Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 20, Issue 10, pp 964–968

Principles for evidence-based drug formulary policy

  • Gregory E. Simon
  • Bruce M. Psaty
  • Jennifer Berg Hrachovec
  • Marc Mora


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.

Key Words

formulary drug coverage economics cost-effectiveness pharmacoeconomics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Levit K, Smith C, Cowan C, Sensenig A, Catlin A. Health spending rebound continues in 2002. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:147–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Institute for Health Care Management. Changing Patterns of Pharmaceutical Innovation. Washington, DC: National Institute for Health Care Management; 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 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: Accessed January 8, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daniels N, Teagarden J, Sabin J. An ethical template for pharmacy benefits. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22:125–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 13.
    Burton S, Randel L, Titlow K, Emanual E. The ethics of pharmaceutical benefit management. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20:150–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 16.
    Coalition Working Group. Principles of a Sound Drug Formulary System. Rockville, MD: US Pharmacopeia; 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neumann P. Evidence-based and value-based formulary guidelines. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:124–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garber A.. Evidence-based coverage policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20:62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hrachovec J, Mora M. Reporting of 6-month vs 12-month data in a clinical trial of celecoxib. JAMA. 2001;286:2398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Villaba M, Li Q. Statisticial Reviewer Briefing Document for the Advisory Committee (Rofecoxib). Available at: Accessed January 8, 2004.Google Scholar
  26. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fleming T, DeMets D. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21:2313–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Simon G. Choosing a first-line antidepressant: equal on average does not mean equal for everyone. JAMA. 2001;286:3003–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Antes G, Chalmers I. Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethical. Lancet. 2003;361:978–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Furberg C, Psaty B. Should evidence-based proof of drug efficacy be extrapolated to a “class of agents”? Circulation. 2003;108:2608–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Laughren T. Comorbid mood disorders and medical illness: a food and drug administration perspective. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;54:195–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Haga S, Burke W. Using pharmacogenetics to improve drug safety and efficacy. JAMA. 2004;291:2869–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Murphy G, Kremer C, Rodrigues H, Schatzberg A. Pharmacogenetics of antidepressant medication intolerance. Am J Psychiat. 2003;160:1830–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory E. Simon
    • 1
  • Bruce M. Psaty
    • 2
  • Jennifer Berg Hrachovec
    • 3
  • Marc Mora
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Health StudiesGroup Health CooperativeSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Services, Cardiovascular Health Research UnitUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Pharmacy and Therapeutics CommitteeGroup Health CooperativeSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations