Advertisement

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 75, Issue 2, pp 157–170 | Cite as

Systematic literature review of the methodology for developing pharmacotherapeutic interchange guidelines and their implementation in hospitals and ambulatory care settings

  • Maria Adrover-RigoEmail author
  • Maria-Dolores Fraga-Fuentes
  • Francesc Puigventos-Latorre
  • Iciar Martinez-Lopez
Review

Abstract

Purpose

To summarize literature specific to therapeutic interchange (TI) focusing on methodological approaches in order to develop a list of steps that healthcare facilities can consult when developing pharmacotherapeutic interchange guidelines (PTIGs) in hospitals and primary care centers.

Methods

A search was conducted in PreMEDLINE, Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library up to and including December 2015. PRISMA guidelines were used. The inclusion criteria were articles published on TI: methodology, implementation, guidelines, and position statements of scientific societies. Two authors independently reviewed all articles for eligibility and extracted the data.

Results

A total of 102 articles were selected for full-text review; we included three guidelines on how to effect TI, nine position papers of various scientific societies with regard to TI, two articles dealt exclusively about methodology, three articles consisted of recommendations and perspectives on TI, three articles dealt with legal aspects, four articles examined general implementation procedures, two articles were a post-discharge follow-up of patients who had TI, six were surveys referring to TI, and three were articles on the use of TI in ambulatory care The remaining 67 articles focused on therapeutic groups. Study quality was generally low.

Conclusions

This review identified articles on TI as published guidelines, recommendations, and studies on TI carried out in hospital settings. As a result, eight fundamental steps were established for obtaining adequate results in the development of TI programs.

Keywords

P&T committee Methodology Pharmacist/physician issues Evidence-based medicine Drug utilization evaluation Therapeutic interchange 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ana Mª Carlos-Gil, pharmacist, for her contribution to the bibliographic search.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

228_2018_2573_MOESM1_ESM.doc (140 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 140 kb)
228_2018_2573_MOESM2_ESM.doc (713 kb)
ESM 2 (DOC 713 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Real Decreto 521/1987, de 15 de abril, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento sobre Estructura, Organización y Funcionamiento de los Hospitales gestionados por el Instituto Nacional de la Salud. Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE) núm. 91, 1987. Available online at: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1987-9351. Accessed 20 Jun 2018
  2. 2.
    Puigventós F, Santos-Ramos B, Ortega A, Durán-García E (2010) Structure and procedures of the pharmacy and therapeutic committees in Spanish hospitals. Pharm World Sci 32:767–775Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASHP Expert Panel on Medication Cost Management (2008) ASHP guidelines on medication cost management strategies for hospitals and health systems. Am J Health Syst Pharm 65:1368–1384Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gray T, Bertch K, Galt K, Gonyeau M, Karpiuk E, Oyen L et al (2005) Guidelines for therapeutic interchange-2004. Pharmacotherapy 25(11):1666–1680Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (2000) Principles of a sound drug formulary system. Available online at: http://amcp.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9280. Accessed 24 Jun 2018
  6. 6.
    Chu R, Torstensson D, Pugatch M (2010) Patient safety and comfort: the challenges of switching medicines. Stockholm Network. Available online at: http://www.stockholm-network.org/downloads/publications/Patient_Safety_and_Comfort_The_Challenges_of_Switching.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2011
  7. 7.
    American College of Physicians (1990) Therapeutic substitution and formulary systems. Ann Intern Med 113(2):160–163Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    American College of Clinical Pharmacy (1993) Guidelines for therapeutic interchange. Pharmacotherapy 13(3):252–256Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eurich D, Poulin S, Semchuck W, Taylor J (2001) Therapeutic interchange in Canadian hospitals: a national survey. Can J Hosp Pharm 54(1):28–34Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnston A, Asmar R, Dahlöf B, Hill K, Jones DA, Jordan J et al (2011) Generic and therapeutic substitution: a viewpoint on achieving best practice in Europe. Br J Clin Pharmacol 72:727–730Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shulman SR, Dicerbo PA, Ulcickas ME, Lasagna L (1992) A survey of therapeutic substitution programs in ten Boston area hospitals. Drug Inf J 26:41–52Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Comisión de Normas y Procedimientos de la SEFH (2003) Normas y Procedimientos para la realización de intercambio terapéutico en los hospitales. Available online at: http://www.sefh.es/normas/Intercambio_terapeutico.pdf. Accessed 24 Jun 2013
  13. 13.
    Stewart I (2004) Therapeutic interchange is potential weak link. Can Pharm J 137(6):21Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wall DS, Abel SR (1996) Therapeutic-interchange algorithm for multiple drug classes. Am J Health Syst Pharm 53(11):1295–1296Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walk SU, Bertsche T, Kaltschmidt J, Pruszydlo MG, Hoppe-Tichy T, Walter-Sack I et al (2008) Rule-based standardised switching of drugs at the interface between primary and tertiary care. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 64:319–327Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marín R, Puigventós F, Fraga Fuentes MD, Ortega Eslava A, López Briz E, Arocas Casañ V et al (2013) Group for Innovation, Assessment, Standardization and Research in the Selection of Drugs (GENESIS) of the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH). Support method for decision making in assessment and appraisal of medicines (MADRE). Version 4.0. Madrid: SEFH (ed). ISBN: 978-84-695-7629-8. Available online at: http://gruposdetrabajo.sefh.es/genesis/genesis/Documents/A_MADRE_4_0_Manual%20de%20procedimientos.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2015
  17. 17.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. Available online at: http://www.prisma-statement.org. Accessed 10 Feb 2017Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    “AlquimiA” search engine. Available online at: http://www.elcomprimido.com/FARHSD/AlquimiA.htm. Accessed 15 May 2018
  19. 19.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative (2008) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61(4):344–349Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee Y-Y, Hsiao P, Lin Y-M, Yen Y-H, Chen H-Y (2012) Successful implementation of a P&T-approved therapeutic interchange program of angiotensin II receptor blockers in a medical center in Taiwan. Value Health 15(1 Suppl):S111–S115Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hilleman DE, Reyes AP, Wurdeman RL, Faulkner M (2001) Efficacy and safety of a therapeutic interchange from high-dose calcium channel blockers to a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/benazepril in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 15(8):559–565Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Márquez-Peiró JF, Porta-Oltra B, Borrás-Almenar C (2009) [Therapeutic exchange of angiotensin II receptor antagonists in patients hospitalised in a traumatology unit]. Farm Hosp 33(2):66–71Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Porta Oltra B, Borrás Almenar C, Jiménez Torres NV (2005) [Therapeutic interchange standardization for antiotensin II receptor antagonists in the treatment of hypertension in the hospital setting]. Farm Hosp 29(2):104–112Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peris Martí JF, Faus Felipe VJ, de la Vega Ortega A, Martínez Romero G, Martínez Martínez MA (2003) [Therapeutic interchange between angiotensin II receptor blockers in institutionalized elderly patients. Implimenting a protocol]. Farm Hosp 27(5):290–297Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cholvi Llovel M, Climente Martí M (2002) [Assessing an algorithm for the therapeutic swapping of calcium antagonists]. Farm Hosp 26(5):283–286Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Signorovitch J, Zhang J, Wu EQ, Latremouille-Viau D, Yu AP, Dastani HB et al (2010) Economic impact of switching from valsartan to other angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with hypertension. Curr Med Res Opin 26(4):849–860Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mamdani MM, Reisig CJ, Stevenson JG (2000) Cost analysis of therapeutic interchange of calcium channel blockers for the treatment of hypertension: unexpected results from a conversion program. J Manag Care Pharm 6(5):390–394Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stoysich A, Massoomi F (2002) Automatic interchange of the ACE inhibitors: decision-making process and initial results. Formulary 37(1):41–44Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bull S, Shoheiber O, Bailey M, Brixner D (1999) Utilization of pharmacy claims data to evaluate therapeutic interchange programs. J Manag Care Pharm 5(4):331–334Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mason B (1996) Therapeutic interchange of lisinopril to quinapril: clinical experience. Hosp Pharm 31(5):542–544Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Clay DR, Bourg MP, Lawrence DB (2000) Outcomes of an amlodipine-to-felodipine therapeutic interchange program. Am J Health Syst Pharm 57(17):1604–1607Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walters J, Noel H, Folstad J, Kapadia V, White CM (2000) Prospective evaluation of the therapeutic interchange of Felodipine ER for amlodipine in patients with hypertension. Therapeutic substitution for hypertensive patients at a veterans administration health care system produces similar effects and substantial cost savings. Hosp Pharm 35(1):48–51Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Navarro de Lara S, Anoz Jiménez L, Estaún Díaz de Villegas E (2010) Impacto económico y clínico del intercambio terapéutico en pacientes geriátricos institucionalizados. Aten Farm 12(4):242–246Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mercadal Orfila G, Berlana Martín D, De la Peña Oliete D, Fort Casamartina E, Llop Talaverón JM, Jodar Massanés R (2005) Intercambio terapéutico de sulfonilureas en un hospital de tercer nivel: aplicación y evaluación clínica del protocolo. Rev Cuba Farm 39(3)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tan DS, Ng YR, Ong HY (2012) Therapeutic interchange of carvedilol to bisoprolol for chronic heart failure: the Singapore experience. Am J Pharm Benefits 4(3):109–113Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stock AJ, Kofoed L (1994) Therapeutic interchange of fluoxetine and sertraline: experience in the clinical setting. Am J Hosp Pharm 51(18):2279–2281Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Martínez-Granados F, Climent-Grana E, Pérez-Martínez E, Ordovás-Baines JP, Selva Otaolaurruchi J, Bernabéu Martínez MA (2011) Assessing a therapeutic exchange protocol for second-generation antidepressants: clinical results. Farm Hosp 35(5):244–253Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rich DS (1989) Experience with a two-tiered therapeutic interchange policy. Am J Hosp Pharm 46(9):1792–1798Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rosich I, Allepuz A, Alba G, Benages N, Arranz T (2012) [The efficiency of drug prescription: impact of a therapeutic exchange program]. Gac Sanit 26(1):58–64Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chase SL, Peterson AM, Wordell CJ (1998) Therapeutic-interchange program for oral histamine H2-receptor antagonists. Am J Health Syst Pharm 55:1382–1386Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Galt KA, Galt MA, Sodorff MM, Turner PD, Lambrecht J (2000) Proton pump inhibitor therapeutic interchange: patient expectations and satisfaction ratings. Hosp Pharm 35(11):1203–1207Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Galt KA, Galt MA, Sodorff MM, Turner P, Lambrecht JE (2001) Patient-perceived outcomes of an inpatient PPI therapeutic interchange program. Formulary 36:340–354Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sodorff MM, Galt KA, Galt MA, Turner PD, Lambrecht JE (2002) Patient perceptions of a proton pump inhibitor therapeutic interchange program across the continuum of care. Pharmacotherapy 22(4):500–512Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Condra LJ, Morreale AP, Stolley SN, Marcus D (1999) Assessment of patient satisfaction with a formulary switch from omeprazole to lansoprazole in gastroesophageal reflux disease maintenance therapy. Am J Manag Care 5(5):631–638Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Amidon PB, Jankovich R, Stoukides CA, Kaul AF (2000) Proton pump inhibitor therapy: preliminary results of a therapeutic interchange program. Am J Manag Care 6(5):593–601Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nelson WW, Vermeulen LC, Geurkink EA, Ehlert DA, Reichelderfer M (2000) Clinical and humanistic outcomes in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease converted from omeprazole to lansoprazole. Arch Intern Med 160(16):2491–2496Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Howard RT, Wilson JP, Smeeding JE (2000) Therapeutic interchange of H2 antagonists: cost savings and impact on outcomes. Hosp Pharm 35(4):387–392Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Oh T, Franko TG (1990) Implementing therapeutic interchange of intravenous famotidine for cimetidine and ranitidine. Am J Hosp Pharm 47(7):1547–1551Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Frighetto L, Nickoloff D, Jewesson P (1995) Antibiotic therapeutic interchange program: six years of experience. Hosp Formul 30:92–105Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Martin LA, Watkins JB, Greene SA, Haddow AD, Gerecht WB, Powell CW (1990) Procedural compliance and clinical outcome associated with therapeutic interchange of extended-spectrum penicillins. Am J Hosp Pharm 47(7):1551–1554Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lawrenz CA, Cole P, Theodorou A, Cook RL, Bermann L (1991) Therapeutic interchange of ampicillin-sulbactam for cefoxitin. Am J Hosp Pharm 48:2150–2154Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brown GR, Clarke AM (1992) Therapeutic interchange of cefazolin with metronidazole for cefoxitin. Am J Hosp Pharm 49(8):1946–1950Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Martinusen S, Chen D, Frighetto L, Bunz D, Stiver HG, Jewesson PJ (1993) Comparison of cefoxitin and ceftizoxime in a hospital therapeutic interchange program. CMAJ 148(7):1161–1169Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lomaestro BM (2001) Therapeutic interchange of fluoroquinolones at a medical center. Am J Health Syst Pharm 58(10):904–907Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rapp RP (2007) Considerations associated with therapeutic interchange within the fluoroquinolone class of antimicrobials. P & T 32(5):278–283Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Weng T-C, Yang Y-HK, Lin S-J, Tai S-H (2010) A systematic review and meta-analysis on the therapeutic equivalence of statins. J Clin Pharm Ther 35(2):139–151Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    García-Sabina A, Gulín-Dávila J, Sempere-Serrano P, González-Juanatey C, Martínez-Pacheco R (2012) [Specific considerations on the prescription and therapeutic interchange of statins]. Farm Hosp 36(2):97–108Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mohammed K, Dib JG, Al Abdulmohsin SA, Farooki M, Dobayan ZAL (2010) Therapeutic interchange: an effective strategy for statin cost containment at a Saudi medical centre. J Pharm Health Serv Res 1(2):69–73Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Grace KA, Swiecki J, Hyatt R, Gibbs H, Jones DL, Sheikh M et al (2002) Implementation of a therapeutic-interchange clinic for HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Am J Health Syst Pharm 59(11):1077–1082Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cheetham TC, Chan J, Benson V, Richmond C, Levin E, Campen D (2005) Successful conversion of patients with hypercholesterolemia from a brand name to a generic cholesterol-lowering drug. Am J Manag Care 11(9):546–552Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Billups SJ, Plushner SL, Olson KL, Koehler TJ, Kerzee J (2005) Clinical and economic outcomes of conversion of simvastatin to lovastatin in a group-model health maintenance organization. J Manag Care Pharm 11(8):681–686Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hilleman DE, Wurdeman RL, Lenz TL (2001) Therapeutic change of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease. Pharmacotherapy 21(4):410–415Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fugit RV, Resch ND (2000) Conversion of patients from simvastatin to lovastatin in an outpatient pharmacy clinic. Am J Health Syst Pharm 57(18):1703–1708Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ito MK, Stolley SN, Morreale AP, Lin JC, Marcus DB (1999) Rationale, design, and baseline results of the Pravastatin-to-Simvastatin Conversion Lipid Optimization Program (PSCOP). Am J Health Syst Pharm 56(11):1107–1113Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ito MK, Lin JC, Morreale AP, Marcus DB, Shabetai R, Dresselhaus TR et al (2001) Effect of pravastatin-to-simvastatin conversion on low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol. Am J Health Syst Pharm 58(18):1734–1739Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Taylor AJ, Grace K, Swiecki J, Hyatt R, Gibbs H, Sheikh M et al (2001) Lipid-lowering efficacy, safety, and costs of a large-scale therapeutic statin formulary conversion program. Pharmacotherapy 21(9):1130–1139Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Patel RJ, Gray DR, Pierce R, Jafari M (1999) Impact of therapeutic interchange from pravastatin to lovastatin in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Am J Manag Care 5(4):465–474Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Moisan J, Vaillancourt R, Grégoire JP, Gaudet M, Côté I, Leach A (1999) Preferred hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors: treatment-modification program and outcomes. Am J Health Syst Pharm 56(14):1437–1441Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Korman L, Borysiuk L (1995) Replacing lovastatin with pravastatin: effect on serum lipids and costs. Am J Health Syst Pharm 52(10):1078–1082Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Steiner MA, Yorgason RZ, Vermeulen LC, Theisen J (2003) Patient outcomes after therapeutic interchange of dolasetron for granisetron. Am J Health Syst Pharm 60(10):1023–1028Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Pak S, Bounthavong M, Christopher ML, Mendes MA, Foster EB, Boggie DT et al (2011) Evaluation of therapeutic interchange from donepezil to galantamine extended-release. Am J Pharm Benefits 3(1):38–44Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tran F, Boggie DT, Delattre ML, Schaefer MG, Morreale AP, Plowman BK (2004) Therapeutic interchange involving replacement of rofecoxib or celecoxib with valdecoxib. Am J Health Syst Pharm 61(13):1391–1394Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bergstrom K, Ellis M, Keenan-Milligan M, Mucenski JW, Williams DH (2000) Strategies for therapeutic interchange of biotechnology medicines: proceedings of an invitational conference. Hosp Pharm 35:377–386Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Flood J, Mihalik C, Fleming RR, Strober BE, Zucker DR, Burgoyne DS (2007) The use of therapeutic interchange for biologic therapies. Manag Care 16(1):51–62Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Anonymous (2005) Optimizing erythropoietic growth factor formulary management: interchange opportunities. Formulary 40(12):460–472Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Adamson R, Lew I, Allen P, Misuro A, Malacrida P (2005) Therapeutic interchange of darbepoetin alfa for epoetin alfa in a multiinstitution health care system. Am J Health Syst Pharm 62(22):2416–2419Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Brophy DF, Ripley EB, Kockler DR, Lee S, Proeschel LA (2005) Darbepoetin alfa therapeutic interchange protocol for anemia in dialysis. Ann Pharmacother 39(11):1808–1811Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Merli GJ, Vanscoy GJ, Rihn TL, Groce JB 3rd, McCormick W (2001) Applying scientific criteria to therapeutic interchange: a balanced analysis of low-molecular-weight heparins. J Thromb Thrombolysis 11(3):247–259Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Allen LR, Bonck MJ, Lofgren KL, Mayo KW, Mozaffari E (2003) Low-molecular-weight heparin therapy for patients undergoing total knee replacement surgery: cost and outcomes. Hosp Pharm 38:833–840Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Komorny KM, Ewald JR (2002) Dalteparin after total knee replacement. Am J Health Syst Pharm 59(24):2451–2452Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Krotenberg R, Adler U, Pomeranz B, Miller JD, Russell MW (2001) Dalteparin vs. enoxaparin as prophylaxis for deep-vein thrombosis after total hip or knee arthroplasty: a retrospective analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 80(12):889–895Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bollinger KA, Vermeulen LC, Davis SN, Geurkink EA (2000) Comparative effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparins after therapeutic interchange. Am J Health Syst Pharm 57(4):368–372Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gainor C, Vanscoy GJ, Niccolai CS, Rihn TL (2003) Pharmacologic and liability considerations of therapeutic interchange with low-molecular-weight heparins. Hosp Pharm 38:652–658Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Amin A (2011) Therapeutic interchange of parenteral anticoagulants: challenges for pharmacy and therapeutics committees. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 4:1475–1487Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Baluch WM, Gardner JS, Krauss RH, Scholes D (1999) Therapeutic interchange of conjugated and esterified estrogens in a managed care organization. Am J Health Syst Pharm 56(6):537–542Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Andrade SE, Gurwitz JH, Cernieux J, Fish LS (2000) Evaluation of a formulary switch from conjugated to esterified estrogens in a managed care setting. Med Care 38(9):970–975Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Eurich D, Semchuk W, Taylor J, Poulin S (2001) Evaluation of an intensive pharmacist intervention in an inpatient therapeutic interchange program. Can J Hosp Pharm 54:178–185Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    D’Amore M, Masters P, Maroun C (2003) Impact of an automatic therapeutic interchange program on discharge medication selection. Hosp Pharm 38:942–946Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Oh T, Franko TG (1991) Comprehensive therapeutic interchange program in a community hospital. Am J Hosp Pharm 48:1471–1477Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Larmour I, Pignataro S, Barned KL, Mantas S, Korman MG (2011) A therapeutic equivalence program: evidence-based promotion of more efficient use of medicines. Med J Aust 194:631–634Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Navarro de Lara S, Font Noguera I, Lerma Gaude V, López Briz E, Martínez Pascual MJ, Poveda Andrés JL (2004) [Therapeutic interchange of drugs not included in the hospitaĺs pharmacotherapeutic guide: a quality program]. Farm Hosp 28(4):266–274Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Heiner CR (1996) Communicating about therapeutic interchange. Am J Health Syst Pharm 53:2568–2570Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Poole TA (2005) Survey of pharmacists’ and physicians’ perceptions of therapeutic interchange. Adv Ther 22(1):1–9Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Moultry AM, Wilmer SR (2009) Therapeutic interchange practices among Texas medical center institutions. Hosp Pharm 44:672–679Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Schachtner JM, Guharoy R, Medicis JJ, Newman N, Speizer R (2002) Prevalence and cost savings of therapeutic interchange among U.S. hospitals. Am J Health Syst Pharm 59:529–533Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    O’Connell MB, Seay RE (1996) Therapeutic interchange in Minnesota hospital pharmacies. Hosp Pharm 31:682–688Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bell CM, Telio D, Goldberg AF, Margulies A, Booth GL (2007) Selective therapeutic interchange practices in Ontario acute care hospitals. Can J Hosp Pharm 60(5):315–318Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Carroll J (2011) Will therapeutic interchange be put off limits by states? Managed Care. Available online at: https://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/2011/1/will-therapeutic-interchange-be-put-limits-states. Accessed 30 Mar 2017
  99. 99.
    Brushwood DB (2001) Legal issues surrounding therapeutic interchange in institutional settings: an update. Formulary 36:796–804Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Plumeri PA, Crane VS (1992) Legal and medical issues in therapeutic interchange: implications for pharmacists, physicians, and P & T committees. Hosp Formul 27:1040–1050Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    American Society of Consultant Pharmacists (1997) ASCP guidelines for implementing therapeutic interchange in long-term care. Approved by the ASCP Board of Directors, p 1–5Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Tyler LS, Cole SW, May JR, Millares M, Valentino MA, Vermeulen LC Jr et al (2008) ASHP guidelines on the pharmacy and therapeutics committee and the formulary system. Am J Health Syst Pharm 65:1272–1283Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    [No authors listed] (1992) ASHP guidelines on formulary system management. Am J Hosp Pharm 49(3):648–652Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    American Medical Association (1994) AMA policy on drug formularies and therapeutic interchange in inpatient and ambulatory patient care settings. Am J Hosp Pharm 51:1808–1810Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    American Medical Association (AMA) (2004) Action of the AMA House of Delegates 2004 Annual Meeting: Report 2 of Council on Scientific Affairs (A-04). Impact of Drug Formularies and Therapeutic Interchange on Health Outcomes. Available online at: https://policysearch.amaassn.org/policyfinder/detail/Drug%20Formularies%20and%20Therapeutic%20Interchange%20H-125.991?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD.xml-0-227.xml. Accessed 11 Oct 2018
  106. 106.
    American Medical Association (AMA) (2011) Action of the AMA House of Delegates 2011 Interim Meeting: Council on Science and Public Health Report . An Abbreviated Approval Pathway ofr Biosimilars. Recommendations adopted as follows and remainder of report filed. Available online at: https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/public/hod/i11-csaph-reports_0.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2018
  107. 107.
    Holmes DR, Becker JA, Granger CB, Limacher MC, Page RL II, Sila C (2011) ACCF/AHA 2011 health policy statement on therapeutic interchange and substitution: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Quality Committee. Circulation 124:1290–1310. Available online at: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/124/11/1290. Accessed 12 Feb 2017Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Carroll NV (2000) Therapeutic interchange in community pharmacies in Virginia. Am J Health Syst Pharm 57:882–886Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Carroll NV (1999) Formularies and therapeutic interchange: the health care setting makes a difference. Am J Health Syst Pharm 56:467–472Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Manolakis PG (2007) Prescription drug product substitution decision support. J Am Pharm Assoc 47:328–347Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Johnston A (2010) Challenges of therapeutic substitution of drugs for economic reasons: focus on CVD prevention. Curr Med Res Opin 26(4):871–878Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Johnston A, Stafylas P, Stergiou GS (2010) Effectiveness, safety and cost of drug substitution in hypertension. Br J Clin Pharmacol 70(3):320–334Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Sadowsky CH, Farlow MR, Atkinson L, Steadman J, Koumaras B, Chen M et al (2005) Switching from donepezil to rivastigmine is well tolerated: results of an open-label safety and tolerability study. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry 7(2):43–48Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Sadowsky CH, Dengiz A, Meng X, Olin JT; US38 Study Group (2010) Switching from oral donepezil to rivastigmine transdermal patch in Alzheimer’s disease: 20-week extension phase results. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry 12(5). pii: PCC.09m00852Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Sadowsky CH, Dengiz A, Olin JT, Koumaras B, Meng X, Brannan S et al (2009) Switching from donepezil tablets to rivastigmine transdermal patch in Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 24(3):267–275Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Merli GJ, Groce JB (2010) Pharmacological and clinical differences between low-molecular-weight heparins: implications for prescribing practice and therapeutic interchange. P & T 35(2):95–105Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Meissner B, Dickson M, Shinogle J, Reeder CE, Belazi D, Senevirante V (2006) Drug and medical cost effects of a drug formulary change with therapeutic interchange for statin drugs in a multistate managed Medicaid organization. J Manag Care Pharm 12(4):331–340Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Segal R, Grines LL, Pathak DS (1988) Opinions of pharmacy, medicine, and pharmaceutical industry leaders about hypothetical therapeutic-interchange legislation. Am J Hosp Pharm 45(3):570–577Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Goldwater SH, Milkovich G, Morrison AJ Jr, Lindgren B (2001) Comparison of therapeutic interchange with standard educational tools for influencing fluoroquinolone prescribing. Am J Health Syst Pharm 58(18):1740–1745Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Pedersen CA, Schneider PJ, Scheckelhoff DJ (2014) ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings: prescribing and transcribing-2013. Am J Health Syst Pharm 71(11):924–942Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    [No authors listed] (2015) L’année du médicament: quelques progrès en 2014, dans un flot de médicaments plus dangereux qu’utiles, mal évalués ou trop chers. Rev Prescrire 35(376):132–136Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Miller KL, Lanthier M (2015) Regulatory watch: innovation in biologic new molecular entities: 1986–2014. Nat Rev Drug Discov 14(2):83Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Kurki P, van Aerts L, Wolff-Holz E, Giezen T, Skibeli V, Weise M (2017) Interchangeability of Biosimilars: a European perspective. BioDrugs 31(2):83-91.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-017-0210-0 Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2016) Biosimilar medicines. Published 26 February 2016. Available online at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ktt15. Accessed 2 Mar 2017
  125. 125.
    Tabernero J, Vyas M, Giuliani R, Arnold D, Cardoso F, Casali PG et al (2016) Biosimilars: a position paper of the European Society for Medical Oncology, with particular reference to oncology prescribers. ESMO Open 1(6):e000142Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Danese S, Fiorino G, Raine T, Ferrante M, Kemp K, Kierkus J et al (2017) ECCO position statement on the use of biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease—an update. J Crohns Colitis 11(1):26–34Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    (2015) PBAC (Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee) world-first biosimilar drug decision. Available online at: https://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/843A2A3B1ECC612BCA257E69001CEFFC/$File/SL073.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2017

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PharmacyHospital Universitari Son EspasesPalma de MallorcaSpain
  2. 2.Department of PharmacyHospital General La Mancha CentroCiudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations