Addressing Consumer Misconceptions on Antibiotic Use and Resistance in the Context of Sore Throat: Learnings from Social Media Listening.

A misunderstanding of the mechanism of action and bacterial targets of antibiotics by consumers may drive inappropriate antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Tackling AMR requires an in-depth understanding of consumer beliefs and misconceptions. We explored consumer conversations on a number of social media platforms on antibiotic use and AMR in the context of sore throat and how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affected online conversations between 1 January 2018 and 25 November 2021 across eight countries. Five distinct consumer groups were identified (antibiotic-preserving peer educators, antibiotic-cautious consumers, medication-resistant antibiotic opponents, believers in the strength of antibiotics, determined pro-antibiotic consumers) with a wide spectrum of beliefs around antibiotics in sore throat. Many opinions were based upon misconceptions, the most prominent of which was that antibiotics are strong medications that can treat all types of sore throat. COVID-19 had a multifaceted effect on the sore throat and AMR conversation. Sore throat triggered anxiety as consumers feared it may be a COVID-19 symptom while engagement in conversations around antibiotics for COVID-19 increased. Finally, consumers sought multiple routes to access antibiotics, such as directly from the pharmacy or by attempting to persuade physicians to prescribe. Knowledge obtained from this study could be used to develop focused approaches to dispel consumer misconceptions and mitigate AMR.

Managed care considerations for the treatment of chronic cough.

Chronic cough (CC), defined as a daily cough lasting longer than 8 weeks in adults, is a common condition in the United States. CC is a diagnosis of exclusion associated with a substantial economic burden related to increased healthcare and medication utilization, decreased work productivity, a greater incidence of cough-related comorbidities, and reduced quality of life. CC treatment guidelines recommend stepwise treatment with specific nonpharmacologic therapies and pharmacologic agents. However, many patients may still have incomplete or no symptom relief, encounter response attenuation over time, or experience intolerable adverse effects. New targeted therapies for refractory CC are currently under development, including the purinergic 2X3 receptor antagonists gefapixant, BLU-5937, and sivopixant (S-600918) and the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist orvepitant. These targeted agents may have improved efficacy and safety profiles, helping fill unmet treatment needs. If approved, managed care organizations must develop formulary placement and utilization management criteria based on clinical guideline recommendations, expert opinion, and cost-effectiveness analyses to support the clinically appropriate use of these targeted therapies for best patient outcomes.

Payer perceptions on the use of patient-reported outcomes in oncology decision making.

BACKGROUND: In oncology, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, US payers appreciate all evidence that can help support formulary decision making, including evidence beyond traditional safety and efficacy data from clinical trials. Research suggests payers incorporate patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence in their decision making and expect the importance of PRO evidence to grow. Greater understanding on payers' use of PRO information in oncology is needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use of PRO evidence in informing oncology formulary decision making. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving a measurement specialist, health economics and outcomes research experts, and payers developed a survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists who were invited to discuss and contextualize the survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact tests. Two-tailed values are reported and a P value less than or equal to 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers (45.9%) completed the survey; 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% of all respondents indicating their job was pharmacy administrator. The majority of payers (60.0% of small health plans and 57.8% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from clinical trials is useful. Similarly, the majority of payers (57.8% of small plans and 51.9% of large plans) felt PRO evidence from real-world studies is useful. Almost half (47.1%) suggested formulary review would be influenced by a lack of PRO evidence from oncology clinical trials either somewhat, much, or a great deal. Most payers (78.2%) thought PRO evidence is useful for providing additional context for safety of oncology therapies. More than one-third of payers (34.3%) valued PRO evidence when comparing 2 similar therapies, and 51.5% felt PRO evidence may help in measuring value for value-based agreements. Panelists indicated PRO evidence can be useful for developing treatment pathways for addressing health-related quality of life, informing provider-patient dialogues, and defining progression-free survival length and quality. CONCLUSIONS: US payers view PRO evidence from both clinical trials and real-world studies as useful for supplementing traditional clinical trial data when making oncology formulary decisions and for refining treatment pathways and care delivery models. Manufacturers of oncology therapies should collect and consider leveraging PRO evidence from both settings when engaging with US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer contributed to the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the interpretation of the data, and contributed to the discussion and output as authors. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Arondekar, Deal, and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer and own Pfizer stock. Qwek was an employee of Pfizer at the time of this project and owns Pfizer stock.

Payer perceptions on the use of economic models in oncology decision making.

BACKGROUND: To support oncology formulary decisions, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, payers desire data beyond what regulators review. Economic models showing financial impact of treatments may help, but data on payers' use of economic models in oncology are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess payer perceptions regarding use of economic models in informing oncology formulary decisions. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving health economists and payers developed a survey containing singleanswer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists, who were invited to discuss survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Two-tailed values were reported and an alpha level of 0.05 or less was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers completed the survey (45.9%); 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), and 55.6% indicated that their job was pharmacy administrator. Payers indicated moderate/most interest in cost-effectiveness models (CEMs; 85.3%) and budget impact models (BIMs; 80.4%). Overall, 51.6% of respondents claimed oncology expertise on their pharmacy and therapeutics committees. Large plans were more likely to have expertise in reviewing oncology economic models than small plans (55.6% vs 31.1%, P = 0.015). The most common reasons for not reviewing economic models included "not available at time of review" (44.1%) and "potential bias" (38.2%). Overall, 43.1% of payers conduct analyses using their own data after reviewing a manufacturer-sponsored economic model. To inform formulary decisions, 62.7% of payers use BIMs and 66.7% use CEMs sometimes, often, or always. When comparing therapies with similar safety/efficacy profiles, 68.6% of payers reported economic models as helpful a moderate amount, a lot, or a great deal. Over one-third of payers (37.3%) were willing to partner with manufacturers on economic models using their plans' data. Payers valued preapproval information, data on total cost of care, and early access to models. Concerns remained regarding model transparency and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Most US payers reported interest in using economic models to inform oncology formulary decision making. Opportunities exist to educate payers in assessing economic models, especially among small health plans. Ensuring model availability at launch, transparency in model assumptions, and payer-manufacturer partnership in model development may increase the utility of oncology economic models among US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and Pfizer employees led the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and contributed to the manuscript as authors. Arondekar and Niyazov are employed by Pfizer. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project.

Payer perceptions of the use of real-world evidence in oncology-based decision making.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the gold standard of safety and efficacy evidence, are conducted in select patients that may not mirror real-world populations. As a result, healthcare decision makers may have limited information when making formulary decisions, especially in oncology, given accelerated regulatory approvals and niche patient populations. Real-world evidence (RWE) studies may help address these knowledge gaps and help inform oncology formulary decision making. OBJECTIVE: To assess US payer perceptions regarding the use and relevance of RWE in informing oncology formulary decisionmaking. METHODS: A national survey containing single-answer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions evaluated 4 key areas: (1) the value of RWE, (2) barriers to RWE, (3) sources of RWE, and (4) use of RWE in outcomes-based contracting. The survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights program in February 2020. Ten additional respondents were invited to discuss the survey results. The survey results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and were evaluated by the respondent's plan size, type, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in responses for categorical data were compared using a Pearson Chi-Square or a Fisher's Exact test. Two-tailed values are reported and a level of ≤ 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: The national survey had a 45.9% response rate, with 106 payers responding. Most were from managed care organizations (MCOs; 47.5%) and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs; 37.4%), with 54.5% from large plans (≥ 1 million lives) and 45.5% from small plans (< 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), with 55.6% overall indicating their job was a pharmacy administrator. Most (84.9%) used RWE to inform formulary decisions in oncology to support comparative effectiveness in the absence of head-to-head clinical trials (4.1 on a scale of 1 = Not At All Useful to 5 = Extremely Useful) and validation of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommendations (4.0). Almost half (41.5%) used RWE results to inform off-label usage decisions. Payers valued RWE pre-launch to inform formulary and contracting decisions and desired real-world comparative effectiveness data post-launch to validate coverage decisions. However, the majority of payers (54.7%) did not conduct their own real-world studies. Commonly considered RWE sources included claims data (79.2%), medical records (68.9%), prospective cohort studies (60.4%), patient registries (36.8%), and patient outcome surveys (33.0%). Barriers to conducting internal RWE studies included the lack of resources and personnel, analytic capabilities, appropriate in-house data, and perceived value in conducting analyses. Payers expressed interest in using outcomes-based contracting in oncology; few have direct experience, and operationalizing through value measurement is challenging. CONCLUSIONS: RWE providing comparative treatment data, validation of NCCN treatment recommendations, and information on off-label usage are appreciated pre launch with post launch validation. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and employees of Pfizer led the development of the survey and contributed to the manuscript as authors. Arondekar and Niyazov are employees of Pfizer; Oderda, Biskupiak, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project. Malone was paid by Millcreek Outcomes as a consultant on this project.

Reducing economic burden and improving quality of life in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare, progressive disorder associated with a poor prognosis if not treated appropriately. Fortunately, new treatment options have significantly improved survival rates and prognosis. Despite these advances, many patients do not receive the diagnosis until years into their disease or are inappropriately diagnosed. Early referral to specialized treatment centers that allows for early diagnosis and initiation of treatment significantly improves patient outcomes including survival as well as reduction in hospital admissions, which are a main driver of economic burden of disease. It is important that evidence-based guidelines are followed and treatment is individualized based on patient-specific factors. Pharmacologic therapies carry a very high cost for PAH; however, extensive utilization of management strategies may hinder access to medication and may lead to disease progression. Cost containment strategies may help to facilitate care coordination for earlier diagnosis and initiation of treatment, adherence to PAH medications, and patient education to ensure they are using medications appropriately to optimize therapy. Managed care pharmacists can play a crucial role in the multidisciplinary team in terms of medication safety, adherence, patient education, and follow-up to improve patient engagement that leads to improved outcomes.

Wixela Inhub: A Generic Equivalent Treatment Option for Patients with Asthma or COPD.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to discuss the development of Wixela™ Inhub™, a generic equivalent of Advair Diskus®, a fixed-dose combination of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol powder for oral inhalation for patients with asthma whose symptoms are not controlled with inhaled corticosteroids alone and for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are at a high risk for exacerbations. We provide an overview of the Inhub device and the bioequivalence studies that have been conducted to date. Briefly, the in vitro performance, improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dose strengths for Wixela Inhub and Advair Diskus were comparable. CONCLUSION: The bioequivalence demonstrated by the totality of clinical and in vitro data supports the use of Wixela Inhub and provides a treatment option for patients with asthma or COPD.

The Wixela™ Inhub™ device has been developed as a generic equivalent of Advair Diskus^®, and provides a combination treatment for patients with asthma whose symptoms are not controlled with inhaled corticosteroids alone and for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are at a high risk for exacerbations. We provide information about the Inhub device and studies conducted to show how Inhub and Diskus are comparable products. Based on the similar results between the two devices, Inhub can be used as a treatment option for patients with asthma or COPD.

Point-of-Care Testing for Pharyngitis in the Pharmacy.

Pharyngitis (also known as sore throat) is a common, predominately viral, self-limiting condition which can be symptomatically managed without antibiotic treatment. Inappropriate antibiotic use for pharyngitis contributes to the development and spread of antibiotic resistance. However, a small proportion of sore throats caused by group A streptococcal (GAS) infection may benefit from the provision of antibiotics. Establishing the cause of infection is therefore an important step in effective antibiotic stewardship. Point-of-care (POC) tests, where results are available within minutes, can distinguish between viral and GAS pharyngitis and can therefore guide treatment in primary healthcare settings such as community pharmacies, which are often the first point of contact with the healthcare system. In this opinion article, the evidence for the use of POC testing in the community pharmacy has been discussed. Evidence suggests that pharmacy POC testing can promote appropriate antibiotic use and reduce the need for general practitioner consultations. Challenges to implementation include cost, training and 'who prescribes', with country and regional differences presenting a particular issue. Despite these challenges, POC testing for pharyngitis has become widely available in pharmacies in some countries and may represent a strategy to contain antibiotic resistance and contribute to antimicrobial stewardship.

Topical (local) antibiotics for respiratory infections with sore throat: An antibiotic stewardship perspective.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The overuse and misuse of antibiotics, especially for viral, and self-limiting, respiratory tract infections such as sore throat, increases the risk of the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance within communities. Up to 80% of sore throat cases have a viral aetiology, and even when the infection is bacterial, most cases resolve without antibiotics. However, antibiotics are still frequently and often inappropriately prescribed for the treatment of sore throat. Furthermore, topical (local) antibiotics for treatment of sore throat are widely available over the counter. The objective of this systematic review was to establish the evidence for the benefits, risk of harm and antimicrobial resistance associated with topical (local) antibiotics used for patients with sore throat. METHODS: Eligible studies included those in patients with sore throat of any aetiology receiving the topical (local) antibiotics tyrothricin, bacitracin, gramicidin or neomycin where the antibiotic was topically/locally applied via the nasal cavity or throat. Nasal applications were included as these are occasionally used to treat upper respiratory tract infections that may involve sore throat. There was no restriction or requirement regarding comparator. The outcomes of interest included efficacy, safety, and in vitro culture and antimicrobial resistance data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This systematic review found sparse and mainly poor-quality evidence relating to the use of topical (local) antibiotics for sore throat, and it was not possible to establish the benefits, risk of harm or impact of use on antimicrobial resistance. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS: Further research is necessary to ascertain the risks and benefits of topical (local) antibiotics, their contribution to antimicrobial resistance and the risk of harm. We do, however, question whether it is appropriate and rational to use topical (local) antibiotics for the treatment of sore throat caused by respiratory tract infections in the absence of robust evidence.

The Challenge of Variable Costs in Decisions Based on Cost-Effectiveness Evidence: A Case Study for Brodalumab.

BACKGROUND: Payers often consider cost-effectiveness studies for new drugs when making decisions on coverage, formulary position, and budgets; however, cost-effectiveness studies are often calculated using estimated pricing before a drug's launch. If the drug's price changes on or after launch, or if rebate programs are initiated, cost-effectiveness studies need to be updated to prevent payers from making decisions using inaccurate value assumptions, which can lead to unexpected financial impacts and potentially delay patient access to drugs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how lower at-launch drug pricing versus initial estimated pricing affects cost-effectiveness ratios and potentially influences treatment decisions, using the case study of brodalumab, a biologic drug indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: We compared the estimated cost-effectiveness of brodalumab, which was published in a December 2016 Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) report based on estimated pricing, with the drug's cost-effectiveness based on its actual pricing after its approval. DISCUSSION: The 2016 ICER report on the cost-effectiveness of targeted immunomodulators indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, brodalumab's price was estimated to be $4267 by averaging the cost of its likely competitors. Brodalumab's effectiveness as a treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis is high in clinical trials, but its estimated cost placed it as the fourth most cost-effective targeted immunomodulatory drug in the ICER report. On its approval in February 2017, brodalumab's newly estimated base price was $3900, based on its prelaunch price. Calculations using this base price placed brodalumab as the most cost-effective option among targeted immunomodulators in this setting. At the time this current article was written, brodalumab's cost was $3500, making it even more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Because payers, providers, and patients are all concerned with achieving better outcomes for the often painful and disfiguring disease of plaque psoriasis, while controlling costs, updating cost-effectiveness data when new pricing information becomes available may reveal significant cost differences to help stakeholders make better decisions about their population's healthcare outcomes and costs.

Opioid Treatment Patterns Following Prescription of Immediate-Release Hydrocodone.

BACKGROUND: Immediate-release (IR) hydrocodone is the most widely prescribed opioid in the United States; however, little is known about the utilization patterns and duration of opioid use among patients prescribed IR hydrocodone. A better understanding of the use of IR hydrocodone would result in more appropriate prescribing patterns of extended-release opioids. OBJECTIVE: To assess downstream length of opioid therapy and utilization patterns of extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids among patients on IR hydrocodone to provide a better understanding of how IR and ER/LA opioids are used to manage pain. METHODS: Retrospective analysis using health care claims from the Truven MarketScan Commercial, Medicare Supplemental, and Medicaid databases was performed. Patients prescribed IR hydrocodone during the 6-month baseline period (July 2011-December 2011) and with continuous enrollment for a 12-month follow-up period (2012) post-index date (January 1, 2012) were selected. Downstream length of therapy, defined as number of days supplied with opioids, and downstream use of ER/LA opioids during follow-up were examined by average pills per month (≤ 60 vs. > 60 pills per month) and days supply (< 60 vs. ≥ 60 days supply) of IR hydrocodone during baseline to mimic intermittent and consistent IR users. RESULTS: At baseline, 1,743,933 commercial, 277,096 Medicare, and 157,922 Medicaid IR hydrocodone patients were identified. During follow-up, 1.7%, 2.9%, and 2.8% of patients initiated (i.e., converted to or newly started) ER/LA opioids for commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid groups, respectively. Approximately 90% of patients were prescribed IR hydrocodone for less than 2 months in the following year, while 10% were high utilizers, averaging nearly 8 months of prescribed opioid use during follow-up. Downstream initiation of ER/LA opioids was significantly higher among commercial patients prescribed IR hydrocodone for > 60 pills per month than with ≤ 60 pills per month (7.8% vs. 1.2%, respectively, P < 0.05) at baseline. For commercial patients initiating ER/LA opioids, length of ER/LA therapy during follow-up was significantly longer among patients with baseline IR hydrocodone > 60 pills per month than with ≤ 60 pills per month. All results were consistent when examined by levels of days supply. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of the population prescribed IR hydrocodone was not prescribed opioid therapy beyond 2 months on average in the 1-year follow-up period. Only a small subset of patients with increased pills per month or days supply of IR hydrocodone in the baseline period continued to be high utilizers in the following year, averaging nearly 8 months of prescribed opioid use. A limited proportion of patients prescribed IR hydrocodone converted to ER/LA opioids. This knowledge can assist policymakers and physicians, providing an opportunity to identify small subsets of patients to improve ER/LA opioid prescribing. DISCLOSURES: Funding and support for this study was provided by Purdue Pharma L.P. Consulting fees were paid to Evidera by Purdue Pharma L.P. for this study. Kansal, Chitnis, and Paramore are employees of Evidera and were paid consultants to Purdue Pharma for this research. Holly is an employee for Purdue Pharma, and Bell and Ben-Joseph were full-time employees of Purdue Pharma during the design, planning, and execution of the studies and during the preparation of this manuscript. Burgoyne and Brixner were consultants on this project. Study design was created by Ben-Joseph, Brixner, Paramore, and Burgoyne. Data were collected by Kansal, Chitnis, Bell, Ben-Joseph, and Holly and interpreted by Ben-Joseph, Bell, Kansal, and Holly, with assistance from Brixner, Paramore, Burgoyne, and Chitnis. The manuscript was written by Ben-Joseph, Bell, Paramore, Chitnis, and Holly, with assistance from Kansal, and revised by Bell and Holly, along with Ben-Joseph, Brixner, Kansal, Paramore, Burgoyne, and Chitnis.

Defining Value in Cancer Care: AVBCC 2013 Steering Committee Report.

The AVBCC Annual Meeting experiences exponential growth in attendance and participation as oncologists, payers, employers, managed care executives, patient advocates, and drug manufacturers convened in Hollywood, FL, on May 2-5, 2013, for the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Value-Based Cancer Care (AVBCC). The conference presented an all-inclusive open forum for stakeholder dialogue and integration across the cancer care continuum, facilitating an open dialogue among the various healthcare stakeholders to align their perspectives around the urgent need to address value in cancer care, costs, patient education, safety, outcomes, and quality. The AVBCC 2013 Steering Committee was held on the first day of the conference to define value in cancer care. The committee was divided into 7 groups, each representing a key stakeholder in oncology. The goal of the Steering Committee was to define value from the particular point of view of each of the stakeholder groups and to suggest how that particular perspective can contribute to the value proposition in oncology, by balancing cost, quality, and access to care to improve overall patient outcomes. The following summary highlights the major points addressed by each group.

Health plan pharmacy director: considerations for treatment and management of RSV disease.

RSV immunoprophylaxis presents a challenge for MCOs. Despite its demonstrated ability to protect high-risk infants against serious RSV infection and to reduce morbidity, immunoprophylaxis with palivizumab incurs high costs that MCOs must grapple with every year. If MCOs, physicians, and professional organizations can agree on common guidelines for RSV management, then MCOs will be able to provide affordable treatment for those children at high risk.

Prevalence and economic implications of chronic pain.

Chronic pain is a major public health issue that affects the quality of life and productivity. It is costly and has a significant impact on health resource utilization. Management of chronic pain requires a multidisciplinary approach that focuses on disease management and takes into account the need for ongoing support by family members and other caregivers. Managed care pharmacies can play an important role in pain management to effect positive outcomes and reduce health resource utilization.

The use of therapeutic interchange for biologic therapies.

Therapeutic interchange is the practice of switching or dispensing drugs that are chemically distinct but therapeutically similar in terms of their efficacy, safety, and tolerability profiles. The stated goal of therapeutic interchange is to achieve an improved or neutral outcome with the new agent while reducing overall treatment costs. Until recently, most interchange programs have been limited to switches within drug classes, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and generally to drugs that use the same routes of administration. Therapeutic interchange now is being applied to some biologic agents, such as those used to treat psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In some cases, these agents differ in structure and mode of administration. Patients who require a biologic agent are often difficult to manage, and the comorbidities that are prevalent in these patients further complicate management and agent selection. Population-based outcomes among various agents may not appear notably different, but because there is no a priori means to determine the effects of a given biologic agent on any individual patient, therapeutic interchange is inadvisable once a patient receiving RA or psoriasis therapy has been stabilized. However, if a biologic agent has been designated as preferred on a formulary, it is reasonable to initiate treatment with that agent in a patient who is naive to biologic therapy if that agent is not contraindicated. Respectful, two-way communication between health care professionals and managed care organizations (MCOs) will help ensure that a patient receives the appropriate therapy at the right time.