Evolution of Value in American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In January 2014, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association released a policy statement arguing for the inclusion of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and value assessments in clinical practice guidelines. It is unclear whether subsequent guidelines changed how they incorporated such concepts. METHODS: We analyzed guidelines of cardiovascular disease subconditions with a guideline released before and after 2014. We counted the words (total and per page) for 8 selected value- or CEA-related terms and compared counts and rates of terms per page in the guidelines before and after 2014. We counted the number of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA or a CEA-related article to compare the ratios of such recommendations to all recommendations before and after 2014. We looked for the inclusion of the value assessment system recommended by the writing committee of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association policy statement of 2014. RESULTS: We analyzed 20 guidelines of 10 different cardiovascular disease subconditions. Seven of the 10 cardiovascular disease subconditions had guidelines with a greater term per page rate after 2014 than before 2014. Across all 20 guidelines, the proportion of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA changed from 0.44% to 1.99% ( P <0.01). The proportion of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA-related article changed from 1.02% to 3.34% ( P <0.01). Only 3 guidelines used a value assessment system. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA or CEA-related article was low before and after 2014 for most of the subconditions, however, with substantial variation in this finding across the guidelines included in our analysis. There is a need to organize existing CEA information better and produce more policy-relevant CEAs so guideline writers can more easily make recommendations that incentivize high-value care and caution against using low-value care.