Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (GGPBT) has been a cornerstone in the education of pharmacists, physicians, and pharmacologists for decades. The objectives of this study were to describe and evaluate the 13th edition of GGPBT on bases including: (1) author characteristics; (2) recency of citations; (3) conflict of interest (CoI) disclosure; (4) expert evaluation of chapters. Contributors’ (N = 115) sex, professional degrees, and presence of undisclosed potential CoI—as reported by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid’s Open Payments (2013–2017)—were examined. The year of publication of citations was extracted relative to Katzung’s Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (KatBCP), and DiPiro’s Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach (DiPPAPA). Content experts provided thorough chapter reviews. The percent of GGPBT contributors that were female (20.9%) was equivalent to those in KatBCP (17.0%). Citations in GGPBT (11.5 ± 0.2 years) were significantly older than those in KatBCP (10.4 ± 0.2) and DiPPAPA (9.1 ± 0.1, p < 0.0001). Contributors to GGPBT received USD 3 million in undisclosed remuneration (Maximum author = USD 743,718). In contrast, DiPPAPA made CoI information available. Reviewers noted several strengths but also some areas for improvement. GGPBT will continue to be an important component of the biomedical curriculum. Areas of improvement include a more diverse authorship, improved conflict of interest transparency, and a greater inclusion of more recent citations.

Objective: Goodman and Gilmans The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (GGPBT) has been a cornerstone in the education of pharmacists, physicians, and pharmacologists for decades. The objectives of this report were to describe and evaluate the 13th edition of GGPBT including 1) author characteristics; 2) recency of citations; 3) conflict of interest (CoI) disclosure, and 4) expert evaluation of chapters. Methods: Contributors (N = 115) sex, professional degrees, and presence of undisclosed potential CoI as reported by the Center for Medicare and Medicaids Open Payments (2013 to 2017) were examined. Year of publication of citations were extracted relative to comparison textbooks (Katzungs Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (KatBCP) and DiPiros Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach (DiPPAPA). Content experts in pharmacy and pharmacology education provided chapter reviews. Results: The percent of GGPBT contributors that were female (20.9%) was equivalent to those in KatBCP (17.0%). Citations in GGPBT (11.5 + 0.2 years) were significantly older than those in KatBCP (10.4 + 0.2) and DiPPAPA (9.1 + 0.1, p < .0001). Contributors to GGPBT received three million in undisclosed remuneration from pharmaceutical companies (Maximum author = $743,718). In contrast, DiPPAPA made CoI information available. However, self-reported disclosures were not uniformly congruent with Open Payments reported data. Reviewers noted several strengths but also some areas for improvement. Conclusion: GGPBT will continue to be an important component of the biomedical curriculum. Areas of improvement include more diverse authorship, improved conflict of interest transparency, and greater inclusion of more recent citations.

BACKGROUND: Nonmedical formulary switches (NMFS) routinely occur in managed health care plans and involve changing preferred medications for reasons outside of clinical considerations. The cost implications of NMFS are infrequently published and the clinical outcomes rarely assessed. OBJECTIVE:To assess the real-world clinical and cost implications of an NMFS involving sitagliptin and linagliptin. METHODS:An NMFS was made to the Geisinger Health Plan (GHP) commercial, health care reform, and Medicaid formularies on February 1, 2018, involving a change in preferred medication from sitagliptin to linagliptin. Claims data from GHP and clinical information from electronic health records of the Geisinger Health System were used to evaluate the cost and clinical impact of this change. Patients aged 18 years or older who were continuously enrolled in a GHP commercial, health care reform, or Medicaid plan throughout the entire study period and had at least 1 fill for sitagliptin during the preswitch phase were included in the study. We investigated the differences in various clinical and economic outcomes from pre-to postswitch among those who switched and remained adherent to the new preferred therapy throughout the 12-month postperiod ("linagliptin switch" group) and patients who did not ("other switch" group). Clinical outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, diabetes-related hospitalization, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), while economic measures included changes in per member per month (PMPM) spending. The negative binomial regression model was used to estimate utilization counts. A generalized linear model with a log link and gamma distribution was used to analyze cost data.RESULTS: 1,203 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 501 (41.6%) individuals switched to and remained at least 80% adherent to linagliptin in the postperiod, while 702 (58.4%) did not. No difference between groups was found when comparing the pre-to postswitch change in all-cause hospitalization (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.46, 95% CI = 0.66-3.23, P = 0.3436) or diabetes-related hospitalization (IRR = 1.39, 95% CI = 0.62-3.10, P = 0.4203). Additionally, no difference was found between groups regarding the change in HbA1c 12-month postswitch compared with baseline (difference between groups = −0.10%,

No abstract