在风险最小化/缓解研究中使用药物风险最小化评估研究(RIMES)清单的报告建议:回顾和调查。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Drug Safety Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-17 DOI:10.1007/s40264-024-01504-7
Samantha E Duckworth, Sophie Druelles, Emily Brouwer, David A Brown, Katja M Hakkarainen, Sonia Guleria
{"title":"在风险最小化/缓解研究中使用药物风险最小化评估研究(RIMES)清单的报告建议:回顾和调查。","authors":"Samantha E Duckworth, Sophie Druelles, Emily Brouwer, David A Brown, Katja M Hakkarainen, Sonia Guleria","doi":"10.1007/s40264-024-01504-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Reporting Recommendation Intended for Pharmaceutical Risk Minimisation Evaluation Studies (RIMES) checklist is endorsed by the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) and is tailored for studies assessing Risk Minimisation Measures and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (RMM/REMS) effectiveness; however, its awareness and usage remain unknown. We evaluated the implementation of the RIMES checklist in RMM/REMS effectiveness studies registered in the EUPAS register during 01 December 2017- 01 January 2024. Furthermore, the awareness and utilization of the RIMES checklist among researchers conducting RMM/REMS effectiveness studies was assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The European Union Post-Authorisation Study (EUPAS) Register was reviewed to identify studies conducted in at least one European country within the specified timeframe. Data were extracted from the online EUPAS registrations, including uploaded study documents. Additionally, a survey was distributed through at International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) to assess awareness and checklist utilisation among researchers. Findings from both the review and the survey were reported descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 44 studies included in the review, cross-sectional questionnaire-based surveys (n = 28, 64%), and retrospective cohort studies using secondary data (n = 13, 30%) were frequently used study designs. Oncology (n = 12, 27%) and pregnancy-related conditions (n = 7, 16%) were frequently reported therapeutic areas. Most studies were required by regulators and typically evaluated the additional RMM/REMS. The awareness and usage of the RIMES checklist was low, while the ENCePP checklist was used frequently. Some researchers considered the ENCePP checklist adequate for RMM/REMS studies, while few advocated for the RIMES checklist.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The awareness and utilisation of the specific RIMES checklist designed for studies evaluating RMM/REMS was limited, indicating a need for improving awareness and utilisation of RIMES and harmonisation of existing guidance and frameworks for RMM/REMS effectiveness studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"415-423"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of Reporting Recommendation Intended for Pharmaceutical Risk Minimisation Evaluation Studies (RIMES) Checklist in Risk Minimisation/Mitigation Studies: A Review and Survey.\",\"authors\":\"Samantha E Duckworth, Sophie Druelles, Emily Brouwer, David A Brown, Katja M Hakkarainen, Sonia Guleria\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40264-024-01504-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Reporting Recommendation Intended for Pharmaceutical Risk Minimisation Evaluation Studies (RIMES) checklist is endorsed by the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) and is tailored for studies assessing Risk Minimisation Measures and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (RMM/REMS) effectiveness; however, its awareness and usage remain unknown. We evaluated the implementation of the RIMES checklist in RMM/REMS effectiveness studies registered in the EUPAS register during 01 December 2017- 01 January 2024. Furthermore, the awareness and utilization of the RIMES checklist among researchers conducting RMM/REMS effectiveness studies was assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The European Union Post-Authorisation Study (EUPAS) Register was reviewed to identify studies conducted in at least one European country within the specified timeframe. Data were extracted from the online EUPAS registrations, including uploaded study documents. Additionally, a survey was distributed through at International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) to assess awareness and checklist utilisation among researchers. Findings from both the review and the survey were reported descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 44 studies included in the review, cross-sectional questionnaire-based surveys (n = 28, 64%), and retrospective cohort studies using secondary data (n = 13, 30%) were frequently used study designs. Oncology (n = 12, 27%) and pregnancy-related conditions (n = 7, 16%) were frequently reported therapeutic areas. Most studies were required by regulators and typically evaluated the additional RMM/REMS. The awareness and usage of the RIMES checklist was low, while the ENCePP checklist was used frequently. Some researchers considered the ENCePP checklist adequate for RMM/REMS studies, while few advocated for the RIMES checklist.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The awareness and utilisation of the specific RIMES checklist designed for studies evaluating RMM/REMS was limited, indicating a need for improving awareness and utilisation of RIMES and harmonisation of existing guidance and frameworks for RMM/REMS effectiveness studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drug Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"415-423\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drug Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-024-01504-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-024-01504-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:用于药物风险最小化评估研究(RIMES)清单的报告建议由欧洲药物流行病学和药物警戒中心网络(ENCePP)批准,并为评估风险最小化措施和风险评估和缓解策略(RMM/REMS)有效性的研究量身定制;然而,它的意识和使用仍然未知。我们评估了2017年12月1日至2024年1月1日期间在EUPAS注册的RMM/REMS有效性研究中RIMES清单的实施情况。此外,还评估了开展RMM/REMS有效性研究的研究人员对RIMES检查表的认识和使用情况。方法:审查欧盟授权后研究(EUPAS)登记册,以确定在指定时间框架内至少在一个欧洲国家进行的研究。数据从在线EUPAS注册中提取,包括上传的研究文件。此外,通过国际药物流行病学学会(ISPE)分发了一项调查,以评估研究人员的意识和清单的使用情况。综述和调查的结果都是描述性的。结果:在纳入的44项研究中,以横断面问卷为基础的调查(n = 28, 64%)和采用二手资料的回顾性队列研究(n = 13, 30%)是常用的研究设计。肿瘤(n = 12.27%)和妊娠相关疾病(n = 7.16%)是经常报道的治疗领域。大多数研究是监管机构要求的,通常评估额外的RMM/REMS。RIMES检查表的认知度和使用率较低,而ENCePP检查表的使用率较高。一些研究人员认为ENCePP检查表足以用于RMM/REMS研究,而很少有人提倡使用RIMES检查表。结论:为评估RMM/REMS的研究而设计的特定RIMES清单的认识和利用是有限的,这表明需要提高对RIMES的认识和利用,并协调RMM/REMS有效性研究的现有指导和框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Use of Reporting Recommendation Intended for Pharmaceutical Risk Minimisation Evaluation Studies (RIMES) Checklist in Risk Minimisation/Mitigation Studies: A Review and Survey.

Introduction: The Reporting Recommendation Intended for Pharmaceutical Risk Minimisation Evaluation Studies (RIMES) checklist is endorsed by the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) and is tailored for studies assessing Risk Minimisation Measures and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (RMM/REMS) effectiveness; however, its awareness and usage remain unknown. We evaluated the implementation of the RIMES checklist in RMM/REMS effectiveness studies registered in the EUPAS register during 01 December 2017- 01 January 2024. Furthermore, the awareness and utilization of the RIMES checklist among researchers conducting RMM/REMS effectiveness studies was assessed.

Methods: The European Union Post-Authorisation Study (EUPAS) Register was reviewed to identify studies conducted in at least one European country within the specified timeframe. Data were extracted from the online EUPAS registrations, including uploaded study documents. Additionally, a survey was distributed through at International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) to assess awareness and checklist utilisation among researchers. Findings from both the review and the survey were reported descriptively.

Results: Among 44 studies included in the review, cross-sectional questionnaire-based surveys (n = 28, 64%), and retrospective cohort studies using secondary data (n = 13, 30%) were frequently used study designs. Oncology (n = 12, 27%) and pregnancy-related conditions (n = 7, 16%) were frequently reported therapeutic areas. Most studies were required by regulators and typically evaluated the additional RMM/REMS. The awareness and usage of the RIMES checklist was low, while the ENCePP checklist was used frequently. Some researchers considered the ENCePP checklist adequate for RMM/REMS studies, while few advocated for the RIMES checklist.

Conclusion: The awareness and utilisation of the specific RIMES checklist designed for studies evaluating RMM/REMS was limited, indicating a need for improving awareness and utilisation of RIMES and harmonisation of existing guidance and frameworks for RMM/REMS effectiveness studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Drug Safety
Drug Safety 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
112
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drug Safety is the official journal of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance. The journal includes: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues. Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on epidemiology, clinical features, prevention and management of adverse effects of individual drugs and drug classes. In-depth benefit-risk assessment of adverse effect and efficacy data for a drug in a defined therapeutic area. Systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement. Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies in disciplines such as pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance, pharmacology and toxicology, and pharmacogenomics. Editorials and commentaries on topical issues. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Drug Safety Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
期刊最新文献
Adverse Drug Events in Ambulatory Care: A Cross-Sectional Study. Trends in Proton Pump Inhibitor Use in Sweden by Sex and Age: A Drug Utilisation Study. Call to action: Pharmaceutical residues in the environment: threats to ecosystems and human health. Prenatal and Early Childhood Exposure to Proton Pump Inhibitors and Antibiotics and the Risk of Childhood Cancer: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study. Use of Reporting Recommendation Intended for Pharmaceutical Risk Minimisation Evaluation Studies (RIMES) Checklist in Risk Minimisation/Mitigation Studies: A Review and Survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1