Skip to main content
Log in

Principles for evidence-based drug formulary policy

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Expenditures for prescription drugs continue to increase, prompting insurers and health systems to adopt formulary or coverage policies restricting the use of more expensive drugs. Those establishing formulary policies face a complex array of claims regarding differences in efficacy, safety, treatment cost, or cost-effectiveness. We describe and illustrate 5 specific principles for applying research evidence to formulary decisions: (1) Experimental data should take precedence over models or simulations, and assumptions of such models should be carefully examined. (2) Morbidity or mortality outcomes should take precedence over surrogate or intermediate outcomes. (3) Claims for advantages of new treatments should consider the full range of alternatives rather than those selected by industry. (4) Variation in effects across individuals or subgroups argue against restrictions on first-line treatment, but only if those differences are predictable. (5) Variation in effects argues against requiring changes in ongoing treatment. We also discuss how economic incentives are likely to influence selection of research questions, especially research related to drug-gene interactions and to identifying new indications for existing drugs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Levit K, Smith C, Cowan C, Sensenig A, Catlin A. Health spending rebound continues in 2002. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:147–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Moeller J, Miller G, Banthin J. Looking inside the nation’s medicine cabinet: trends in outpatient drug spending by Medicare benificiaries, 1997 and 2000: costly new drugs do have an impact on overall drug spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:217–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. National Institute for Health Care Management. Changing Patterns of Pharmaceutical Innovation. Washington, DC: National Institute for Health Care Management; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  4. US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. NDAs Approved in Calendar Years 1990–2002 by Therapeutic Potentials and Chemical Types. January 14, 2003. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt/pstable.htm. Accessed January 8, 2004.

  5. Rosenthal M, Berndt E, Donohue J, Frank R, Epstein A. Promotion of prescription drugs to consumers. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:498–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vogel R, Ramachandran S, Zachry W. A 3-stage model for assessing the probable economic effects of direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. Clin Ther. 2003;25:309–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Huskamp H, Epstein A, Blumenthal D. The impact of a national prescription drug formulary on prices, market share, and spendin: lesson for Medicare? Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22:149–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Balkrishnan R, Byerly W, Camacho F, Shrestha A, Anderson R. Effect of prescription benefit changes on medical care utilization in a Medicare HMO population. Am J Manage Care. 2001;7:1093–100.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Huskamp H, Deverka P, Epstein A, Epstein R, McGuigan K, Frank R. The effect of incentive-based formularies on prescription-drug utilization and spending. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2224–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldman D, Joyce G, Escarce J, et al. Pharmacy benefits and the use of drugs by the chronically ill. JAMA. 2004;291:2344–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Daniels N, Teagarden J, Sabin J. An ethical template for pharmacy benefits. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22:125–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. E8.135 Cost Containment Involving Prescription Drugs In Health Plans. Code of Medical Ethics. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Burton S, Randel L, Titlow K, Emanual E. The ethics of pharmaceutical benefit management. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20:150–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ganther-Urmie J, Nair K, Valuck R, McCollum M, Lewis S, Turpin R. Consumer attitudes and factors related to prescription switching decisions in multitier copayment drug benefit plans. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10:201–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Cost containment involving prescription drugs in health plans. In: Code of Medical Ethics. Current Opinions with Annotations. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coalition Working Group. Principles of a Sound Drug Formulary System. Rockville, MD: US Pharmacopeia; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fry R, Avey S, Sullivan S. The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Formay for Formulary Submissions: an evolving standard—A Foundation for Managed Care Pharmacy Task Force report. Value Health. 2003;6:505–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Neumann P. Evidence-based and value-based formulary guidelines. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:124–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Garber A.. Evidence-based coverage policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20:62–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pellissier J, Straus W, Watson D, Kong S, Harper S. Economic evaluation of rofecoxib versus nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Clin Ther. 2001;23:1061–79.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Chancellor J, Hunsche E, de Cruz E, Sarasin F. Economic evaluation of celecoxib, a new cyclo-oxegenase-2 specific inhibitor, in Switzerland. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:59–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, et al. Comparison of upper gastro-intestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR study group. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1520–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hrachovec J, Mora M. Reporting of 6-month vs 12-month data in a clinical trial of celecoxib. JAMA. 2001;286:2398.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Juni P, Rutjes A, Dieppe P. Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? Adequate analysis of the Class trial indicates that this may not be the case. BMJ. 2002;324:1287–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Villaba M, Li Q. Statisticial Reviewer Briefing Document for the Advisory Committee (Rofecoxib). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/briefing/3677b2_04_stats.pdf. Accessed January 8, 2004.

  26. Solomon D, Schneeweiss S, Glynn R, et al. Relationship between selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and acute myocardial infarction in older adults. Circulation. 2004;109:2068–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Juni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S, Sterchi R, Dieppe P, Egger M. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet. 2004;364:2021–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Solomon S, McMurray J, Pfeffer M, et al. Cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib in a clinical trial for colorectal adenoma prevention. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1071–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Neumann P, Hermann R, Kuntz K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of donepezil n the treatment of mild or moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 1999;52:1138–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. O’Brien B, Goeree R, Hux M, et al. Economic evaluation of donepezil for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease in Canada. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47:570–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. AD2000 Collaborative Group. Long-term donepezil treatment in 565 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD2000): randomised double-blind trial. Lancet. 2004;363:2105–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Fleming T, DeMets D. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Echt D, Liebson P, Mitchell L, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:781–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Psaty B, Lumley T, Furberg C. Meta-analysis of health outcomes of chlorthalidone-based vs. non-chlorthalidone-based therapies. JAMA. 2004;292:43–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21:2313–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Psaty B, Lumley T, Furberg C, et al. Health outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents. JAMA. 2003;289:2534–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kroenke K, West S, Swindle R, et al. Similar effectiveness of paroxetine, fluoxetine, and sertraline in primary care: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2001;286:2947–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Williams J, Mulrow C, Chiquette E, Noel P, Aguilar C, Cornell J. A systematic review of newer pharmacotherapies for depression in adults: evidence review summary. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:743–56.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Thase M, Blomgren S, Birkett M, Apter J, Tepner R. Fluoxetine treatment of patients with major depressive disorder who failed initial treatment with sertraline. J Clin Psychiatry. 1997;58:16–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Zarate C, Kando J, Tohen M, Weiss M, Cole J. Does intolerance or lack of response with fluoxetine predict the same will happen with sertraline? J Clin Psychiatry. 1996;57:67–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Simon G. Choosing a first-line antidepressant: equal on average does not mean equal for everyone. JAMA. 2001;286:3003–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Baluch W, Gardner J, Krauss R, Scholes D. Therapeutic interchange of conjugated and esterified estrogens in a managed care organization. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1999;56:537–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Patel R, Gray D, Pierce R, Jarfari M. Impact of a therapeutic interchange from pravastatin to lovostatin in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Am J Manage Care. 1999;5:465–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Dossenbach M, Kratky P, Schneidman M, et al. Evidence for the effectiveness of olanzapine among patients nonresponsive and/or intolerant to risperidone. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62:28–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Weiden P, Simpson G, Potkin S, O’Sullivan R. Effectiveness of switching to ziprasidone form stable but symptomatic outpatients with schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64:580–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B. Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ. 2003;326:1171–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Antes G, Chalmers I. Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethical. Lancet. 2003;361:978–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chan A, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr M, Gotzsche P, Altman D. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in ranomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291:2457–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Psaty B, Furberg C, Ray W, Weiss N. Potential for conflict of interest in the evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions. JAMA. 2004;292:2622–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Brady K, Pearlstein T, Ansis G, et al. Efficacy and safety of sertraline treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2000;283:1837–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Stein M, Liebowitz M, Lydiard R, Pitts C, Bushnell W, Gergel I. Paroxetine treatment of generalized social phobia (social anxiety disorder): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:708–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Gelenberg A, Lydiard R, Rudolph R, Aguiar L, Haskins F, Salinas E. Efficacy of venlafaxine extended-release capsules in nondepressed out-patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a 6-month randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2000;283:3082–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Furberg C, Psaty B. Should evidence-based proof of drug efficacy be extrapolated to a “class of agents”? Circulation. 2003;108:2608–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Laughren T. Comorbid mood disorders and medical illness: a food and drug administration perspective. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;54:195–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Haga S, Burke W. Using pharmacogenetics to improve drug safety and efficacy. JAMA. 2004;291:2869–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Murphy G, Kremer C, Rodrigues H, Schatzberg A. Pharmacogenetics of antidepressant medication intolerance. Am J Psychiat. 2003;160:1830–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Relman A, Angell M. America’s other drug problem: how the drug industry distorts medicine and politics. The New Republic. 2002;227:27–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory E. Simon MD, MPH.

Additional information

Dr. Psaty has provided expert testimony regarding safety of antihypertensive drugs. Dr. Simon has received research grants from Eli Lilly & Co., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simon, G.E., Psaty, B.M., Hrachovec, J.B. et al. Principles for evidence-based drug formulary policy. J GEN INTERN MED 20, 964–968 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0232.x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0232.x

Key Words

Navigation