ArticleDrugs in context2015
Adherence to risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) requirements for monthly testing of liver function.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of Reporting on the Evaluation of Risk Minimization Programs: A Systematic Review.Drug safety · 2020Pooled it
- Current and future directions in the treatment and prevention of drug-induced liver injury: a systematic review.Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016Pooled it
- Risk of neutropenia-related hospitalisation among clozapine initiators.BMJ mental health · 2026Article
- Removing the FDA's Boxed Hepatotoxicity Warning and Liver Function Testing Requirement for Ambrisentan.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- A flexible mixed-data model applied to claims data for post-market surveillance of prescription drug safety behavior.Pharmaceutical statistics · 2022Article
- Patient and Caregiver Experiences With and Perceptions of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Programs With Elements to Assure Safe Use.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- A Multi-modal Approach to Evaluate the Impact of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Programs.Drug safety · 2021Article
- Changes in Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agent Use Under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program.Drug safety · 2021Article
- Liver Test Monitoring: Real-World Compliance for Drugs with Monitoring Requirements at 2-Week Intervals or More Frequently.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2019Article
- A Retrospective Analysis of Adherence to Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Requirements for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Drugs.Hospital pharmacy · 2019Article
- The abuse potential of medical psilocybin according to the 8 factors of the Controlled Substances Act.Neuropharmacology · 2018Review
- The RIMES Statement: A Checklist to Assess the Quality of Studies Evaluating Risk Minimization Programs for Medicinal Products.Drug safety · 2018Article
- New and incremental FDA black box warnings from 2008 to 2015.Expert opinion on drug safety · 2018Article
- Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMSs): Are They Improving Drug Safety? A Critical Review of REMSs Requiring Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU).Drugs in R&D · 2017Review
- Drug-induced liver injury: Do we know everything?World journal of hepatology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.