ArticleDrug safety2026
Prescription Drugs Subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy: Patient Perspectives on Risk Communication and the Value of Educational Materials.
Article in Drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-mandates Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programs for certain drugs with serious side effects help ensure that the benefits of use outweigh the risks. REMS materials-including enrollment forms, fact sheets, and medication guides-inform patients and caregivers about drug risks and program requirements.
objectiveTo explore how effectively REMS materials communicate drug risk information and program requirements to patients and caregivers and to identify patients' and caregivers' preferences for risk communication.
methodsInterviews with patients and caregivers of patients prescribed REMS-covered drugs focused on REMS materials. Transcripts were coded manually, with answers to closed-ended questions tabulated in Excel.
resultsThe study included 43 patients and six caregivers across eight REMS-covered drugs: alemtuzumab, ambrisentan, clozapine, isotretinoin, lenalidomide, pegvaliase, pomalidomide, and sodium oxybate. Most participants were female (N = 42, 86%), white/non-Hispanic (N = 40, 82%), and college educated (N = 37, 76%). The average age was 40 years, with 27 (55%) having annual family incomes over $100,000. Most participants learned about REMS-covered drugs via printed information (N = 36, 73%), mostly REMS materials; conversations with providers about drug risks and benefits (N = 29, 59%); and websites found on their own (N = 42, 86%). Nearly all participants (N = 47, 96%) felt well-informed about drug risks and benefits, and most participants taking self-administered drugs (N = 28, 67%) reported understanding safe use "very well." However, knowledge gaps emerged around REMS-related risks and reasons for safe use measures; some participants misunderstood REMS enrollment forms as legal protections, not safety measures. Patients also widely varied in their valuations of REMS materials, with some feeling informed and empowered and others confused or intimidated. Preferences for risk communication varied; most participants (N = 36, 73%) wanted to receive information verbally from providers, with several wanting visual aids, summaries, and other resources. DISCUSSION: Gaps in patients' and caregivers' understanding of REMS programs and drug risks highlight the merits of reviewing communication materials and strategies. Clear, concise, and comprehensive educational documents could promote understanding and adherence to REMS requirements.
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.