Drug safety · 2025
Prescription Drugs Subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy: Patient Perspectives on Risk Communication and the Value of Educational Materials.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chimonas Susan, Cosenza Carol, Kesselheim Aaron S, Toyserkani Gita A, Oswell Kate Heinrich, LaCivita Cynthia, Dal Pan Gerald J, Sarpatwari Ameet
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The 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.
OBJECTIVE: To 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.
METHODS: Interviews 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.
RESULTS: The 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.
OBJECTIVE: To 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.
METHODS: Interviews 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.
RESULTS: The 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.