NICE guidance for COPD.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Halpin D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1746957 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1315681 | biostudies-literature
Project description:National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines and subsequent NICE issued 'recommendation reminders' advocate discontinuing two fertility procedures and caesarean sections in women with hepatitis. We assess whether NICE guidance in 2004 and recommendation reminders were associated with a change in the rate of clinical procedures performed.Routine inpatient Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data were extracted from the HES database for 1st April 1998 to 31st March 2010 using OPCS procedure codes for varicocele operations in infertile men, endometrial biopsies in infertile women and caesarean sections in women with hepatitis B or C. We used Joinpoint regression to identify points in time when the trend in procedure rates changed markedly, to identify any influence of the release of NICE guidance.Between 1998-2010, planned caesarean sections in women with and without hepatitis B or C increased yearly (annual percentage change (APC) 4.9%, 95% CI 2.1% to 7.7%) in women with hepatitis, compared with women without (APC 4.0% [95% CI 2.7% to 5.3%] up to 2001, APC -0.6% [95% CI -2.8% to 1.8%] up to 2004 and 1.3% [95% CI 0.8% to 1.8%] up to 2010). In infertile women under 40 years of age, endometrial biopsies for investigation of infertility increased, APC 6.0% (95% CI 3.6% to 8.4%) up to 2003, APC 1.5% (95% CI -4.3% to 7.7%) to 2007 followed by APC 12.8% (95% CI 1.0% to 26.0%) to 2010. Varicocele procedures remained relatively static between 1998 and 2010 (APC -0.5%, 95% CI -2.3% to 1.3%).There was no decline in use of the three studied procedures, contrary to NICE guidance, and no change in uptake associated with the timing of NICE guidance or recommendation reminders. 'Do not do' recommendation reminders may be ineffective at improving clinical practice or achieving disinvestment.
| S-EPMC3608251 | biostudies-other
Project description:Central venous catheters are commonly used to deliver therapies and to monitor patients, and require securing at the point of percutaneous entry to avoid dislodgement. SecurAcath is a catheter securement device designed for central venous catheters. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as a part of its Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme, selected this device for evaluation and invited the manufacturer, Interrad Medical, to submit clinical and economic evidence. The King's Technology Evaluation Centre, an External Assessment Centre commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, independently critiqued the manufacturer's submissions. The External Assessment Centre found a lack of evidence comparing SecurAcath with alternative approaches to securement (StatLock, suturing, tape securement), with one unpublished randomised controlled trial providing the strongest evidence. The External Assessment Centre conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis and concluded that there is some evidence indicating the non-inferiority of SecurAcath compared to StatLock. The External Assessment Centre considered the manufacturer's economic model to be appropriate but made revisions to some parameters and noted significant heterogeneity in the included studies. The revised model indicated that StatLock was more cost effective than SecurAcath for catheter indwell times of up to 5 days; however, for medium- and long-term indwell times, SecurAcath was the most cost-effective option. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Medical Technologies Guidance MTG 34, issued in June 2017, recommended the adoption of SecurAcath for securing peripherally inserted central catheters within the National Health Service in England.
| S-EPMC6244619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest internationally in linking reimbursement decisions with recommendations for further research. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) can issue guidance to approve the routine use of a health intervention, reject routine use or recommend use within a research programme. These latter recommendations have restricted use to 'only in research' (OIR) or have recommended further research alongside routine use ('approval with research' or AWR). However, it is not currently clear when such recommendations are likely to be made.ObjectivesThis study aims to identify NICE technology appraisals where OIR or AWR recommendations were made and to examine the key considerations that led to those decisions.MethodsDraft and final guidance including OIR/AWR recommendations were identified. The documents were reviewed to establish the characteristics of the technology appraisal, the cost effectiveness of the technologies, the key considerations that led to the recommendations and the types of research required.ResultsIn total, 29 final and 31 draft guidance documents included OIR/AWR recommendations up to January 2010. Overall, 86 % of final guidance included OIR recommendations. Of these, the majority were for technologies considered to be cost ineffective (83 %) and the majority of final guidance (66 %) specified the need for further evidence on relative effectiveness. The use of OIR/AWR recommendations is decreasing over time and they have rarely been used in appraisals conducted through the single technology appraisal process.ConclusionNICE has used its ability to recommend technologies within research programmes, although predominantly within the multiple technology appraisal process. OIR recommendations have been most frequently issued for technologies considered cost ineffective and the most frequently cited consideration is uncertainty related to relative effectiveness. Key considerations cited for most AWR recommendations and some OIR recommendations included a need for further evidence on long-term outcomes and adverse effects of treatment.
| S-EPMC3561612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess how long the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's (NICE) Technology Appraisal Programme has taken to produce guidance and to determine independent predictors of time to guidance.DesignRetrospective time to event (survival) analysis.SettingTechnology Appraisal guidance produced by NICE. DATASOURCE: All appraisals referred to NICE by February 2010 were included, except those referred prior to 2001 and a number that were suspended.Outcome measureDuration from the start of an appraisal (when the scope document was released) until publication of guidance.ResultsSingle Technology Appraisals (STAs) were published significantly faster than Multiple Technology Appraisals (MTAs) with median durations of 48.0 (IQR; 44.3-75.4) and 74.0 (IQR; 60.9-114.0) weeks, respectively (p?<0.0001). Median time to publication exceeded published process timelines, even after adjusting for appeals. Results from the modelling suggest that STAs published guidance significantly faster than MTAs after adjusting for other covariates (by 36.2 weeks (95% CI -46.05 to -26.42 weeks)) and that appeals against provisional guidance significantly increased the time to publication (by 42.83 weeks (95% CI 35.50 to 50.17 weeks)). There was no evidence that STAs of cancer-related technologies took longer to complete compared with STAs of other technologies after adjusting for potentially confounding variables and only weak evidence suggesting that the time to produce guidance is increasing each year (by 1.40 weeks (95% CI -0.35 to 2.94 weeks)).ConclusionsThe results from this study suggest that the STA process has resulted in significantly faster guidance compared with the MTA process irrespective of the topic, but that these gains are lost if appeals are made against provisional guidance. While NICE processes continue to evolve over time, a trade-off might be that decisions take longer but at present there is no evidence of a significant increase in duration.
| S-EPMC3549260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Intravenous (IV) fluid prescribing is a common occurrence in inpatient settings; it has been repeatedly demonstrated that high levels of mortality and morbidity are associated with inappropriate IV fluid prescribing. IV fluid prescriptions are often completed by the most junior and inexperienced members of the clinical team. In recognition of the issues surrounding IV fluid prescribing and in an effort to combat the issues surrounding current practice, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published guidance in December 2013 - 'Intravenous fluid therapy in adults in hospital (CG174)'. At our hospital the approach to IV fluid prescribing amongst junior doctors was highly variable with poor awareness of the NICE guidance. We defined necessary components for the documentation of IV fluid prescriptions based upon the NICE guidance. Our initial data showed that these components were infrequently documented, with prescriptions often having no indication for IV fluid, no 24 hour plan / review, no documentation of patient weight or request for further weights, and no current or requested fluid balance charts. Lanyard cards emphasising the necessary components of an appropriate IV fluid prescription along with a copy of the NICE fluid prescribing algorithm were distributed to junior doctors on the acute admissions units. Following the introduction of the lanyard cards there was a significant increase in the documentation of the defined prescription components. Significant increases in the documentation of indication for IV fluid and patient weight, which are essential components of accurate fluid prescription, were demonstrated on both medical and surgical admissions units. Subsequently, as a result of improved documentation and consideration given to fluid prescriptions, we were able to increase the percentage of maintenance IV fluid prescriptions that conformed to NICE guidelines. As an endpoint to this intervention all new Foundation Year 1 doctors at our hospital were issued with IV fluid prescribing lanyard cards at Trust induction; the authors believe that this intervention will lead to a unified approach and a sustained improvement in IV fluid prescribing practices and prescription documentation at this hospital site.
| S-EPMC4645880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Axonics sacral neuromodulation (SNM) system can be used by people with refractory overactive bladder (OAB) to reduce symptoms of urge urinary incontinence and urinary frequency, where conservative treatments have failed or are not suitable. It is the first system for this indication that makes use of a rechargeable battery to prolong the lifespan of the implanted device, with the potential advantage of reducing the frequency of surgical replacement procedures and associated complications. We describe the evidence considered by the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in their evaluation of this evidence, supported by Cedar Healthcare Technology Research Centre. Two observational studies provided descriptive data that suggested improvement in control of symptoms after implantation of the Axonics SNM system; however, there was no peer-reviewed evidence that directly compared rechargeable and non-rechargeable SNM systems. In the absence of long-term data, economic modelling relies on the accuracy of battery life estimates. The evidence supports the case for adopting the Axonics SNM system for treating refractory OAB, when conservative treatment or treatment with medicines has not worked. This conclusion is consistent with other relevant NICE guidelines. Use of Axonics SNM technology in the UK National Health Service (NHS) is associated with a potential cost saving of £6025 per person over a 15-year period when compared with an equivalent non-rechargeable SNM system, assuming the claimed battery life estimate (a minimum of 15 years) is accurate. The cost savings are estimated to start around 6 years after implantation.
| S-EPMC9021055 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess adherence patterns to the UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines on glaucoma management (2009) in a tertiary referral centre shared care setting and in a district general hospital (DGH) setting.We performed a retrospective case note analysis of 200 patients from two centres between January and June 2010. The two centres involved were a consultant-guided teaching hospital optometry-led shared care setting (setting 1) and a consultant-led DGH clinic setting (setting 2). The main outcome measures were compliance with eight of the main NICE guidelines on glaucoma diagnosis and management (2009).Both centres showed good adherence to the guidelines regarding the choice of initial treatment (96% vs 100%, settings 1 and 2, respectively) and arranging appropriate monitoring intervals (92% vs 86%). However, significant differences were seen when assessing whether an optic disc image was obtained at the initial visit (74% vs 10%), whether an appropriate initial assessment was performed (96% vs 58%), whether patients' review interval complied with the NICE guidance regardless of hospital cancellations (92% vs 66%), and whether concordance with medication was checked (88% vs 24%) (settings 1 and 2, respectively, P<0.01-Fisher's exact test).Our study provides evidence to suggest that a hospital-based shared care service with trained optometrists using assessment sheets compares favourably to non-specialist glaucoma care delivered by ophthalmologists.
| S-EPMC3496094 | biostudies-other
Project description:Objectives To compare the timelines and recommendations of the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) and National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), in particular since the single technology assessment (STA) process was introduced in 2005. Design Comparative study of drug appraisals published by NICE and SMC. Setting NICE and SMC. Participants All drugs appraised by SMC and NICE, from establishment of each organisation until August 2010, were included. Data were gathered from published reports on the NICE website, SMC annual reports and European Medicines Agency website. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcome was time from marketing authorisation until publication of first guidance. The final outcome for each drug was documented. Drug appraisals by NICE (before and after the introduction of the STA process) and SMC were compared. Results NICE and SMC appraised 140 drugs, 415 were appraised by SMC alone and 102 by NICE alone. NICE recommended, with or without restriction, 90% of drugs and SMC 80%. SMC published guidance more quickly than NICE (median 7.4 compared with 21.4 months). Overall, the STA process reduced the average time to publication compared with multiple technology assessments (median 16.1 compared with 22.8 months). However, for cancer medications, the STA process took longer than multiple technology assessment (25.2 compared with 20.0 months). Conclusions Proportions of drugs recommended for NHS use by SMC and NICE are similar. SMC publishes guidance more quickly than NICE. The STA process has improved the time to publication but not for cancer drugs. The lengthier time for NICE guidance is partly due to measures to provide transparency and the widespread consultation during the NICE process.
| S-EPMC3269048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Memokath-051 is a thermo-expandable, nickel-titanium alloy spiral stent used to treat ureteric obstruction resulting from malignant or benign strictures. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected Memokath-051 for evaluation. The company, PNN Medical, claimed Memokath-051 has clinical superiority and cost savings compared with double-J stents. It identified five studies reporting clinical evidence on Memokath-051 and constructed a de novo cost model comparing Memokath-051 to double-J stents. Results indicated that Memokath-051 generated cost savings of £4156 per patient over 2.5 years. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) critiqued the company's submission and completed substantial additional work. Sixteen studies were identified assessing Memokath-051 and all listed comparators in the scope (double-J stents, reconstructive surgery and metallic and alloy stents) except nephrostomy. Similar success rates were reported for Memokath-051 compared with double-J and Resonance stents and worse outcomes compared with other options with evidence available. The EAC updated the company's cost model structure and modified several inputs. The EAC's model estimated that Memokath-051 generated savings of at least £1619 per patient over 5 years compared with double-J stents, was cost neutral compared with other metallic stents and was cost saving compared with surgery up to month 55. Overall, Memokath-051 is likely to be cost saving in patients not indicated for reconstructive surgery and those expected to require a ureteral stent for at least 30 months. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) reviewed the evidence and supported the case for adoption, issuing partially supportive recommendations published after public consultation as Medical Technologies Guidance 35.
| S-EPMC6028873 | biostudies-literature