IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v48y2025i4d10.1007_s40264-024-01504-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of Reporting Recommendation Intended for Pharmaceutical Risk Minimisation Evaluation Studies (RIMES) Checklist in Risk Minimisation/Mitigation Studies: A Review and Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Samantha E. Duckworth

    (Parexel)

  • Sophie Druelles

    (Parexel)

  • Emily Brouwer

    (Parexel)

  • David A. Brown

    (Parexel)

  • Katja M. Hakkarainen

    (Parexel)

  • Sonia Guleria

    (Parexel)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Samantha E. Duckworth & Sophie Druelles & Emily Brouwer & David A. Brown & Katja M. Hakkarainen & Sonia Guleria, 2025. "Use of Reporting Recommendation Intended for Pharmaceutical Risk Minimisation Evaluation Studies (RIMES) Checklist in Risk Minimisation/Mitigation Studies: A Review and Survey," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 415-423, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:48:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40264-024-01504-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-024-01504-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-024-01504-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-024-01504-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:48:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40264-024-01504-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.