Browsing by Subject "Off-Label Use"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Open Access
Guidance for switching from off-label antipsychotics to pimavanserin for Parkinson's disease psychosis: an expert consensus.
(CNS spectrums, 2018-12) Black, Kevin J; Nasrallah, Henry; Isaacson, Stuart; Stacy, Mark; Pahwa, Rajesh; Adler, Charles H; Alva, Gustavo; Cooney, Jeffrey W; Kremens, Daniel; Menza, Matthew A; Meyer, Jonathan M; Patkar, Ashwin A; Simuni, Tanya; Morrissette, Debbi A; Stahl, Stephen M
Patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) are often treated with an atypical antipsychotic, especially quetiapine or clozapine, but side effects, lack of sufficient efficacy, or both may motivate a switch to pimavanserin, the first medication approved for management of PDP. How best to implement a switch to pimavanserin has not been clear, as there are no controlled trials or case series in the literature to provide guidance. An abrupt switch may interrupt partially effective treatment or potentially trigger rebound effects from antipsychotic withdrawal, whereas cross-taper involves potential drug interactions. A panel of experts drew from published data, their experience treating PDP, lessons from switching antipsychotic drugs in other populations, and the pharmacology of the relevant drugs, to establish consensus recommendations. The panel concluded that patients with PDP can be safely and effectively switched from atypical antipsychotics used off label in PDP to the recently approved pimavanserin by considering each agent's pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, receptor interactions, and the clinical reason for switching (efficacy or adverse events). Final recommendations are that such a switch should aim to maintain adequate 5-HT2A antagonism during the switch, thus providing a stable transition so that efficacy is maintained. Specifically, the consensus recommendation is to add pimavanserin at the full recommended daily dose (34 mg) for 2-6 weeks in most patients before beginning to taper and discontinue quetiapine or clozapine over several days to weeks. Further details are provided for this recommendation, as well as for special clinical circumstances where switching may need to proceed more rapidly.
Open Access
Off-label closure during CLOSURE study.
(J Invasive Cardiol, 2012-11) Stackhouse, Kathryn A; Goel, Sachin S; Qureshi, Athar M; Prieto, Lourdes; Kapadia, Samir; Tuzcu, E Murat; Krasuski, Richard A
BACKGROUND: The role of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack remains controversial. Registry data have suggested considerable benefit of closure over medical therapy, but the prospective, randomized CLOSURE I trial found no benefit for device closure. METHODS: We compared patients enrolled into CLOSURE I to off-label closures performed during the study recruitment period at a single large institution and prospectively enrolled into an institutional registry of PFO closure. We also compared CLOSURE I patients at our institution to the reported characteristics of the entire study to ensure generalizability. RESULTS: Between 11/3/2003 and 4/16/2007, there were 100 off-label closures and 33 patients randomized into CLOSURE I. Compared with off-label closure, patients in CLOSURE I were younger (41.6 ± 10.1 years vs 50.0 ± 14.0 years; P<.001) and had fewer cardiovascular risks including hypertension (12% vs 36%; P=.009), hyperlipidemia (24% vs 53%; P=.008), and coronary disease (3% vs 44%; P<.001). Degree of right-to-left shunting was considerably higher in off-label closures (28%, 14%, and 58% vs 45%, 30%, and 25% for mild, moderate, and severe, respectively; P=.026). CONCLUSION: Off-label closures outnumbered patient recruitment into CLOSURE 3:1 at our institution during study recruitment. Certain demographic differences were expected (age over 60 was an exclusion for CLOSURE I), but vascular risks were considerably greater in the off-label group and may be important mechanistically. Large shunts were considerably more common in off-label patients, suggesting that higher-risk patients may have been preferentially closed off-label. These results suggest that the results of CLOSURE I may not apply to all patients with initial cryptogenic stroke.
Open Access
Prothrombin Complex Concentrates for Bleeding in the Perioperative Setting.
(Anesth Analg, 2016-05) Ghadimi, Kamrouz; Levy, Jerrold H; Welsby, Ian J
Prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) contain vitamin K-dependent clotting factors (II, VII, IX, and X) and are marketed as 3 or 4 factor-PCC formulations depending on the concentrations of factor VII. PCCs rapidly restore deficient coagulation factor concentrations to achieve hemostasis, but like with all procoagulants, the effect is balanced against thromboembolic risk. The latter is dependent on both the dose of PCCs and the individual patient prothrombotic predisposition. PCCs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the reversal of vitamin K antagonists in the setting of coagulopathy or bleeding and, therefore, can be administered when urgent surgery is required in patients taking warfarin. However, there is growing experience with the off-label use of PCCs to treat patients with surgical coagulopathic bleeding. Despite their increasing use, there are limited prospective data related to the safety, efficacy, and dosing of PCCs for this indication. PCC administration in the perioperative setting may be tailored to the individual patient based on the laboratory and clinical variables, including point-of-care coagulation testing, to balance hemostatic benefits while minimizing the prothrombotic risk. Importantly, in patients with perioperative bleeding, other considerations should include treating additional sources of coagulopathy such as hypofibrinogenemia, thrombocytopenia, and platelet disorders or surgical sources of bleeding. Thromboembolic risk from excessive PCC dosing may be present well into the postoperative period after hemostasis is achieved owing to the relatively long half-life of prothrombin (factor II, 60-72 hours). The integration of PCCs into comprehensive perioperative coagulation treatment algorithms for refractory bleeding is increasingly reported, but further studies are needed to better evaluate the safe and effective administration of these factor concentrates.