Integrating clinical and economic evidence in clinical guidelines: More needed than ever!

A Blueprint for Multi-use Disease Modeling in Health Economics: Results from Two Expert-Panel Consultations

BACKGROUND

The current use of health economic decision models in HTA is mostly confined to single use cases, which may be inefficient and result in little consistency over different treatment comparisons, and consequently inconsistent health policy decisions, for the same disorder. Multi-use disease models (MUDMs) (other terms: generic models, whole disease models, disease models) may offer a solution. However, much is uncertain about their definition and application. The current research aimed to develop a blueprint for the application of MUDMs.

METHODS

We elicited expert opinion using a two-round modified Delphi process. The panel consisted of experts and stakeholders in health economic modelling from various professional backgrounds. The first questionnaire concerned definition, terminology, potential applications, issues and recommendations for MUDMs and was based on an exploratory scoping review. In the second round, the panel members were asked to reconsider their input, based on feedback regarding first-round results, and to score issues and recommendations for priority. Finally, adding input from external advisors and policy makers in a structured way, an overview of issues and challenges was developed during two team consensus meetings.

RESULTS

In total, 54 respondents contributed to the panel results. The term 'multi-use disease models' was proposed and agreed upon, and a definition was provided. The panel prioritized 10 potential applications (with comparing alternative policies and supporting resource allocation decisions as the top 2), while 20 issues (with model transparency and stakeholders' roles as the top 2) were identified as challenges. Opinions on potential features concerning operationalization of multi-use models were given, with 11 of these subsequently receiving high priority scores (regular updates and revalidation after updates were the top 2).

CONCLUSIONS

MUDMs would improve on current decision support regarding cost-effectiveness information. Given feasibility challenges, this would be most relevant for diseases with multiple treatments, large burden of disease and requiring more complex models. The current overview offers policy makers a starting point to organize the development, use, and maintenance of MUDMs and to support choices concerning which diseases and policy decisions they will be helpful for.

Managing vestibular schwannomas with radiosurgery and radiotherapy: AGREE II appraisal of clinical practice guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Vestibular schwannomas (VSs) are rare, benign intracranial tumours that have prompted clinical practice guideline (CPG) creation given their complex management. Our aim was to utilize the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to assess if such CPGs on the management of VSs with radiosurgery and radiotherapy are of acceptable quality.

METHODS

Relevant CPGs were identified following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols. Experienced reviewers then extracted general CPG properties and rated their quality via the AGREE II instrument. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were quantified to assess interrater reliability.

RESULTS

Nine CPGs on the management of VSs with radiosurgery and radiotherapy were identified. All CPGs were created in the past six years and developed recommendations based on literature review and expert consensus. One guideline was deemed as high quality with seven others being moderate and one being low in quality. The clarity of the presentation domain had the highest mean scaled domain score of 96.0%. The domains of stakeholder involvement and applicability had the lowest means of 49.2% and 47.2%, respectively. ICCs were either good or excellent across all domains.

CONCLUSION

Current CPGs on the management of VSs with radiosurgery and radiotherapy are of acceptable quality but would greatly benefit from improvements in applicability, stakeholder involvement, editorial independence and rigour of development. We recommend CPG authors reference the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guideline as a developmental framework with the Congress of Neurological Surgeons/American Association of Neurological Surgeons (CNS/AANS) CPG being a valid alternative.

Costs of endovascular and open repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms with either endovascular repair (TEVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR) represents major surgery, is costly and associated with significant complications. The aim of this study was to establish accurate costs of delivering TEVAR and OSR in a cohort of UK NHS patients suitable for open and endovascular treatment for the whole treatment pathway from admission and to discharge and 12-month follow-up.

METHODS

A prospective study of UK NHS patients from 30 NHS vascular/cardiothoracic units in England aged ≥18, with distal arch/descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (CTAA) was undertaken. A multicentre prospective cost analysis of patients (recruited March 2014-July 2018, follow-up until July 2019) undergoing TEVAR or OSR was performed. Patients deemed suitable for open or endovascular repair were included in this study. A micro-costing approach was adopted.

RESULTS

Some 115 patients having undergone TEVAR and 35 patients with OSR were identified. The mean (s.d.) cost of a TEVAR procedure was higher £26 536 (£9877) versus OSR £17 239 (£8043). Postoperative costs until discharge were lower for TEVAR £7484 (£7848) versus OSR £28 636 (£23 083). Therefore, total NHS costs from admission to discharge were lower for TEVAR £34 020 (£14 301), versus OSR £45 875 (£43 023). However, mean NHS costs for 12 months following the procedure were slightly higher for the TEVAR £5206 (£11 585) versus OSR £5039 (£11 994).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical procedure costs were higher for TEVAR due to device costs. Total in-hospital costs were higher for OSR due to longer hospital and critical care stay. Follow-up costs over 12 months were slightly higher for TEVAR due to hospital readmissions.

Economic Evaluation of National Patient Blood Management Clinical Guidelines in Cardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To the best of our knowledge, no published clinical guidelines have ever undergone an economic evaluation to determine whether their implementation represented an efficient allocation of resources. Here, we perform an economic evaluation of national clinical guidelines designed to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions before, during, and after surgery published in 2012 by Australia's sole public blood provider, the National Blood Authority (NBA).

METHODS

We performed a cost analysis from the government perspective, comparing the NBA's cost of implementing their perioperative patient blood management guidelines with the estimated resource savings in the years after publication. The impact on blood products, patient outcomes, and medication use were estimated for cardiac surgeries only using a large national registry. We adopted conservative counterfactual positions over a base-case 3-year time horizon with outcomes predicted from an interrupted time-series model controlling for differences in patient characteristics and hospitals.

RESULTS

The estimated indexed cost of implementing the guidelines of A$1.5 million (2018-2019 financial year prices) was outweighed by the predicted blood products resource saving alone of A$5.1 million (95% confidence interval A$1.4 million-A$8.8 million) including savings of A$2.4 million, A$1.6 million, and A$1.2 million from reduced red blood cell, platelet, and fresh frozen plasma use, respectively. Estimated differences in patient outcomes were highly uncertain and estimated differences in medication were financially insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Insofar as they led to a reduction in red blood cell, platelet, and fresh frozen plasma use during cardiac surgery, implementing the perioperative patient blood management guidelines represented an efficient use of the NBA's resources.

Moving beyond Aim Three: a need for a transdisciplinary approach to build capacity for economic evaluations in implementation science

BACKGROUND

Understanding the costs and economic benefits of implementation has been identified by policymakers and researchers as critical to increase the uptake and sustainment of evidence-based practices, but this topic remains relatively understudied. Conducting team science with health economists has been proposed as a solution to increase economic evaluation in implementation science; however, these recommendations ignore the differences in goals and perspectives in these two fields. Our recent qualitative research identified that implementation researchers predominantly approach health economists to examine costs, whereas the majority of health economists expressed limited interest in conducting economic evaluations and a desire to be more integrated within implementation science initiatives. These interviews pointed to challenges in establishing fruitful partnerships when health economists are relegated to the "Third Aim" (i.e., lowest-priority research objective) in implementation science projects by their research partners.

DISCUSSION

In this debate paper, we argue that implementation researchers and health economists need to focus on team science research principles to expand capacity to address pressing research questions that cut across the two fields. Specifically, we use the four-phase model of transdisciplinary research to outline the goals and processes needed to build capacity in this area (Hall et al., Transl Behav Med 2:415-30, 2012). The first phase focuses on the development of transdisciplinary research teams, including identifying appropriate partners (e.g., considering policy or public health researchers in addition to health economists) and building trust. The conceptual phase focuses on strategies to consider when developing joint research questions and methodology across fields. In the implementation phase, we outline the effective processes for conducting research projects, such as team learning. Finally, in the translation phase, we highlight how a transdisciplinary approach between health economists and implementation researchers can impact real-world practice and policy. The importance of investigating the economic impact of evidence-based practice implementation is widely recognized, but efforts have been limited due to the challenges in conducting team science across disciplines. Training in team science can help advance transdisciplinary efforts, which has the potential to increase the rigor and impact of economic evaluations in implementation science while expanding the roles taken by health economists.

Collaborating with health economists to advance implementation science: a qualitative study

Background

Implementation research infrequently addresses economic factors, despite the importance of understanding the costs of implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs). Though partnerships with health economists have the potential to increase attention to economic factors within implementation science, barriers to forming these collaborations have been noted. This study investigated the experiences of health economists and implementation researchers who have partnered across disciplines to inform strategies to increase such collaborations.

Methods

A purposeful sampling approach was used to identify eight health economists and eight implementation researchers with experience participating in cross-disciplinary research. We used semi-structured interviews to gather information about participants' experiences with collaborative research. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core themes related to facilitators and barriers to collaborations.

Results

Health economists and implementation researchers voiced different perspectives on collaborative research, highlighting the importance of increasing cross-disciplinary understanding. Implementation researchers described a need to measure costs in implementation studies, whereas many health economists described that they seek to collaborate on projects that extend beyond conducting cost analyses. Researchers in both disciplines articulated motivations for collaborative research and identified strategies that promote successful collaboration, with varying degrees of convergence across these themes. Shared motivations included improving methodological rigor of research and making a real-world impact. Strategies to improve collaboration included starting partnerships early in the study design period, having a shared interest, and including health economists in the larger scope of the research.

Conclusions

Health economists and implementation researchers both conduct research with significant policy implications and have the potential to inform one another's work in ways that might more rapidly advance the uptake of EBPs. Collaborative research between health economists and implementation science has the potential to advance the field; however, researchers will need to work to bridge disciplinary differences. By beginning to develop strong working relationships; increasing their understanding of one another's disciplinary culture, methodology, and language; and increasing the role economists have within research design and execution, both implementation researchers and health economists can support successful collaborations and robust and informative research.

Integrating clinical and economic evidence in clinical guidelines: More needed than ever!

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

In recent years, several expensive new health technologies have been introduced. The availability of those technologies intensifies the discussion regarding the affordability of these technologies at different decision-making levels. On the meso level, both hospitals and clinicians are facing budget constraints resulting in a tension to balance between different patients' interests. As such, it is crucial to make optimal use of the available resources. Different strategies are in place to deal with this problem, but decisions on a macro level on what to fund or not can limit the role and freedom of clinicians in their decisions on a micro level. At the same time, without central guidance regarding such decisions, micro level decisions may lead to inequities and undesirable treatment variation between clinicians and hospitals. The challenge is to find instruments that can balance both levels of decision making.

DISCUSSION

Clinicians are becoming increasingly aware that their decisions to spend more resources (like time and budget) on 1 particular patient group reduce the resources available to other patients. Involving clinicians in thinking about the optimal use of limited resources, also in an attempt to bridge the world of economic reasoning and clinical practice, is crucial therefore. We argue that clinical guidelines may prove a clear vehicle for this by including both clinical and economic evidence to support the recommendations made. The development of such guidelines requires cooperation of clinicians, and health economists are cooperating with each other.

CONCLUSION

The development of clinical guidelines which combine economic and clinical evidence should be stimulated, to balance central guidance and uniformity while maintaining necessary decentralized freedom. This is an opportunity to combine the reality of budgets and opportunity costs with clinical practice. Missing this opportunity risks either variation and inequity or central and necessarily crude measures.