Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting

Two-year follow-up of a clustered randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent general practice intervention for people at risk of poor health outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study was a two-year follow-up evaluation of health service use and the cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent general practice intervention targeted at people at high risk of poor health outcomes.

METHODS

A two-year follow-up study of a clustered randomised controlled trial was conducted in South Australia during 2018-19, recruiting 1044 patients from three cohorts: children; adults (aged 18-64 years with two or more chronic diseases); and older adults (aged ≥ 65 years). Intervention group practices (n = 10) provided a multicomponent general practice intervention for 12 months. The intervention comprised patient enrolment to a preferred general practitioner (GP), access to longer GP appointments and timely general practice follow-up after episodes of hospital care. Health service outcomes included hospital use, specialist services and pharmaceuticals. The economic evaluation was based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated from EuroQoL 5 dimensions, 5 level utility scores and used an A$50,000 per QALY gained threshold for determining cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Over the two years, there were no statistically significant intervention effects for health service use. In the total sample, the mean total cost per patient was greater for the intervention than control group, but the number of QALYs gained in the intervention group was higher. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was A$18,211 per QALY gained, which is lower than the A$50,000 per QALY gained threshold used in Australia. However, the intervention's cost-effectiveness was shown to differ by cohort. For the adult cohort, the intervention was associated with higher costs and lower QALYs gained (vs the total cohort) and was not cost-effective. For the older adults cohort, the intervention was associated with lower costs (A$540 per patient), due primarily to lower hospital costs, and was more effective than usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

The positive cost-effectiveness results from the 24-month follow-up warrant replication in a study appropriately powered for outcomes such as hospital use, with an intervention period of at least two years, and targeted to older people at high risk of poor health outcomes.

Opportunities and Challenges for Decentralized Clinical Trial Approaches: European Health Technology Assessment Perspective

OBJECTIVES

Decentralized clinical trial (DCT) approaches are clinical trials in which some or all trial activities take place closer to participants' proximities instead of a traditional investigative site. Data from DCTs may be used for clinical and economic evaluations by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to support reimbursement decision making. This study aimed to explore the opportunities and challenges for DCT approaches from an HTA perspective by interviewing representatives from European HTA bodies.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 European HTA representatives between September 2022 and February 2023, and transcripts were analyzed after thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Two main themes were identified from the data relating to (1) DCT approaches in HTA and (2) trial-level acceptance and relevance. Experience with assessing DCTs was limited and a variety of knowledge about DCTs was observed. The respondents recognized the opportunity of DCTs to reduce recall bias when participant-reported outcome data can be collected more frequently and conveniently from home. Concerns were expressed about the data quality when participants become responsible for data collection. Despite this challenge, the respondents recognized the potential of DCTs to increase the generalizability of results because data can be collected in a setting reflective of the everyday situation potentially from a more diverse participant group.

CONCLUSIONS

DCTs could generate relevant results for HTA decision making when data are collected in a real-world setting from a diverse participant group. Increased awareness of the opportunities and challenges could help HTA assessors in their appraisal of DCT approaches.

An economic evaluation of an early palliative care intervention among patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Early integration of palliative care into oncology care has shown positive effects on patient symptoms and quality of life. It may also reduce health care costs. However given the heterogeneity of settings and interventions and the lack of information on the minimally effective dose for influencing care utilisation and costs, it remains uncertain whether early palliative care reduces costs.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether an early palliative care intervention integrated in usual oncology care in a Swiss hospital setting reduced utilisation and costs of health care in the last month of life when compared with usual oncology care alone.

METHODS

We performed a cost-consequences analysis alongside a multicentre trial. We extracted costs from administrative health insurance data and health care utilisation from family caregiver surveys to compare two study arms: usual oncology care and usual oncology care plus the palliative care intervention. The intervention consisted of a single-structured, multiprofessional conversation with the patient about symptoms, end-of-life decisions, network building and support for carers (SENS). The early palliative care intervention was performed within 16 weeks of the diagnosis of a tumour stage not amenable or responsive to curative treatment.

RESULTS

We included 58 participants with advanced cancer in our economic evaluation study. Median overall health care costs in the last month of life were 7892 Swiss Francs (CHF) (interquartile range: CHF 5637-13,489) in the intervention arm and CHF 8492 [CHF 5411-12,012] in the control arm. The average total intervention treatment cost CHF 380 per patient. Integrating an early palliative care intervention into usual oncology care showed no significant difference in health care utilisation or overall health care costs between intervention and control arms (p = 0.98).

CONCLUSION

Although early palliative care is often presented as a cost-reducing care service, we could not show a significant effect of the SENS intervention on health care utilisation and costs in the last month of life. However, it may be that the intervention was not intensive enough, the timeframe too short or the study population too small for measurable effects. Patients appreciated the intervention. Single-structured early palliative care interventions are easy to implement in clinical practice and present low treatment costs. Further research about the economic impact of early palliative care should focus on extracting large, detailed cost databases showing potential shifts in cost and cost-effectiveness.

CLINICAL TRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT01983956.

RECITAL: a non-inferiority randomised control trial evaluating a virtual fracture clinic compared with in-person care for people with simple fractures (study protocol)

INTRODUCTION

Most simple undisplaced fractures can be managed without surgery by immobilising the limb with a splint, prescribing medication for pain, and providing advice and early rehabilitation. Recent systematic reviews based on retrospective observational studies have reported that virtual fracture clinics can deliver follow-up care that is safe and cost-effective. However, no randomised controlled trial has investigated if a virtual fracture clinic can provide non-inferior physical function outcomes compared with an in-person clinic for patients with simple fractures.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

312 participants will be recruited from 2 metropolitan hospitals located in Sydney, Australia. Adult patients will be eligible if they have an acute simple fracture that can be managed with a removable splint and is deemed appropriate for follow-up at either the virtual or in-person fracture clinic by an orthopaedic doctor. Patients will not be eligible if they have a complex fracture that requires a cast or surgery. Eligible participants will be randomised to receive their follow-up care either at the virtual or the in-person fracture clinic. Participants at the virtual fracture clinic will be reviewed within 5 days of receiving a referral through video calls with a physiotherapist. Participants at the in-person fracture clinic will be reviewed by an orthopaedic doctor within 7-10 days of receiving a referral. The primary outcome will be the patient's function measured using the Patient-Specific Functional Scale at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, patient-reported experiences, pain, health cost, healthcare utilisation, medication use, adverse events, emergency department representations and surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone) (X23-0200 and 2023/ETH01038). The trial results will be submitted for publication in a reputable international journal and will be presented at professional conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12623000934640.

Cost-effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract to decrease infectious complications in colorectal cancer surgery: An analysis of the SELECT trial

INTRODUCTION

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is effective in reducing infectious complications in elective colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. However, it is unclear whether SDD is cost-effective compared to standard antibiotic prophylaxis.

MATERIAL & METHODS

Economic evaluation alongside multicenter randomized controlled trial, the SELECT-trial, from a healthcare perspective. Patients included underwent elective surgery for non-metastatic CRC. The intervention group received oral non-absorbable colistin, tobramycin and amphotericin B (SDD) next to standard antibiotic prophylaxis. Both groups received a single shot intravenous cefazolin and metronidazole preoperatively as standard prophylaxis. Occurrence of postoperative infectious complication in the first 30 postoperative days was extracted from medical records, Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) based on the ED-5D-3L, and healthcare costs collected from the hospital's financial administration.

RESULTS

Of the 455 patients, 228 were randomly assigned to intervention group and 227 patients to the control group. SDD significantly reduced the number of infectious complications compared to control (difference = -0.13, 95 % CI -0.05 to -0.20). No difference was found for QALYs (difference = 0.002, 95 % CI -0.002 to 0.005). Healthcare costs were statistically significantly lower in the intervention group (difference = -€1258, 95 % CI -2751 to -166). The ICER was -9872 €/infectious complication prevented and -820,380 €/QALY gained. For all willingness-to-pay thresholds, the probability that prophylactic SDD was cost-effective compared to standard prophylactic practice alone was 1.0.

CONCLUSION

The addition of SDD to the standard preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is cost-effective compared to standard prophylactic practice from a healthcare perspective and should be considered as the standard of care.

Conducting Trial-Based Economic Evaluations Using R: A Tutorial

Trial-based economic evaluations are increasingly being conducted to support healthcare decision-making. When analysing trial-based economic evaluation data, different methodological challenges may be encountered, including (i) missing data, (ii) correlated costs and effects, (iii) baseline imbalances and (iv) skewness of costs and/or effects. Despite the broad range of methods available to account for these methodological challenges in effectiveness studies, they may not always be directly applicable in trial-based economic evaluations where costs and effects are analysed jointly, and more than one methodological challenge typically needs to be addressed simultaneously. The use of inappropriate methods can bias results and conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Eventually, such low-quality evidence can hamper healthcare decision-making, which may in turn result in a waste of already scarce healthcare resources. Therefore, this tutorial aims to provide step-by-step guidance on how to combine appropriate statistical methods for handling the abovementioned methodological challenges using a ready-to-use R script. The theoretical background of the described methods is provided, and their application is illustrated using a simulated trial-based economic evaluation.

Cost-effectiveness of virtual reality and wet laboratory cataract surgery simulation

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of phacoemulsification simulation training in virtual reality simulator and wet laboratory on operating theater performance.

METHODS

Residents were randomized to a combination of virtual reality and wet laboratory phacoemulsification or wet laboratory phacoemulsification. A reference control group consisted of trainees who had wet laboratory training without phacoemulsification. All trainees were assessed on operating theater performance in 3 sequential cataract patients. International Council of Ophthalmology Surgical Competency Assessment Rubric-phacoemulsification (ICO OSCAR phaco) scores by 2 masked independent graders and cost data were used to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A decision model was constructed to indicate the most cost-effective simulation training strategy based on the willingness to pay (WTP) per ICO OSCAR phaco score gained.

RESULTS

Twenty-two trainees who performed phacoemulsification in 66 patients were analyzed. Trainees who had additional virtual reality simulation achieved higher mean ICO OSCAR phaco scores compared with trainees who had wet laboratory phacoemulsification and control (49.5 ± standard deviation [SD] 9.8 vs 39.0 ± 15.8 vs 32.5 ± 12.1, P < .001). Compared with the control group, ICER per ICO OSCAR phaco of wet laboratory phacoemulsification was $13,473 for capital cost and $2209 for recurring cost. Compared with wet laboratory phacoemulsification, ICER per ICO OSCAR phaco of additional virtual reality simulator training was US $23,778 for capital cost and $1879 for recurring cost. The threshold WTP values per ICO OSCAR phaco score for combined virtual reality simulator and wet laboratory phacoemulsification to be most cost-effective was $22,500 for capital cost and $1850 for recurring cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining virtual reality simulator with wet laboratory phacoemulsification training is effective for skills transfer in the operating theater. Despite of the high capital cost of virtual reality simulator, its relatively low recurring cost is more favorable toward cost-effectiveness.

GRADE guidance 23: considering cost-effectiveness evidence in moving from evidence to health-related recommendations

BACKGROUND

This is the 23rd in a series of articles describing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and clinical guideline development.

OBJECTIVES

We outline how resource utilization and cost-effectiveness analyses are integrated into health-related recommendations, using the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Through iterative discussions and refinement, in-person, and online meetings, and through e-mail communication, we developed draft guidance to incorporate economic evidence in the formulation of health-related recommendations. We developed scenarios to operationalize the guidance. We presented a summary of the results to members of the GRADE Economic Evaluation Project Group.

RESULTS

We describe how to estimate the cost of preventing (or achieving) an event to inform assessments of cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments, when there are no published economic evaluations. Evidence profiles and Summary of Findings tables based on systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness analyses can be created to provide top-level summaries of results and quality of multiple published economic evaluations. We also describe how this information could be integrated in GRADE's EtD frameworks to inform health-related recommendations. Three scenarios representing various levels of available cost-effectiveness evidence were used to illustrate the integration process.

CONCLUSION

This GRADE guidance provides practical information for presenting cost-effectiveness data and its integration in the development of health-related recommendations, using the EtD frameworks.

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Parkinson's Disease: An Updated Methodological Review

OBJECTIVE

This article systematically reviewed the methodological quality of modelling approaches for economic evaluations of the treatment of motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease in studies published after 2010.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken using PubMed, EconLit, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment databases of the UK National Health Service Centre for Review and Dissemination (March 2010 to July 2022). Quality was assessed using a checklist from the German Scientific Working Group.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were evaluated, with the majority based on Markov models (n = 18). Studies assessed the cost effectiveness of medical (n = 12) or surgical (n = 8) treatment, and included costs from a payer or healthcare provider's perspective (n = 17). Furthermore, all studies included quality-adjusted life-years as an effect measure. In the quality assessment of the literature, a mean score of 42.1 points (out of 56 points) on the checklist of the German Scientific Working Group was achieved. Seventeen studies concluded the intervention under study was (likely) cost effective. No intervention was classified as cost ineffective.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of economic evaluation models in Parkinson's disease has improved in terms of calculating cost and transition parameters, as well as carrying out probabilistic sensitivity analyses, compared with the published literature of previous systematic reviews up to 2010. However, there is still potential for further development in terms of the integration of non-motor complications and treatment changes, the transparent presentation of parameter estimates, as well as conducting sensitivity analyses and validations to support the interpretation of results.

Robotic and laparoscopic gynaecological surgery: a prospective multicentre observational cohort study and economic evaluation in England

OBJECTIVE

To compare the health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) versus conventional 'straight stick' laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in women undergoing hysterectomy as part of their treatment for either suspected or proven gynaecological malignancy.

DESIGN

Multicentre prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

Patients aged 16+ undergoing hysterectomy as part of their treatment for gynaecological malignancy at 12 National Health Service (NHS) cancer units and centres in England between August 2017 and February 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

275 patients recruited with 159 RALS, 73 CLS eligible for analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life measure (EORTC). Secondary outcomes included EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) utility, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), NHS costs using pounds sterling (£) 2018-2019 prices and cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness evaluation compared EQ-5D-5L quality adjusted life years and costs between RALS and CLS.

RESULTS

No difference identified between RALS and CLS for EORTC, EQ-5D-5L utility and 6MWT. RALS had unadjusted mean cost difference of £556 (95% CI -£314 to £1315) versus CLS and mean quality adjusted life year (QALY) difference of 0.0024 (95% CI -0.00051 to 0.0057), non-parametric incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £231 667per QALY. For the adjusted cost-effectiveness analysis, RALS dominated CLS with a mean cost difference of -£188 (95% CI -£1321 to £827) and QALY difference of 0.0024 (95% CI -0.0008 to 0.0057).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that RALS versus CLS in women undergoing hysterectomy (after adjusting for differences in morbidity) is cost-effective with lower costs and QALYs. Results are highly sensitive to the usage of robotic hardware with higher usage increasing the probability of cost-effectiveness. Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial would be of benefit to decision-makers to provide further evidence on the cost-effectiveness of RALS versus CLS but may not be practical due to surgical preferences of surgeons and the extensive roll out of RALS.

Cost-effectiveness of peer-delivered physical activity promotion and maintenance programs for initially sedentary breast cancer survivors

The evidence for the survival and health benefits of physical activity (PA) among cancer survivors is well documented. However, it has been challenging to maintain PA among cancer survivors. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of peer support to encourage maintenance of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among breast cancer survivors. Participants were randomized into Reach Plus Message (weekly text/email messages), Reach Plus Phone (monthly phone calls) or Reach Plus (a self-monitoring intervention) over 6 months after an initial adoption phase. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) in terms of quality-adjusted years life years (QALYs) and self-reported MVPA, from the payer's budgetary and societal perspectives over 1 year. Intervention costs were collected via time logs from the trainers and peer coaches, and participant costs from the participants via surveys. For our sensitivity analyses, we bootstrapped costs and effects to construct cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. The intervention that provides weekly messages from peer coaches has an ICER of $14,446 per QALY gained and $0.95 per extra minute of MVPA per day over Reach Plus. Reach Plus Message has a 49.8% and 78.5% probability of cost-effectiveness respectively when decision makers are willing to pay approximately $25,000 per QALY and $10 per additional minute of MVPA. Reach Plus Phone, which requires tailored monthly telephone calls, costs more than Reach Plus Message but yields less QALY and self-reported MVPA at 1 year. Reach Plus Message may be a viable and cost-effective intervention strategy to maintain MVPA among breast cancer survivors.

Economic evaluation of flap fixation techniques after mastectomy: Results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial (SAM-trial)

BACKGROUND

An economic evaluation was performed alongside an RCT investigating flap fixation in reducing seroma formation after mastectomy. The evaluation focused on the first year following mastectomy and assessed cost-effectiveness from a health care and societal perspective.

METHODS

The economic evaluation was conducted between 2014 and 2018 in four Dutch breast clinics. Patients with an indication for mastectomy or modified radical mastectomy were randomly assigned to: conventional closure (CON), flap fixation with sutures (FFS) or flap fixation with tissue glue (FFG). Health care costs, patient and family costs and costs due to productivity losses were assessed. Outcomes were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Bootstrapping techniques, sensitivity and secondary analyses were employed to address uncertainty.

RESULTS

The FFS-group yielded most QALYs (0.810; 95%-CI 0.755-0.856), but also incurred the highest mean costs at twelve months (€10.416; 95%-CI 8.231-12.930). CON was the next best alternative with 0.794 QALYs (95%-CI 0.733-0.841) and mean annual costs of €10.051 (95%-CI 8.255-12.044). FFG incurred fewer QALYs and higher costs, when compared to the CON group. The ICER of FFS compared to CON was €22.813/QALY. Applying a willingness to pay threshold in the Netherlands of €20.000/QALY, the probability that FFS was cost-effective was 42%, compared to 37% and 21% for CON and FFG, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness of FFS following mastectomy, versus CON and FFG, is uncertain from a societal perspective. Yet, from a health care and hospital perspective FFS is likely to be the most cost-effective intervention.

Economic evaluations of non-communicable diseases conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa: a critical review of data sources

BACKGROUND

Policymakers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) face challenging decisions regarding the allocation of health resources. Economic evaluations can help decision makers to determine which health interventions should be funded and or included in their benefits package. A major problem is whether the evaluations incorporated data from sources that are reliable and relevant to the country of interest. We aimed to review the quality of the data sources used in all published economic evaluations for cardiovascular disease and diabetes in SSA.

METHODS

We systematically searched selected databases for all published economic evaluations for CVD and diabetes in SSA. We modified a hierarchy of data sources and used a reference case to measure the adherence to reporting and methodological characteristics, and descriptively analysed author statements.

RESULTS

From 7,297 articles retrieved from the search, we selected 35 for study inclusion. Most were modelled evaluations and almost all focused on pharmacological interventions. The studies adhered to the reporting standards but were less adherent to the methodological standards. The quality of data sources varied. The quality level of evidence in the data domains of resource use and costs were generally considered of high quality, with studies often sourcing information from reliable databases within the same jurisdiction. The authors of most studies referred to data sources in the discussion section of the publications highlighting the challenges of obtaining good quality and locally relevant data.

CONCLUSIONS

The data sources in some domains are considered high quality but there remains a need to make substantial improvements in the methodological adherence and overall quality of data sources to provide evidence that is sufficiently robust to support decision making in SSA within the context of UHC and health benefits plans. Many SSA governments will need to strengthen and build their capacity to conduct economic evaluations of interventions and health technology assessment for improved priority setting. This capacity building includes enhancing local infrastructures for routine data production and management. If many of the policy makers are using economic evaluations to guide resource allocation, it is imperative that the evidence used is of the feasibly highest quality.

Optimized segmented regression models for the transition period of intervention effects

BACKGROUND

The interrupted time series (ITS) design is a widely used approach to examine the effects of interventions. However, the classic segmented regression (CSR) method, the most popular statistical technique for analyzing ITS data, may not be adequate when there is a transitional period between the pre- and post-intervention phases.

METHODS

To address this issue and better capture the distribution patterns of intervention effects during the transition period, we propose using different cumulative distribution functions in the CSR model and developing corresponding optimized segmented regression (OSR) models. This study illustrates the application of OSR models to estimate the long-term impact of a national free delivery service policy intervention in Ethiopia.

RESULTS

Regardless of the choice of transition length ([Formula: see text]) and distribution patterns of intervention effects, the OSR models outperformed the CSR model in terms of mean square error (MSE), indicating the existence of a transition period and the validity of our model's assumptions. However, the estimates of long-term impacts using OSR models are sensitive to the selection of L, highlighting the importance of reasonable parameter specification. We propose a data-driven approach to select the transition period length to address this issue.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our OSR models provide a powerful tool for modeling intervention effects during the transition period, with a superior model fit and more accurate estimates of long-term impacts. Our study highlights the importance of appropriate statistical methods for analyzing ITS data and provides a useful framework for future research.

An introduction to health technology assessment and health economic evaluation: an online self-learning course

Cardiovascular diseases impose an enormous burden on patients and society. New health technologies promise to lower this burden; however, novel treatments often come at a high cost. In the Netherlands, health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly being used to inform policy bodies about the optimal distribution of scarce healthcare resources and to guide decision-making about financing and reimbursement. In particular, economic evaluations, as one pillar of HTA, are frequently used to compare the costs and effects of different interventions. This paper aims to define HTA and its relevance to healthcare policy as well as providing a comprehensive overview of the methodology of economic evaluations targeting health professionals and researchers with limited prior knowledge of this subject. Accordingly, different types of economic evaluations are introduced, together with their respective costs and outcomes. Further, the results of economic evaluations are explained, along with techniques for performing them and methods for coping with uncertainty. In addition to this paper-based learning format, each chapter is complemented by a video lecture with further information and practical examples, helping to better understand and analyse health economic studies.

Changing Agendas on Sleep, Treatment and Learning in Epilepsy (CASTLE) Sleep-E: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing an online behavioural sleep intervention with standard care in children with Rolandic epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Sleep and epilepsy have an established bidirectional relationship yet only one randomised controlled clinical trial has assessed the effectiveness of behavioural sleep interventions for children with epilepsy. The intervention was successful, but was delivered via face-to-face educational sessions with parents, which are costly and non-scalable to population level. The Changing Agendas on Sleep, Treatment and Learning in Epilepsy (CASTLE) Sleep-E trial addresses this problem by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness in children with Rolandic epilepsy between standard care (SC) and SC augmented with a novel, tailored parent-led CASTLE Online Sleep Intervention (COSI) that incorporates evidence-based behavioural components.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

CASTLE Sleep-E is a UK-based, multicentre, open-label, active concurrent control, randomised, parallel-group, pragmatic superiority trial. A total of 110 children with Rolandic epilepsy will be recruited in outpatient clinics and allocated 1:1 to SC or SC augmented with COSI (SC+COSI). Primary clinical outcome is parent-reported sleep problem score (Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire). Primary health economic outcome is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective, Child Health Utility 9D Instrument). Parents and children (≥7 years) can opt into qualitative interviews and activities to share their experiences and perceptions of trial participation and managing sleep with Rolandic epilepsy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The CASTLE Sleep-E protocol was approved by the Health Research Authority East Midlands (HRA)-Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/EM/0205). Trial results will be disseminated to scientific audiences, families, professional groups, managers, commissioners and policymakers. Pseudo-anonymised individual patient data will be made available after dissemination on reasonable request.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13202325.

In-person 1-day cognitive behavioral therapy-based workshops for postpartum depression: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postpartum depression (PPD) affects up to one in five mothers and birthing parents, yet as few as 10% access evidence-based treatment. One-day cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based workshops for PPD have the potential to reach large numbers of sufferers and be integrated into stepped models of care.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial of 461 mothers and birthing parents in Ontario, Canada with Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) scores ⩾10, age ⩾18 years, and an infant <12 months of age compared the effects of a 1-day CBT-based workshop plus treatment as usual (TAU; i.e. care from any provider(s) they wished) to TAU alone at 12-weeks post-intervention on PPD, anxiety, the mother-infant relationship, offspring behavior, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Data were collected via REDCap.

RESULTS

Workshops led to meaningful reductions in EPDS scores (m = 15.77 to 11.22; b = -4.6, p < 0.01) and were associated with three times higher odds of a clinically significant decrease in PPD [odds ratio (OR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93-4.67]. Anxiety also decreased and participants had three times the odds of clinically significant improvement (OR 3.20, 95% CI 2.03-5.04). Participants reported improvements in mother-infant bonding, infant-focused rejection and anger, and effortful control in their toddlers. The workshop plus TAU achieved similar quality-adjusted life-years at lower costs than TAU alone.

CONCLUSIONS

One-day CBT-based workshops for PPD can lead to improvements in depression, anxiety, and the mother-infant relationship and are cost-saving. This intervention could represent a perinatal-specific option that can treat larger numbers of individuals and be integrated into stepped care approaches at reasonable cost.

Cost-effectiveness in unstable economies: the case of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Argentina

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (an Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor-ARNI) is one of the cornerstones in the management of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) having demonstrated significant reductions in both mortality and hospitalisations as compared with enalapril. It proved to be a cost-effective treatment in many countries with stable economies. In Argentina, a country with chronic financial instability and a fragmented health care system, the estimation of its cost-effectiveness requires to consider local financial data.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF in Argentina.

METHODS

We populated an Excel-based cost-effectiveness model, previously validated, using inputs from the pivotal phase-3 PARADIGM-HF trial and from local sources. As the main problem to consider was the financial instability, we adopted a differential approach to cost discounting based on the opportunity cost of capital. Thus, a discount rate for costs were set at 31.6%, using the BADLAR rate published by the Central Bank of Argentina. Discount for effects were set at 5% as is the current practice. Costs were expressed in Argentinian pesos (ARS). We used the perspective for both the social security and private payers at a 30-year horizon. The primary analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) versus enalapril, the previous standard of care. Alternative scenarios performed included a 5% cost discount rate and 3 a 5-year horizon (as is usually used).

RESULTS

In Argentina the cost-per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril was 391,158 ARS and 376,665 ARS for a social security and a private payer, respectively, at a 30- year horizon. These ICERs were under the cost- effectiveness threshold of 520,405.79 ARS (1 Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita) suggested by Argentinian health technology assessment bodies. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an acceptability of sacubitril/valsartan as a cost-effective alternative of 86.40% and 88.25% for social security and private payers, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective treatment in HFrEF using local inputs that considered the financial instability. For both payers considered the cost per QALY gained are under the cost-effectiveness threshold considered.

Economic evaluation of interventions for treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review

Background

The extraordinarily high prevalence of treatment-resistant depression (TRD), coupled with its high economic burden to both healthcare systems and society, underscore how critical it is that resources are managed optimally to address the significant challenge it presents.

Objective

To review the literature on economic evaluation in TRD systematically, with the aim of informing future studies by identifying key challenges specific to the area, and highlighting good practices.

Methods

A systematic literature search across seven electronic databases was conducted to identify both within-trial and model-based economic evaluations in TRD. Quality of reporting and study design was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC). A narrative synthesis was conducted.

Results

We identified 31 evaluations, including 11 conducted alongside a clinical trial and 20 model-based evaluations. There was considerable heterogeneity in the definition of treatment-resistant depression, although with a trend for more recent studies to use a definition of inadequate response to two or more antidepressive treatments. A broad range of interventions were considered, including non-pharmacological neuromodulation, pharmacological, psychological, and service-level interventions. Study quality as assessed by CHEC was generally high. Frequently poorly reported items related to discussion of ethical and distributional issues, and model validation. Most evaluations considered comparable core clinical outcomes - encompassing remission, response, and relapse. There was good agreement on the definitions and thresholds for these outcomes, and a relatively small pool of outcome measures were used. Resource criteria used to inform the estimation of direct costs, were reasonably uniform. Predominantly, however, there was a high level of heterogeneity in terms of evaluation design and sophistication, quality of evidence used (particularly health state utility data), time horizon, population considered, and cost perspective.

Conclusion

Economic evidence for interventions in TRD is underdeveloped, particularly so for service-level interventions. Where evidence does exist, it is hampered by inconsistency in study design, methodological quality, and availability of high quality long-term outcomes evidence. This review identifies a number of key considerations and challenges for the design of future economic evaluations. Recommendations for research and suggestions for good practice are made.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=259848&VersionID=1542096, identifier CRD42021259848.

Endovascular treatment and neurosurgical clipping in subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review of economic evaluations

INTRODUCTION

There are two treatment modalities for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: endovascular treatment (EVT) and neurosurgical clipping. Results of economic evaluations are needed to gain insight into the relationship between clinical effectiveness and costs of these treatment modalities. This important information can inform both clinical decision-making processes and policymakers in facilitating Value-Based Healthcare.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, EBSCO, and Web of Science) were searched for studies published until October 2020 that had performed economic evaluations in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients by comparing EVT with neurosurgical clipping. The quality of reporting and methodology of these evaluations was assessed using the associated instruments (i.e. CHEERS statement and CHEC-list, respectively).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 6 studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies reported both effects and costs, however five did not relate effects to costs. Only one study related effects directly to costs, thus conducted a full economic evaluation. The reporting quality scored 81% and the methodological quality scored 30%.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of published cost-effectiveness studies on the treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is poor. Six studies reported both outcomes and costs, however only one study performed a full economic evaluation comparing EVT to neurosurgical clipping. Although the reporting quality was sufficient, the methodological quality was poor. Further research that relates health-related quality of life measures to costs of EVT and neurosurgical clipping is required - specifically focusing on both reporting and methodological quality. Different subgroup analyses and modeling could also enhance the findings.

Impacts of the preceding cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments on the responses to the subsequent EQ-5D-5L

BACKGROUND

In clinical studies, the EQ-5D-5L is often employed with disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. The questions in the former are more general than the latter; however, it is known that responses to general questions can be influenced by preceding specific questions. Thus, the responses to the EQ-5D-5L have the possibility of being influenced by the preceding disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments. This may lead to bias in the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of the preceding cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments on the EQ-5D-5L responses.

METHODS

We prepared questionnaire booklets containing the EQ-5D-5L, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General with different orders. Using a quasi-randomized design, they were distributed to the patients undergoing drug therapy for advanced cancer, who were classified into three groups: Groups 1, 2, and 3 (the EQ-5D-5L placed first, second, and last, respectively). We compared the EQ-5D-5L index and the missingness of EQ-5D-5L among the groups.

RESULTS

The mean EQ-5D-5L index was 0.796, 0.760, and 0.789 for groups 1 (n = 300), 2 (n = 306), and 3 (n = 331), respectively. The difference between Groups 2 and 1 was - 0.036 (95% CI - 0.065 to - 0.007; p = 0.015). The proportion of patients with an incomplete EQ-5D-5L was 0.11, 0.11, and 0.05 for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The difference of the proportions between group 3 and 1 and between 3 and 2 was - 0.06 (95% CI - 0.10 to - 0.02; p = 0.003) and - 0.06 (95% CI - 0.10 to - 0.02; p = 0.003), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the EQ-5D-5L index differed according to the instrument orders, the difference size would not be considerably larger than the minimally important difference. The patients tended to complete the EQ-5D-5L when they were placed at the end of the questionnaire.

Is Pilates more effective and cost-effective than aerobic exercise in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia syndrome? A randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Pilates versus aerobic exercises in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia syndrome from a societal perspective.

METHODS

This two-arm randomized controlled trial with blinded assessor and economic evaluation included 98 patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia syndrome using the American College of Rheumatology 2010 criteria, aged between 20 and 75 years, and pain intensity ≥3 points in the Pain Numerical Rating Scale. Patients were randomly allocated into the aerobic or Pilates group. Treatment was performed twice a week for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the impact of fibromyalgia measured 8 weeks after randomization. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were conducted for the impact of fibromyalgia and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), respectively, with a 12-month time horizon.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the groups for the impact of fibromyalgia (MD: 6.5 points; 95% CI: -1.8 to 14.9). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that 1-point increase in the impact of fibromyalgia was on average associated with a societal cost of £56 for the Pilates group compared to the aerobic group. The cost-utility analysis showed that the Pilates group had a 0.71 probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of £30,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between groups for the impact of fibromyalgia. Pilates was not cost-effective compared to aerobic exercises for the impact of fibromyalgia. However, Pilates seemed to be the preferred option of treatment considering QALYs, although it depends on the willingness-to-pay threshold.

SIGNIFICANCE

Pilates showed to be a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia syndrome. Pilates presented similar results for the impact of fibromyalgia and superior results for pain relief compared to aerobic exercises, a highly recommended intervention for the treatment of fibromyalgia syndrome. Pilates was not cost-effective compared to aerobic exercises for the impact of fibromyalgia. However, Pilates seemed to be a cost-effective intervention for QALYs, depending on the decision-maker's willingness-to-pay threshold.

A systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of the computer-assisted orthopedic system

Computer-assisted orthopedic system (CAOS) is rapidly gaining popularity in the field of precision medicine. However, the cost-effectiveness of CAOS has not been well clarified. We performed this review to summarize and assess the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) with regard to CAOS. Publications on CEA in CAOS have been searched in PubMed and CEA Registry up to May 31, 2022. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to estimate the quality of studies. Relationships between qualities and potential factors were also examined. There were 15 eligible studies in the present review. Twelve studies evaluated CAOS joint arthroplasties and found that CAOS joint arthroplasties were cost-effective compared to manual methods. Three studies focused on spinal surgery, two of which analyzed the cost-effectiveness of CAOS for patients after spinal fusion, with conflicting results. One study demonstrated that CAOS was cost-effective in spinal pedicle screw insertion. The mean QHES score of CEAs included was 86.1. The potential factors had no significant relationship with the quality of studies. Based on available studies, our review reflected that CAOS was cost-effective in the field of joint arthroplasty. While in spinal surgery, the answer was unclear. Current CEAs represent high qualities, and more CEAs are required in the different disciplines of orthopedics where CAOS is employed.

A scoping review of statistical methods for trial-based economic evaluations: The current state of play

The statistical quality of trial-based economic evaluations is often suboptimal, while a comprehensive overview of available statistical methods is lacking. Therefore, this review summarized and critically appraised available statistical methods for trial-based economic evaluations. A literature search was performed to identify studies on statistical methods for dealing with baseline imbalances, skewed costs and/or effects, correlated costs and effects, clustered data, longitudinal data, missing data and censoring in trial-based economic evaluations. Data was extracted on the statistical methods described, their advantages, disadvantages, relative performance and recommendations of the study. Sixty-eight studies were included. Of them, 27 (40%) assessed methods for baseline imbalances, 39 (57%) assessed methods for skewed costs and/or effects, 27 (40%) assessed methods for correlated costs and effects, 18 (26%) assessed methods for clustered data, 7 (10%) assessed methods for longitudinal data, 26 (38%) assessed methods for missing data and 10 (15%) assessed methods for censoring. All identified methods were narratively described. This review provides a comprehensive overview of available statistical methods for dealing with the most common statistical complexities in trial-based economic evaluations. Herewith, it can provide valuable input for researchers when deciding which statistical methods to use in a trial-based economic evaluation.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

The handling of missing data in trial-based economic evaluations: should data be multiply imputed prior to longitudinal linear mixed-model analyses?

INTRODUCTION

For the analysis of clinical effects, multiple imputation (MI) of missing data were shown to be unnecessary when using longitudinal linear mixed-models (LLM). It remains unclear whether this also applies to trial-based economic evaluations. Therefore, this study aimed to assess whether MI is required prior to LLM when analyzing longitudinal cost and effect data.

METHODS

Two-thousand complete datasets were simulated containing five time points. Incomplete datasets were generated with 10, 25, and 50% missing data in follow-up costs and effects, assuming a Missing At Random (MAR) mechanism. Six different strategies were compared using empirical bias (EB), root-mean-squared error (RMSE), and coverage rate (CR). These strategies were: LLM alone (LLM) and MI with LLM (MI-LLM), and, as reference strategies, mean imputation with LLM (M-LLM), seemingly unrelated regression alone (SUR-CCA), MI with SUR (MI-SUR), and mean imputation with SUR (M-SUR).

RESULTS

For costs and effects, LLM, MI-LLM, and MI-SUR performed better than M-LLM, SUR-CCA, and M-SUR, with smaller EBs and RMSEs as well as CRs closers to nominal levels. However, even though LLM, MI-LLM and MI-SUR performed equally well for effects, MI-LLM and MI-SUR were found to perform better than LLM for costs at 10 and 25% missing data. At 50% missing data, all strategies resulted in relatively high EBs and RMSEs for costs.

CONCLUSION

LLM should be combined with MI when analyzing trial-based economic evaluation data. MI-SUR is more efficient and can also be used, but then an average intervention effect over time cannot be estimated.

A systematic review of economic analyses of psychological interventions and therapies in health-related settings

Background

This review aims to synthesise evidence on the economic impact of psychological interventions and therapies when applied to a broad range of physical health conditions.

Methods

The following bibliographic databases were searched for relevant articles: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (Ebsco). As this review was intended to update an earlier review, the date range for the search was restricted to between January 2012 and September 2018. Reference lists from the review articles were also searched for relevant articles. Study quality was evaluated using the Scottish Intercollegiate Network Guidelines (SIGN) appraisal checklists for both economic studies and Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). When the economic analyses did not provide sufficient detail for quality evaluation, the original RCT papers were sought and these were also evaluated. Half of the papers were quality rated by a second author. Initial agreement was high and all disagreements were resolved by discussion.

Results

This yielded 1408 unique articles, reduced to 134 following screening of the title and abstract. The full texts of the remaining articles were reviewed by at least one team member and all exclusions were discussed and agreed by the team. This left 46 original research articles, alongside five systematic reviews. Fifty-seven per cent of the articles were deemed to be of high quality, with the remainder of acceptable quality. Fifteen different medical conditions were covered, with chronic pain (10 articles) and cancer (9 articles) being the two most investigated health conditions. Three quarters of the papers reviewed showed evidence for the cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions in physical health, with the clearest evidence being in the field of chronic pain and cancer.

Conclusions

This paper provides a comprehensive integration of the research on the cost-effectiveness of psychological therapies in physical health. Whilst the evidence for cost-effectiveness in chronic pain and cancer is encouraging, some health conditions require further study. Clearly, as the primary research is international, and was therefore conducted across varying health care systems, caution must be exercised when applying the results to counties outside of those covered. Despite this, the results are of potential relevance to service providers and funders.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08158-0.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement, including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Methodological Comparison of Mapping the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite to EuroQoL-5D-3L Using Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data: Secondary Analysis of NRG/RTOG 0415

PURPOSE

To compare the predictive ability of mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data.

METHODS

This methodological assessment used data from a randomized controlled noninferiority trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer, conducted by NRG Oncology (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00331773), which examined the efficacy of conventional schedule versus hypofractionated radiation therapy (three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy/IMRT). Health-related quality-of-life data were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D-3L (EQ-5D) at baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 60 months postintervention. Mapping algorithms were estimated using ordinary least squares regression models through five-fold cross-validation in baseline cross-sectional data and combined longitudinal data from all assessment periods; random effects specifications were also estimated in longitudinal data. Predictive performance was compared using root mean square error. Longitudinal predictive ability of models obtained using baseline data was examined using mean absolute differences in the reported and predicted utilities.

RESULTS

A total of 267 (and 199) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ-5D and EPIC domain (and subdomain) data at baseline and at all subsequent assessments. Ordinary least squares models using combined data showed better predictive ability (lowest root mean square error) in the validation phase for algorithms with EPIC domain/subdomain data alone, whereas models using baseline data outperformed other specifications in the validation phase when patient covariates were also modeled. The mean absolute differences were lower for models using EPIC subdomain data compared with EPIC domain data and generally decreased as the time of assessment increased.

CONCLUSION

Overall, mapping algorithms obtained using baseline cross-sectional data showed the best predictive performance. Furthermore, these models demonstrated satisfactory longitudinal predictive ability.

How to appraise the literature: basic principles for the busy clinician - part 1: randomised controlled trials

Critical appraisal is the process of carefully, judiciously and systematically examining research to adjudicate its trustworthiness and its value and relevance in clinical practice. The first part of this two-part series will discuss the principles of critically appraising randomised controlled trials. The second part will discuss the principles of critically appraising systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Evidence-based dentistry (EBD) is the integration of the dentist's clinical expertise, the patient's needs and preferences and the most current, clinically relevant evidence. Critical appraisal of the literature is an invaluable and indispensable skill that dentists should possess to help them deliver EBD.This article seeks to act as a refresher and guide for generalists, specialists and the wider readership, so that they can efficiently and confidently appraise research - specifically, randomised controlled trials - that may be pertinent to their daily clinical practice.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

A framework for economic evaluation of therapeutic drug monitoring-guided dosing in oncology

The standard approach for dose individualization of chemotherapy in the oncology setting has long been based on body surface area (BSA) as a measure of body size. However, for many anticancer drugs, administration of dosages based on BSA may result in some patients receiving supratherapeutic or subtherapeutic concentrations due to substantial interindividual pharmacokinetic variability. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-guided dosing aims to ensure that the patient's serum drug concentration is in a target range which has been shown to produce optimal clinical outcomes. The management of several malignancies is now moving away from using traditional intravenous chemotherapy to longer-term treatment with targeted molecular therapies. These targeted anticancer drugs are currently dosed based on a fixed dose for all patients. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of most of these drugs (e.g., tyrosine-kinase inhibitors) support implementation of individualized dosing via TDM. However, prior to adopting TDM-guided dosing in oncology settings, the economic efficiency and value for money of introducing TDM interventions should be critically and systematically examined along with the impacts on patient care and outcomes. Yet, current evidence in this area is limited, and more generally, there is lack of methodological guidance on how to identify, estimate and value clinical and cost information necessary to conduct economic evaluations of TDM interventions. In this paper, we propose a coherent framework for conducting economic evaluation of TDM interventions in oncology settings and discuss some practical challenges of conducting economic evaluations of TDM.

Economic evaluations of educational, physical, and psychological treatments for fibromyalgia: a systematic review with meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Nonpharmacological interventions are recommended for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but there is a lack of knowledge about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. The aim of this study was to systematically review economic evaluations of educational, physical, and psychological interventions for the treatment of fibromyalgia. The search was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, EconLit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment. Economic evaluations of educational, physical, and psychological interventions for adult patients with fibromyalgia were included. Primary outcomes were healthcare and societal costs, and quality-adjusted life-years, and secondary outcomes were any disease-specific clinical outcome. Costs and effects were pooled in a meta-analysis, when possible. Eleven studies were included, of which 7 compared a psychological intervention with another intervention or usual care/control. Over a 6-month time horizon, healthcare and societal costs of the psychological intervention were significantly lower than usual care (mean difference: $-2087, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3061 to -1112; mean difference: $-2411, 95% CI: -3582 to -1240, respectively), and healthcare costs were significantly lower for the psychological intervention compared with a pharmacological intervention (mean difference: $-1443, 95% CI: -2165 to -721). Over a 12-month time horizon, healthcare costs for the psychological intervention were significantly lower than for usual care (mean difference: $-538, 95% CI: -917 to -158). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for quality-adjusted life-years and impact of fibromyalgia showed that the psychological intervention was cost-effective compared with other interventions and control conditions. There is a need of more economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials with interventions recommended for the treatment of fibromyalgia, such as physical exercise.

How has implementation been incorporated in health technology assessments in the United Kingdom? A systematic rapid review

OBJECTIVES

Health interventions in a clinical setting may be complex. This is particularly true of clinical interventions which require systems reorganization or behavioural change, and/or when implementation involves additional challenges not captured within a clinical trial setting. Medical Research Council guidance on complex interventions highlights the need to consider economic evaluation alongside implementation. However, the extent to which this guidance has been adhered to, and how, is unclear. The failure to incorporate implementation within the evaluation of an intervention may hinder the translation of research findings into routine practice. This will have consequences for patient care. This study examined the methods used to address implementation within health research conducted through funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review using a systematic approach. We included all NIHR HTA monographs which contained the word "implementation" within the title or abstract published between 2014 and 2020. We assessed the studies according to existing recommendations for specifying and reporting implementation approaches in research. Additional themes which were not included in the recommendation, but were of particular relevance to our research question, were also identified and summarized in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

The extent to which implementation was formally incorporated, and defined, varied among studies. Methods for examining implementation ranged from single stakeholder engagement events to the more comprehensive process evaluation. There was no obvious pattern as to whether approaches to implementation had evolved over recent years. Approximately 50% (22/42) of studies included an economic evaluation. Of these, two studies included the use of qualitative data obtained within the study to quantitatively inform aspects relating to implementation and economic evaluation in their study.

DISCUSSION

A variety of approaches were identified for incorporating implementation within an HTA. However, they did not go far enough in terms of incorporating implementation into the actual design and evaluation. To ensure the implementation of clinically effective and cost-effective interventions, we propose that further guidance on how to incorporate implementation within complex interventions is required. Incorporating implementation into economic evaluation provides a step in this direction.

Economic Analysis of a Diabetes Health Coaching Intervention for Adults Living With Type 2 Diabetes: A Single-Centre Evaluation From a Community-Based Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrated that a community-based, telephone-delivered diabetes health coaching intervention was effective for improving diabetes management. Our aim in this study was to determine whether this intervention is also cost-effective.

METHODS

An economic evaluation, in the form of a cost-utility analysis (CUA), was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the coaching intervention from a public payer's perspective. All direct medical costs, as well as intervention implementation, were included. The outcome measure for the CUA was quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Uncertainty of cost-effectiveness results was estimated using nonparametric bootstraps of patient-level costs and QALYs in the coaching and control arms. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was used to express this uncertainty as the probability that diabetes health coaching is cost-effective across a range of values of willingness-to-pay thresholds for a QALY.

RESULTS

The results show that subjects in the coaching arm incurred higher overall costs (in Canadian dollars) than subjects in the control arm ($1,581 vs $1,086, respectively) and incurred 0.02 more QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the diabetes health coaching intervention compared with usual care was found to be $35,129 per QALY, with probabilities of 67% and 82% that diabetes health coaching would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY and $100,000 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A community-based, telephone-delivered diabetes health coaching intervention is cost-effective.

Progressive exercise compared with best-practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for rotator cuff disorders: the GRASP factorial RCT

BACKGROUND

Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain is very common, but there is uncertainty regarding which modes of exercise delivery are optimal and the long-term benefits of corticosteroid injections.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best-practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial (with a 2 × 2 factorial design).

SETTING

Twenty NHS primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain in the previous 6 months.

INTERVENTIONS

A total of 708 participants were randomised (March 2017-May 2019) by a centralised computer-generated 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 allocation ratio to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (n = 174) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (n = 174) (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n = 182) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (n = 178) (one physiotherapy session).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included SPADI subdomains, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions, five-level version, sleep disturbance, fear avoidance, pain self-efficacy, return to activity, Global Impression of Treatment and health resource use. Outcomes were collected by postal questionnaires at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. A within-trial economic evaluation was also conducted. The primary analysis was intention to treat.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean age of 55.5 (standard deviation 13.1) years and 49.3% were female. The mean baseline SPADI score was 54.1 (standard deviation 18.5). Follow-up rates were 91% at 8 weeks and 87% at 6 and 12 months. There was an overall improvement in SPADI score from baseline in each group over time. Over 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and the best-practice advice intervention in shoulder pain and function (adjusted mean difference between groups over 12 months -0.66, 99% confidence interval -4.52 to 3.20). There was also no difference in SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and best-practice advice intervention when analysed at the 8-week and 6- and 12-month time points. Injection resulted in improvement in shoulder pain and function at 8 weeks compared with no injection (adjusted mean difference -5.64, 99% confidence interval -9.93 to -1.35), but not when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.11, 99% confidence interval -4.47 to 2.26), or at 6 and 12 months. There were no serious adverse events. In the base-case analysis, adding injection to best-practice advice gained 0.021 quality-adjusted life-years (p = 0.184) and increased the cost by £10 per participant (p = 0.747). Progressive exercise alone was £52 (p = 0.247) more expensive per participant than best-practice advice, and gained 0.019 QALYs (p = 0.220). At a ceiling ratio of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, injection plus best-practice advice had a 54.93% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment.

LIMITATIONS

Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group allocation. Twelve-month follow-up may be insufficient for identifying all safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Progressive exercise was not superior to a best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. Subacromial corticosteroid injection improved shoulder pain and function, but provided only modest short-term benefit. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection was expected to be most cost-effective, although there was substantial uncertainty.

FUTURE WORK

Longer-term follow-up, including any serious adverse effects of corticosteroid injection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16539266 and EudraCT 2016-002991-28.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Is IV iron sucrose a cost-effective option for treatment of severe anaemia in pregnancy as compared with oral iron?

Anaemia in pregnancy is a public health concern because it is strongly associated with maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. An open label randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in India across four government medical colleges, comparing intravenous (IV) iron sucrose and oral iron for the treatment of anaemia in pregnancy. This RCT failed to demonstrate superiority of IV iron sucrose compared with oral iron therapy in reducing adverse clinical (maternal and foetal/neonatal) outcomes in moderate-to-severe anaemia in pregnancy. However, IV iron sucrose seemed to reduce the need for blood transfusion among women with severe anaemia. The study objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of IV iron sucrose over oral therapy for treatment of severe anaemia in pregnancy, alongside the RCT, to inform policy. The outcome of interest in our study was a 'safe delivery' defined by the absence of composite maternal and foetal/neonatal adverse clinical outcomes. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated from a limited societal perspective. IV iron sucrose was found to be more costly but more effective than the oral therapy for treatment of severe anaemia. The ICER was calculated at INR 31 951 (USD 445.2) per safe delivery. We considered a threshold of half the gross national income for decision-making. Considering this threshold of India (INR 57 230, USD 797.4), IV iron-sucrose remained cost-effective in 67% of the iterations in the model. At the current ICER, for every 32 severely anaemic pregnant woman treated with IV iron sucrose one additional pregnant woman will have a safe delivery. Such analyses can complement the national strategy to support evidence-based action.