Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25709706›Full record

ArticleDrugs in context2015

Adherence to risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) requirements for monthly testing of liver function.

Christopher M Blanchette, Anthony P Nunes, Nancy D Lin, Kathleen M Mortimer, Joshua Noone, Krishna Tangirala, Stephen Johnston, Benjamin Gutierrez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drugs in context, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Drug-induced liver injury: Do we know everything?World journal of hepatology · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher M BlanchetteUniversity of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC, USA;
Anthony P NunesOptum Epidemiology, Waltham, MA, USA;
Nancy D LinOptum Epidemiology, Waltham, MA, USA;
Kathleen M MortimerOptum Epidemiology, Waltham, MA, USA;
Joshua NooneUniversity of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC, USA;
Krishna TangiralaOtsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA;
Stephen JohnstonTruven Health Analytics, Washington, DC, USA.
Benjamin GutierrezOtsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA;
Optum (United States) · USOtsuka (United States) · USUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte · USTruven Health Analytics (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS), as mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for medications with the potential for harm, are increasingly incorporating rigid protocols for patient evaluation, but little is known about compliance with these programs. Despite the inherent limitations, data on administrative claims may provide an opportunity to investigate adherence to these programs.

methodsWe assessed adherence to liver function test (LFT) requirements included in the REMS program for bosentan through use of administrative claims. Patients observed in the Optum Research Database who were initiators of bosentan from November 20, 2001 to March 31, 2013 were included. Adherence to LFTs was calculated using pharmacy claims for bosentan dispensation and medical claims for laboratory services, and was assessed at the time of drug initiation and within specified time intervals throughout follow-up.

resultsOf 742 patients, 523 (70.5%) had ≥1 qualifying LFT. Among patients with ≥12 dispensations, claims for LFTs at individual dispensations were 53.2-64.0%. Median proportion of dispensations with ≥1 LFT was 0.8 among patients with ≥6 (interquartile range, 0.7-1.0) or ≥12 (0.7-0.9) dispensations. Adherence was 90-100% for 33.3% of all initiators, whereas 29.3% of initiators were non-adherent (defined as <50% of on-therapy LFTs).

conclusionsAnalyses of administrative claims suggest that the REMS program for bosentan may not have adequately guaranteed adherence to the program's monthly monitoring of LFTs. Such investigations of existing REMS programs may provide insight on how to accomplish more successful evaluation of REMS.

Indexed as

adherenceadministrative claimscomplianceFDAliver function testpatient assessmentREMSrisk evaluation

Identifiers

PMID25709706
PMCPMC4335780
OpenAlexW1994952914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.