Dataset Information

Balancing risk in ophthalmic prescribing: assessing the safety of anti-VEGF therapies and the risks associated with unlicensed medicines.

ABSTRACT: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor medications such as ranibizumab, pegaptanib and bevacizumab are in use for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and other retinal conditions, although only ranibizumab and pegaptanib are approved for these conditions. In contrast, bevacizumab was developed for the intravenous systemic treatment of colorectal cancer and is not formulated for intravitreal use, but is commonly used off-label in ophthalmology. European Union legislation permits the use of drugs outside the terms of their licence ('off-label') only under certain circumstances, such as during clinical trials, compassionate/named patient use in the absence of a licensed alternative, emergency scenarios (e.g., pandemics) or at the discretion of a treating physician. In such cases, patients should be fully informed regarding their treatment and any potential risks involved. Off-label drug use can be an important tool to provide patients with treatment in cases of unmet medical need. However, the use of an unlicensed medicinal product, when a suitable licensed alternative is available, puts prescribing physicians at risk of liability if safety issues arise. Emerging clinical evidence suggests safety differences exist between ranibizumab and bevacizumab.

SUBMITTER: Kaiser PK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3490068 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Balancing risk in ophthalmic prescribing: assessing the safety of anti-VEGF therapies and the risks associated with unlicensed medicines.

Kaiser Peter K PK Cruess Alan F AF Bogaert Peter P Khunti Kamlesh K Kelly Simon P SP

Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie 20120812 11

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor medications such as ranibizumab, pegaptanib and bevacizumab are in use for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and other retinal conditions, although only ranibizumab and pegaptanib are approved for these conditions. In contrast, bevacizumab was developed for the intravenous systemic treatment of colorectal cancer and is not formulated for intravitreal use, but is commonly used off-label in ophthalmology. Europea ...[more]

PMID: 23011000

Similar Datasets

Project description:Challenges arise when treatment to improve maternal health brings the possibility of risk to fetal health. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is the most recent, but hardly the only, example. Because pregnant patients are often specifically excluded from trials of new therapies, this is often the dilemma that patients and providers face when considering new treatments. In this study, we used the COVID-19 vaccine as an exemplar to question the broader issue of how society, in general, and obstetricians, in particular, should balance obligations to pregnant women's right of access to new therapeutic agents with the physician's desire to protect the fetus from potential risks. We will argue that in almost all circumstances (with few exceptions, as will also be discussed), maternal benefit and respect for autonomy create the uncertainty that absent safety data bring. Consequently, if pregnant women choose to try new interventions and treatments, such as the COVID-19 vaccination, they should be offered those new regimens and their decision supported. In addition, we will argue that the right solution to avoid the dilemma of absent data is to include pregnant individuals in clinical trials studying new treatments, drugs, and other therapies. We will also discuss the basis for our opinion, which are mainstream obstetrical ethics, precedents in law (supreme court ruling that forbids companies to exclude women from jobs that might pose a risk to the fetus), and historic events (thalidomide). The ethical framework includes the supposition that sacrifice to improve fetal outcome is a virtue and not a mandate. Denying a pregnant patient treatment because of threats to their life can create absurd and paradoxical consequences. Either requiring abortion or premature delivery before proceeding with treatments to optimize maternal health, or risking a patient's own life and ability to parent a child by delaying treatment brings clear and significant risks to fetal and/or neonatal outcomes. With rare exceptions, properly and ethically balancing such consequential actions cannot be undertaken without considering the values and goals of the pregnant patient. Therefore, active participation of both the pregnant patient and their physician in shared decision making is needed.

Project description:ObjectiveWe conducted a prospective cohort study of the Clinical Practice Research Database to estimate rates of varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) prescribing and the relative effects on smoking cessation, and mental health.MethodsWe used multivariable logistic regression, propensity score matched regression, and instrumental variable analysis. Exposure was varenicline or NRT prescription. Mental disorders were bipolar, depression, neurotic disorder, schizophrenia, or prescriptions of antidepressants, antipsychotics, hypnotics/anxiolytics, mood stabilizers. Outcomes were smoking cessation, and incidence of neurotic disorder, depression, prescription of antidepressants, or hypnotics/anxiolytics. Follow-ups were 3, 6, and 9 months, and at 1, 2, and 4 years.ResultsIn all patients, NRT and varenicline prescribing declined during the study period. Seventy-eight thousand four hundred fifty-seven smokers with mental disorders aged ≥18 years were prescribed NRT (N = 59 340) or varenicline (N = 19 117) from September 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015. Compared with smokers without mental disorders, smokers with mental disorders had 31% (95% CI: 29% to 33%) lower odds of being prescribed varenicline relative to NRT, but had 19% (95% CI: 15% to 24%) greater odds of quitting at 2 years when prescribed varenicline relative to NRT. Overall, varenicline was associated with decreased or similar odds of worse mental health outcomes than NRT in patients both with and without mental disorders, although there was some variation when analyses were stratified by mental disorder subgroup.ConclusionsSmoking cessation medication prescribing may be declining in primary care. Varenicline was more effective than NRT for smoking cessation in patients with mental disorders and there is not clear consistent evidence that varenicline is adversely associated with poorer mental health outcomes.ImplicationsPatients with mental disorders were less likely to be prescribed varenicline than NRT. We triangulated results from three analytical techniques. We found that varenicline was more effective than NRT for smoking cessation in patients with mental disorders. Varenicline was generally associated with similar or decreased odds of poorer mental health outcomes (ie, improvements in mental health) when compared with NRT. We report these findings cautiously as our data are observational and are at risk of confounding.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To explore relevant Finnish stakeholders' perceptions on the automatic substitution of biological medicines with particular focus on medication safety and issues that need to be considered to create an appropriate model for automatic biological product substitution. DESIGN:Qualitative interview study. METHODS:Data were collected in semistructured individual (n=17), pair (n=7) and group (n=8) interviews (32 interviews, 62 participants) in 2018. Participants represented a wide range of stakeholders involved in the pharmacotherapy process: community pharmacists (n=8 interviews), authorities (n=7), prescribers (n=7), pharmaceutical industry and wholesalers (n=6), patients/customers (n=2), hospital pharmacists (n=1) and nurses (n=1). Inductive content analysis was performed. RESULTS:Benefits of automatic substitution were identified as cost savings, more patients receiving biological treatments and enhanced continuity of treatment. Six major risk categories were identified: (1) the patient's medication is interrupted or complicated temporarily or permanently, (2) the patient uses two products with the same active substance, (3) the traceability of the product is compromised, (4) the patient cannot get into healthcare in case of problems, (5) the patient does not receive substitution-related advice from a pharmacy and (6) the patient is distracted by the support material he/she receives. Several risk mitigation measures were commonly mentioned: medication and device counselling by pharmacists (n=23), infrequent substitution interval (n=15) and better knowledge on biosimilars among healthcare providers (n=13). CONCLUSION:Automatic substitution of biologics is associated with risks that should be prospectively managed before implementing the procedure. The substitution also introduces new tasks and communication needs to those involved in actual medication use process, particularly to community pharmacists who will be responsible for substitution and counselling the patients.

Dataset Information

Balancing risk in ophthalmic prescribing: assessing the safety of anti-VEGF therapies and the risks associated with unlicensed medicines.

Publications

Balancing risk in ophthalmic prescribing: assessing the safety of anti-VEGF therapies and the risks associated with unlicensed medicines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets