scholarly journals T207. METABOLIC ADVERSE EFFECTS OF OFF-LABEL USE OF SECOND-GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS IN THE ADULT POPULATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S311-S311
Author(s):  
Sylvie Bowden ◽  
Veronica Tran ◽  
Roshanak Asgariroozbehani ◽  
William Brett McIntyre ◽  
Mahavir Agarwal ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and treatment refractory depression. Since the late 1990’s, prescription of antipsychotics has more than doubled and off-label use (i.e. use for indications other than those approved by the FDA) has disproportionately contributed to this increase. These drugs, when used “on-label’, have very significant metabolic adverse effects. Currently, there is no existing literature systematically investigating the metabolic adverse effects of ‘off-label’ use to guide clinical decision making practices. Methods A systematic review was conducted and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported off-label use of SGAs in the adult population. A grey literature search was also completed on ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP Search Portal. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for the assessment of potential biases. Meta-analyses of the reported metabolic outcomes were completed based on psychiatric diagnosis and subgroup analyses were conducted based on the individual prescribed SGA. Metabolic adverse events analyzed include weight, fasting plasma glucose, HbA1C, total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, and triglycerides. Sensitivity analyses were performed where studies of low quality were excluded. Results The search strategy identified 9309 references, for which 47 randomized control trials (RCTS) were included in the meta-analysis. These studies were published from 1984 to 2019 and came from North America (n=27), Europe (n=9), Asia (n=4), and other (n=7). Participants with generalized anxiety disorder (n=9 studies) treated with quetiapine gained on average 0.53kg (CI 0.22 to 0.84, p= 0.008), had increases in triglyceride levels by 0.17mmol/L (CI 0.052 to 0.29, p=0.005), and decreases in HDL levels by 0.038mmol/L (CI -0.065 to -0.011 p=0.005). Similar results were found in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), where olanzapine was associated with a mean weight increase of 2.67kg (CI 2.23 to 3.11, p<0.00001), and increases in triglyceride levels by 0.0029mmol/L (CI 0.0015to 0.0045, p = 0.002). In a single study in patients with trichotillomania, olanzapine was associated with a weight gain of 4.90kg (CI 3.04 to 6.76). Participants with OCD (n=8 studies) receiving quetiapine gained on average 3.40kg (CI 3.17 to 3.63). In studies examining PTSD treatment (n=7 studies), quetiapine was associated with a mean 23kg weight increase (CI 4.85 to 41.15), and olanzapine with a 6.63kg mean weight increase (CI 4.87 to 8.39, p<0.0001). The degree of weight gain associated with quetiapine could partly be attributable to the report of endpoint mean weights only between groups (rather than change data). Participants with cocaine-related substance use disorder (n= 4 studies) on risperidone gained on average 4.70kg (CI 1.78 to 7.62). Where applicable, sensitivity analyses removing low quality studies, did not affect the significance of findings. Discussion Based on the limited data available, there is a significant association between off-label antipsychotic use and weight gain. This was most commonly reported in association with quetiapine and olanzapine, which may be due to the fact they were the most widely studied agents (n =12, and 16 studies, respectively). Although other metabolic adverse events have been documented, there is not yet enough data available to draw conclusions. Our findings raise concern given the widespread use of SGAs in off-label indications, highlighting the need for raising clinical awareness, ensuring regular metabolic monitoring, and further study of these adverse effects.

2020 ◽  
Vol 87 (9) ◽  
pp. S413-S414
Author(s):  
Sylvie Bowden ◽  
Veronica Tran ◽  
Roshanak Asgariroozbehani ◽  
William Brett McIntyre ◽  
Mahavir Agarwal ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 89 (9) ◽  
pp. S344
Author(s):  
Nicolette Stogios ◽  
Sylvie Bowden ◽  
Veronica Tran ◽  
Roshanak Asgariroozbehani ◽  
William Brett McIntyre ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 120 (09) ◽  
pp. 1323-1329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim A. C. de Vries ◽  
Jack Hirsh ◽  
Ke Xu ◽  
Imaad Mallick ◽  
Vinai C. Bhagirath ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Recent reports suggest an important contribution from frequent off-label use of apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily to the higher rates of thromboembolic events observed in observational studies (OSs) relative to in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and consequently, advocate against such use in all patients. Objectives To examine factors contributing to the higher thromboembolic event rates, we estimated the prevalence of off-label use in contemporary practice, and compared patient characteristics and rates of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and mortality by apixaban dose and by study design in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Results and Discussion We identified 18 OSs and 2 RCTs that included 155,228 and 11,928 patients, respectively. Patients in OSs more often received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily (31.3% vs. 5.1%), were older (mean age 73.8 vs. 69.8 years), and had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores (mean 3.6 vs. 2.9) versus those in RCTs. We observed a consistent pattern of higher rates of thromboembolic events, bleeding, and mortality in patients treated with 2.5 versus 5 mg twice daily apixaban in both OSs and RCTs. Conclusion The higher risk profiles of patients in OSs versus RCTs, and higher rates of both bleeding and mortality not attributable to thromboembolism in patients treated with apixaban 2.5 versus 5 mg twice daily suggest that differences in patient characteristics are additional important contributors to the higher than expected thromboembolic event rates in clinical practice.


2013 ◽  
Vol 64 (12) ◽  
pp. 1236-1242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Hartung ◽  
Luke Middleton ◽  
Bentson H. McFarland ◽  
Dean G. Haxby ◽  
Marian S. McDonagh ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (11) ◽  
pp. 1395-1399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvaro Torres ◽  
Seppo K Koskinen ◽  
Henrik Gjertsen ◽  
Björn Fischler

Background Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) by using sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles is not licensed for use in children, but its off-label use is widespread. Purpose To outline our experience with the off-label use of CEUS in children, specifically with regards to safety. Material and Methods We retrieved all records of 10681 patients aged under 18 years who underwent abdominal ultrasound (US) January 2004 to December 2014. We then identified those who underwent an abdominal CEUS using sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles. Electronic patient charts were used to verify the indication for contrast agent, dose, possible adverse effects as well as information on patient height, weight, and age. Results We identified 173 patients (mean age, 11 years; range, 0.1–18 years) who underwent a total of 287 CEUS exams. Of all exams, 46% were performed on the native liver, 31% on a transplanted liver, and 23% on other organs. The indications were “circulatory status?” (40%), “characterization of lesion?” (40%), and miscellaneous (20%). Mean contrast dose was 2.3 mL (range, 0.1–8.1 mL). No immediate adverse effects were recorded. One patient experienced itching the day after, but this was considered to be a reaction to concomitantly administered fentanyl. Conclusion The use of intravenous ultrasound contrast seems safe in patients aged under 18 years and our results do not support the current practice to restrict the use of CEUS in children.


Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 1403-1403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronica Yank ◽  
Aaron C. Logan ◽  
C. Vaughan Tuohy ◽  
Dena M. Bravata ◽  
Kristan Staudenmayer ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1403 Poster Board I-425 Background: Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) is a potent hemostatic agent licensed for treatment of bleeding in hemophiliac patients with inhibitors but has been increasingly used off-label to treat or prevent bleeding, despite sparse data to support its efficacy and a possible increase in thromboembolic events. While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence regarding efficacy, they may not identify rare but important adverse events. Observational studies may capture the rate of such events in clinical practice more accurately. Objectives: To compare rates of thromboembolic events associated with off-label use of rFVIIa in RCTs and observational studies. Methods: Studies of off-label application of rFVIIa were identified by review of 10 literature and clinical trial databases through February, 2009. The off-label indications examined were trauma, non-traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and adult cardiac surgery. When an appropriate number and quality of studies were available, data from RCTs and higher quality comparative observational studies were combined via meta-analysis using the arc sine statistical method, a method that characterizes uncommon events more accurately than more conventional methods. To describe the absolute rate of thromboembolism for patients treated with rFVIIa in RCTs versus observational studies, we analyzed data from the interventional arms of RCTs and comparative observational studies, as well as data from non-comparative observational studies with 15 or more patients. Results: Included Studies Our search identified 4 RCTs and 4 observational studies of rFVIIa use in ICH. Two RCTs and 5 observational studies were identified for trauma. For cardiac surgery, 2 RCTs, 2 higher quality comparative observational studies (included in the meta-analysis), and 8 additional observational studies were identified. Meta-analyses The meta-analysis of the RCTs investigating use of rFVIIa in ICH showed a trend toward increased thromboembolic risk with rFVIIa (arcsine summary effect size 0.100, 95% CI -0.072-0.272). For trauma, the two RCTs did not provide sufficient data to perform meta-analysis. Individually, they did not demonstrate significantly different incidences of thromboembolic events with rFVIIa compared to placebo but may have been underpowered to detect such differences. For cardiac surgery, the meta-analysis of the 4 studies showed a significant increase in thromboembolic events in the rFVIIa group (arcsine summary effect 0.14; 95% CI 0.038- 0.242). Absolute rates of thromboembolic events in RCTs versus observational studies In ICH, thromboembolic event rates in the treatment arms of the RCTs ranged from 0.07-0.11, while those in the observational studies ranged from 0-0.20. In trauma, thromboembolic event rates in the RCT treatment arms ranged from 0.03-0.06, whereas those in the observational studies ranged from 0.02-0.11. In cardiac surgery, thromboembolic event rates in the RCTs ranged from 0.07-0.22 compared to a range of 0-0.25 in the observational studies. For all three indications, Figure 1 shows that the weighted mean thromboembolic event rates associated with rFVIIa use are higher in the observational studies than in the RCTs. Patients in the observational studies tended to be older and have a worse prognosis than those enrolled in the RCTs. Conclusions: We identified a trend toward significantly higher rates of thromboembolic adverse events with off-label use of rFVIIa compared to placebo in our meta-analyses of ICH and cardiac surgery, but no similar pattern in trauma trials. For each of these indications, we identified a higher rate of thromboembolic adverse events associated with the use of rFVIIa in observational trials compared to RCTs. This finding suggests that patients receiving off-label rFVIIa for these off-label indications in real-world practice may be at higher risk of thromboembolic events than patients enrolled in clinical trials and may caution against widespread use, especially in the absence of convincing data on efficacy. Disclosures: Off Label Use: This study examines the off-label use of rFVIIa in randomized controlled trials and observational studies of intracranial hemorrhage, trauma, and cardiac surgery.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 318-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
VIRGINIO SALVI ◽  
GIANCARLO CERVERI ◽  
ANDREA AGUGLIA ◽  
SALVATORE CALÒ ◽  
MARIANGELA CORBO ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document