IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v8y2024i3d10.1007_s41669-024-00473-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Monitoring of Long-Term Conditions in Primary Care: Informing Decision Modelling with a Systematic Review in Hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Syed G. Mohiuddin

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Mary E. Ward

    (University of Bristol)

  • William Hollingworth

    (University of Bristol)

  • Jessica C. Watson

    (University of Bristol)

  • Penny F. Whiting

    (University of Bristol)

  • Howard H. Z. Thom

    (University of Bristol)

Abstract

Background Long-term conditions (LTCs) are major public health problems with a considerable health-related and economic burden. Modelling is key in assessing costs and benefits of different disease management strategies, including routine monitoring, in the conditions of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care. Objective This review aimed to identify published model-based cost-effectiveness studies of routine laboratory testing strategies in these LTCs to inform a model evaluating the cost effectiveness of testing strategies in the UK. Methods We searched the Medline and Embase databases from inception to July 2023; the National Institute for Health and Care Institute (NICE) website was also searched. Studies were included if they were model-based economic evaluations, evaluated testing strategies, assessed regular testing, and considered adults aged >16 years. Studies identified were summarised by testing strategies, model type, structure, inputs, assessment of uncertainty, and conclusions drawn. Results Five studies were included in the review, i.e. Markov (n = 3) and microsimulation (n = 2) models. Models were applied within T2DM (n = 2), hypertension (n = 1), T2DM/hypertension (n = 1) and CKD (n = 1). Comorbidity between all three LTCs was modelled to varying extents. All studies used a lifetime horizon, except for a 10-year horizon T2DM model, and all used quality-adjusted life-years as the effectiveness outcome, except a TD2M model that used glycaemic control. No studies explicitly provided a rationale for their selected modelling approach. UK models were available for diabetes and CKD, but these compared only a limited set of routine monitoring tests and frequencies. Conclusions There were few studies comparing routine testing strategies in the UK, indicating a need to develop a novel model in all three LTCs. Justification for the modelling technique of the identified studies was lacking. Markov and microsimulation models, with and without comorbidities, were used; however, the findings of this review can provide data sources and inform modelling approaches for evaluating the cost effectiveness of testing strategies in all three LTCs.

Suggested Citation

  • Syed G. Mohiuddin & Mary E. Ward & William Hollingworth & Jessica C. Watson & Penny F. Whiting & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2024. "Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Monitoring of Long-Term Conditions in Primary Care: Informing Decision Modelling with a Systematic Review in Hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 359-371, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00473-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00473-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-024-00473-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-024-00473-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan Brennan & Stephen E. Chick & Ruth Davies, 2006. "A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1295-1310, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bernhard Ultsch & Oliver Damm & Philippe Beutels & Joke Bilcke & Bernd Brüggenjürgen & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Wolfgang Greiner & Germaine Hanquet & Raymond Hutubessy & Mark Jit & Mirjam Knol & Rüdiger, 2016. "Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 227-244, March.
    2. Becky Pennington & Alex Filby & Lesley Owen & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "Smoking Cessation: A Comparison of Two Model Structures," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1101-1112, September.
    3. Peter J. Dodd & Jeff J. Pennington & Liza Bronner Murrison & David W. Dowdy, 2018. "Simple Inclusion of Complex Diagnostic Algorithms in Infectious Disease Models for Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(8), pages 930-941, November.
    4. Jonathan Karnon & James Stahl & Alan Brennan & J. Jaime Caro & Javier Mar & Jörgen Möller, 2012. "Modeling Using Discrete Event Simulation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 701-711, September.
    5. Stuart J. Wright & William G. Newman & Katherine Payne, 2019. "Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(8), pages 1011-1027, August.
    6. Arielle Anderer & Hamsa Bastani & John Silberholz, 2022. "Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs with Surrogates: When Should We Bother?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 1982-2002, March.
    7. Eren Demir & David Southern, 2017. "Enabling better management of patients: discrete event simulation combined with the STAR approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(5), pages 577-590, May.
    8. Jen Kruger & Daniel Pollard & Hasan Basarir & Praveen Thokala & Debbie Cooke & Marie Clark & Rod Bond & Simon Heller & Alan Brennan, 2015. "Incorporating Psychological Predictors of Treatment Response into Health Economic Simulation Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(7), pages 872-887, October.
    9. Sarah Bates & Thomas Bayley & Paul Norman & Penny Breeze & Alan Brennan, 2020. "A Systematic Review of Methods to Predict Weight Trajectories in Health Economic Models of Behavioral Weight-Management Programs: The Potential Role of Psychosocial Factors," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(1), pages 90-105, January.
    10. F. Tomini & F. Prinzen & A. D. I. Asselt, 2016. "A review of economic evaluation models for cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with heart failure," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1159-1172, December.
    11. Jen-Yu Amy Chang & James B. Chilcott & Nicholas R. Latimer, 2024. "Challenges and Opportunities in Interdisciplinary Research and Real-World Data for Treatment Sequences in Health Technology Assessments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 487-506, May.
    12. Luis Hernandez & Asli Ozen & Rodrigo DosSantos & Denis Getsios, 2016. "Systematic Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Alzheimer’s Disease," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(7), pages 681-707, July.
    13. Sarang Deo & Sameer Mehta & Charles J. Corbett, 2022. "Optimal Scale‐Up of HIV Treatment Programs in Resource‐Limited Settings Under Supply Uncertainty," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(3), pages 883-905, March.
    14. Matthew J. Glover & Edmund Jones & Katya L. Masconi & Michael J. Sweeting & Simon G. Thompson, 2018. "Discrete Event Simulation for Decision Modeling in Health Care: Lessons from Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 439-451, May.
    15. Caroline Canavan & Joe West & Timothy Card, 2016. "Calculating Total Health Service Utilisation and Costs from Routinely Collected Electronic Health Records Using the Example of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome Before and After Their First Gastr," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 181-194, February.
    16. Paul Crosland & Deborah A. Marshall & Seyed Hossein Hosseini & Nicholas Ho & Catherine Vacher & Adam Skinner & Kim-Huong Nguyen & Frank Iorfino & Sebastian Rosenberg & Yun Ju Christine Song & Apostolo, 2024. "Incorporating Complexity and System Dynamics into Economic Modelling for Mental Health Policy and Planning," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1301-1315, December.
    17. David Barrera Ferro & Steffen Bayer & Laura Bocanegra & Sally Brailsford & Adriana Díaz & Elena Valentina Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez & Honora Smith, 2022. "Understanding no-show behaviour for cervical cancer screening appointments among hard-to-reach women in Bogotá, Colombia: A mixed-methods approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(7), pages 1-20, July.
    18. Caroline Canavan & Joe West & Timothy Card, 2016. "Calculating Total Health Service Utilisation and Costs from Routinely Collected Electronic Health Records Using the Example of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome Before and After Their First Gastr," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 181-194, February.
    19. L. B. Standfield & T. A. Comans & P. A. Scuffham, 2017. "An empirical comparison of Markov cohort modeling and discrete event simulation in a capacity-constrained health care setting," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(1), pages 33-47, January.
    20. Emma McManus & Tracey Sach & Nick Levell, 2018. "The Use of Decision–Analytic Models in Atopic Eczema: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 51-66, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00473-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.