Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10147017›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics1992

Institutional formularies: the relevance of pharmacoeconomic analysis to formulary decisions.

R J Lipsy

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Pharmaceutical policies in Canada: another example of federal-provincial discord.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2000
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. When is a market not a market?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 1993
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

R J LipsyDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Formularies, in one form or another, have been in existence for nearly 100 years. Beginning simply as a list of available agents, the formulary has evolved into a complex system which acts as a guide to prescribing practices. As the importance of the formulary has increased, so has the need for formulary managers to make an appropriate decision about each drug's formulary status. Several systematic approaches to drug evaluations have been developed to aid in the decision process. However, while some reviews of drug utilisation contain fairly rigorous analyses of their clinical efficacy, very few include an economic evaluation that goes beyond the cost of drug acquisition, preparation, distribution and administration. This is surprising, since formulary managers rank economic data second only to clinical data when making formulary decisions. In the past this apparent oversight has been due, in part, to the absence of a sophisticated model which can both approximate a drug's true economic impact and express cost and quality in similar terms. The explosion of new and very expensive biotechnology drugs into the market has the potential to improve patient care significantly. Such drugs also have the potential to increase institutional pharmacy budgets significantly; with some analysts predicting a spending of $US60 million yearly for these drugs by the year 2000, critical evaluation will be mandatory. Fortunately, advances in the relatively new science of pharmacoeconomics have made it possible to conduct appropriate estimates of the true economic impact of new drug therapies. Pharmacoeconomic studies can be very useful in evaluating drugs for formulary inclusion and in assessing the effects of formulary changes on institutional budgets. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses, utilising decision analysis models and/or data gathered from clinical studies, are used most frequently. Relatively simple models can be used to evaluate drugs within the same class if sufficient published data on their clinical efficacy and safety are available. More complex analyses are necessary when comparing dissimilar agents or when comparing agents with non-drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomic studies have frequently been used to demonstrate that very substantial direct costs of drug therapy are often offset by equal or greater reductions in other institutional direct and indirect patient care costs. Pharmacoeconomic studies have also been used to calculate the relative cost-effectiveness of drug therapies for different disease states, although such evaluations are more useful to governmental and regulatory agencies than to individual institutions.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Indexed as

Formularies, Hospital as TopicClinical Trials as TopicDrug EvaluationEconomics, PharmaceuticalForecastingHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.