PURPOSE: To evaluate the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for varenicline by assessing patients' understanding of the varenicline medication guide (MG) at pre-specified time points: 18 months, 3 years, and 7 years after the REMS approval. METHODS: Self-administered surveys were mailed to people who received varenicline based on a pharmacy dispensing. Survey questions assessed understanding of potential risks outlined in the MG: neuropsychiatric symptoms, skin reactions, allergic reactions, and cardiovascular risks. Crude and weighted analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The response to the survey overall was between 18% and 19%. Among responders, approximately 90% recalled receiving the MG, and at least 80% read all or part of it. At least 88% correctly identified neuropsychiatric symptoms as potential medication effects, while 41% did so for skin reactions, 53% for allergic reactions, and 82% for cardiovascular risks. Patients who read the MG had a high proportion of correct responses to the risk comprehension questions. CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of patients who were dispensed varenicline recalled receiving the MG and were able to correctly recall neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular risks in all 3 surveys. The varenicline MG may be an effective tool for patient education.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for varenicline by assessing patients' understanding of the varenicline medication guide (MG) at pre-specified time points: 18 months, 3 years, and 7 years after the REMS approval. METHODS: Self-administered surveys were mailed to people who received varenicline based on a pharmacy dispensing. Survey questions assessed understanding of potential risks outlined in the MG: neuropsychiatric symptoms, skin reactions, allergic reactions, and cardiovascular risks. Crude and weighted analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The response to the survey overall was between 18% and 19%. Among responders, approximately 90% recalled receiving the MG, and at least 80% read all or part of it. At least 88% correctly identified neuropsychiatric symptoms as potential medication effects, while 41% did so for skin reactions, 53% for allergic reactions, and 82% for cardiovascular risks. Patients who read the MG had a high proportion of correct responses to the risk comprehension questions. CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of patients who were dispensed varenicline recalled receiving the MG and were able to correctly recall neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular risks in all 3 surveys. The varenicline MG may be an effective tool for patient education.