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
    ---><---

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.