Therapeutic Substitution and Formulary Systems

Hoover, Susan E.; White, Linda; Weiner, Jeff L.; Farmer, Richard G.; Cleaveland, Clifton R.; Fryhofer, Sandra Adamson; Gordon, Debra; Myers, W. A.; Rosenow, Edward C.; Griner, Paul F.; Almy, Thomas P.; Duffy, F. Daniel; Feinstein, D. I.; McGuire, Lockhart B.; Scott, H. Denman; Tepley, L. B.; Young, Quentin D.; Eisenberg, J. M.; Schroeder, Stefan

doi:10.7326/0003-4819-113-2-160

Ann Intern Med

1990

DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-113-2-160

|View full text |Cite|

Therapeutic Substitution and Formulary Systems

Susan E. Hoover

Linda White

Jeff L. Weiner

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

1991

2018

Publication Types

Select...

Article5

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent5

Authors

Journals

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Antimicrobial Cost and Quality Control: Challenges in the 1990s

Barriere

1991

Pharmacotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing constraints on health care reimbursement, competition among hospitals, and new high‐cost technologies all contribute to escalation of costs in hospitals. The goal in the 1990s is to provide optimum, cost‐effective care for patients without compromising quality. Among many proved methods is an effective formulary system with explicit criteria for use of medications, guidelines for use in specialized circumstances, and suggestions for therapeutic alternatives. This last method of cost control received endorsement from several organizations and offers an important function for hospital pharmacists. Hospital pharmacies can play a major role in minimizing antimicrobial costs and promoting optimum patient care. (Pharmacotherapy 1991;11(1 Pt 2):4S‐5S)

show abstract

Antimicrobial Cost and Quality Control: Challenges in the 1990s

Barriere

1991

Pharmacotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Guidelines for Therapeutic Interchange

1993

Pharmacotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical Decision Analysis Modeling: Short‐Term Control of Ventricular Response Rate in Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter—Digoxin versus Diltiazem

Gonzalez,

Ornato,

Lawson

1994

Pharmacotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To develop a clinical decision model to compare the outcome of therapy with digoxin versus diltiazem for short‐term control of ventricular response rate (VRR) in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.Design. Review of data from two studies that examined the percentages of response and frequency of adverse reactions in patients treated with intravenous digoxin or diltiazem to control VRR in atrial fibrillation or flutter. We constructed a clinical decision model and performed sensitivity analysis to determine if the model's predictions could be altered.Setting. Large teaching, university hospitals.Participants. Adults age 18 years or older treated with intravenous digoxin or intravenous diltiazem for atrial fibrillation or flutter (VRR > 120 beats/min). Patients with severe heart failure New York Heart Association class III or IV, a surgical procedure prior to the exacerbation, or an acute myocardial infarction were excluded.Measurements and Main Results. We measured VRR control after 1 and 24 hours of therapy (VRR < 100 beats/min or decrease of ≥ 20%) and assessed the likelihood that a patient would suffer an adverse drug reaction. Initial assumptions were that the probability digoxin would achieve VRR control was 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.04–0.20) at 1 hour and 0.70 (95% CI 0.56–0.80) at 24 hours; the probability that diltiazem would achieve VRR control was 0.94 (95% CI 0.82–0.99) at 1 hour and 0.83 (95% CI 0.68–0.94) at 24 hours; and the probability of no serious adverse drug reaction would be 0.90 (95% CI 0.80–0.96) for digoxin and 0.96 (95% CI 0.86–0.98) for diltiazem.Results. Diltiazem was superior to digoxin with respect to the composite end point score at 1 hour (91.20 vs 17.29) and 24 hours (81.65 vs 66.43). Digoxin was superior to diltiazem at 24 hours only if the VRR was assumed to be at the highest 95% CI limit for digoxin and simultaneously at the lowest 95% CI for diltiazem (74.62 vs 68.63).Conclusions. Clinical decision analysis suggests that intravenous diltiazem is superior to intravenous digoxin in controlling VRR in patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Therapeutic Substitution and Formulary Systems

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

Antimicrobial Cost and Quality Control: Challenges in the 1990s

Antimicrobial Cost and Quality Control: Challenges in the 1990s

Guidelines for Therapeutic Interchange

Clinical Decision Analysis Modeling: Short‐Term Control of Ventricular Response Rate in Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter—Digoxin versus Diltiazem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About