Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Pharmacology›Off-Label Use
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Off-Label Use

Pharmacology · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 6 min read

The practice of prescribing or using a drug or a vaccine outside the scope of the drug's official approved label as designated by a regulatory agency concerning the treatment of a particular disease or condition.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,090 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

The practice of prescribing or using a drug or a vaccine outside the scope of the drug's official approved label as designated by a regulatory agency concerning the treatment of a particular disease or condition.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Off Label Use; Off-Label Uses; Unlabeled Indication; Indication, Unlabeled; Unlabeled Indications; Off-Label Prescribing; Off Label Prescribing; Off-Label Prescribings.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Drug Prescriptions
See also
Drug Labeling; Drug Utilization; Drug Approval

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 3,777 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Off-Label Use” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 1,213 of them (32.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 2,515 records.

Reviews account for 870 records (23.0%) and meta-analyses for 54. Randomized controlled trials number 45 (1.2%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 0 records; 2000-2009: 104 records; 2010-2019: 2,515 records; 2020 onward: 1,213 records0through 19991042000-20092,5152010-20191,2132020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19990
2000-2009104
2010-20192,515
2020 onward1,213
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 23.0 percent; Meta-analyses: 1.4 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 1.2 percentReviews23.0% (870)Meta-analyses1.4% (54)Randomized controlled trials1.2% (45)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 3,777 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews87023.0%
Meta-analyses541.4%
Randomized controlled trials451.2%

Method: PubMed query "Off-Label Use"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in pharmacology

Drug evidence builds in layers: laboratory pharmacology describes how a compound acts, pharmacokinetic studies describe how the body handles it, and randomized trials test whether it helps and what harms it causes. Post-marketing surveillance and observational studies reveal rarer adverse effects but cannot prove causation. This page is educational and is not a recommendation to start, stop or change any medicine; decisions about treatment belong with a qualified clinician.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Tolerance and efficacy of off-label anti-interleukin-1 treatments in France: a nationwide survey
Rossi-Semerano L, Fautrel B, Wendling D, Hachulla E, Galeotti C, Semerano L, et al.
2015Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
108cc by
PMID 25758134 · DOI · PMC4340831
Use of off-label and unlicensed medicines in neonatal intensive care
Costa HTML, Costa TX, Martins RR, Oliveira AG
2018Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
60cc by
PMID 30252920 · DOI · PMC6155521
Aneurysmal bone cyst: results of an off label treatment with Denosumab
Dürr HR, Grahneis F, Baur-Melnyk A, Knösel T, Birkenmaier C, Jansson V, et al.
2019Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
48cc by
PMID 31630689 · DOI · PMC6802343
Off-Label Use of Topical Ruxolitinib in Dermatology: A Systematic Literature Review and Current Perspectives
Spadafora M, Morsia S, Di Lernia VG, Kaleci S, Pellacani G, Longo C
2025Systematic review
Design not recorded in structured metadata
6cc by
PMID 40192197 · DOI · PMC11974361

Tolerance and efficacy of off-label anti-interleukin-1 treatments in France: a nationwide survey [1]

Research article Rossi-Semerano L, Fautrel B, Wendling D, Hachulla E, Galeotti C, Semerano L, et al. · · 2015 · cited 108 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundDespite their limited licensed indications, anti-interleukin-1 (anti-IL-1) agents are often used in clinical practice for an increasing number of auto-inflammatory diseases.
Closing excerpt
The survey allowed for collecting limited information on the off-label use of canakinumab.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (304 words)

BackgroundDespite their limited licensed indications, anti-interleukin-1 (anti-IL-1) agents are often used in clinical practice for an increasing number of auto-inflammatory diseases. We conducted a national cross-sectional observational study from January 2011 to January 2013 to record the off-label use of such agents in France. We aimed to estimate the off-label use of anti-IL-1 treatments in France, assess their efficacy in rare diseases, and increase the reporting of their possible side effects.MethodsPhysicians answered a questionnaire that covered patient and disease data, anti-IL-1 agent use, efficacy and adverse events. The study involved adult or paediatric patient who had received an anti-IL-1 agent after January 2005 in France.ResultsIn total, 189 patients from 38 centres were included. The main diseases were adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) (35), gout (28), systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (27), cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS) (21), familial Mediterranean fever (14) and mevalonate kinase deficiency (12). The main off-label used agent was anakinra, used at least once for 185 patients, with canakinumab used for 25. Anakinra was effective in most patients (90%), with higher complete clinical response rates for Schnitzler's syndrome, gout, CAPS and AOSD. Overall, 58% of patients showed at least one adverse event, mainly minor injection-site reactions. The main reported serious adverse event was severe infection. Injection-site reactions and liver toxicity were significantly more frequent in children than adults. The main non-cutaneous adverse event was liver toxicity, significantly associated with treatment duration. Weight gain was reported in about 10% of patients and was associated with treatment duration and CAPS. Canakinumab was rarely used and showed better cutaneous tolerance than anakinra but similar rates of non-cutaneous and severe adverse events.ConclusionsAnakinra was well tolerated and effective in most patients with various inflammatory diseases. The main adverse events were mild injection-site reactions, especially in children. The survey allowed for collecting limited information on the off-label use of canakinumab.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 25758134 · DOI · PMC4340831

Use of off-label and unlicensed medicines in neonatal intensive care [2]

Research article Costa HTML, Costa TX, Martins RR, Oliveira AG · · 2018 · cited 60 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
PurposeTo evaluate the use of off-label and unlicensed medicines in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of a teaching maternity hospital specialized in high risk pregnancy.
Closing excerpt
ConclusionsAlthough there are actions to encourage the development of pharmacological studies with neonates, this study observed a high rate of prescription and exposure of newborns to off-label and unlicensed drugs in NICUs and pointed out areas of neonatal therapy that require scientific investment.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (187 words)

PurposeTo evaluate the use of off-label and unlicensed medicines in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of a teaching maternity hospital specialized in high risk pregnancy.MethodsA prospective cohort study was conducted between August 2015 and July 2016. All newborns admitted to the NICU who had at least one medication prescribed and a hospital stay longer than 24 hours were included. The classification of off-label and unlicensed drugs for the neonatal population was done according to the information of Food and Drug Administration.ResultsA total of 17421 medication items were analyzed in 3935 prescriptions of 220 newborns. The proportion of newborns exposed to off-label drugs was 96.4%, and to unlicensed medicines was 66.8%. About one-half (49.3%) of the medication items were off-label and 24.6% were unlicensed. The main reason for off-label and unlicensed classification was, respectively, frequency of administration and the administration of adaptations of pharmaceutical forms.ConclusionsAlthough there are actions to encourage the development of pharmacological studies with neonates, this study observed a high rate of prescription and exposure of newborns to off-label and unlicensed drugs in NICUs and pointed out areas of neonatal therapy that require scientific investment.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 30252920 · DOI · PMC6155521

Aneurysmal bone cyst: results of an off label treatment with Denosumab [3]

Research article Dürr HR, Grahneis F, Baur-Melnyk A, Knösel T, Birkenmaier C, Jansson V, et al. · · 2019 · cited 48 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundThe treatment of aneurysmal bone cysts (ABCs) has evolved and less invasive methods have been tried.
Closing excerpt
In young patients, severe rebound hypercalcemia months after discontinuation of Denosumab may occur.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (318 words)

BackgroundThe treatment of aneurysmal bone cysts (ABCs) has evolved and less invasive methods have been tried. Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody which inhibits osteoclasts. It has been shown to be effective in giant cell tumour of bone (GCT) of bone and hence promises some effect also in ABC. We report on 6 patients treated with Denosumab and compare our results to the cases already published.MethodsData of 6 patients with ABCs and patients whose treatment included Denosumab were retrospectively analyzed. Denosumab was used at a dose of 120 mg on days 1, 8, 15 and 29, and every 4 weeks thereafter. In some of these patients the dose was reduced at the end of the treatment. Clinical and radiological responses were evaluated.ResultsIn 4 female and 2 male patients with a mean age of 17 years (range: 6-30 years) the lesions were located in the sacrum (2), in distal radius, distal femur, talus and pelvis. One of the sacral lesions healed after 12 months and has stayed stable for 3 years since. The second patient received 2 years of therapy with recalcification, but recurred 1 year later and is under renewed therapy. The pelvic lesion improved but recurred. This patient has a 13-years history of intermittent therapy including surgery, two pregnancies and remains in a stable situation. The lesion of the talus did not improve with Denosumab after surgery and was complicated by destruction of the ankle joint with osteoarthritis. Recurrent lesions of the distal femur and the distal radius, previously treated by curettage and bone grafting healed under Denosumab and have remained stable for 2 and 3 years, respectively. One case of severe hypercalcemia was observed in a 7-year old child 6 months after discontinuation of Denosumab.ConclusionDenosumab provides a treatment option for ABCs in anatomically critical locations. Adjuvant application might reduce the rate of local recurrence. In young patients, severe rebound hypercalcemia months after discontinuation of Denosumab may occur.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 31630689 · DOI · PMC6802343

Off-Label Use of Topical Ruxolitinib in Dermatology: A Systematic Literature Review and Current Perspectives [4]

Systematic review Spadafora M, Morsia S, Di Lernia VG, Kaleci S, Pellacani G, Longo C · · 2025 · cited 6 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
JAK inhibitors are used to treat various inflammatory skin diseases.
Closing excerpt
Our review reported encouraging results for many inflammatory skin conditions that should be investigated in further studies.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (281 words)

JAK inhibitors are used to treat various inflammatory skin diseases. However, systemic formulations are associated with an increased risk of major adverse events. Ruxolitinib 1.5% cream is a selective topical JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor, which has recently been approved by EMA and MHRA for treating non-segmental vitiligo, while being FDA-approved for both vitiligo and atopic dermatitis. Recent literature has reported the off-label use of topical Ruxolitinib for several skin conditions, but data are mostly limited to single case reports and series and few prospective studies, with mixed results. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to investigate the potential efficacy of topical Ruxolitinib in various skin diseases in an off-label setting. The following keywords were used for searching the MEDLINE (Pubmed) and Scopus databases from inception to September 2024: "ruxolitinib cream and dermatology" and "topical ruxolitinib and dermatology". Reviews, articles not focusing on the main topic, books and book chapters, and articles with no English text were excluded. A total of 170 studies were screened, of which 112 fell within exclusion criteria and 58 were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 28 studies, published between 2012 and 2024, were selected. Ruxolitinib cream resulted in being used off-label mostly for treating lichenoid and granulomatous dermatoses, as well as alopecia areata. While for the former skin conditions, topical ruxolitinib proved to be effective and safe, results on efficacy in alopecia areata were controversial. Topical ruxolitinib might be a promising therapeutic option for lichenoid and granulomatous dermatoses. Noteworthily, despite the exciting results from the oral formulation, no consistent data were described for topical ruxolitinib in alopecia areata. Our review reported encouraging results for many inflammatory skin conditions that should be investigated in further studies.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40192197 · DOI · PMC11974361

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article A Consensus Statement on the Use of Ketamine in the Treatment of Mood Disorders [5]
    Sanacora G, Frye MA, McDonald W, Mathew SJ, Turner MS, Schatzberg AF, et al. · JAMA Psychiatry · 2017 · cited 377 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Efficacy and comparative effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic medications for off-label uses in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
    Maher AR, Maglione M, Bagley S, Suttorp M, Hu JH, Ewing B, et al. · JAMA · 2011 · cited 367 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Off-label use of drugs in children [7]
    Frattarelli DA, Galinkin JL, Green TP, Johnson TD, Neville KA, Paul IM, et al. · Pediatrics · 2014 · cited 262 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article A Clinical Overview of Off-label Use of Gabapentinoid Drugs [8]
    Goodman CW, Brett AS · JAMA Intern Med · 2019 · cited 183 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Off-Label Prescribing of Antipsychotics in Adults, Children and Elderly Individuals: A Systematic Review of Recent Prescription Trends [9]
    Carton L, Cottencin O, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Geoffroy PA, Favre J, Simon N, et al. · Curr Pharm Des · 2015 · cited 148 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Off-label drug use in pediatric patients [10]
    Kimland E, Odlind V · Clin Pharmacol Ther · 2012 · cited 146 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Rossi-Semerano L, Fautrel B, Wendling D, Hachulla E, Galeotti C, Semerano L, et al.. Tolerance and efficacy of off-label anti-interleukin-1 treatments in France: a nationwide survey. . 2015. PMID 25758134 · DOI · PMC4340831
  2. Costa HTML, Costa TX, Martins RR, Oliveira AG. Use of off-label and unlicensed medicines in neonatal intensive care. . 2018. PMID 30252920 · DOI · PMC6155521
  3. Dürr HR, Grahneis F, Baur-Melnyk A, Knösel T, Birkenmaier C, Jansson V, et al.. Aneurysmal bone cyst: results of an off label treatment with Denosumab. . 2019. PMID 31630689 · DOI · PMC6802343
  4. Spadafora M, Morsia S, Di Lernia VG, Kaleci S, Pellacani G, Longo C. Off-Label Use of Topical Ruxolitinib in Dermatology: A Systematic Literature Review and Current Perspectives. . 2025. PMID 40192197 · DOI · PMC11974361
  5. Sanacora G, Frye MA, McDonald W, Mathew SJ, Turner MS, Schatzberg AF, et al.. A Consensus Statement on the Use of Ketamine in the Treatment of Mood Disorders. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017. PMID 28249076 · DOI
  6. Maher AR, Maglione M, Bagley S, Suttorp M, Hu JH, Ewing B, et al.. Efficacy and comparative effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic medications for off-label uses in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011. PMID 21954480 · DOI
  7. Frattarelli DA, Galinkin JL, Green TP, Johnson TD, Neville KA, Paul IM, et al.. Off-label use of drugs in children. Pediatrics. 2014. PMID 24567009 · DOI
  8. Goodman CW, Brett AS. A Clinical Overview of Off-label Use of Gabapentinoid Drugs. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. PMID 30907944 · DOI
  9. Carton L, Cottencin O, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Geoffroy PA, Favre J, Simon N, et al.. Off-Label Prescribing of Antipsychotics in Adults, Children and Elderly Individuals: A Systematic Review of Recent Prescription Trends. Curr Pharm Des. 2015. PMID 26088115 · DOI
  10. Kimland E, Odlind V. Off-label drug use in pediatric patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012. PMID 22472984 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Inappropriate PrescribingPharmacology
  • Drug TolerancePharmacology
  • Medication ErrorsPharmacology
  • Drug CarriersPharmacology
  • Drug InteractionsPharmacology
  • Drug ResistancePharmacology

All 99 articles in Pharmacology →

At a glance

3,777
PubMed records on this heading
32%
published since 2020
870
review articles
45
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Inappropriate PrescribingPharmacology
  • Drug TolerancePharmacology
  • Medication ErrorsPharmacology
  • Drug CarriersPharmacology
  • Drug InteractionsPharmacology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support