Dataset Information

Assessment of the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for Transmucosal Immediate-Release Fentanyl Products.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Transmucosal immediate-release fentanyls (TIRFs), indicated solely for breakthrough cancer pain in opioid-tolerant patients, are subject to a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to prevent them from being prescribed inappropriately.

Objectives

To evaluate knowledge assessments of pharmacists, prescribers, and patients regarding appropriate TIRF use; to describe sponsor assessments, based on claims data, of whether the REMS program was meeting its goals; and to characterize how the FDA responded to REMS assessments.

Design, setting, and participants

Qualitative analysis of 4877 pages of FDA documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, including 6 annual REMS assessment reports (2012-2017), FDA evaluations of these reports, and FDA-sponsor correspondence about safety issues.

Exposure

A REMS program to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes, including misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose, arising from use of TIRFs.

Main outcomes and measures

(1) Knowledge assessments of pharmacists, prescribers, and patients; (2) survey and claims-based prescribing assessments; (3) FDA and TIRF sponsor communications; (4) modifications to the REMS program; and (5) disenrollment of noncompliant prescribers.

Results

Twelve months after initiation of the program, 24 of 302 pharmacists (7.9%), 35 of 302 prescribers (11.6%), and 5 of 192 patients (2.6%) incorrectly reported that TIRFs can be prescribed to opioid-nontolerant patients, with similar levels of misunderstanding maintained in the subsequent reports. At 60 months, product-specific analyses of claims data indicated that between 34.6% and 55.4% of patients prescribed TIRFs were opioid-nontolerant. In the 48-month survey, 106 of 310 prescribers (34.2%) reported prescribing TIRFs for opioid-tolerant patients with chronic, noncancer pain; at 60 months, 54 of 302 prescribers (18.4%) and 148 of 310 patients (47.7%) erroneously reported that TIRFs were FDA-approved for such use. Over the 60-month period examined, there were few substantive changes made to the REMS to address evidence of high rates of off-label TIRF use, and, although the REMS program had a noncompliance plan, there was no report of prescribers being disenrolled for inappropriate prescribing.

Conclusions and relevance

In this review of FDA documents pertaining to the TIRF REMS, surveys of pharmacists, prescribers, and patients reflected generally high levels of knowledge regarding proper TIRF prescribing, yet some survey items as well as claims-based analyses indicated substantial rates of inappropriate TIRF use. Despite these findings, the FDA did not require substantive changes to the program.

SUBMITTER: Rollman JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6439622 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl (TIRF) drugs are potent, rapid-acting opioids approved to treat breakthrough pain in patients with cancer who are tolerant to other around-the-clock opioid analgesics. In March 2012, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) was implemented, mandating prescribers, distributors, pharmacies, and patients to enroll in the REMS to prescribe, dispense, or receive TIRF drugs. Objective:To evaluate the association of the TIRF-REMS Access Program with TIRF prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants:Cohort study using an interrupted time series analysis of TIRF prescriptions to Medicare Part D beneficiaries nationwide from 2010 to 2014. Data were analyzed from August 2017 through July 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:Prescribing of TIRF per 100 000 Medicare Part D beneficiaries, overall and stratified by cancer status; percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without cancer, overall and by brand; and percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without known opioid tolerance, defined as patients prescribed at least 60 morphine milligram equivalents per day, overall and by brand. Results:There were 99 601 TIRF prescriptions written by 8619 clinicians to 10 472 patients. Most of the patients (79%) were younger than 65 years (mean [SD] age, 56 [13] years), and most (67%) did not have cancer. Implementation of TIRF-REMS was associated with a 26.7% relative level decrease in TIRF prescribing (95% CI, -33.3% to -19.4%; P < .001) but was followed by 2.0% monthly increases in prescribing (95% CI, 1.3% to 2.7%; P < .001). Sensitivity analyses that accounted for overall opioid prescribing trends were consistent with these findings. Furthermore, there were no significant changes associated with REMS implementation in the level (0.47%; 95% CI, -5.36% to 4.69%; P = .85) or trend (0.16%; 95% CI, -0.06% to 0.37%; P = .15) of the percentage of prescriptions for patients without cancer. However, a sensitivity analysis that used a broader cancer definition found implementation was associated with a 7.2% (95% CI, -13.5% to -0.48%; P = .04) level decrease in the percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without cancer. Lastly, the TIRF-REMS was associated with a 22.5% level decline in the percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without known opioid tolerance (95% CI, -36.1% to -5.95%; P = .01) followed by 1.98% monthly decreases (95% CI, -3.19% to -0.80%; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance:Implementation of the TIRF-REMS Access Program, a restrictive drug distribution program, was associated with a temporary reduction in the rate of TIRF prescribing to Medicare Part D beneficiaries, and with a sustained decrease in the percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without known opioid tolerance. Implementation may have also been associated with a temporary decrease in the percentage of TIRF prescriptions for patients without cancer.

Project description:BackgroundA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is a drug safety program for certain medications with serious safety concerns required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of manufacturers to implement to help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. FDA is encouraging "the research community to develop novel methods for assessing REMS," conveying the unmet need for a standardized evaluation method of these regulatory-mandated healthcare programs. The objective of this research is to evaluate FDA REMS assessment plans using established implementation science frameworks and identify opportunities for strengthening REMS evaluation.MethodsA content analysis was conducted of publicly available assessment plans for all REMS programs (N = 23) approved 1/1/2014-12/31/2018 for new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics license applications (BLAs) requiring FDA-mandated Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU). Blinded reviewers critically appraised REMS assessment measures (n = 674) using three established implementation science frameworks: RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance); PRECEDE-PROCEED (Predisposing, Reinforcing, and Enabling Constructs in Educational/Environmental Diagnosis and Evaluation - Policy, Regulatory, and Organizational Constructs in Educational and Environmental Development); and CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research). Framework constructs were mapped to REMS Assessment categories as defined by FDA Guidance for Industry to evaluate congruence.ResultsREMS assessment measures demonstrated strong congruence (> 90% mapping rate) with the evaluative constructs of RE-AIM, PRECEDE-PROCEED, and CFIR. Application of the frameworks revealed that REMS assessment measures heavily emphasize implementation and operations, focus less on health outcomes, and do not evaluate program context and design assumptions.ConclusionsImplementation science frameworks have utility for evaluating FDA-mandated drug safety programs including the selection of primary measures to determine whether REMS goals are being met and of secondary measures to evaluate contextual factors affecting REMS effectiveness in varying organizational settings.

Project description:Background: The Spanish health authorities are concerned by the off-label use of immediate-release formulations of fentanyl (IRF) in noncancer pain and cancer pain in patients with no chronic pain therapy. Aim: To evaluate the impact of different interventions to improve appropriateness of IRF prescription on off-label prescription. Patients and methods: We used interrupted time series (ITS) to estimate immediate and trend changes of IRF prescription for noncancer pain (NCP) and breakthrough cancer pain (BCP) in patients with and without chronic cancer pain therapy associated with two medication reviews (I1 and I2) and the issue of a safety warning letter (I3) with data from a Spanish region with 5 million inhabitants, from 2015 to 2018. Results: The use of IRF for NCP in the region Valencia was reduced from about 1,800 prescriptions per week to around 1,400. The first medication review was followed by an immediate level change of -192.66 prescriptions per week (p < 0.001) and a downward trend change of -6.75 prescriptions/week (p < 0.001), resulting in a post-intervention trend of -1.99 (p < 0.001). I2 was associated with a trend change of -23.07 (p < 0.001) prescriptions/week. After I3, the trend changed markedly to 27.23 additional prescriptions/week, for a final post-intervention trend of 2.17 (p < 0.001). Controlled-ITS provided comparable results. For potentially inappropriate BCP use, the second medication review was followed by a downward, immediate level change of -10.10 prescriptions/week (p = 0.011) and a trend change of 2.31 additional prescriptions/week (p < 0.001) and the issue of the safety warning (I3) was followed by a downward trend change of -2.09 prescriptions/week (p = 0.007). Conclusion: Despite IRF prescription for NCP decreased, the interventions showed modest and temporary effect on off-label prescription. Our results call for a review of the design and implementation of safety interventions addressing inappropriate opioid use.

Project description:Prescriptions for hydrocodone immediate-release (IR) combination products have recently decreased, yet they represent the majority of opioid prescriptions dispensed and are commonly abused analgesics among both adults and adolescents. Little data exist to understand the contribution of IR products to the problem of prescription opioid abuse. This study aimed to better understand abuse patterns for hydrocodone IR combination products among adult and adolescent substance abusers.This cross-sectional study examines abuse prevalence (including abuse adjusted for prescription volume and morphine milligram equivalents) and abuse characteristics for hydrocodone IR combination products and other prescription opioids among separate samples of adults and adolescents assessed for substance abuse problems or entering treatment from January 2012 through June 2015.Results indicate higher abuse for hydrocodone IR combination products than other opioid categories per 100 assessments but lower per prescriptions dispensed. Hydrocodone IR combination products had similar abuse prevalence to all extended-release and long-acting opioids when considering abuse measured per morphine milligram equivalents dispensed. An upward trend in hydrocodone IR combination product abuse was observed among adult substance abusers comparing the period prior to and after Drug Enforcement Administration rescheduling of these products in October 2014. Most individuals reported oral abuse of hydrocodone IR combination products, but snorting, reported by 23% of hydrocodone IR combination product abusers, also appears to be a route of abuse that may have public health relevance.Given their high prescription volume, hydrocodone IR combination products, even at a relatively low prevalence of abuse, may contribute substantially to the overall problem of prescription opioid abuse. Additional public health interventions, including development of abuse-deterrent formulations for these types of opioid products may aid in reducing their abuse.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD) of the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has awarded over 700 grants to conduct clinical trials of medicals products for rare diseases since 1983, leading to over 70 marketing approvals. However, despite recent progress in rare disease product development, thousands of rare diseases still have no approved treatments. An assessment of this clinical trial grants program was undertaken to provide an in-depth analysis of the characteristics and outcomes of the program. Results of this analysis will be used to inform future goals of the program, as well as internal data collection to continue to maximize the program's impact in supporting rare disease product development. RESULTS:Between fiscal years 2007-2011, OOPD funded 85 clinical trial grants. These grants spanned 18 therapeutic areas, included all pre-approval phases (Phases 1-3), and approximately 75% of the grants studied small molecule drugs. Nine (11%) product approvals, of seven drugs and two devices, were at least partially supported by grants funded within this 5-year timeframe. Four of the seven drugs approved were new molecular entities (NMEs). The average time from funding to approval was seven years. We also found a suggested association between collaboration with multiple types of stakeholders and the success of grants, where we defined success as either positive or negative study findings or a future marketing approval. CONCLUSIONS:The clinical trials funded by OOPD provided valuable information for future product development, and there were a notable number of approvals that occurred using the support of the grants program. There was a suggested association between collaboration and successful outcomes. Efficient and innovative trial designs and collaboration among stakeholders appear vital to continue to effectively bring products to rare disease patients. Ongoing program assessments will ensure that the funding continues to be used to optimally meet the treatment needs of the rare disease community.