Cargando…

How long has NICE taken to produce Technology Appraisal guidance? A retrospective study to estimate predictors of time to guidance

OBJECTIVES: To 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. DESIGN: Retrospective time to event (survival) analysis. SETTING:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Casson, Steven G, Ruiz, Francis J, Miners, Alec
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3549260/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23315516
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001870
_version_ 1782256399611330560
author Casson, Steven G
Ruiz, Francis J
Miners, Alec
author_facet Casson, Steven G
Ruiz, Francis J
Miners, Alec
author_sort Casson, Steven G
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To 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. DESIGN: Retrospective time to event (survival) analysis. SETTING: Technology 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 MEASURE: Duration from the start of an appraisal (when the scope document was released) until publication of guidance. RESULTS: Single 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)). CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3549260
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35492602013-01-23 How long has NICE taken to produce Technology Appraisal guidance? A retrospective study to estimate predictors of time to guidance Casson, Steven G Ruiz, Francis J Miners, Alec BMJ Open Health Economics OBJECTIVES: To 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. DESIGN: Retrospective time to event (survival) analysis. SETTING: Technology 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 MEASURE: Duration from the start of an appraisal (when the scope document was released) until publication of guidance. RESULTS: Single 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)). CONCLUSIONS: The 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2013-01-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3549260/ /pubmed/23315516 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001870 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode
spellingShingle Health Economics
Casson, Steven G
Ruiz, Francis J
Miners, Alec
How long has NICE taken to produce Technology Appraisal guidance? A retrospective study to estimate predictors of time to guidance
title How long has NICE taken to produce Technology Appraisal guidance? A retrospective study to estimate predictors of time to guidance
title_full How long has NICE taken to produce Technology Appraisal guidance? A retrospective study to estimate predictors of time to guidance
title_fullStr How long has NICE taken to produce Technology Appraisal guidance? A retrospective study to estimate predictors of time to guidance
title_full_unstemmed How long has NICE taken to produce Technology Appraisal guidance? A retrospective study to estimate predictors of time to guidance
title_short How long has NICE taken to produce Technology Appraisal guidance? A retrospective study to estimate predictors of time to guidance
title_sort how long has nice taken to produce technology appraisal guidance? a retrospective study to estimate predictors of time to guidance
topic Health Economics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3549260/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23315516
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001870
work_keys_str_mv AT cassonsteveng howlonghasnicetakentoproducetechnologyappraisalguidancearetrospectivestudytoestimatepredictorsoftimetoguidance
AT ruizfrancisj howlonghasnicetakentoproducetechnologyappraisalguidancearetrospectivestudytoestimatepredictorsoftimetoguidance
AT minersalec howlonghasnicetakentoproducetechnologyappraisalguidancearetrospectivestudytoestimatepredictorsoftimetoguidance