Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement

<p>Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.</p> <p>The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).</p> <p>We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.</p&gt

Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: The MAPS statement

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication. A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round, modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user friendly 23 item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract; (ii) introduction; (iii) methods; (iv) results; (v) discussion; and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by eight health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in five years' time. This statement was published jointly in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Journal of Medical Economics, Medical Decision Making, PharmacoEconomics, and Quality of Life Research

Economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of atopic eczema: a protocol for a systematic review

Background: Eczema, synonymous with atopic eczema or atopic dermatitis, is a chronic skin disease that has a similar impact on health-related quality of life as other chronic diseases. The proposed research aims to provide a comprehensive systematic assessment of the economic evidence base available to inform economic modelling and decision making on interventions to prevent and treat eczema at any stage of the life course. Whilst the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) database collects together the effectiveness evidence for eczema there is currently no such systematic resource on the economics of eczema. It is important to gain an overview of the current state of the art of economic methods in the field of eczema in order to strengthen the economic evidence base further. Methods/design: The proposed study is a systematic review of the economic evidence surrounding interventions for the prevention and treatment of eczema. Relevant search terms will be used to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Econ Lit, Scopus, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and Web of Science in order to identify relevant evidence. To be eligible for inclusion studies will be primary empirical studies evaluating the cost, utility or full economic evaluation of interventions for preventing or treating eczema. Two reviewers will independently assess studies for eligibility and perform data abstraction. Evidence tables will be produced presenting details of study characteristics, costing methods, outcome methods and quality assessment. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using accepted checklists. Discussion: The systematic review is being undertaken to identify the type of economic evidence available, summarise the results of the available economic evidence and critically appraise the quality of economic evidence currently available to inform future economic modelling and resource allocation decisions about interventions to prevent or treat eczema. We aim to use the review to offer guidance about how to gather economic evidence in studies of eczema and/or what further research is necessary in order to inform this

Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme

The economic evaluation of medical devices is increasingly used to inform decision making on adopting new or novel technologies; however, challenges are inevitable due to the unique characteristics of devices. Cost-consequence analyses are recommended and employed by the English National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP) to help address these challenges. The aim of this work was to review the critiques raised for previous MTEP submissions and explore if there were common problems across submissions. We reviewed a sample of 12 economic submissions to MTEP representing 50 % of 24 sets of guidance issued to July 2015. For each submission, we reviewed the External Assessment Centre's (EAC) report and the guidance document produced by NICE. We identified the main problems raised by the EAC's assessments and the committee's considerations for each submission, and explored strategies for improvement. We found that the identification and measurement of costs and consequences are the main shortcomings within economic submissions to MTEP. Together, these shortcomings accounted for 42 % of criticisms by the EACs among the reviewed submissions. In certain circumstances problems with these shortcomings may be unavoidable, for example, if there is a limited evidence base for the device being appraised. Nevertheless, strategies can often be adopted to improve submissions, including the use of more appropriate time horizons, whilst cost and resource use information should be taken, where possible, from nationally representative sources

Managing healthcare budgets in times of austerity: the role of program budgeting and marginal analysis

Given limited resources, priority setting or choice making will remain a reality at all levels of publicly funded healthcare across countries for many years to come. The pressures may well be even more acute as the impact of the economic crisis of 2008 continues to play out but, even as economies begin to turn around, resources within healthcare will be limited, thus some form of rationing will be required. Over the last few decades, research on healthcare priority setting has focused on methods of implementation as well as on the development of approaches related to fairness and legitimacy and on more technical aspects of decision making including the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Recently, research has led to better understanding of evaluating priority setting activity including defining ‘success’ and articulating key elements for high performance. This body of research, however, often goes untapped by those charged with making challenging decisions and as such, in line with prevailing public sector incentives, decisions are often reliant on historical allocation patterns and/or political negotiation. These archaic and ineffective approaches not only lead to poor decisions in terms of value for money but further do not reflect basic ethical conditions that can lead to fairness in the decision-making process. The purpose of this paper is to outline a comprehensive approach to priority setting and resource allocation that has been used in different contexts across countries. This will provide decision makers with a single point of access for a basic understanding of relevant tools when faced with having to make difficult decisions about what healthcare services to fund and what not to fund. The paper also addresses several key issues related to priority setting including how health technology assessments can be used, how performance can be improved at a practical level, and what ongoing resource management practice should look like. In terms of future research, one of the most important areas of priority setting that needs further attention is how best to engage public members

Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia

Background: The extra-welfarist theoretical framework tends to focus on health-related quality of life, whilst the welfarist framework captures a wider notion of well-being. EQ-5D and SF-6D are commonly used to value outcomes in chronic conditions with episodic symptoms, such as heavy menstrual bleeding (clinically termed menorrhagia). Because of their narrow-health focus and the condition’s periodic nature these measures may be unsuitable. A viable alternative measure is willingness to pay (WTP) from the welfarist framework. Objective: We explore the use of WTP in a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia. Methods: A cost-benefit analysis was carried out based on an outcome of WTP. The analysis is based in the UK primary care setting over a 24-month time period, with a partial societal perspective. Ninety-nine women completed a WTP exercise from the ex-ante (pre-treatment/condition) perspective. Maximum average WTP values were elicited for two pharmaceutical treatments, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral treatment. Cost data were offset against WTP and the net present value derived for treatment. Qualitative information explaining the WTP values was also collected. Results: Oral treatment was indicated to be the most cost-beneficial intervention costing £107 less than LNG-IUS and generating £7 more benefits. The mean incremental net present value for oral treatment compared with LNG-IUS was £113. The use of the WTP approach was acceptable as very few protests and non-responses were observed. Conclusion: The preliminary cost-benefit analysis results recommend oral treatment as the first-line treatment for menorrhagia. The WTP approach is a feasible alternative to the conventional EQ-5D/SF-6D approaches and offers advantages by capturing benefits beyond health, which is particularly relevant in menorrhagia

Response to ‘Comment on “Replicating Health Economic Models: Firm Foundations or a House of Cards?”’

This reply refers to the comment available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0576-

A Systematic Evaluation of the Impact of STRICTA and CONSORT Recommendations on Quality of Reporting for Acupuncture Trials

Background: We investigated whether there had been an improvement in quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture since the publication of the STRICTA and CONSORT statements. We conducted a before-and-after study, comparing ratings for quality of reporting following the publication of both STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations. Methodology and Principal Findings: Ninety peer reviewed journal articles reporting the results of acupuncture trials were selected at random from a wider sample frame of 266 papers. Papers published in three distinct time periods (1994–1995, 1999–2000 and 2004–2005) were compared. Assessment criteria were developed directly from CONSORT and STRICTA checklists. Papers were independently assessed for quality of reporting by two assessors, one of whom was blind to information which could have introduced systematic bias (e.g. date of publication). We detected a statistically significant increase in the reporting of CONSORT items for papers published in each time period measured. We did not, however, find a difference between the number of STRICTA items reported in journal articles published before and 3 to 4 years following the introduction of STRICTA recommendations. Conclusions and Significance: The results of this study suggest that general standards of reporting for acupuncture trials have significantly improved since the introduction of the CONSORT statement in 1996, but that quality in reporting detail