guidance on the use of PGDs when a medicine is to be used outside its licence ('off-label').
[83]
[PDF] Off-label use of medicinal products
Mar 14, 2017 · Ten out of the 21 countries that participated in the study have specific policy tools in place for off-label use. Examples of policy tools ...
[84]
what do we know about the legislation in EU member states?
Dec 27, 2021 · Aim: Off-label prescription is not regulated on the European Union (EU) level and therefore not harmonised in the EU Member States (MS).<|separator|>
[85]
Ethical and legal framework and regulation for off-label use
For more than 20 years the off-label use of drugs has been an essential part of the ethical and legal considerations regarding the international regulation ...Pharmaceutical Law · Tort Law · The Law Of Health Insurance
[86]
BEWARE: off-label prescription drug use
Nov 2, 2015 · Off-label prescribing is not prohibited in Canada. It occurs in every specialty of medicine, but it may be more common in areas of medicine in ...
[87]
[PDF] Off-Label Use: Speaking Notes - Canadian Pharmacists Association
Feb 27, 2013 · Informed consent should be obtained. 3. Physicians and pharmacists should report on adverse events or side effects by the use of off-label ...
[88]
Off-label prescribing
Dec 2, 2013 · Off-label prescribing means that the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has not approved the indication, route of administration or patient ...
[89]
Understanding regulation of off-label use of medical devices
Sep 1, 2021 · 'Off-label use' is using a product for a reason not listed as one of the indications for use in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG).
[90]
Japanese regulatory system for approval of off-label drug use
Oct 2, 2012 · Many of these unapproved indications are off-label, which, despite strong supporting evidence, are not covered by the Japanese health insurance ...
[91]
Off-label drug use in China after the Physician Law (2021)
Apr 14, 2025 · Internationally, the legal regulations surrounding off-label drug use differ widely. Countries such as the United States, Japan, France, and ...
[92]
Japanese Regulatory System for Approval of Off-Label Drug Use
Many of these unapproved indications are off-label, which, despite strong supporting evidence, are not covered by the Japanese health insurance system. To ...
[93]
ICH Official web site : ICH
ICH's mission is to achieve greater harmonisation worldwide to ensure that safe, effective and high quality medicines are developed, and registered and ...Quality Guidelines · Q8/9/10 Training Material · ESTRI page for eCTD V3.2.2 · CTD
[94]
[PDF] POST-APPROVAL SAFETY DATA: DEFINITIONS AND ... - ICH
Feb 5, 2024 · INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL. REQUIREMENTS ... error, occupational exposure; and off-label use. In some cases ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[95]
Global Harmonization of Pediatric Drug Development: Critical for ...
Stakeholders must work collaboratively. Efforts to address off label use of drugs through the drug approval regulatory pathway should be the goal.
[96]
International Regulatory Harmonization - FDA
Jan 31, 2025 · Regulatory harmonization represents a process where regulatory authorities align technical requirements for the development and marketing of pharmaceutical ...
[97]
FDA's Latest Off-Label Guidance: Five Practical Takeaways | Insights
Nov 1, 2023 · The document is a revised version of a 2014 draft guidance document addressing the dissemination of published materials related to off-label use.
[98]
Incentivizing Pharmaceutical Testing in an Age of Off-Label Promotion
If manufacturers can market their pharmaceutical products for unapproved uses, they have reduced incentives to seek FDA approval, especially because the ...Missing: companies | Show results with:companies
[99]
Off-Label Drug Promotion. Drug companies are largely prohibited ...
Jun 30, 2016 · The 21st Century Cures legislation, which passed the House in July 2015, would estab- lish deadlines for agency guidance on off-label.
[100]
Pfizer pays record fine for off-label promotion of four drugs - The BMJ
Sep 9, 2009 · Pfizer, the world's largest drug company, has agreed to pay $2.3bn (£1.4bn; €1.6bn) to settle charges of fraud and civil and criminal liability ...
[101]
Pharmaceutical Giant AstraZeneca to Pay $520 Million for Off-label ...
Apr 27, 2010 · AstraZeneca LP and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP will pay $520 million to resolve allegations that AstraZeneca illegally marketed the anti-psychotic drug ...
[102]
J&J Fined $2.2 Billion for Off-label Marketing and Kickbacks
Nov 4, 2013 · Allegations include off-label marketing for Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor and kickbacks to doctors and pharmacists.
[103]
Conflict of Interest Reporting by Authors Involved in Promotion of Off ...
Aug 7, 2012 · Recently, a number of pharmaceutical companies have been investigated in the US for illegal marketing programs that promote off-label uses of ...
[104]
DOJ increasing enforcement on off-label promotion - Sedgwick
Jun 2, 2022 · Implicit off-label promotion occurs when a manufacturer indirectly suggests a device is appropriate for an unapproved use.Missing: methods | Show results with:methods
[105]
Off-Label Use vs Off-Label Marketing: Part 2 - PubMed Central
Mar 27, 2023 · Off-label marketing is advertising a drug or device for a non-approved purpose, which is illegal, unlike off-label use by a physician.
[106]
FDA finalizes guidance on off-label communications - RAPS
Jan 8, 2025 · The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized guidance to industry on allowable communications to health care providers about off-label drug and device ...<|separator|>
[107]
Informed Consent and Shared Decision-Making: A Requirement to ...
Nov 11, 2008 · The legal doctrine of informed consent should be expanded to require disclosure of off-label prescribing where the drug has not been proven safe ...
[108]
Ethical Issues in Child Psychiatry, Part 2 Off-Label Prescribing
Although allowed by FDA law and regulations, off-label use raises many of the ethical questions frequently associated with experimentation in children.Missing: choice | Show results with:choice
[109]
Off-label prescribing: a call for heightened professional ... - PubMed
Under current US law, physicians may prescribe drugs and devices in situations not covered on the label approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
[110]
COVID-19 and off label use of drugs: an ethical viewpoint
May 8, 2020 · There is no international guideline for regulating investigational off-label uses as clinical practice.Missing: variations | Show results with:variations
[111]
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050223
[112]
Ivermectin and COVID-19 - FDA
Apr 5, 2024 · There continues to be interest in a drug called ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans. The FDA has not authorized ...
[113]
New study shows ivermectin lacks meaningful benefits in COVID-19 ...
Mar 13, 2024 · New research led by the University of Oxford has concluded that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin does not provide clinically meaningful ...Missing: off- | Show results with:off-
[114]
FDA settles lawsuit over ivermectin content that doctors claimed ...
Mar 27, 2024 · The US Food and Drug Administration has settled a lawsuit over some of its posts about ivermectin, including what may have been one of its ...
[115]
Misinformation, Trust, and Use of Ivermectin and ... - JAMA Network
Sep 29, 2023 · Among 13 438 adults in a 50-state US survey study who reported probable or definite COVID-19 infection, 6% reported use of either ivermectin or ...
[116]
The Rise of Ozempic for Weight Loss Sparks Ethical Concerns
Oct 16, 2024 · This led to a surge in its off-label use as a weight-loss aid, propelling the drug into the spotlight far beyond its original intent. In 2021, ...
[117]
Ozempic Lawsuit | NAION & Gastroparesis | October 2025 Update
Sep 30, 2025 · As of today, the GLP-1 RA MDL 3072 has a total of 2,190 pending cases. This litigation continues to see a steady stream of new filings, ...
[118]
Off-Label Semaglutide Linked to Deaths, Hospitalizations Calling for ...
Nov 8, 2024 · Approximately 10 deaths and 100 hospitalizations in the United States have been linked to use of off-brand, compounded semaglutide (Ozempic; Novo Nordisk).
[119]
Is puberty delaying treatment 'experimental treatment'? - PMC
Puberty delaying medications are currently provided off label to adolescents affected by gender dysphoria and this particular use cannot be investigated by a ...
[120]
Puberty blockers: what are they and what are the concerns about ...
Mar 15, 2024 · Less is known about the use of puberty-suppressing hormones in children with gender dysphoria. The drugs have been used off label – when a drug ...
[121]
[PDF] Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria
May 1, 2025 · For example, the U.K. has banned the routine use of puberty blockers as an intervention for pediatric gender dysphoria. Page 10. 10. Health ...
[122]
Legal challenges put off label use of gender affirming care drugs in ...
Mar 16, 2023 · Puberty blockers are used in gender affirming care to delay the onset of puberty for gender dysphoric children of any gender. These drugs do ...
[123]
Ten Common Questions (and Their Answers) About Off-label Drug ...
Aug 8, 2012 · This article introduces and answers 10 questions regarding OLDU in an effort to clarify the practice's meaning, breadth of application, acceptance, and ...<|separator|>
[124]
Repurposing generic drugs can reduce time and cost to develop ...
Apr 11, 2022 · Repurposing generic drugs can reduce time and cost to develop new treatments. But low profitability remains a barrier.
[125]
Off-Label Drug Use - National CooperativeRx
Drugs that are administered differently, such as in a different dosage or by oral solution rather than the approved capsule, are also instances of off-label ...Missing: controversial 2023-2025
[126]
Health Disparity Clusters of Off Label Prescriptions for Glucagon ...
Apr 4, 2025 · The highest quartile of off-label prescribing (>46%) was observed in counties with higher rates of Black residents (3.6% in Q4 vs 1.4% in Q1), ...
[127]
Common Drugs with Surprising Off-Label Uses for Market Domination
The overall development expenses for repurposed drugs are estimated to be 50-60% lower, typically around $300 million, a stark contrast to the $2-3 billion ...
[128]
Estimating Savings Opportunities From Therapeutic Substitutions of ...
Nov 2, 2022 · In this study, replacing high-cost generics with lower-cost alternatives of same clinical value would produce savings of nearly 90%.
[129]
Off Label Drugs: Same Treatment, Different Costs
This case study traces the path to market of Lucentis and Avastin to explore the many factors that influence the cost and accessibility of an important drug.Treatment: Lucentis &... · Higher-Cost Drugs Net Bigger... · Avastin Has Less Than Half...
[130]
Costs of Drug Development and Research and ... - JAMA Network
Jun 28, 2024 · Studies have estimated that the R&D cost for a new drug ranges from $314 million to $4.46 billion, depending on the therapeutic area, data, and ...
[131]
[PDF] The Effects of Off-label Drug Use on Disability and Medical ...
They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER ... The data allow us to evaluate the consequences and costs of off- label use and to ...
[132]
How Off-Label Use of Medicines Drives Health-Care Use and ...
Jan 25, 2023 · Peer-reviewed research finds that pharmaceutical innovation provides direct and indirect benefits for health-care use and disability.
[133]
Off-label policy through the lens of trazodone usage and spending in ...
Jun 11, 2025 · This study used trazodone, a drug approved in 1981 for depression, as a case study to examine broader issues surrounding off-label utilization and spending.Missing: shifts | Show results with:shifts
[134]
Association of Supporting Trial Evidence and Reimbursement for Off ...
Mar 2, 2021 · This may partly be explained by a time lag between availability of evidence (eg, from peer-reviewed publications) and formal approval of new ...
[135]
Benefits of Prior Authorizations - PMC - NIH
Prior authorizations can be used to manage prescription drug costs, they may also improve patient outcomes by ensuring appropriate use and minimizing harmful ...
[136]
Ongoing challenges of off-label prescribing - PMC - NIH
Dec 12, 2023 · Off-label prescribing refers to prescribing that is not concordant with the indications, doses, routes of administration or patient groups ...
[137]
On- and Off-Label Atypical Antipsychotic Prescription Trends Across ...
Among 5828 patients, 74.5% of new antipsychotic orders were off-label in 2021. Overall prescribing decreased significantly until early 2020 (slope = −0.045, P < ...Missing: prevalence | Show results with:prevalence
[138]
Communications From Firms to Health Care Providers Regarding ...
Jan 6, 2025 · ” This guidance describes FDA's enforcement policy regarding certain firm-initiated communications of scientific information on unapproved use ...
[139]
Off-Label Promotion Reform: A Legislative Proposal Addressing ...
This federal legislation would create FDA-targeted exemptions of off-label prohibitions for vulnerable patient populations, if certain requirements of ...Missing: United States
[140]
Trends in Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Prescribing ...
Aug 15, 2025 · In this study, off-label prescribing means prescribing Ozempic or other GLP-1 RAs approved for diabetes only to individuals without diabetes or ...