Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

‘Off-label’ drug use: an FDA regulatory term, not a negative implication of its medical use

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 20, pages 135–144 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

As physicians continue to prescribe more and more drugs, plaintiff's attorneys in the wake of tort reform are attempting to carve out or create informed consent cases based on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) labeling requirements and the doctors' communications with their patients as it relates to those requirements. The theory of tort litigation revolves around whether the doctor disclosed to his patient the fact that he prescribed a drug in an ‘off-label’ manner, or for a purpose not approved by the FDA's testing process. This article argues that the doctor's decision to inform the patient of the ‘off-label’ status of the prescription is not relevant to the physician's standard of care for an informed consent case. First, the FDA has specifically stated that its procedures and requirements have no effect on the practice of medicine and that the FDA does not prohibit doctors from prescribing drugs in an ‘off-label’ manner. Second, the FDA's approval of a drug is immaterial to the effectiveness in the drug's ‘off-label’ use. In fact, prescribing medication in an ‘off-label’ manner can constitute the standard of care in many cases. Third, a doctor's duty is to practice medicine and treat his patient, not inform the patient of the FDA's non-medically related labeling. Therefore, doctors should not be branded with the additional duty of disclosing non-pertinent information, such as the FDA's medically irrelevant distinction, to their patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zelenay JL . The prescription drug user fee act: is a faster Food and Drug Administration always a better Food and Drug Administration? Food Drug L J (2005); 60: 266.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ridgway WE . Realizing two-tiered innovation policy through drug regulation. Stan L Rev (2006); 58: 1225. [Hereinafter Ridgway].

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barbosa SA . Implementation of the DOHA declaration: its impact on American pharmaceuticals. Rutgers L J (2004); 36: 225. [Hereinafter Barbosa].

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beck JM, Azari ED . FDA, off-label use, and informed consent: debunking myths and misconceptions. Food Drug L J (1998); 53: 75. [Hereinafter Beck & Azari].

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 75, citing 21 C.F.R. §§ 314.1–314.560.

  6. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 75–76, citing 21 C.F.R. §§ 314.50(c)(5)(vi)(b)(viii), 314.50.

  7. Fritch DM . Speak no evil, hear no evil, harm the patient? Why the FDA needs to seek more, rather than less, speech from drug manufacturers on off-label drug treatments. Mich St U J Med L (2005); 9: 317 n.3. [Hereinafter Fritch].

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 76, citing 21 C.F.R. §§ 201.1–201.320.

  9. 21 U.S.C. §321(k) (2006).

  10. See 21 U.S.C. §321(m).

  11. 21 C.F.R. §202.1(l)(2) (1999).

  12. Endejann, supra note 1, at 500, citing Kordel v. United States, 335 U.S. 345, 350 (1948).

  13. Endejann, supra note 1, at 500, citing Kordel, 335 U.S. at 349–350.

  14. Fritch, supra note 7, at 331 n.87, citing United States v. Urbeteit, 335 U.S. 355 (1948).

  15. Stoffelmayr KJ . Comment, products liability and “off-label” uses of prescription drugs. U Chi L Rev (1996); 63: 279. [Hereinafter Stoffelmayr].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fritch, supra note 7, at 347 n.178, citing 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a), 352(a).

  17. 21 U.S.C. §352(a) (2004).

  18. Endejann, supra note 1, at 500, citing 21 U.S.C. §321(n) (1994).

  19. Endejann, supra note 1, at 500, citing 21 U.S.C. §352(a) (1994).

  20. 21 U.S.C. §321(n) (2006).

  21. Stoffelmayr, supra note 17, at 279.

  22. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 76.

  23. Barbosa, supra note 3, at 225.

  24. Fox D . Safety, efficacy, and authenticity: the gap between Ethics and Law in FDA decisionmaking. Mich St L Rev (2005); 2005: 1164. [Hereinafter Fox], citing FDA, Use of Approved Drugs for Unlabeled Indications, 12 FDA Drug Bull. 4–5 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fox, supra note 27, at 1164.

  26. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 78, quoting Pub.L. No. 105–115, § 214, 111 Stat. at 2348 (codified at 21 U.S.C. §396 (FDCA § 906)).

  27. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 77, quoting 12 FDA Drug Bulletin 4–5 (1982) (cited in 59 Fed.Reg. 59,820, 59,821 (Nov 18, 1994)).

  28. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 77, citing 59 Fed.Reg. at 59,821, 52 Fed.Reg. 8798, 8803 (Mar. 19, 1987), 48 Fed.Reg. 26,720, 26,733 (June 9, 1983), 40 Fed.Reg. 15,392, 15,393–394 (Apr. 7, 1975), 37 Fed.Reg. 16,503, 16,503–504 (Aug. 15, 1972), Food And Drug Administration, Compliance Program Guidance Manual, No. 7382.900 Part I, at 7 (1992).

  29. Fritch, supra note 7, at 335.

  30. Endejann, supra note 1, at 503.

  31. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 76.

  32. Endejann, supra note 1, at 503.

  33. Fox, supra note 27, at 1165.

  34. Fritch, supra note 7, at 332, citing 21 U.S.C. §352.

  35. Henry V . Off-label prescribing legal implications. J Legal Med (1999); 20: 374. [Hereinafter Henry].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Endejann, supra note 1, at 503–504, citing Final Guidance on Industry-Supported Scientific and Educational Activities, 62 Fed. Reg. 64,074, 64,079 (1997).

  37. Endejann, supra note 1, at 504, citing 21 U.S.C. §360aaa (Suppl. 1998).

  38. O'Reilly J, Dalal A . Off-label or out of bounds? Prescriber and marketer liability for unapproved uses of FDA-approved drugs. Annals Health L (2003); 12: 295,, quoting A Message to FDA Stakeholders (July 22, 1998), at http://www.fda.gov/oc/fdama/comm/message.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 21 U.S.C. §396 1997.

  40. Greene S . False claims act liability for off-label promotion of pharmaceutical products. Penn St L Rev (2005); 110: 48. [Hereinafter Greene].

    Google Scholar 

  41. Greene, supra note 49, at 48, quoting Washington Legal Foundation v. Friedman, 13 F.Supp.2d 51, 65 (D.D.C. 1998).

  42. Greene, supra note 49, at 48–49.

  43. Fritch, supra note 7, at 336, citing Food and Drug Administration, Draft Policy Statement on Industry Supported Scientific and Educational Activities, 57 Fed. Reg. 56,412 (November 27, 1992).

  44. Fritch, supra note 7, at 338.

  45. Fritch, supra note 7, at 340, citing 21 U.S.C. §360aaa.

  46. Henry, supra note 44, at 374, citing 21 U.S.C. §301.

  47. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(a) 1997.

  48. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(a)(1)-(5).

  49. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(b).

  50. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(b)(1)(A).

  51. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(b)(2).

  52. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(b)(3).

  53. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(b)(4)(A)-(B).

  54. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(b)(5).

  55. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(b)(6)(A)(i)-(vi).

  56. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(b)(6)(A)(i).

  57. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(b)(6)(A)(ii).

  58. 21 U.S.C. §360aaa(b)(6)(A)(iii).

  59. Henry, supra note 44, at 374.

  60. Endejann, supra note 1, at 503.

  61. Fritch, supra note 7, at 336, citing 21 C.F.R. §202.1(e)(7)(viii).

  62. Polubinski III E . Closing the channels of communication: a first amendment analysis of the FDA's policy on manufacturer promotion of ‘off-label’ use. Va L Rev (1997); 83: 999. [Hereinafter Polubinski].

    Google Scholar 

  63. 21 C.F.R. §312.7(a)(1).

  64. Fritch, supra note 7, at 329 n.80, quoting Draft Policy Statement on Industry Supported Scientific and Educational Activities, 57 Fed. Reg. 56,412, 56,412 (1992).

  65. Fritch, supra note 7, at 329 n.80, citing 21 C.F.R. §312.7(a)(1).

  66. Miller K . Hormone replacement therapy in the wake of the women's health initiative study: an opportunity to reexamine the Learned Intermediary Doctrine. Wm Mary J Women L (2005); 12: 244–245. [Hereinafter Miller], citing Edwards v. Basel Pharm., 933 P.2d 298, 300 (Okla. 1997) [other citation omitted].

    Google Scholar 

  67. Miller, supra note 75, at 245.

  68. Woodside III FC, Maggio MM . The Learned Intermediary Doctrine: is it eroding? DEC Fed Law (2005); 52: 30.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Vaccariello v. Smith & Nephew Richards Inc., 763 N.E.2d 160, 165 (Sup.Ct. 2002), citing Tracey v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 569 N.E.2d 875, 878 (Sup.Ct. 1991).

  70. Hixson TJ . Anti-depressants and children: suicidality, off-label use, and trial publication. Ind Health L Rev (2006); 3: 222. [Hereinafter Hixson].

    Google Scholar 

  71. Hixson, supra note 79, at 220–221.

  72. Hixson, supra note 79, at 220, citing Miller v. Pfizer Inc., 196 F. Suppl. 2d 1095, 1121 (D.Kan. 2002).

  73. See Kirk v. Michael Reese Hosp. and Medical Center, 117 Ill.2d 507 (Sup.Ct.Ill. 1987).

  74. See Perez v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 713 A.2d 588, 313 N.J.Super. 646 (Sup.Ct.N.J. 1997).

  75. Endejann, supra note 1, at 527.

  76. Miller, supra note 75, at 245, citing Susan A. Casey, Laying an Old Doctrine to Rest: Challenging the Wisdom of the Learned Intermediary Doctrine, 19 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 931, 938 (1993).

  77. Hixson, supra note 79, at 222.

  78. Endejann, supra note 1, at 524.

  79. Hixson, supra note 79, at 222.

  80. Relkin E . Warnings in Pharmaceutical Case: Is the Learned Intermediary Obsolete in the New Millennium?, SF28 ALI-ABA 227, 230 (2000). [Hereinafter Relkin], citing N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-4; Perez, 313 N.J. Super. at 652.

  81. Broderick v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., No. 95-8644-CIV-RYSKAMP, 1999 WL 1062135, at *3 (S.D.Fla. April 09, 1999), citing Upjohn Co. v. MacMurdo, 562 So.2d 680, 681 (Sup.Ct.Fla. 1990).

  82. Relkin, supra note 90, at 231, quoting Greiner v. Sofamor, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4484, *16 (D. Minn. March 08, 1999), quoting Brooks v. Medtronic Inc., 750 F.2d 1227, 1231 (4th Cir. 1984).

  83. Endejann, supra note 1, at 524, citing Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories Inc., 399 F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1968).

  84. Endejann, supra note 1, at 524, citing Stephens v. G.D. Searle & Co., 602 F.Supp. 379 (E.D.Mich. 1985); Odgers v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 609 F.Supp. 867 (E.D.Mich. 1985). ‘However, most jurisdictions decline to recognize a contraceptive exception.’ Endejann, supra note 1, at 524 n.199, citing MacPherson v. Searle & Co., 775 F. Supp 417 (D.D.C. 1991); Reaves v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 765 F.Suppl. 1287 (E.D.Mich. 1991); Zanzuri v. G.D. Searle & Co., 748 F.Suppl. 1511 (S.D.Fla. 1990).

  85. Endejann, supra note 1, at 524. Jurisdictions are split over whether the FDA-Mandate exception precludes the use of the learned intermediary doctrine. See Endejann, supra note 1, at 524 n.200. Further, ‘most jurisdictions, however, decline to recognize a contraceptive exception.’ Endejann, supra note 1, at 524 n.199, citing MacPherson, 775 F.Suppl. 417; Reaves, 765 F.Suppl. 1287; Zanzuri, 748 F.Suppl. 1511.

  86. Robak v. Abbott Laboratories, 797 F.Suppl. 475, 476 (D.Md. 1992), citing Weinberger v. Bristol-Myers Co., 652 F.Suppl. 187 (D.Md. 1986).

  87. Broderick, 1999 WL 1062135 at *3, citing Barrow v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Co., No. 96-689-CIV-ORL-19B, 1998 WL 812318 (M.D.Fla. 1998).

  88. Davenport v. Medtronic, Inc., 302 F.Supp.2d 419, 440 (E.D.Pa. 2004), citing Little v. Depuy Motech Inc., No. 96CV0393-L JAH, 2000 WL 1519962, at *9 (S.D.Cal. June 13, 2000); Cox v. Depuy Motech Inc., No. 95-3838, 2000 WL 1160486, at *8–9 (S.D.Cal. March 29, 2000).

  89. Polin D . Cause of Action Against Manufacturer for Personal Injuries Arising from Use of Diet Drug Fenfluramine (Fen-Phen) or Dexfenfluramine (Redux), 12 Causes of Action 2d 1, §13 (2006), citing Perez, 313 N.J. Super. 646.

  90. Fox, supra note 27, at 1164.

  91. Fritch, supra note 7, at 361 n.240.

  92. Polubinski, supra note 71, at 998, citing Fran Kritz, FDA Seeks to Add Drugs' New Uses to Labels, Wash. Post, Health Section, March 29, 1994, at 11.

  93. Farley GA, Waters K . Dealing with the dilemma posed by ‘off-label’ warnings for pharmaceuticals. No. 5 LJN's Prod Liab L Strategy (2002); 21: 1. [Hereinafter Farley & Waters].

    Google Scholar 

  94. Farley & Waters, supra note 103, at 1, citing United States v. Parke-Davis, 147 F.Supp.2d 39, 44 (D.Mass. 2001, quoting Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001).

  95. Polubinski, supra note 71, at 998.

  96. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 79.

  97. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 72.

  98. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 80, quoting Lars A. Noah, Constraints on Off-Label Uses, 16 J. Prod. Toxics Liab. 139, 139 (1994) [footnotes omitted].

  99. Fox, supra note 27, at 1164, citing Am. Med. Ass'n, Drug Evaluations Annual (1995).

  100. Fritch, supra note 7, at 356 n.219.

  101. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 79, quoting United States General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, Off-Label Drugs: Reimbursement Policies Constrain Physicians in their Choice of Cancer Therapies 11 (1991).

  102. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 79, quoting Promotion of Drugs and Medical Devices for Unapproved Uses: Hearing Before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Gov't Operations, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 103 (1991) (statement of George Lundberg, M.D.).

  103. Farley & Waters, supra note 103, at 1.

  104. Hixson, supra note 79, at 214–215.

  105. Hixson, supra note 79, at 215.

  106. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 80.

  107. Henry, supra note at 63, at 379.

  108. Fox, supra note 27, at 1166, citing Off-Label Drug Use and FDA Review of Supplemental Drug Applications, Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations of the H. Comm. on Government Reform and Oversight, 104th Cong. 1 (1996) (statement of Abbey S. Meyers, President, Nat'l Org. of Rare Disorders).

  109. Stoffelmayr, supra note 17, at 278, citing United States General Accounting Office, Pub No GAO/PEMD-91-14, Off-Label Drugs: Reimbursement Policies Constrain Physicians in Their Choice of Cancer Therapies 19 (1991).

  110. Stoffelmayr, supra note 17, at 278, citing United States General Accounting Office, Pub No GAO/PEMD-91-14, Off-Label Drugs: Reimbursement Policies Constrain Physicians in Their Choice of Cancer Therapies 22, 25 (1991).

  111. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 80 n.80.

  112. Hixson, supra note 79, at 213, citing Gregory Hazard, Please, Sir, I Want Some More: Congress' Carrot-and-Stick Approach to Pediatric Testing Leaves Therapeutic Orphans Needing More Protection, 20 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 467, 478 (2004).

  113. Fox, supra note 27, at 1166, citing Robert Levine, Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research 241 (1986).

  114. Farley & Waters, supra note 103, at 1, citing National Center for Policy Analysis, ‘Speak No Good: The Tragedy of FDA Gag Rules,’ available at http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba214.html. (27 September 1996).

  115. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 80.

  116. Farley & Waters, supra note 103, at 1.

  117. Stoffelmayr, supra note 17, at 278, citing Fran Kritz, FDA Seeks to Add Drugs' New Uses to Labels, Wash Post Health 11 (March 29, 1994).

  118. Henry, supra note 44, at 382.

  119. Endejann, supra note 1, at 503.

  120. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 83, citing Klein v. Biscup, 673 N.E.2d 225, 231 (Ct.App.Ohio 1996).

  121. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 85.

  122. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 84–85.

  123. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 84.

  124. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 83, citing Tracey, 569 N.E.2d at 880.

  125. Salbu SR . Off-label use, prescription, and marketing of FDA-approved drugs: an assessment of legislative and regulatory policy. Fla L Rev (1991); 51: 190. [Hereinafter Salbu].

    Google Scholar 

  126. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 100.

  127. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 100, citing Weaver v. Reagen, 866 F.2d 194, 198 (8th Cir. 1989).

  128. Holland v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 100 F.Supp.2d 53, 56 (D.Mass. 1999).

  129. Minisan v. Danek Medical, Inc., 79 F.Supp.2d 970, 978 (N.D.Ind.1999), citing Sita v. Danek Medical, Inc., 43 F.Supp.2d 245, 247 (E.D.N.Y.1999).

  130. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 84 n.103.

  131. Alvarez v. Smith, 714 So.2d 652, 653 (Fla.Ct.App. 1998), citing In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, No. 1014, 9408-0002, 1996 WL 107556 (E.D.Pa. 1996); Weaver, 866 F.2d 194; Femrite v. Abbott Northwestern Hosp., 568 N.W.2d 535 (Minn.Ct.App. 1997); Klein, 673 N.E.2d at 231; Staudt v. Froedtert Mem'l Lutheran Hosp., 580 N.W.2d 361 (Wis.Ct.App. 1998); Wyttenhove v. Fairview Hosp. & Healthcare Servs., No. 95-14941, affirmed, 1997 WL 585813, *1 (Minn.Ct.App. 1997); Connors v. Hepner, No. 95-C-113 (N.H. Superior Court 1996); Piazza v. Myers, No. 1914 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1992).

  132. Alvarez, 714 So.2d at 655.

  133. . Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, 1996 WL 107556.

  134. Beck & Azari, supra note 4, at 77, quoting N.J. Stat.Ann. §26:1A-36.9(d), (e), (g) (1997).

  135. Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1, 15 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000), citing Staudt, 580 N.W.2d at 363; Femrite, 568 N.W.2d at 542.

  136. Salbu, supra note 140, at 190.

  137. Noah LA . Informed consent and the exclusive dichotomy between standard and experimental therapy. Am J L Med (2002); 28: 364.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Christopher WL . Off-label drug prescription: filling the regulatory vacuum. Food Drug L J (1993); 48: 255.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Klein, 673 N.E.2d 225, 231 (Ct.App.Ohio 1996).

  140. Klein, 673 N.E.2d at 227.

  141. Klein, 673 N.E.2d at 231.

  142. Klein, 673 N.E.2d at 230.

  143. Klein, 673 N.E.2d at 231. [Citation omitted].

  144. Klein, 673 N.E.2d at 230.

  145. Southard, 781 A.2d 101 (Sup.Ct. 2001).

  146. Southard, 781 A.2d at 103.

  147. Southard, 781 A.2d at 105.

  148. Southard, 781 A.2d at 106.

  149. Southard, 781 A.2d at 107, citing Orthopedic Bone Screw Litigation, 1996 WL 107556 at *3.

  150. Southard, 781 A.2d at 107.

  151. Southard, 781 A.2d at 108.

  152. Retkwa, 584 N.Y.S. 710 (Sup.Ct.N.Y. 1992).

  153. Retkwa, 584 N.Y.S. at 713.

  154. Retkwa, 584 N.Y.S. at 712.

  155. Retkwa, 584 N.Y.S. at 712 n.6.

  156. Richardson, 44 S.W.3d at 15.

  157. Richardson, 44 S.W.3d at 8.

  158. Richardson, 44 S.W.3d at 17.

  159. Richardson, 44 S.W.3d at 22.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, OH, USA

    W A Meadows & B D Hollowell

Authors
  1. W A Meadows
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B D Hollowell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B D Hollowell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meadows, W., Hollowell, B. ‘Off-label’ drug use: an FDA regulatory term, not a negative implication of its medical use. Int J Impot Res 20, 135–144 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901619

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901619

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links