Patents on Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for Prescription Drugs and Generic Competition.

This cross-sectional study identifies the prevalence of patents on risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and their association with delaying generic competition.

ESAIC focused guideline for the use of cardiac biomarkers in perioperative risk evaluation

In recent years, there has been increasing focus on the use of cardiac biomarkers in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The aim of this focused guideline was to provide updated guidance regarding the pre-, post- and combined pre-and postoperative use of cardiac troponin and B-type natriuretic peptides in adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The guidelines were prepared using Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. This included the definition of critical outcomes, a systematic literature search, appraisal of certainty of evidence, evaluation of biomarker measurement in terms of the balance of desirable and undesirable effects including clinical outcomes, resource use, health inequality, stakeholder acceptance, and implementation. The panel differentiated between three different scopes of applications: cardiac biomarkers as prognostic factors, as tools for risk prediction, and for biomarker-enhanced management strategies. In a modified Delphi process, the task force defined 12 critical outcomes. The systematic literature search resulted in over 25,000 hits, of which 115 full-text articles formed the body of evidence for recommendations. The evidence appraisal indicated heterogeneity in the certainty of evidence across critical outcomes. Further, there was relevant gradient in the certainty of evidence across the three scopes of application. Recommendations were issued and if this was not possible due to limited evidence, clinical practice statements were produced. The ESAIC focused guidelines provide guidance on the perioperative use of cardiac troponin and B-type natriuretic peptides in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, for three different scopes of application.

The Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Public Dashboard: Improving Transparency of Regulatory Activities.

This brief paper aims to describe the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Public Dashboard launched by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2021. The FDA REMS Public Dashboard can be accessed through the REMS@FDA website. The dashboard was developed in Qlik Sense® to support a user-friendly interactive web-based tool that allows healthcare providers, patients, researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators to readily access and visualize REMS information. The dashboard includes eight separate pages to capture information on all REMS, active REMS, REMS with elements to assure safe use, shared system REMS, REMS modifications, REMS revisions, released REMS, and REMS Summary; for REMS programs approved from 2008 to the present. Most of the pages allow users to choose different REMS characteristics to visualize and stratify the data by variables such as REMS approval time, application type, or REMS elements. This interactive platform is intended to allow users to quickly visualize trends over time and locate details of the REMS programs to inform emerging research and regulatory issues in the context of current drug safety. The FDA continues to explore ways to enhance public access of the REMS information in near real-time through the REMS Public Dashboard.

Physician experiences with and perceptions of risk evaluation and mitigation strategy programs with elements to assure safe use.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act of 2007 authorized the FDA to require risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for drugs with important safety concerns. REMS can have elements to assure safe use (ETASU), such as patient registries, dispensing restrictions, and physician training and certification requirements. We aimed to understand physician experiences with and perceptions of a selection of ETASU REMS. METHODS: Physicians prescribing 1 of 4 ETASU REMS-covered drugs: natalizumab, riociguat, sodium oxybate, and vigabatrin. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive phenomenological study based on semi-structured phone interviews. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Qualitative content analysis to summarize physician responses to open-ended questions. RESULTS: Of 31 physicians (14 female), 6 prescribed riociguat, 6 vigabatrin, 7 sodium oxybate, and 12 natalizumab (5 for Crohn's disease, 7 for multiple sclerosis), most demonstrated good understanding of the rationale for and requirements of the ETASU REMS but believed that the programs had limited effect on clinical practice. Some physicians reported that the ETASU REMS made them more comfortable with prescribing covered drugs due to heightened oversight, facilitated discussions about treatment, and were likely more beneficial for non-specialists. Concerns were raised about the administrative effort needed to comply with the programs and the potential misuse of patient health information transmitted to manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are generally aware of ETASU REMS and get reassurance from the additional oversight, but the programs can be better integrated into clinical workflows and can be designed to better protect patient health information.

Impact of the extended-release/long-acting opioid analgesics risk evaluation and mitigation strategy on prescribing practices.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of extended-release (ER)/long-acting (LA) opioid prescriber training on prescribing behaviors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Prescriber training was evaluated from June 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016. The full study period was 2 years longer, from June 1, 2012 through December 31, 2017, to include data for all prescribers' 1-year pretraining and post-training periods. PARTICIPANTS: 24,428 prescribers who wrote ER/LA opioid prescriptions for eligible patients, with a record of training from the partner continuing education provider between June 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016. INTERVENTION: ER/LA opioid prescriber training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescribing behaviors 1-year before (pretraining) and after (post-training) prescribers completed training, specifically the proportion of opioid-nontolerant patients receiving ER/LA opioids indicated for opioid-tolerant patients and for patients receiving ≥100 morphine equivalents dose daily, and the proportion of concomitant users of central nervous system depressant drugs. RESULTS: The differences in the proportion of opioid-nontolerant patients receiving ER/LA opioids indicated for opi-oid-tolerant patients and for patients receiving ≥100 morphine equivalents dose daily were -0.69 percent (95 percent confidence interval [CI]: -1.78 percent, 0.40 percent) and -0.23 percent (95 percent CI: -1.18 percent, 0.68 percent), respectively. The differences in the proportion of concomitant users of central nervous system depressant drugs were -0.94 percent (95 percent CI: -1.39 percent; -0.48 percent) for benzodiazepines, 0.06 percent (95 percent CI: -0.13 percent; 0.25 percent) for antipsychotics, -0.41 percent (95 percent CI: -0.69 percent; -0.13 percent) for hypnotics/sedatives, and 0.08 percent (95 percent CI: -0.40 percent; 0.57 percent) for muscle relaxants. CONCLUSIONS: While prescribers showed some changes in prescribing behavior after completing training, training was not associated with clinically relevant changes in prescribing behaviors.

Assessment of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Phentermine-Topiramate to Prevent Exposure During Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved phentermine-topiramate for obesity in 2012 and required a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to prevent prenatal exposure. No such requirement was introduced for topiramate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of prenatal exposure, contraceptive use, and pregnancy testing among patients with phentermine-topiramate compared with topiramate or other antiobesity medications (AOMs). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide health insurance claims database. PARTICIPANTS: Females aged 12 to 55 years with no infertility diagnosis or sterilization procedure. Patients with other indications for topiramate were excluded to identify a cohort that was likely treated for obesity. MEASUREMENTS: Patients initiated use of phentermine-topiramate, topiramate, or an AOM (liraglutide, lorcaserin, or bupropion-naltrexone). Pregnancy at treatment initiation, conception during treatment, contraceptive use, and pregnancy testing outcomes were ascertained. Measurable confounders were adjusted for, and extensive sensitivity analyses were done. RESULTS: A total of 156 280 treatment episodes were observed. Adjusted prevalence of pregnancy at treatment initiation was 0.9 versus 1.6 per 1000 episodes (prevalence ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.95]) for phentermine-topiramate versus topiramate. The incidence rate of conception during treatment was 9.1 versus 15.0 per 1000 person-years (rate ratio, 0.61 [CI, 0.40 to 0.91]) for phentermine-topiramate versus topiramate. Both outcomes were similarly lower for phentermine-topiramate compared with AOM. Prenatal exposure was marginally lower in topiramate users compared with AOM users. Approximately 20% of patients in all cohorts had at least 50% of treatment days covered by contraceptives. Few patients had pregnancy tests before treatment (≤5%), but this was more common among phentermine-topiramate users. LIMITATIONS: Outcome misclassification; unmeasured confounding due to lack of prescriber data to account for possible clustering and spillover effects. CONCLUSION: Prenatal exposure seemed to be significantly lower among phentermine-topiramate users under the REMS. Pregnancy testing and contraceptive use appeared to be inadequate for all groups, which deserves attention to prevent the remaining potential exposures. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Analysis of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies for teratogenic drugs: Variation in primary and secondary prevention measures.

In an analysis of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies for teratogenic drugs, Ameet Sarpatwari, Beatrice Brown and Aaron Kesselheim explore the variation in primary and secondary prevention measures.

Risk evaluation and mitigation against flood danger in an arid environment. A case study (El Bayadh region, Algeria).

Floods are among the most serious and devastating phenomena of natural disasters. Cities adjacent to flood-prone areas in the last decades have played a major role in increasing the potential adverse effects of flood damage. This research study aims to evaluate and mitigate the risks of flood events in the El Bayadh region, which suffers from poor infrastructure and drained networks. To achieve this, it is necessary to evaluate rainfall intensities and their limits for durations from 0.167 to 24 h with return periods from 2 to 1000 years. Eight different frequency analysis distributions were fit to the historical rainfall data series over 43 years (1970-2012) using hypothesis-based goodness tests and information-based criteria. The most appropriate distributions were used to develop the rainfall intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) and flood risk-duration-frequency (RDF) curves for the study area. The results show that high-intensity rainfall values last for short durations, while high flood risk values last for intermediate durations. The results of the flood RDF curves can provide useful information for policy makers to make the right decisions regarding the effectiveness of the region's protection structures against future flood risks.