The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Economic modelling of diagnostic and treatment pathways in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines: the Modelling Algorithm Pathways in Guidelines (MAPGuide) project

Economic modelling of diagnostic and treatment pathways in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines: the Modelling Algorithm Pathways in Guidelines (MAPGuide) project
Economic modelling of diagnostic and treatment pathways in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines: the Modelling Algorithm Pathways in Guidelines (MAPGuide) project
Background: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines (CGs) make recommendations across large, complex care pathways for broad groups of patients. They rely on cost-effectiveness evidence from the literature and from new analyses for selected high-priority topics. An alternative approach would be to build a model of the full care pathway and to use this as a platform to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multiple topics across the guideline recommendations.

Objectives: in this project we aimed to test the feasibility of building full guideline models for NICE guidelines and to assess if, and how, such models can be used as a basis for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).

Data sources: a ‘best evidence’ approach was used to inform the model parameters. Data were drawn from the guideline documentation, advice from clinical experts and rapid literature reviews on selected topics. Where possible we relied on good-quality, recent UK systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Review methods: two published NICE guidelines were used as case studies: prostate cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF). Discrete event simulation (DES) was used to model the recommended care pathways and to estimate consequent costs and outcomes. For each guideline, researchers not involved in model development collated a shortlist of topics suggested for updating. The modelling teams then attempted to evaluate options related to these topics. Cost-effectiveness results were compared with opinions about the importance of the topics elicited in a survey of stakeholders.

Results: the modelling teams developed simulations of the guideline pathways and disease processes. Development took longer and required more analytical time than anticipated. Estimates of cost-effectiveness were produced for six of the nine prostate cancer topics considered, and for five of eight AF topics. The other topics were not evaluated owing to lack of data or time constraints. The modelled results suggested ‘economic priorities’ for an update that differed from priorities expressed in the stakeholder survey.

Limitations: we did not conduct systematic reviews to inform the model parameters, and so the results might not reflect all current evidence. Data limitations and time constraints restricted the number of analyses that we could conduct. We were also unable to obtain feedback from guideline stakeholders about the usefulness of the models within project time scales.

Conclusions: discrete event simulation can be used to model full guideline pathways for CEA, although this requires a substantial investment of clinical and analytic time and expertise. For some topics lack of data may limit the potential for modelling. There are also uncertainties over the accessibility and adaptability of full guideline models. However, full guideline modelling offers the potential to strengthen and extend the analytical basis of NICE’s CGs. Further work is needed to extend the analysis of our case study models to estimate population-level budget and health impacts. The practical usefulness of our models to guideline developers and users should also be investigated, as should the feasibility and usefulness of whole guideline modelling alongside development of a new CG
1366-5278
v-vi, 1
Lord, J.
fd3b2bf0-9403-466a-8184-9303bdc80a9a
Willis, S.
eba55f46-52c8-4c1e-82d2-6aa4541c3a48
Eatock, J.
cfd1b3a6-ac6d-4a95-a6e2-64b889879155
Tappenden, P.
c61d68ca-0c6a-4701-87ad-f2e75fd578cb
Trapero-Bertran, M.
934afeb1-5cef-437c-8f32-a7db9e3634cc
Miners, A.
eb696fc3-0ba2-4f06-9b76-6e0474793920
Crossan, C.
ae1e3571-b279-442f-93ff-ace953e8e05a
Westby, M.
ada774a7-e817-40e6-aa95-14e0b65932a8
Anagnostou, A.
bd034f59-aea6-4f91-b6c1-dc5a18e40422
Taylor, S.
6d790cd2-c00b-4666-91f6-5d1d9a0fa974
Mavranezouli, I.
60e88c92-d187-40b4-b862-57d426ca960a
Wonderling, D.
34bbce3b-a8dc-4732-a363-8f03ca54f9a8
Alderson, P.
5161264d-dc0f-4b2c-ae31-8562feaac910
Ruiz, F.
bdb38420-a163-4b96-9fa5-5bf44b1013c5
Lord, J.
fd3b2bf0-9403-466a-8184-9303bdc80a9a
Willis, S.
eba55f46-52c8-4c1e-82d2-6aa4541c3a48
Eatock, J.
cfd1b3a6-ac6d-4a95-a6e2-64b889879155
Tappenden, P.
c61d68ca-0c6a-4701-87ad-f2e75fd578cb
Trapero-Bertran, M.
934afeb1-5cef-437c-8f32-a7db9e3634cc
Miners, A.
eb696fc3-0ba2-4f06-9b76-6e0474793920
Crossan, C.
ae1e3571-b279-442f-93ff-ace953e8e05a
Westby, M.
ada774a7-e817-40e6-aa95-14e0b65932a8
Anagnostou, A.
bd034f59-aea6-4f91-b6c1-dc5a18e40422
Taylor, S.
6d790cd2-c00b-4666-91f6-5d1d9a0fa974
Mavranezouli, I.
60e88c92-d187-40b4-b862-57d426ca960a
Wonderling, D.
34bbce3b-a8dc-4732-a363-8f03ca54f9a8
Alderson, P.
5161264d-dc0f-4b2c-ae31-8562feaac910
Ruiz, F.
bdb38420-a163-4b96-9fa5-5bf44b1013c5

Lord, J., Willis, S., Eatock, J., Tappenden, P., Trapero-Bertran, M., Miners, A., Crossan, C., Westby, M., Anagnostou, A., Taylor, S., Mavranezouli, I., Wonderling, D., Alderson, P. and Ruiz, F. (2013) Economic modelling of diagnostic and treatment pathways in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines: the Modelling Algorithm Pathways in Guidelines (MAPGuide) project. Health Technology Assessment, 17 (58), v-vi, 1. (doi:10.3310/hta17580). (PMID:24325843)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines (CGs) make recommendations across large, complex care pathways for broad groups of patients. They rely on cost-effectiveness evidence from the literature and from new analyses for selected high-priority topics. An alternative approach would be to build a model of the full care pathway and to use this as a platform to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multiple topics across the guideline recommendations.

Objectives: in this project we aimed to test the feasibility of building full guideline models for NICE guidelines and to assess if, and how, such models can be used as a basis for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).

Data sources: a ‘best evidence’ approach was used to inform the model parameters. Data were drawn from the guideline documentation, advice from clinical experts and rapid literature reviews on selected topics. Where possible we relied on good-quality, recent UK systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Review methods: two published NICE guidelines were used as case studies: prostate cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF). Discrete event simulation (DES) was used to model the recommended care pathways and to estimate consequent costs and outcomes. For each guideline, researchers not involved in model development collated a shortlist of topics suggested for updating. The modelling teams then attempted to evaluate options related to these topics. Cost-effectiveness results were compared with opinions about the importance of the topics elicited in a survey of stakeholders.

Results: the modelling teams developed simulations of the guideline pathways and disease processes. Development took longer and required more analytical time than anticipated. Estimates of cost-effectiveness were produced for six of the nine prostate cancer topics considered, and for five of eight AF topics. The other topics were not evaluated owing to lack of data or time constraints. The modelled results suggested ‘economic priorities’ for an update that differed from priorities expressed in the stakeholder survey.

Limitations: we did not conduct systematic reviews to inform the model parameters, and so the results might not reflect all current evidence. Data limitations and time constraints restricted the number of analyses that we could conduct. We were also unable to obtain feedback from guideline stakeholders about the usefulness of the models within project time scales.

Conclusions: discrete event simulation can be used to model full guideline pathways for CEA, although this requires a substantial investment of clinical and analytic time and expertise. For some topics lack of data may limit the potential for modelling. There are also uncertainties over the accessibility and adaptability of full guideline models. However, full guideline modelling offers the potential to strengthen and extend the analytical basis of NICE’s CGs. Further work is needed to extend the analysis of our case study models to estimate population-level budget and health impacts. The practical usefulness of our models to guideline developers and users should also be investigated, as should the feasibility and usefulness of whole guideline modelling alongside development of a new CG

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: 2013
Organisations: Primary Care & Population Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 382198
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/382198
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: 7096efd1-61a1-4d09-8847-f3de4234a365
ORCID for J. Lord: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1086-1624

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 22 Oct 2015 10:52
Last modified: 20 Jul 2019 00:34

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: J. Lord ORCID iD
Author: S. Willis
Author: J. Eatock
Author: P. Tappenden
Author: M. Trapero-Bertran
Author: A. Miners
Author: C. Crossan
Author: M. Westby
Author: A. Anagnostou
Author: S. Taylor
Author: I. Mavranezouli
Author: D. Wonderling
Author: P. Alderson
Author: F. Ruiz

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×