ArticleClinical drug investigation2024
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Additional Risk Minimisation Measures for Tofacitinib (Xeljanz
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe evaluated the effectiveness of tofacitinib (oral Janus kinase inhibitor) additional risk minimisation measures (aRMM) in Europe via prescriber surveys. Operational challenges/methodological limitations of surveys and recommendations for future considerations were summarised.
methodsIn this post-authorisation safety study, multimodal surveys were conducted in eight European countries from 2021 to 2022 among prescribers of tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis and/or psoriatic arthritis (RA/PsA) or ulcerative colitis (UC) in the 12 months preceding survey administration. Prescribers' awareness (receipt) of aRMM materials, knowledge of key risk messages and adherence to risk minimisation practices were assessed. A priori effectiveness thresholds (≥ ~80%) were set across outcomes.
resultsOf 18,764 and 12,777 prescribers invited to take the RA/PsA or UC survey, 164 and 81 completed the surveys, respectively (response proportion: 326/18,764, 1.7%; 154/12,777, 1.2%, respectively). Among completers, self-reported receipt of all initial and/or 2019 updated aRMM materials was 33.5% and 32.7% in the RA/PsA and UC surveys, respectively. In the RA/PsA and UC surveys, 39.5% and 24.5%, respectively, answered ≥ ~80% of knowledge questions correctly; 51.2% and 69.7%, respectively, provided desirable responses to ≥ ~80% of adherence questions.
conclusionsAlthough the tofacitinib aRMM materials did not achieve the desired effectiveness for awareness (receipt), knowledge or adherence to risk minimisation practices among survey completers, the study was deemed inconclusive given the low response rate. This demonstrated that unless an acceptable response rate is achieved, surveys should not be the only method for aRMM evaluation. Secondary data may supplement future surveys to increase their robustness. HMA-EMA CATALOGUES REGISTRATION: EUPAS43143 (date of registration: 29/09/2021).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.