The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines

Time to publication of cost-effectiveness analyses for medical devices

OBJECTIVES

Academic researchers and physicians have called for greater use of cost-effectiveness analyses in informing treatment and reimbursement decisions. This study examines the availability of cost-effectiveness analyses for medical devices, in terms of both the number of studies and when studies are published.

STUDY DESIGN

Analysis of the number of years between FDA approval/clearance and publication for cost-effectiveness analyses of medical devices in the United States published between 2002 and 2020 (n = 86).

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analyses of medical devices were identified using the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. Studies in which the model and manufacturer of the medical device used in the intervention were identifiable were linked to FDA databases. Years between FDA approval/clearance and publication of cost-effectiveness analyses were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 218 cost-effectiveness analyses of medical devices in the United States published between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Of these studies, 86 (39.4%) were linked to FDA databases. Studies examining devices approved via premarket approval were published a mean of 6.0 years after the device received FDA approval (median, 4 years), whereas studies examining devices that were cleared via the 510(k) process were published a mean of 6.5 years after the device received FDA clearance (median, 5 years).

CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies describing the cost-effectiveness of medical devices. Most of these studies' findings are not published until several years after the studied devices received FDA approval/clearance, meaning that decision makers will likely not have evidence of cost-effectiveness when making initial decisions related to newly available medical devices.

Recommendations for the development of Clinical Practice Guidelines

Clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care, are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options, and ensure that the best available clinical knowledge is used to provide effective and quality care. They can reduce inappropriate care and variability in clinical practice and can support the translation of new research knowledge into clinical practice. Recommendations from clinical practice guidelines can support health professionals by facilitating the decision-making process, empowering them to make more informed health care choices, clarifying which interventions should be priorities based on a favorable trade-off, and discouraging the use of those that have proven ineffective, dangerous, or wasteful. This review aims to summarize the key components of high-quality and trustworthy guidelines. Articles were retrieved from various libraries, databases, and search engines using free-text term searches adapted for different databases, and selected according to author discretion. Clinical practice guidelines in geriatrics can have a major impact on prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, health care, and the management of diseases and conditions, but they should only be implemented when they have high-quality, rigorous, and unbiased methodologies that consider older adult priorities and provide valid recommendations.

Dental caries prevention in children and adolescents: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for dental caries prevention in children and adolescents MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search of CPGs on caries preventive measures between 2005 and 2016. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, TripDatabase, websites of CPG developers, compilers of CPGs, scientific societies and ministries of health. We included CPGs with recommendations on sealants, fluorides and oral hygiene. Three reviewers independently assessed the included CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. We calculated the standardised scores for the six domains and made a final recommendation about each CPG. Also, we calculated the overall agreement among calibrated reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Twenty-two CPGs published were selected from a total of 637 references. Thirteen were in English and nine in Spanish. The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (ICC = 0.90; 95%CI 0.89-0.92). The mean score for each domain was the following: Scope and purpose 89.6 ± 12%; Stakeholder involvement 55.0 ± 15.6%; Rigour of development 64.9 ± 21.2%; Clarity of presentation 84.8 ± 14.1%; Applicability 30.6 ± 31.5% and Editorial independence 59.3 ± 25.5%. Thirteen CPGs (59.1%) were assessed as "recommended", eight (36.4%) "recommended with modifications" and one (4.5%) "not recommended".

CONCLUSIONS

The overall quality of CPGs in caries prevention was moderate. The domains with greater deficiencies were Applicability, Stakeholder involvement and Editorial independence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians should use the best available CPGs in dental caries prevention to provide optimal oral health care to patients.

Dental caries prevention in children and adolescents: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for dental caries prevention in children and adolescents MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search of CPGs on caries preventive measures between 2005 and 2016. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, TripDatabase, websites of CPG developers, compilers of CPGs, scientific societies and ministries of health. We included CPGs with recommendations on sealants, fluorides and oral hygiene. Three reviewers independently assessed the included CPGs using the AGREE II instrument. We calculated the standardised scores for the six domains and made a final recommendation about each CPG. Also, we calculated the overall agreement among calibrated reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Twenty-two CPGs published were selected from a total of 637 references. Thirteen were in English and nine in Spanish. The overall agreement between reviewers was very good (ICC = 0.90; 95%CI 0.89-0.92). The mean score for each domain was the following: Scope and purpose 89.6 ± 12%; Stakeholder involvement 55.0 ± 15.6%; Rigour of development 64.9 ± 21.2%; Clarity of presentation 84.8 ± 14.1%; Applicability 30.6 ± 31.5% and Editorial independence 59.3 ± 25.5%. Thirteen CPGs (59.1%) were assessed as "recommended", eight (36.4%) "recommended with modifications" and one (4.5%) "not recommended".

CONCLUSIONS

The overall quality of CPGs in caries prevention was moderate. The domains with greater deficiencies were Applicability, Stakeholder involvement and Editorial independence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians should use the best available CPGs in dental caries prevention to provide optimal oral health care to patients.

Adaptation of Cost Analysis Studies in Practice Guidelines

Clinical guidelines play a central role in day-to-day practice. We assessed the degree of incorporation of cost analyses to guidelines and identified modifiable characteristics that could affect the level of incorporation.We selected the 100 most cited guidelines listed on the National Guideline Clearinghouse (http://www.guideline.gov) and determined the number of guidelines that used cost analyses in their reasoning and the overall percentage of incorporation of relevant cost analyses available in PubMed. Differences between medical specialties were also studied. Then, we performed a case-control study using incorporated and not incorporated cost analyses after 1:1 matching by study subject and compared them by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement requirements and other criteria.We found that 57% of guidelines do not use any cost justification. Guidelines incorporate a weighted average of 6.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.3-7.9) among 3396 available cost analyses, with cardiology and infectious diseases guidelines incorporating 10.8% (95% CI 5.3-18.1) and 9.9% (95% CI 3.9- 18.2), respectively, and hematology/oncology and urology guidelines incorporating 4.5% (95% CI 1.6-8.6) and 1.6% (95% CI 0.4-3.5), respectively. Based on the CHEERS requirements, the mean number of items reported by the 148 incorporated cost analyses was 18.6 (SD = 3.7), a small but significant difference over controls (17.8 items; P = 0.02). Included analyses were also more likely to directly relate cost reductions to healthcare outcomes (92.6% vs 81.1%, P = 0.004) and declare the funding source (72.3% vs 53.4%, P < 0.001), while similar number of cases and controls reported a noncommercial funding source (71% vs 72.7%; P = 0.8).Guidelines remain an underused mechanism for the cost-effective allocation of available resources and a minority of practice guidelines incorporates cost analyses utilizing only 6% of the available cost analyses. Fulfilling the CHEERS requirements, directly relating costs with healthcare outcomes and transparently declaring the funding source seem to be valued by guideline-writing committees.

Gathering and learning from relevant clinical data: a new framework

Given the rising costs of health care in today's economic environment, the need for effective, value-driven care has never been more pressing. While the U.S. health care system strives continually to improve patient outcomes, it struggles with the inadequacies due to variation in care and the inefficiencies of unnecessary resource utilization. The tools traditionally used to study care, from retrospective studies to randomized controlled trials, may be inadequate to address the complicated, interdependent questions related to defining effective care. To overcome the deficiencies of these traditional tools and better optimize our health care system, a new kind of methodology is required--one that integrates the functionality of previously existing tools in a novel way. Standardized Clinical Assessment and Management Plans (SCAMPs) were designed to accomplish this goal. A SCAMP is a care pathway, designed by clinicians, to guide medical decision making around a particular disorder. SCAMPs are unique in that they invite knowledge-based diversions from their recommendations and are accompanied by data collection and continuous improvement processes. Through these mechanisms, SCAMPs successfully reduce practice variation, optimize resource use, and create an integrated medical learning system which overcomes many of the inadequacies of traditional research tools. As such, the SCAMP paradigm may represent an important breakthrough in the effort to define and implement effective health care.

Identification of factors driving differences in cost effectiveness of first-line pharmacological therapy for uncomplicated hypertension

BACKGROUND

Published practice guidelines and economic evaluations have come to different conclusions regarding optimal pharmacotherapy for the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension. The drivers of these disparities are not clear. Greater understanding is needed for clinicians, researchers and policy makers to determine the most effective and sustainable strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To identify how cost and cost-effectiveness considerations are used to generate recommendations by major hypertension guidelines, and determine key drivers of cost-effectiveness conclusions in available economic evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic search and narrative review of major hypertension guidelines and health technology assessments of first-line antihypertensive therapy were performed.

RESULTS

Of the eight guidelines identified, formal cost-effectiveness analysis was rarely integrated in the formulation of recommendations. When guidelines considered costs, recommendations remained incongruent. Two economic evaluations were identified (United Kingdom and Canada); however, these differed in their conclusion of the most cost-effective agent and attractiveness of calcium channel blockers. Review of these economic evaluations suggests that cost-effectiveness conclusions are strongly influenced by relative costs of drug classes; when relative differences in drug costs are lower, the impact on associated conditions such as heart failure and diabetes influences cost-effectiveness conclusions.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of finite health care resources and significant budget impact due to high population prevalence, cost effectiveness is an important consideration in the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension. Identification of key drivers of cost effectiveness will assist interpretation and conduct of current and future economic evaluations.

Has the time come for cost-effectiveness analysis in US health care?

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a powerful analytic tool for assessing the value of health care interventions but it is a method used sparingly in the US. Despite its growing acceptance internationally and its endorsement in the academic literature, most policy analysts have assumed that US decision makers will resist using CEA to inform coverage decisions. This study sought to clarify the extent to which CEA is understood and accepted by US decision makers, including regulators, private and public insurers, and purchasers, and to identify their points of difficulty with its use. We conducted half-day workshops with a sample of six California-based health care organizations that spanned a range of public and private perspectives regarding coverage of health care services. Each workshop included an overview of CEA methods, a priority-setting exercise that asked participants (acting as ‘social decision makers’) to rank condition treatment pairs prior to and following provision of cost-effectiveness information; and a facilitated discussion of obstacles and opportunities for using CEA in their own organizations. Pre and post-questionnaires inquired as to obstacles toward implementing CEA, attitudes toward rationing, and views on the use of CEA in Medicare and in private insurance coverage decision-making. In post-workshop surveys major obstacles identified included: fears of litigation, concerns about the quality and accuracy of studies that were commercially sponsored, and failure of CEAs to address shorter horizon cost implications. Over 90% of participants felt that CEA should be used as an input to Medicare coverage decisions and 75% supported its use in such decisions by private insurance plans. Despite the wide acceptance of CEA, at the conclusion of the workshop, 40% of the sample remained uncomfortable with support of ‘rationing’ per se. We suggest that how cost-effectiveness analysis is framed will have important implications for its acceptability to US decision makers.

[How should health and healthcare priorities be set and evaluated? Prioritization methods and regional disparities. 2008 SESPAS Report]

The conflict between scarce resources and unlimited needs is perhaps more prominent in the healthcare sector than in any other areas. Thus, setting priorities in health care emerges as an unavoidable task. The laudable aim of adopting any health technology that improves the population's health is impossible when confronted by budgetary constraints. Therefore, the outstanding health problems of a society and the most efficient health technologies in terms of their cost-effectiveness must be identified and patients must be prioritized, bearing in mind aspects of equity and efficiency. The present article reviews the issue of setting health care priorities by examining the experiences that have been put into practice in Spain and abroad. The problem is analyzed at three levels: the "macro" level (strategic planning, identification of higher priority areas and the selection of health care interventions); the "meso" level (incorporation of cost-effectiveness analyses into clinical practice guidelines), and the "micro" level (how to design priority systems for patients on waiting lists based on clinical and social criteria). In all these levels, there is substantial heterogeneity between Spanish regional health services, the steps that need to be taken and the ground that needs to be covered. Thus, we suggest that the first steps that some regional health services have made, together with international initiatives, could serve as a reference for the definitive incorporation of new approaches in priority setting in the Spanish health system as a whole.

Increasing decision-makers' access to economic evaluations: Alternative methods of communicating the information

Objectives:Although the importance of economic evaluations is recognized, research suggests the ways in which studies are summarized may not be optimal for a busy decision maker with little training in economics methodology. Therefore, the objective of this study was to seek decision makers' views on different summary formats, including a score, short summary, and structured abstracts of different degrees of detail.

Methods:We contacted 2,400 people, of which 84 decision makers volunteered and were presented, cumulatively, with different formats and asked whether these provided sufficient detail on the methodology and results of an economic study.

Results:From the fifty decision makers who responded to the questionnaire, it was found that the preferred combination was a very short summary, plus a more detailed structured abstract. It was also found that decision makers with economics training preferred the most detailed format, partly reflecting their reasons for consulting economic evaluations.

Conclusions:Decision makers require both an initial screen of study content, plus more detail should they find the study relevant or interesting.

Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to determine inventory size for a national cord blood bank

BACKGROUND

Transplantation with stem cells from stored umbilical cord blood units is an alternative to living unrelated bone marrow transplantation. The larger the inventory of stored cord units, the greater the likelihood that transplant candidates will match to a unit, but storing units is costly. The authors present the results of a study, commissioned by the Institute of Medicine, as part of a report on the establishment of a national cord blood bank, examining the optimal inventory level. They emphasize the unique challenges of undertaking cost-effectiveness analysis in this field and the contribution of the analysis to policy.

METHODS

The authors estimate the likelihood that transplant candidates will match to a living unrelated marrow donor or a cord blood unit as a function of cord blood inventory and then calculate the life-years gained for each transplant type by match level using historical data. They develop a model of the cord blood inventory level to estimate total costs as a function of the number of stored units.

RESULTS

The cost per life-year gained associated with increasing inventory from 50,000 to 100,000 units is $44,000 to $86,000 and from 100,000 to 150,000 units is $64,000 to $153,000, depending on the assumption about the degree to which survival rates for cord transplants vary by match quality.

CONCLUSION

Expanding the cord blood inventory above current levels is cost-effective by conventional standards. The analysis helped shape the Institute of Medicine's report, but it is difficult to determine the extent to which the analysis influenced subsequent congressional legislation.

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 11. Incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 11^th of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this.

Objectives

We reviewed the literature on incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications in guidelines and recommendations.

Methods

We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments.

Key questions and answers

When is it important to incorporate cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability considerations in WHO guidelines (which topics)?

• For cost-effectiveness:

The need for cost/effectiveness information should be dictated by the specific question, of which several may be addressed in a single guideline. It is proposed that the indications for undertaking a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) could be a starting point for determining which recommendation(s) in the guideline would benefit from such analysis.

• For resource implications/affordability:

The resource implications of each individual recommendation need to be considered when implementation issues are being discussed.

How can cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability be explicitly taken into account in WHO guidelines?

• For cost-effectiveness:

∘ If data are available, the ideal time to consider cost-effectiveness is during the evidence gathering and synthesizing stage. However, because of the inconsistent availability of CEAs and the procedural difficulty associated with adjusting results from different CEAs to make them comparable, it is also possible for cost-effectiveness to be considered during the stage of developing recommendations.

∘ Depending on the quantity and quality and relevance of the data available, such data can be considered in a qualitative way or in a quantitative way, ranging from a listing of the costs to a modelling exercise. At the very least, a qualitative approach like a commentary outlining the economic issues that need to be considered is necessary. If a quantitative approach is to be used, the full model should be transparent and comprehensive.

• For resource implications/affordability:

∘ Resource implications, including health system changes, for each recommendation in a WHO guideline should be explored. At the minimum, a qualitative description that can serve as a gross indicator of the amount of resources needed, relative to current practice, should be provided.

How does one provide guidance in contextualizing guideline recommendations at the country level based on considerations of cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability?

• All models should be made available and ideally are designed to allow for analysts to make changes in key parameters and reapply results in their own country.

• In the global guidelines, scenarios and extensive sensitivity/uncertainty analysis can be applied.

Resource implications for WHO

• From the above, it is clear that guidelines development groups will need a health economist. There is need to ensure that this is included in the budget for guidelines and that there is in-house support for this as well.

The Clinical Health Economics System Simulation (CHESS): a teaching tool for systems- and practice-based learning

Academic medical centers face barriers to training physicians in systems- and practice-based learning competencies needed to function in the changing health care environment. To address these problems, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine the authors developed the Clinical Health Economics System Simulation (CHESS), a computerized team-based quasi-competitive simulator to teach the principles and practical application of health economics. CHESS simulates treatment costs to patients and society as well as physician reimbursement. It is scenario based with residents grouped into three teams, each team playing CHESS using differing (fee-for-service or capitated) reimbursement models. Teams view scenarios and select from two or three treatment options that are medically justifiable yet have different potential cost implications. CHESS displays physician reimbursement and patient and societal costs for each scenario as well as costs and income summarized across all scenarios extrapolated to a physician's entire patient panel. The learners are asked to explain these findings and may change treatment options and other variables such as panel size and case mix to conduct sensitivity analyses in real time. Evaluations completed in 2003 by 68 (94%) CHESS resident and faculty participants at 19 U.S. residency programs preferred CHESS to a traditional lecture-and-discussion format to learn about medical decision making, physician reimbursement, patient costs, and societal costs. Ninety-eight percent reported increased knowledge of health economics after viewing the simulation. CHESS demonstrates the potential of computer simulation to teach health economics and other key elements of practice- and systems-based competencies.

Prescribing indicators

BACKGROUND

Differences in prescribing behaviour among general practitioners (GPs).

AIM

To formulate and validate clinical prescribing indicators based on general practice guidelines.

DESIGN

Validatory study.

SETTING

Pharmacies and general practices in the Netherlands in 2003.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 379 pharmacies, 947 general practices and 3.8 million patients.

METHODS

A total of 51 potential indicators were formulated, based on medicinal recommendations from the evidence-based guidelines of the Dutch College of General Practitioners and the corresponding recommendations from the Commission Pharmaceutical Help of the Health Care Insurance Board. These indicators were submitted to an expert panel to assess content validity. The panel assessment was analysed using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method (RAM). Then, for the remaining indicators, it was assessed to what extent these could be used to determine the prescribing behaviour of GPs and the level to which this behaviour varies among GPs. This was done using a prescribing analyses and cost (PACT) database that was compiled from prescription databases from 379 pharmacies, with all prescriptions from 1,434 GPs over an entire year to 3.8 million patients.

RESULTS

The panel considered 34 of the 51 potential indicators to be valid with respect to providing an adequate reflection of the central recommendations in the guideline and in terms of relevance with respect to health gain and/or efficiency. Of these 34 indicators, 20 revealed considerable differences in the prescribing behaviour of GPs.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of existing general practice guidelines, 20 prescribing indicators could be formulated that were assessed by an expert panel to be sufficiently valid and which could also discriminate the prescribing behaviour of GPs as reflected in the prescription databases of pharmacies.