Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications

Evaluating vonoprazan and tegoprazan for gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment in Chinese Healthcare: an EVIDEM framework analysis

BACKGROUND

In Chinese healthcare settings, drug selection decisions are predominantly influenced by the Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee (PTC). This study evaluates two recently introduced potassium-competitive acid blockers, vonoprazan (VPZ) and tegoprazan (TPZ), utilizing the Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking (EVIDEM) framework.

METHODS

The study employed the 10th edition of EVIDEM, which includes a core model with five domains and 13 criteria. Two independent expert panels were involved: the PTC expert panel, tasked with assigning weights using a 5-point scale, defining scoring indicators, examining the evidence matrix, scoring, and decision-making; and the evidence matrix expert panel, responsible for conducting a systematic literature review, creating the evidence matrix, and evaluating the value contributions of VPZ and TPZ.

RESULTS

The analysis estimated the value contributions of VPZ and TPZ to be 0.59 and 0.54, respectively. The domain of 'economic consequences of intervention' showed the most significant variation in value contribution between the two drugs, followed by 'comparative outcomes of intervention' and 'type of benefit of intervention'.

CONCLUSION

Employing the EVIDEM framework, VPZ's value contribution was found to be marginally superior to that of TPZ. The EVIDEM framework demonstrates potential for broader application in Chinese medical institutions.

Value contribution of blood-based neurofilament light chain as a biomarker in multiple sclerosis using multi-criteria decision analysis

Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune demyelinating disease that represents a leading cause of non-traumatic disability among young and middle-aged adults. MS is characterized by neurodegeneration caused by axonal injury. Current clinical and radiological markers often lack the sensitivity and specificity required to detect inflammatory activity and neurodegeneration, highlighting the need for better approaches. After neuronal injury, neurofilament light chains (NfL) are released into the cerebrospinal fluid, and eventually into blood. Thus, blood-based NfL could be used as a potential biomarker for inflammatory activity, neurodegeneration, and treatment response in MS. The objective of this study was to determine the value contribution of blood-based NfL as a biomarker in MS in Spain using the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology.

Materials and methods

A literature review was performed, and the results were synthesized in the evidence matrix following the criteria included in the MCDA framework. The study was conducted by a multidisciplinary group of six experts. Participants were trained in MCDA and scored the evidence matrix. Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology.

Results

MS was considered a severe condition as it is associated with significant disability. There are unmet needs in MS as a disease, but also in terms of biomarkers since no blood biomarker is available in clinical practice to determine disease activity, prognostic assessment, and response to treatment. The results of the present study suggest that quantification of blood-based NfL may represent a safe option to determine inflammation, neurodegeneration, and response to treatments in clinical practice, as well as to complement data to improve the sensitivity of the diagnosis. Participants considered that blood-based NfL could result in a lower use of expensive tests such as magnetic resonance imaging scans and could provide cost-savings by avoiding ineffective treatments. Lower indirect costs could also be expected due to a lower impact of disability consequences. Overall, blood-based NfL measurement is supported by high-quality evidence.

Conclusion

Based on MCDA methodology and the experience of a multidisciplinary group of six stakeholders, blood-based NfL measurement might represent a high-value-option for the management of MS in Spain.

Design of a multiple criteria decision analysis framework for prioritizing high-impact health technologies in a regional health service

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to develop a framework for establishing priorities in the regional health service of Murcia, Spain, to facilitate the creation of a comprehensive multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework. This framework will aid in decision-making processes related to the assessment, reimbursement, and utilization of high-impact health technologies.

METHOD

Based on the results of a review of existing frameworks for MCDA of health technologies, a set of criteria was proposed to be used in the context of evaluating high-impact health technologies. Key stakeholders within regional healthcare services, including clinical leaders and management personnel, participated in a focus group (n = 11) to discuss the proposed criteria and select the final fifteen. To elicit the weights of the criteria, two surveys were administered, one to a small sample of healthcare professionals (n = 35) and another to a larger representative sample of the general population (n = 494).

RESULTS

The responses obtained from health professionals in the weighting procedure exhibited greater consistency compared to those provided by the general public. The criteria more highly weighted were "Need for intervention" and "Intervention outcomes." The weights finally assigned to each item in the multicriteria framework were derived as the equal-weighted sum of the mean weights from the two samples.

CONCLUSIONS

A multi-attribute function capable of generating a composite measure (multicriteria) to assess the value of high-impact health interventions has been developed. Furthermore, it is recommended to pilot this procedure in a specific decision context to evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, usefulness, and reliability of the proposed tool.

From bench to policy: a critical analysis of models for evidence-informed policymaking in healthcare

Background

The use of research evidence in policy making is a complex and challenging process that has a long history in various fields, especially in healthcare. Different terms and concepts have been used to describe the relationship between research and policy, but they often lack clarity and consensus. To address this gap, several strategies and models have been proposed to facilitate evidence informed policy making and to identify the key factors and mechanisms involved. This study aims to critically review the existing models of evidence informed policy making (EIPM) in healthcare and to assess their strengths and limitations.

Method

A systematic search and review conducted to identify and critically assess EIPM models in healthcare. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases as major electronic databases and applied predefined inclusion criteria to select the models. We also checked the citations of the included models to find other scholars' perspectives. Each model was described and critiqued each model in detail and discussed their features and limitations.

Result

Nine models of EIPM in healthcare were identified. While models had some strengths in comprehension, flexibility and theoretical foundations, analysis also identified limitations including: presupposing rational policymaking; lacking alternatives for time-sensitive situations; not capturing policy complexity; neglecting unintended effects; limited context considerations; inadequate complexity concepts; limited collaboration guidance; and unspecified evidence adaptations.

Conclusion

The reviewed models provide useful frameworks for EIPM but need further improvement to address their limitations. Concepts from sociology of knowledge, change theory and complexity science can enrich the models. Future EIPM models should better account for the complexity of research-policy relationships and provide tailored strategies based on the policy context.

A Step Toward the Development of the First National Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework to Support Healthcare Decision Making in Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of implementing multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and to select the criteria for preparing a national MCDA framework for health technology assessment of orphan drugs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

METHODS

The study was conducted in 3 phases. In phase I, a targeted literature review was performed to gather relevant information on the implementation of MCDA in healthcare decision making. Phase II was a cross-sectional survey, conducted to obtain insights from different stakeholders and key opinion leaders on specific topics from the KSA perspective. Phase III included a round-table discussion involving experts to validate the results obtained in the phase II survey and further elaborate on specific requirements that may be critical for developing the first national MCDA framework in the KSA.

RESULTS

All the key opinion leaders involved in the study acknowledged the importance of implementing MCDA in the KSA. The Ministry of Health was assigned the responsibility of chairing the MCDA decision process. The experts selected the quantitative, qualitative, and economic criteria to be considered for the MCDA framework. The stakeholders decided to initiate a pilot phase using the deliberative MCDA methodology for the assessment of orphan drugs based on the selected criteria for a period of 1 year and then reevaluate the need to adapt the pragmatic MCDA model.

CONCLUSION

This article describes the novel initiative that examined the feasibility and process required for the development of the first MCDA framework in the KSA to support healthcare decision making.

Reporting reimbursement price decisions for onco-hematology drugs in Spain

Introduction

Even using well-established technology assessment processes, the basis of the decisions on drug price and reimbursement are sometimes perceived as poorly informed and sometimes may be seen as disconnected from value. The literature remains inconclusive about how Health Technology Assessment Bodies (HTAb) should report the determinants of their decisions. This study evaluates the relationship between oncology and hematology drug list prices and structured value parameters at the time of reimbursement decision in Spain.

Methods

The study includes all new onco-hematological products (22), with a first indication authorized between January 2017 and December 2019 in Spain and pricing decisions published up until October 2022. For each product, 56 contextual and non-contextual indicators reflecting the structured multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) - Evidence-based Decision-Making (EVIDEM) framework were measured. The relationship between prices and the MCDA-EVIDEM framework was explored using univariate statistical analyses.

Results

Higher prices were observed when the standard of care included for combinations, if there were references to long-lasting responses, for fixed-duration treatment compared to treatment until progression and treatment with lower frequencies of administration; lower prices were observed for oral administration compared to other routes of administration. Statistically significant associations were observed between prices and the median duration of treatment, the impact on patient autonomy, the ease of use of the drug, and the recommendations of experts.

Discussion

The study suggests that indicators related to the type of standard of care, references to long-lasting responders, the convenience of the use of the drug, and the impact of treatment on patient autonomy, as well as contextual indicators such as the existence of previous clinical consensus, are factors in setting oncology drug prices in Spain. The implementation of MCDA-EVIDEM methodologies may be useful to capture the influence on pricing decisions of additional factors not included in legislation or consolidated assessment frameworks such as the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EunetHTA) core model. It may be opportune to consider this in the upcoming revision of the Spanish regulation for health technology assessments and pricing and reimbursement procedures.

Using evidence to decision frameworks led to guidelines of better quality and more credible and transparent recommendations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the use of Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks is associated to higher quality of both guidelines and individual recommendations.

METHODS

We identified guidelines recently published by international organizations that have methodological guidance documents for their development. Pairs of researchers independently extracted information on the use of these frameworks, appraised the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II Instrument (AGREE-II), and assessed the clinical credibility and implementability of the recommendations with the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) tool. We conducted both descriptive and inferential analyses.

RESULTS

We included 66 guidelines from 17 different countries, published in the last 5 years. Thirty guidelines (45%) used an EtD framework to formulate their recommendations. Compared to those that did not use a framework, those using an EtD framework scored higher in all domains of both AGREE-II and AGREE-REX (P < 0.05). Quality scores did not differ between the use of the The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-EtD framework (17 guidelines) or another EtD framework (13 guidelines) (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of EtD frameworks is associated with guidelines of better quality, and more credible and transparent recommendations. Endorsement of EtD frameworks by guideline developing organizations will likely increase the quality of their guidelines.

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop

Background

Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit-risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials.

Objectives

The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit-risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting.

Methods

A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019).

Results

We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit-risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit-risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit-risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit-risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results.

Conclusions

These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit-risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit-risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made.

Limitations

This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit-risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method.

Study registration

The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882.

Funding

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme.

Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements

Health technology assessment (HTA) has traditionally relied on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a cornerstone of evaluation of new therapies, assessing the clinical validity and utility, the efficacy, and the cost-effectiveness of new interventions. The current format of cost-effectiveness analysis, however, does not allow for inclusion of more holistic aspects of health and, therefore, value elements for new technologies such as the impact on patients and society beyond its pure clinical and economic value. This study aimed to review the recent modelling attempts to expand the traditional cost-effectiveness analysis approach by incorporating additional elements of value in health technology assessment. A pragmatic literature review was conducted for articles published between 2012 and 2022 reporting cost-effectiveness analysis including value aspects beyond the clinical and cost-effectiveness estimates; searches identified 13 articles that were eligible for inclusion. These expanded modelling approaches mainly focused on integrating the impact of societal values and health equity in cost-effectiveness analysis, both of which were championed as important aspects of health technology assessment that should be incorporated into future technology assessments. The reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis methods included modification of the current cost-effectiveness analysis methodology (distributional cost-effectiveness analysis, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis, extended cost-effectiveness analysis) or the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Of these approaches, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis appears to have the most potential by expanding traditional aspects of value, as it uses techniques already familiar to health technology assessment agencies but also allows space for incorporation of qualitative aspects of a product's value. This review showcases that methods to unravel additional value elements for technology assessment exist, therefore, patient access to promising technologies can be improved by moving the discussion from "if" to "how" additional value elements can inform decision-making.

The Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Decision Making in Healthcare: An Updated Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used for decision making in healthcare. However, its application in different decision-making contexts is still unclear. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive review of MCDA studies performed to inform decisions in healthcare and to summarize its application in different decision contexts.

METHODS

We updated a systematic review conducted in 2013 by searching Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar for MCDA studies in healthcare, published in English between August 2013 and November 2020. We also expanded the search by reviewing grey literature found via Trip Medical Database and Google, published between January 1990 and November 2020. A comprehensive template was developed to extract information about the decision context, criteria, methods, stakeholders involved, and sensitivity analyses conducted.

RESULTS

From the 4295 identified studies, 473 studies were eligible for full-text review after assessing titles and abstracts. Of those, 228 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. The use of MCDA continues to grow in healthcare literature, with most of the studies (49%) informing priority-setting decisions. Safety, cost, and quality of care delivery are the most frequently used criteria, although there are considerable differences across decision contexts. Almost half of the MCDA studies used the linear additive model whereas scales and the analytical hierarchy process were the most used techniques for scoring and weighting, respectively. Not all studies report on each one of the MCDA steps, consider axiomatic properties, or justify the methods used.

CONCLUSIONS

A guide on how to conduct and report MCDA that acknowledges the particularities of the different decision contexts and methods needs to be developed.

Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Rating Tool to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Questions for the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug’s perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health’s Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

Current Medical Technology Reimbursement System in Japan

OBJECTIVES

The process for reimbursement of medical technologies in Japan is complex, and to date, it has not been well described overall. This article aims to provide an overview of the reimbursement system for medical technologies in Japan, including the reimbursement application process and the payment decision making.

METHODS

Conduct review for relevant health policy and regulation and gather opinion from the key stakeholders.

RESULTS

The Japanese functional category listing system for the reimbursement of medical technologies is a unique fee-for-service payment system, and the timing for the listing is dependent on the application category. A key positive aspect of the current system is the level of transparency and the predictable pathway for reimbursement of new medical technologies. Conversely, the current reimbursement process may not capture the true extent of the innovation of new technologies, especially when creating a new functional category and/or a new medical procedure coding.

CONCLUSIONS

There are potential areas where changes could improve access, efficiencies, and value, such as the price revision system based on the market survey, the foreign average price assessment, and the health technology assessment system. These additions and modifications in policy and regulation of reimbursement will help facilitate the effective and efficient access to new innovative medical technologies within the context of a sustainable and affordable National Health Insurance system in Japan.

Development of a Health Technology Assessment Quality Appraisal Checklist (HTA-QAC) for India

OBJECTIVE

We aim to develop a comprehensive checklist for evaluating Health Technology Assessment (HTA) studies commissioned in India. The primary objective of this work is to capture all vital aspects of an HTA study in terms of conduct, reporting and quality.

METHODOLOGY

The development of a quality appraisal checklist included 3 steps. First, a targeted review of the literature was done to gather information on existing HTA checklists. After reviewing these checklists, an initial draft of the HTA quality appraisal checklist (HTA-QAC) for India was prepared with discussion amongst the authors. Second, the draft checklist was reviewed by the members of the Technical Appraisal Committee (TAC) and their feedback was incorporated. Subsequently, the revised checklist was presented at a virtual meeting of the TAC. Finally, a pilot phase was undertaken to apply HTA-QAC for the approved HTA study reports. Three rounds of virtual discussions were held with the researchers who were involved in the conduct of these HTA studies to resolve any discordance in opinion or develop solutions for the problems in the use of the HTA-QAC followed by a further revision of the checklist.

RESULTS

The HTA-QAC is divided into two parts: a self-reporting section to be completed by the author, and the other to be completed by the reviewer. The reviewer checklist has two sections: one to review the report and the other to review the model. The author section is in a self-reporting format, which includes details of basic study information, the rationale for the study, policy relevance, study description, study methods, reporting of model parameters, and results. The reviewer section of the checklist focuses on the quality aspect of the conducted study. The domains included in the report review include details on study methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. The second part of the reviewer section of HTA-QAC constitutes a review of the model in terms of model assumptions, functionality, model inputs, calculations, uncertainty analysis, model output, and model validation.

CONCLUSION

We recommend a standardised process of quality appraisal to ensure the high quality of HTA evidence for policy use in the Indian context. The proposed HTA-QAC will help authors to ensure standardised reporting, as well as allow reviewers to assess the quality of analysis.

Determining What Represents Value in the Treatment of Refractory or Unexplained Chronic Cough from the Perspective of Key Stakeholders in Spain Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic cough is defined as cough lasting for more than 8 weeks. It can be described as refractory when persisting despite thorough clinical assessment and treatment of any cough-related underlying condition, or unexplained when no underlying cough-related condition can be identified. Refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC|UCC) greatly affects patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Although around 10% of the population suffer from chronic cough (with 40-60% of these patients suffering from RCC|UCC), there is limited information available in the literature about the condition and the assessment of treatment success. This study aimed to determine what represents value in the treatment of RCC|UCC from the perspective of key stakeholders in Spain using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to adapt the MCDA framework to the specific context of RCC|UCC. A total of 24 participants were involved, representing three key stakeholder groups (7 patients, 9 physicians and 8 hospital pharmacists). The study was structured in two phases. In Phase 1, participants validated the adapted MCDA framework and assigned relative weights (100-point allocation) to the framework's value criteria/sub-criteria during three individual stakeholder meetings, one per each stakeholder group. In Phase 2, participants were brought together in a multi-stakeholder meeting to review findings of each stakeholder group, after which stakeholders repeated the weighting exercise as a collective group. All meetings included reflective discussion by participants of each value criteria/sub-criteria included within the adapted MCDA framework, where stakeholders shared their perspectives and opinions on what represents value in RCC|UCC.

RESULTS

Refractory or unexplained chronic cough is regarded as a chronic medical condition, with variable severity across patients and the potential to heavily impact their HRQoL (including physical, psychological and social/work productivity domains). Current treatments used by healthcare professionals, which have not been specifically developed and are not approved for RCC|UCC, show limited clinical effectiveness and associated safety and tolerability issues, which result in frequent treatment discontinuations. The reduction of the average cough frequency over a 24-h period is regarded as the primary goal of treatment by stakeholders, with the aim of improving HRQoL. Improvement of other cough symptoms, such as intensity, is also considered important. Minor adverse events and a slower onset of treatment effect would be acceptable to stakeholders if accompanied by strong efficacy and improvement in HRQoL. Given the inability to measure cough frequency in clinical practice, Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) could be considered a proxy of treatment effectiveness. A multidisciplinary approach to the condition is regarded as key for treatment success.

CONCLUSIONS

Refractory or unexplained chronic cough is a medical condition that seriously impacts patients' HRQoL. The primary goal of treatment is to improve patients' HRQoL by reducing the frequency and intensity of cough.

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.

Investigating patients' preferences for new anti-diabetic drugs to inform public health insurance coverage decisions: a discrete choice experiment in China

Background

Diabetes is a major public health concern with a considerable impact on healthcare expenditures. Deciding on health insurance coverage for new drugs that meet patient needs is a challenge facing policymakers. Our study aimed to assess patients’ preferences for public health insurance coverage of new anti-diabetic drugs in China.

Methods

We identified six attributes of new anti-diabetic drugs and used the Bayesian-efficient design to generate choice sets for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The DCE was conducted in consecutive samples of type 2 diabetes patients in Jiangsu Province. The mixed logit regression model was applied to estimate patient-reported preferences for each attribute. The interaction model was used to investigate preference heterogeneity.

Results

Data from 639 patients were available for analysis. On average, the most valued attribute was the improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (β = 1.383, p < 0.001), followed by positive effects on extending life years (β = 0.787, p < 0.001), and well-controlled glycated haemoglobin (β = 0.724, p < 0.001). The out-of-pocket cost was a negative predictor of their preferences (β = -0.138, p < 0.001). Elderly patients showed stronger preferences for drugs with a lower incidence of serious side effects (p < 0.01) and less out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.01). Patients with diabetes complications favored more in the length of extended life (p < 0.01), improvement in HRQoL (p < 0.05), and less out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The new anti-diabetic drugs with significant clinical effectiveness and long-term health benefits should become the priority for public health insurance. The findings also highlight the value of accounting for preference heterogeneity in insurance policy-making.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14244-z.

Multiple criteria decision analysis for therapeutic innovations in a hemophilia care center: A pilot study of the organizational impact of innovation in hemophilia care management

Background

Several innovative drugs liable to lead to changes in healthcare organization are or soon will be available for the management of hemophilia. Analyzing their implementation can shed further light on healthcare decision-making, to anticipate changes and risk of breakdown in the patient’s care pathway.

Methods

Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), based on ISPOR recommendations, was used to assess the organizational impact of innovation in hemophilia care management. The MCDA process designed for this specific context involved ten French experts in hemophilia care management (physicians, nurses, pharmacist, physiotherapist and psychologist) in the hemophilia care center of Chambéry, in the Rhône-Alpes Region of France. This pilot study involved seven steps: (i) defining the decision problem; (ii) selecting and structuring criteria; (iii) assessing the relative weight of each criterion with software-assisted simulation based on pairwise comparisons of different organizational change scenarios; (iv) measuring the performance of the selected innovations; (v) scoring alternatives; (vi) calculating aggregate scores; (vii) discussion. The endpoint was to determine the expected overall organizational impact on a 0–100 scale.

Results

Seven organizational criteria were selected. "Acceptability for patient/caregiver/association" was the most heavily weighted. Factor VIII by subcutaneous route obtained the highest aggregate score: i.e., low impact on care organization (88.8 out of 100). The innovation with strongest organizational impact was gene therapy (27.3 out of 100).

Conclusion

This approach provided a useful support for discussion, integrating organizational aspects in the treatment decision-making process, at healthcare team level. The study needs repeating in a few years’ time and in other hemophilia centers.

Do Health Technology Assessment organisations consider manufacturers' costs in relation to drug price? A study of reimbursement reports

Introduction

Drug reimbursement decisions are often made based on a price set by the manufacturer. In some cases, this price leads to public and scientific debates about whether its level can be justified in relation to its costs, including those related to research and development (R&D) and manufacturing. Such considerations could enter the decision process in collectively financed health care systems. This paper investigates whether manufacturers’ costs in relation to drug prices, or profit margins, are explicitly mentioned and considered by health technology assessment (HTA) organisations.

Method

An analysis of reimbursement reports for cancer drugs was performed. All relevant Dutch HTA-reports, published between 2017 and 2019, were selected and matched with HTA-reports from three other jurisdictions (England, Canada, Australia). Information was extracted. Additionally, reimbursement reports for three cases of expensive non-oncolytic orphan drugs prominent in pricing debates in the Netherlands were investigated in depth to examine consideration of profit margins.

Results

A total of 66 HTA-reports concerning 15 cancer drugs were included. None of these reports contained information on manufacturer’s costs or profit margins. Some reports contained general considerations of the HTA organisation which related prices to manufacturers’ costs: six contained a statement on the lack of price setting transparency, one mentioned recouping R&D costs as a potential argument to justify a high price. For the case studies, 21 HTA-reports were selected. One contained a cost-based price justification provided by the manufacturer. None of the other reports contained information on manufacturer’s costs or profit margins. Six reports contained a discussion about lack of transparency. Reports from two jurisdictions contained invitations to justify high prices by demonstrating high costs.

Conclusion

Despite the attention given to manufacturers’ costs in relation to price in public debates and in the literature, this issue does not seem to get explicit systematic consideration in the reimbursement reports of expensive drugs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-022-00383-y.

Decision criteria for resource allocation: an analysis of CONITEC oncology reports

In health technology assessment (HTA), decision criteria are considered relevant to support the complex deliberative process that requires simultaneous consideration of multiple factors. The aim was to identify and analyze the decision criteria that have been used by the National Health Technology Assessment Commission (CONITEC) when recommending the incorporation of technologies for the treatment of cancer. Descriptive study, based on reports from CONITEC, between 2012 and 2018, on oncology technologies. The data were collected in a specific extraction form and analyzed using descriptive statistics. 39 reports were analyzed, 15 of them did not present any explicit decision criteria. Medicines were the most frequently evaluated type of technology. The most frequent types of cancers were: breast cancer, head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer. The most frequently considered criteria were: financial impact and effectiveness. The study identified the decision criteria that have been most used in the area of ​​oncology, however, the lack of transparency in relation to the weight of these criteria makes it difficult to understand their influence on the result of the decisions taken.

Knowledge Mapping of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Healthcare: A Bibliometric Analysis

Objective

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a useful tool in complex decision-making situations, and has been used in medical fields to evaluate treatment options and drug selection. This study aims to provide valuable insights into MCDA in healthcare through examining the research focus of existing studies, major fields, major applications, most productive authors and countries, and most common journals in the domain.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis was conducted on the publication related to MCDA in healthcare from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database on 14 July 2021. Three bibliometric software (VOSviewer, R-bibliometrix, and CiteSpace) were used to conduct the analysis including years, countries, institutes, authors, journals, co-citation references, and keywords.

Results

A total of 410 publications were identified with an average yearly growth rate of 32% (1999–2021), from 196 academic journals with 23,637 co-citation references by 871 institutions from 70 countries/regions. The United States was the most productive country (n = 80). Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (n = 16), Université de Montréal (n = 13), and Syreon Research Institute (n = 12) were the top productive institutions. A A Zaidan, Mireille Goetghebeur and Zoltan Kalo were the biggest nodes in every cluster of authors' networks. The top journals in terms of the number of articles (n = 17) and citations (n = 1,673) were Value in Health and Journal of Medical Systems, respectively. The extant literature has focused on four aspects, including the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), decision-making, health technology assessment, and healthcare waste management. COVID-19 and fuzzy TOPSIS received careful attention from MCDA applications recently. MCDA in big data, telemedicine, TOPSIS, and fuzzy AHP is well-developed and an important theme, which may be the trend in future research.

Conclusion

This study uncovers a holistic picture of the performance of MCDA-related literature published in healthcare. MCDA has a broad application on different topics and would be helpful for practitioners, researchers, and decision-makers working in healthcare to advance the wheel of medical complex decision-making. It can be argued that the door is still open for improving the role of MCDA in healthcare, whether in its methodology (e.g., fuzzy TOPSIS) or application (e.g., telemedicine).

Evidence to Decision frameworks enabled structured and explicit development of healthcare recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe the processes suggested for the formulation of healthcare recommendations in health care guidelines available in guidance documents.

METHODS

We searched international databases in May 2020 to retrieve guidance documents published by organizations dedicated to guideline development. Pairs of researchers independently selected and extracted data about the characteristics of the guidance document, including explicit or implicit recommendation-related criteria and processes considered, as well as the use of EtD frameworks.

RESULTS

We included 68 guidance documents. Most organizations reported a system for grading the strength of recommendations (88%), half of them being the GRADE approach. Two out of three guidance documents (66%) proposed the use of a framework to guide the EtD process. The GRADE Evidence to Decision (GRADE-EtD) framework was the most often reported framework (19 organizations, 42%), whereas 20 organizations (44%) proposed their own multi-criteria frameworks. Using any EtD framework was related with a more comprehensive set of recommendation-related criteria compared to no framework, especially for criteria like values, equity, and acceptability.

CONCLUSION

Although limited, the use of EtD frameworks was associated the inclusion of relevant recommendation criteria. Among the EtD structured frameworks, the GRADE-EtD framework offers the most comprehensive perspective for evidence-informed decision-making processes.

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.

Faciliating More Efficient Negotiations for Innovative Therapies: A Value-Based Negotiation Framework

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of innovative therapies (e.g., gene- and cell-based treatments) have been developed in the past 20 years. Despite the significant clinical potential of these therapies, access delays may arise because of differing perspectives of manufacturers and payers regarding issues such as the value of the product, clinical and financial uncertainties, and sustainability.Managed entry agreements (MEAs) can enable access to treatments that would not be reimbursed by conventional methods because of such concerns. However, although MEA typologies exist, there is currently no structured process to come to agreements on MEAs, which can be difficult to decide upon and implement.To facilitate more structured MEA negotiations, we propose a conceptual "value-based negotiation framework" with corresponding application tools.

METHODS

The framework was developed based on an iterative process of scientific literature review and expert input.

RESULTS

The framework aims to (i) systematically identify and prioritize manufacturer and payer concerns about a new treatment, and (ii) select a mutually acceptable combination of MEA terms that can best address priority concerns, with the lowest possible implementation burden.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed framework will be tested in practice, and is a step toward supporting payers and manufacturers to engage in more structured, transparent negotiations to balance the needs of both sides, and enabling quicker, more transparent MEA negotiations and patient access to innovative products.

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.

Early Access to Medicines: Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) as a Decision Tool in Catalonia (Spain)

Early access to medicines allows the prescription of a medicine before it is available in the public formulary to patients with severe or rare diseases with high unmet needs who have no authorised therapeutic alternatives available. In this context, consistent decision making is difficult, and a systematic assessment procedure could be useful to tackle complex situations and guarantee the equity of medicines’ access. A multidisciplinary panel (MP) conducted four workshops to develop an early access framework based on a reflective multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). A set of 12 criteria was agreed: eight quantitative (severity of disease, urgency, efficacy, safety, internal and external validity, therapeutic benefit and plausibility) and four qualitative (therapeutic alternative, existence of precedents, management impact and costs). Quantitative criteria were weighted using a five-point scale. The relative importance of quantitative criteria had mean weights from 4.7 to 3.6, showing its relevance in the decisions. The framework was tested using two case studies, and reliability was assessed by re-test. The re-test revealed no statistical differences, indicating the consistency and replicability of the framework developed. MCDA may help to structure discussions for heterogeneous treatment requests, providing predictability and robustness in decision making involving sensitive and complex situations.

What Is Value in Health and Healthcare? A Systematic Literature Review of Value Assessment Frameworks

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate how value is defined and measured in existing value assessment frameworks (VAFs) in healthcare.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination from 2008 to 2019. We also performed backward citation chaining of included studies and previously published systematic reviews. Studies reporting the development of a VAF in healthcare were included. For each included framework, we extracted and compared the context, target users, intended use, methods used to identify value attributes, description of the attributes, and attribute scoring approaches.

RESULTS

Of the 8151 articles screened, 57 VAFs were included. The value attributes included in 55 VAFs were grouped into 9 categories: health benefits (n = 53, 96%), affordability (n = 45, 82%), societal impact (n = 42, 76%), burden of disease (n = 36, 65%), quality of evidence (n = 32, 58%), cost-effectiveness (n = 31, 56%), ethics and equity (n = 27, 49%), unmet needs (n = 21, 38%), and innovation (n = 15, 27%). The remaining 2 VAFs used broad attributes or user-defined attributes. Literature review was the main approach to identify value attributes in 36 VAFs. Patient or public was engaged through the development of only 11 VAFs. Weighting has been used to score 29 VAFs, of which 19 used the methods of multicriteria decision analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There are substantial variations in defining and measuring value. A noticeable weakness of existing VAFs is that patient or public engagement was generally very limited or missing in framework development process. Existing VAFs tend to aggregate multiple value attributes into a single index for 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.

Prioritizing Healthcare Interventions: A Comparison of Multicriteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the extent to which stated preferences for treatment criteria elicited using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods are consistent with the trade-offs (implicitly) applied in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), and the impact of any differences on the prioritization of treatments.

METHODS

We used existing MCDA and CEA models developed to evaluate interventions for knee osteoarthritis in the New Zealand population. We established equivalent input parameters for each model, for the criteria "treatment effectiveness," "cost," "risk of serious harms," and "risk of mild-to-moderate harms" across a comprehensive range of (hypothetical) interventions to produce a complete ranking of interventions from each model. We evaluated the consistency of these rankings between the 2 models and investigated any systematic differences between the (implied) weight placed on each criterion in determining rankings.

RESULTS

There was an overall moderate-to-strong correlation in intervention rankings between the MCDA and CEA models (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.51). Nevertheless, there were systematic differences in the evaluation of trade-offs between intervention attributes and the resulting weights placed on each criterion. The CEA model placed lower weights on risks of harm and much greater weight on cost (at all accepted levels of willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life-year than did respondents to the MCDA survey.

CONCLUSIONS

MCDA and CEA approaches to inform intervention prioritization may give systematically different results, even when considering the same criteria and input data. These differences should be considered when designing and interpreting such studies to inform treatment prioritization decisions.

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.

Decision criteria for resource allocation: an analysis of CONITEC oncology reports

Abstract In health technology assessment (HTA), decision criteria are considered relevant to support the complex deliberative process that requires simultaneous consideration of multiple factors. The aim was to identify and analyze the decision criteria that have been used by the National Health Technology Assessment Commission (CONITEC) when recommending the incorporation of technologies for the treatment of cancer. Descriptive study, based on reports from CONITEC, between 2012 and 2018, on oncology technologies. The data were collected in a specific extraction form and analyzed using descriptive statistics. 39 reports were analyzed, 15 of them did not present any explicit decision criteria. Medicines were the most frequently evaluated type of technology. The most frequent types of cancers were: breast cancer, head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lung cancer. The most frequently considered criteria were: financial impact and effectiveness. The study identified the decision criteria that have been most used in the area of oncology, however, the lack of transparency in relation to the weight of these criteria makes it difficult to understand their influence on the result of the decisions taken.

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.

Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to inform health decisions in health technology assessments (HTA) processes. This is particularly important to complex treatment decisions in oncology.

AREAS COVERED

Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched for studies comparing health technologies in oncology, involving the concept MCDA. The ISPOR MCDA Good Practices Guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Fifteen studies were included. The main decision problem was related to health technology assessment of cancer treatments. Clinicians and public health experts were the most frequent stakeholders. The most frequently included criteria comprised therapeutic benefit, and socio-economic impact. Value measurement approach, direct rating techniques, and additive model for aggregation were used in most studies. Uncertainty analysis revealed the impact of posology and costs on the studies' results. All studies showed some level of overlapping decision criteria.

EXPERT OPINION

There is considerable diversity of methods in MCDA for healthcare decision-making in oncology. The evidence presented can serve as a resource when considering which stakeholders, criteria, and techniques to include in future MCDA studies in oncology.

Public health effects of travel-related policies on the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To map travel policies implemented due to COVID-19 during 2020, and conduct a mixed-methods systematic review of health effects of such policies, and related contextual factors.

DESIGN

Policy mapping and systematic review. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: for the policy mapping, we searched websites of relevant government bodies and used data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for a convenient sample of 31 countries across different regions. For the systematic review, we searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and COVID-19 specific databases. We included randomized controlled trial, non-randomized studies, modeling studies, and qualitative studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias.

RESULTS

Most countries adopted a total border closure at the start of the pandemic. For the remainder of the year, partial border closure banning arrivals from some countries or regions was the most widely adopted measure, followed by mandatory quarantine and screening of travelers. The systematic search identified 69 eligible studies, including 50 modeling studies. Both observational and modeling evidence suggest that border closure may reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, disease spread across countries and between regions, and slow the progression of the outbreak. These effects are likely to be enhanced when implemented early, and when combined with measures reducing transmission rates in the community. Quarantine of travelers may decrease the number of COVID-19 cases but its effectiveness depends on compliance and enforcement and is more effective if followed by testing, especially when less than 14 day-quarantine is considered. Screening at departure and/or arrival is unlikely to detect a large proportion of cases or to delay an outbreak. Effectiveness of screening may be improved with increased sensitivity of screening tests, awareness of travelers, asymptomatic screening, and exit screening at country source. While four studies on contextual evidence found that the majority of the public is supportive of travel restrictions, they uncovered concerns about the unintended harms of those policies.

CONCLUSION

Most countries adopted full or partial border closure in response to COVID-19 in 2020. Evidence suggests positive effects on controlling the COVID-19 pandemic for border closure (particularly when implemented early), as well as quarantine of travelers (particularly with higher levels of compliance). While these positive effects are enhanced when implemented in combination with other public health measures, they are associated with concerns by the public regarding some unintended effects.

Toward Better Data Dashboards for US Drug Value Assessments

OBJECTIVES

To explore the use of data dashboards to convey information about a drug's value, and reduce the need to collapse dimensions of value to a single measure.

METHODS

Review of the literature on US Drug Value Assessment Frameworks, and discussion of the value of data dashboards to improve the manner in which information on value is displayed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year ratio is a useful starting point for conversation about a drug's value, but it cannot reflect all of the elements of value about which different audiences care deeply. Data dashboards for drug value assessments can draw from other contexts. Decision makers should be presented with well-designed value dashboards containing various metrics, including conventional cost per quality-adjusted life-year ratios as well as measures of a drug's impact on clinical and patient-centric outcomes, and on budgetary and distributional consequences, to convey a drug's value along different dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

The advent of US drug value frameworks in health care has forced a concomitant effort to develop appropriate information displays. Researchers should formally test different formats and elements.

Description of the use of multicriteria to support pricing and reimbursement decisions by European health technology assessment bodies

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity in drug access throughout Europe may be influenced by differences in drug-assessment strategies. The EUnetHTA's assessment core model (EUnetHTA-core) and the EVIDEM's multicriteria framework are reference methodologies in this context, the latter including a wider compromise between non-contextual and contextual criteria. Compliance of 37 European Health Technology Assessment bodies (HTAb) with EUnetHTA-core has been reported, but the use of EVIDEM by this HTAb is still unknown.

METHODS

To describe the uptake and use of multicriteria approaches to evaluate drug value by European HTAb using EVIDEM as reference framework, a multicriteria framework was obtained based on EVIDEM model. The criteria used for drug appraisal by HTAb was extracted from the EUnetHTA report, and completed through search of websites, publications and HTAb reports. Use of EVIDEM assessment model in 37 European HTAb has been described semi-quantitatively and summarized using an alignment heatmap.

RESULTS

Aligned, medium or misaligned profiles were seen for 24,3%, 51,4% and 24,3% of HTAb when matching to EVIDEM dimensions and criteria was considered. HTAb with explicit responsibilities in providing specific advice on reimbursement showed more aligned profiles on contextual and non-contextual dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

EUnetHTA's core model is limited in assessing medicines while EVIDEM's framework provides contextual dimension used by some HTAb in Europe that can be escalated to other agencies. Most of the 37 European HTAb have room to broaden their contextual assessment tools, especially when social and medical perception of need requires to be explicit to support payer's decision on reimbursement.

Impact on decision making framework for medicine purchasing in Chinese public hospital decision-making: determining the value of five dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Medicine purchasing in Chinese public hospitals is decided by the hospital Pharmacy Management Committee (PMC), that is complex, subjective and requires efficient approaches to ensure transparency and consistency for the factors being considered. This study aimed to use the Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making (EVIDEM) framework to assess medicine in these hospitals. In this study anti-diabetic drugs DPP-4 inhibitors, which work by inhibiting the activation of the Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, were appraised.

METHODS

Following EVIDEM methodology (EVIDEM-10th), we convened an appraisal group and asked each individual to express their perspectives by assigning weights to each criterion. A systematic literature search for information of each criterion of five DPP-4 inhibitors was completed. Then the appraisal group scored for each criterion of the five DPP-4 inhibitors. The estimated value of the five DPP-4 inhibitors was obtained by Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) which combined individual weighting of each criterion with individual scoring for each intervention in each criterion.

RESULTS

By assigning weights, the most important criterion was the quality of evidence (4.01±0.52), and that the comparative cost consequences-non-medical cost was the least important criterion (2.87±1.03). Criteria included disease severity, size of the affected population, comparative effectiveness, type of therapeutic/preventive benefit and cost of intervention, all of which were assigned the same weight of 3.58. After MCDA, the overall value orders for each DPP-4 inhibitor included Sitagliptin (0.45), Linagliptin (0.44), Vildagliptin (0.43), Alogliptin (0.42) and Saxagliptin (0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on EVIDEM framework and MCDA, we found that overall value of five DPP-4 inhibitors was similar. It is feasible to use the EVIDEM framework and MCDA in purchasing medicine for Chinese public hospitals.

Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists

BACKGROUND

Published health utility studies are increasingly cited in cost-utility analyses to inform reimbursement decision-making. However, there is limited guidance for investigators looking to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of health utility studies or their applicability to decision contexts.

OBJECTIVE

To describe how health utility concepts are reflected in tools intended for use with the health economic literature, particularly with respect to the evaluation of methodological quality and context applicability.

METHODS

We reviewed the critical appraisal and reporting tools described in a 2012 report published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), supplemented with a keyword search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, to identify existing tools which include health utility constructs. From these tools, a list of relevant items was compiled and grouped into domain categories based on the methodological or applicability aspect they were directed toward.

RESULTS

Of the 24 tools we identified, 12 contained items relevant to the evaluation of health utilities. Sixty-five items were considered relevant to the evaluation of quality, while 44 were relevant to the evaluation of applicability. Items were arranged into four domains: health state descriptions; selection and description of respondents; elicitation and measurement methods; and other considerations.

CONCLUSION

As key inputs to cost-utility analyses, health utilities have the potential to significantly impact estimates of cost-effectiveness. Existing tools contain only general items related to the conduct or use of health utility studies. There is a need to develop tools that systematically evaluate the methodological quality and applicability of health utility studies.

How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks

Background: Decision-makers have implemented a variety of value assessment frameworks (VAFs) for orphan drugs in European jurisdictions, which has contributed to variations in access for rare disease patients. This review provides an overview of the strengths and limitations of VAFs for the reimbursement of orphan drugs in Europe, and may serve as a guide for decision-makers.

Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted using the databases Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science. Only publications in English were included. Publications known to the authors were added, as well as conference or research papers, or information published on the website of reimbursement and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Additionally, publications were included through snowballing or focused searches.

Results: Although a VAF that applies a standard economic evaluation treats both orphan drugs and non-orphan drugs equally, its focus on cost-effectiveness discards the impact of disease rarity on data uncertainty, which influences an accurate estimation of an orphan drug’s health benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A VAF that weighs QALYs or applies a variable incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) threshold, allows the inclusion of value factors beyond the QALY, although their methodologies are flawed. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) incorporates a flexible set of value factors and involves multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. Nevertheless, its successful implementation relies on decision-makers’ openness toward transparency and a pragmatic approach, while allowing the flexibility for continuous improvement.

Conclusion: The frameworks listed above each have multiple strengths and weaknesses. We advocate that decision-makers apply the concept of accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to justify their choice for a specific VAF for orphan drugs and to strive for maximum transparency concerning the decision-making process. Also, in order to manage uncertainty and feasibility of funding, decision-makers may consider using managed-entry agreements rather than implementing a separate VAF for orphan drugs.

Efficacy, Safety, and Economics of Innovative Medicines: The Role of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Managed Entry Agreements in Practice and Policy

Through the years, solutions for accelerated access to innovative treatments are implemented in models of regulatory approvals, yet with limited data. Besides efficacy data, providing adequate safety data is key to transferring conditional marketing authorization to final marketing authorization. However, this remains a challenge because of the restricted availability and transferability of such data. Within this study, we set up a challenge to analyze the answers of two questions. First, from regulatory bodies' point of view, we bring the question of whether multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an adequate tool for further improvement of health technology assessment (HTA) of innovative medicines. Second, we ask if managed entry agreements (MEAs) pose solutions for facilitating the access to innovative medicines and further strengthening the evidence base concerning efficacy and effectiveness, as well as safety. Elaborating on such challenges brought us to conclude that increasing the attention to safety in MCDAs and MEAs will increase the trust of the authorities and improve the access for the manufacturers and the early availability of safe and effective medicines for the patients.