[Skip to Navigation]
December 30, 2019

Evaluation of the Extended-Release/Long-Acting Opioid Prescribing Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Program by the US Food and Drug Administration: A Review

Author Affiliations
  • 1Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 2Office of Public Health Practice and Training, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 3Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 4Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC
  • 5Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 6Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(2):301-309. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5459

Importance  Extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids have caused substantial morbidity and mortality in the United States, yet little is known about the efforts of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and drug manufacturers to reduce adverse outcomes associated with inappropriate prescribing or use. This review of 9739 pages of FDA documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request aimed to investigate whether the FDA and ER/LA manufacturers were able to assess the effectiveness of the ER/LA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program by evaluating manufacturer REMS assessments and FDA oversight of these assessments.

Observations  The REMS program was implemented largely as planned. The FDA’s goal was for 60% of ER/LA prescribers to take REMS-adherent continuing education (CE) between 2012 and 2016; 27.6% (88 316 of 320 000) of prescribers had done so by 2016. Audits of REMS programs indicated close adherence to FDA content guidelines except for financial disclosures. Nonrepresentative cross-sectional surveys of self-selected prescribers suggested modestly greater ER/LA knowledge among CE completers than noncompleters, and claims-based surveillance indicated slowly declining ER/LA prescribing, although the contribution of the REMS to these trends could not be assessed. The effectiveness of the REMS program for reducing adverse outcomes also could not be assessed because the analyses used nonrepresentative samples, lacked adequate controls for confounding, and did not link prescribing or clinical outcomes to prescribers’ receipt of CE training. Although the FDA had requested studies tracking adverse outcomes as a function of CE training, the FDA concluded that these studies had not been performed as of the 60-month report in 2017.

Conclusions and Relevance  Five years after initiation, the FDA and ER/LA manufacturers could not conclude whether the ER/LA REMS had reduced inappropriate prescribing or improved patient outcomes. Alternative observational study designs would have allowed for more rigorous estimates of the program’s effectiveness.

Add or change institution
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words