1
|
García-Diego DA, Badia X, Benítez-Hidalgo O, Jiménez V, Juárez JC, Núñez R, Poveda JL, Trillo JL, Vallés JA. Value contribution of etranacogene dezaparvovec gene therapy in moderately severe and severe haemophilia B through multi-criteria decision analysis. Haemophilia 2024. [PMID: 39340327 DOI: 10.1111/hae.15096] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2024] [Revised: 08/26/2024] [Accepted: 09/05/2024] [Indexed: 09/30/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The value of gene therapies for haemophilia needs to be assessed holistically. AIM To determine the value of etranacogene dezaparvovec (ED) compared to current extended half-life (EHL) recombinant factors (rFIX), using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). METHOD MCDA EVIDEM methodology adapted to orphan drugs was used, with nine quantitative criteria and four contextual criteria. The MCDA framework was rated by 28 multidisciplinary experts. Descriptive statistics were performed for quantitative and qualitative criteria. RESULTS Haemophilia B (HB) was considered a severe disease (mean ± SD: 4.3 ± 0.7) with some unmet needs (mean ± SD 3.3 ± 0.9). Experts found ED more effective (mean ± SD 2.0 ± 2.3) and provide better quality of life (QoL) (mean ± SD: 1.8 ± 1.5) than the comparative HB treatments but with safety uncertainties (mean ± SD -1.2 ± 1.8). ED could lead to medical cost and non-medical cost savings over time (mean ± SD: 1.6 ± 2.0 and 2.0 ± 1.5, respectively). The quality of the evidence was high (mean ± SD: 3.9 ± 0.9). ED was considered aligned with the priorities of the National Health System (NHS) and the specific interests of patients. ED's value contribution was 0.45 (+1 = highest value). CONCLUSIONS ED brings added value in the treatment of moderately severe and severe HB (sHB) compared to current EHL rFIX, addressing the severity of the disease and increasing efficacy and patients' QoL especially related to the single dose and low bleeding rate. Concerns about long-term safety need to be addressed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Víctor Jiménez
- Coagulopathies and haemostasis disorders department, University Hospital La Paz-IdiPaz, Madrid, Spain
| | - Juan Carlos Juárez
- Hospital Pharmacy Service, University Hospital Vall d'Hebrón, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Ramiro Núñez
- Hematology department, University Hospital Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain
| | - José Luis Poveda
- Management department, University Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Vásquez P, Hall L, Merlo G. Societal Preferences in Health Technology Assessments for Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review of New Analytic Approaches. Value Health Reg Issues 2024; 44:101026. [PMID: 39059264 DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2024.101026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2023] [Revised: 05/24/2024] [Accepted: 06/18/2024] [Indexed: 07/28/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This systematic literature review aimed to explore experiences worldwide of societal preferences integration into health technology assessments (HTAs) for rare diseases (RDs) and orphan drugs (ODs) through the implementation of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), discrete choice experiments (DCEs), and person trade-off (PTO) methods, among others. METHODS A systematic search of the literature was conducted in April 2021 using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach was used for the review phases. Finally, the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework was used to discuss the implementation of these instruments in the RD context. RESULTS A total of 33 articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies measured societal preferences for RD and OD as part of HTA using MCDA (n = 17), DCE (n = 8), and PTO (n = 4), among other methods (n = 4). These found that patients and clinicians do not prioritize funding based on rarity. The public is willing to allocate funds only if the OD demonstrates effectiveness and improves the quality of life, considering as relevant factors disease severity, unmet health needs, and quality of life. Conversely, HTA agency experts preferred their current approach, placing more weight on cost-effectiveness and evidence quality, even though they expressed concern about the fairness of the drug review process. CONCLUSIONS MCDA, PTO, and DCE are helpful and transparent methods for assessing societal preferences in HTA for RD and OD. However, their methodological limitations, such as arbitrary criteria selection, subjective scoring methods, framing effects, weighting adaptation, and value measurement models, could make implementation challenging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paola Vásquez
- Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
| | - Lisa Hall
- School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Gregory Merlo
- Healthcare Improvement Unit, Clinical Excellence Queensland, Queensland Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kirby K, Coggins J, Gibson A, Liddiard C, Moore TH, Savović J, Mitchell K, Thompson A, Benger J, Body R. A multiple criteria decision analysis to establish the use cases and candidate point of care tests to enter into a platform trial of multiple in vitro diagnostic point of care tests in the prehospital environment. NIHR OPEN RESEARCH 2024; 4:29. [PMID: 39145100 PMCID: PMC11320030 DOI: 10.3310/nihropenres.13580.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/22/2024] [Indexed: 08/16/2024]
Abstract
Background There are increasing demands on Emergency Medical Services. More efficient treatment pathways are required to support conveyance decision making and patient referral in prehospital care. Point of Care testing is increasingly available and utilised across the NHS to support optimal ways of working. We aimed to design and conduct a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to prioritise in vitro point of care tests and use cases for inclusion in a platform trial of in vitro point of care testing in UK Emergency Medical Services. Methods We designed a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis that included systematic scoping reviews stakeholder recruitment, two stakeholder surveys and two stakeholder workshops to scope the use cases, explore criteria and map use cases, evaluate the criteria and measure the use cases against the criteria. Results We recruited 32 stakeholders. We developed a scoring matrix with 4 criteria for scoring the use cases and 8 criteria for scoring the point of care tests and applied weighting determined from survey results. Use cases were scored by the stakeholders against 4 criteria. The 3 highest scoring use cases were point of care troponin testing in: possible Acute Myocardial Infarction, lactate testing in suspected sepsis and in trauma. We developed the process for scoring the point of care tests to be completed close to a proposed trial to allow for a changes in technology. Conclusions We successfully designed a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to identify use cases and candidate tests for inclusion in a future platform trial of in vitro point of care testing in UK Emergency Medical Services. We identified 3 use cases for evaluation in a platform trial of in vitro point of care testing: troponin testing in possible acute myocardial infarction, lactate testing in suspected sepsis and lactate testing to identify occult haemorrhage in trauma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kim Kirby
- University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 ODD, UK
- South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, EX2 7HY, UK
| | | | - Andy Gibson
- University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 ODD, UK
| | - Cathy Liddiard
- University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 ODD, UK
| | - Theresa H.M. Moore
- The National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK
| | - Jelena Savović
- The National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England, UK
| | | | | | | | - Richard Body
- University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Xue C, Du Y, Yang H, Jin H, Zhao Y, Ren B, Dong Z. Evaluating vonoprazan and tegoprazan for gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment in Chinese Healthcare: an EVIDEM framework analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 2024; 24:208. [PMID: 38902604 PMCID: PMC11188247 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-024-03297-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2024] [Accepted: 06/14/2024] [Indexed: 06/22/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chaojun Xue
- Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
- Hebei Key Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacy, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
| | - Yuhan Du
- Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
| | - Haotian Yang
- Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
- Hebei Key Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacy, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
| | - Huixin Jin
- Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
- Hebei Key Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacy, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
| | - Yue Zhao
- Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
- Hebei Key Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacy, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
| | - Bingnan Ren
- Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
- Hebei Key Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacy, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
| | - Zhanjun Dong
- Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China.
- Hebei Key Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacy, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Monreal E, Ruiz PD, San Román IL, Rodríguez-Antigüedad A, Moya-Molina MÁ, Álvarez A, García-Arcelay E, Maurino J, Shepherd J, Cabrera ÁP, Villar LM. Value contribution of blood-based neurofilament light chain as a biomarker in multiple sclerosis using multi-criteria decision analysis. Front Public Health 2024; 12:1397845. [PMID: 38711771 PMCID: PMC11073490 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1397845] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2024] [Accepted: 04/11/2024] [Indexed: 05/08/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enric Monreal
- Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria, Red Española de Esclerosis Múltiple, Red de Enfermedades Inflamatorias, Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Spain
| | - Pilar Díaz Ruiz
- Department of Pharmacy, Hospital Nuestra Señora de Candelaria, Tenerife, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Luisa María Villar
- Department of Immunology, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sánchez-Martínez FI, Abellán-Perpiñán JM, Martínez-Pérez JE, Gómez-Torres JL. Design of a multiple criteria decision analysis framework for prioritizing high-impact health technologies in a regional health service. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2024; 40:e21. [PMID: 38576122 DOI: 10.1017/s0266462324000205] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/06/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Jorge-Luis Gómez-Torres
- International Doctorate School, PhD programme in Economics, DEcIDE, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Jabali SH, Yazdani S, Pourasghari H, Maleki M. From bench to policy: a critical analysis of models for evidence-informed policymaking in healthcare. Front Public Health 2024; 12:1264315. [PMID: 38596514 PMCID: PMC11002157 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1264315] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/08/2024] [Indexed: 04/11/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seyyed Hadi Jabali
- School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Shahram Yazdani
- Virtual School of Medical Education and Management, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Hamid Pourasghari
- School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Mohammadreza Maleki
- School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Al-Jedai A, Almudaiheem H, Alruthia Y, Althemery A, Alabdulkarim H, Ojeil R, Alrumaih A, AlGhannam S, AlMutairi A, Hasnan Z. A Step Toward the Development of the First National Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework to Support Healthcare Decision Making in Saudi Arabia. Value Health Reg Issues 2024; 41:100-107. [PMID: 38306770 DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2023.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2023] [Revised: 12/14/2023] [Accepted: 12/24/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmed Al-Jedai
- Therapeutic Affairs for Support Services, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Hajer Almudaiheem
- Pharmacy and Therapeutic Committee, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Yazeed Alruthia
- Pharmacoeconomics, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Abdullah Althemery
- Pharmacoeconomics, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Hana Alabdulkarim
- Drug Policy Center, The Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Rita Ojeil
- Market Access & HEOR, Carexso, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
| | - Ali Alrumaih
- Medical Services Department, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Suliman AlGhannam
- Population Health Department, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | | | - Zuhair Hasnan
- Medical Genomics Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Elvira D, Torres F, Vives R, Puig G, Obach M, Gay D, Varón D, de Pando T, Tabernero J, Pontes C. Reporting reimbursement price decisions for onco-hematology drugs in Spain. Front Public Health 2023; 11:1265323. [PMID: 37942255 PMCID: PMC10627880 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1265323] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2023] [Accepted: 09/15/2023] [Indexed: 11/10/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Elvira
- Departament de Farmacologia, de Terapèutica i de Toxicologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain
- Sanofi, Paris, France
| | - Ferran Torres
- Biostatistics Unit, Medical School, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallés, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Roser Vives
- Departament de Farmacologia, de Terapèutica i de Toxicologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain
- Gerència del Medicament, Servei Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Gemma Puig
- Gerència del Medicament, Servei Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Daniel Gay
- Gerència del Medicament, Servei Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Thais de Pando
- Gerència del Medicament, Servei Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain
- Digitalization for the Sustainability of the Healthcare System (DS3), Servei Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Josep Tabernero
- Vall d’Hebron Hospital Campus and Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Caridad Pontes
- Departament de Farmacologia, de Terapèutica i de Toxicologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain
- Biostatistics Unit, Medical School, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallés, Barcelona, Spain
- Digitalization for the Sustainability of the Healthcare System (DS3), Servei Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Meneses-Echavez JF, Bidonde J, Montesinos-Guevara C, Amer YS, Loaiza-Betancur AF, Tellez Tinjaca LA, Fraile Navarro D, Poklepović Peričić T, Tokalić R, Bala MM, Storman D, Swierz M, Zając J, Flórez ID, Schünemann H, Flottorp S, Alonso-Coello P. Using evidence to decision frameworks led to guidelines of better quality and more credible and transparent recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 162:38-46. [PMID: 37517506 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.07.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2023] [Revised: 06/30/2023] [Accepted: 07/24/2023] [Indexed: 08/01/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jose F Meneses-Echavez
- Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Facultad de Cultura Física, Deporte y Recreación, Universidad Santo Tomás, Bogotá, Colombia.
| | - Julia Bidonde
- Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; School of Rehabilitation Science, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
| | - Camila Montesinos-Guevara
- Centro de Investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo, Universidad UTE, Quito, Ecuador
| | - Yasser S Amer
- Clinical Practice Guidelines and Quality Research Unit, Quality Management Department, Pediatrics Department, King Saud University Medical City, Research Chair for Evidence-Based Health Care and Knowledge Translation, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Andres Felipe Loaiza-Betancur
- Instituto Universitario de Educación Física, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia; Grupo de Investigación en Entrenamiento Deportivo y Actividad Física para la Salud (GIEDAF), Universidad Santo Tomás, Tunja, Colombia
| | - Luis Andres Tellez Tinjaca
- Grupo de Investigación en Entrenamiento Deportivo y Actividad Física para la Salud (GIEDAF), Universidad Santo Tomás, Tunja, Colombia
| | - David Fraile Navarro
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Tina Poklepović Peričić
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Ružica Tokalić
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Malgorzata M Bala
- Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Systematic Reviews Unit, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
| | - Dawid Storman
- Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Systematic Reviews Unit, Department of Adult Psychiatry, University Hospital Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
| | - Mateusz Swierz
- Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Systematic Reviews Unit, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
| | - Joanna Zając
- Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Systematic Reviews Unit, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
| | - Ivan D Flórez
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Antioquia, Calle 67 No. 53-108, Medellin, Colombia; School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Clínica Las Américas-AUNA, Medellín, Colombia
| | - Holger Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Signe Flottorp
- Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Totton N, Julious SA, Coates E, Hughes DA, Cook JA, Biggs K, Hewitt C, Day S, Cook A. Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop. Health Technol Assess 2023; 27:1-58. [PMID: 37982521 PMCID: PMC11017151 DOI: 10.3310/bhqz7691] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nikki Totton
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Steven A Julious
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Elizabeth Coates
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Dyfrig A Hughes
- Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Jonathan A Cook
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Katie Biggs
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Catherine Hewitt
- York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
| | - Simon Day
- Clinical Trials Consulting & Training Limited, Buckingham, UK
| | - Andrew Cook
- Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Muir JM, Radhakrishnan A, Freitag A, Ozer Stillman I, Sarri G. Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements. Front Pharmacol 2023; 14:1197259. [PMID: 37521458 PMCID: PMC10372435 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1197259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 07/05/2023] [Indexed: 08/01/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
13
|
Gongora-Salazar P, Rocks S, Fahr P, Rivero-Arias O, Tsiachristas A. The Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Decision Making in Healthcare: An Updated Systematic Literature Review. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2023; 26:780-790. [PMID: 36436791 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.11.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2022] [Revised: 10/10/2022] [Accepted: 11/17/2022] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pamela Gongora-Salazar
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
| | | | - Patrick Fahr
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
| | - Oliver Rivero-Arias
- National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
| | - Apostolos Tsiachristas
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Parmar A, Dai WF, Dionne F, Geirnaert M, Denburg A, Ahuja T, Beca J, Bouchard S, Chambers C, Hunt MJ, Husereau D, Lungu E, McDonald V, Mercer RE, Mitera G, Muñoz C, Naipaul R, Peacock S, Potashnik T, Tadrous M, Takhar P, Taylor M, Trudeau M, Wasney D, Gavura S, Chan KKW. 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. Curr Oncol 2023; 30:3776-3786. [PMID: 37185399 PMCID: PMC10137247 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30040286] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2023] [Revised: 03/17/2023] [Accepted: 03/26/2023] [Indexed: 03/30/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
15
|
Matsumoto T, Strachan L, Oyama S, Ishiguro Y, Lee SS. Current Medical Technology Reimbursement System in Japan. Value Health Reg Issues 2023; 34:118-124. [PMID: 36696768 DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2022.12.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2022] [Revised: 11/22/2022] [Accepted: 12/16/2022] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomoko Matsumoto
- Healthcare Economics and Government Affairs, Medtronic Japan, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Liesl Strachan
- Global Health Policy, Health Economics & Reimbursement, Medtronic Australasia Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Shoko Oyama
- Healthcare Economics and Government Affairs, Medtronic Japan, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yoko Ishiguro
- Healthcare Economics and Government Affairs, Medtronic Japan, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Sang-Soo Lee
- Health Care Economics and Government Affairs, Medtronic Korea, Ltd, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the Republic of Korea; Graduate School for Medical Device Management and Research, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Science & Technology, Sung Kyun Kwan University Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, the Republic of Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Chugh Y, Bahuguna P, Sohail A, Rajsekar K, Muraleedharan VR, Prinja S. Development of a Health Technology Assessment Quality Appraisal Checklist (HTA-QAC) for India. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2023; 21:11-22. [PMID: 36260276 PMCID: PMC9579659 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-022-00766-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/18/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yashika Chugh
- Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Pankaj Bahuguna
- Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
- School of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Aamir Sohail
- Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India
| | - Kavitha Rajsekar
- Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India
| | - V R Muraleedharan
- Centre for Technology and Policy, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Shankar Prinja
- Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
- Government of India, National Health Authority, New Delhi, India.
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Domingo C, Fernandez M, Garin N, Milara J, Moran I, Muerza I, Pacheco A, Teruel C, Bentley R, Subiran R, Gil A. 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. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2023; 21:119-130. [PMID: 36319945 PMCID: PMC9628572 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-022-00770-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/09/2022] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Domingo
- Pulmonology Department, Hospital Parc Tauli, Sabadell, Spain
- Medicine Department, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Mario Fernandez
- Otolaryngology Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain
| | - Noe Garin
- Pharmacy Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Javier Milara
- Pharmacy Department, Hospital General de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
| | - Ignacio Moran
- Spanish Federation of Patient Organisations with Allergic and Respiratory Diseases (FENAER), Madrid, Spain
| | - Irantzu Muerza
- Spanish Federation of Patient Organisations with Allergic and Respiratory Diseases (FENAER), Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Carlos Teruel
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, Spain
| | - Roy Bentley
- Global Market Access, Shionogi Inc., New Jersey, USA
| | | | - Alicia Gil
- Omakase Consulting S.L., Barcelona, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Daniel Mullins C, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: Updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. HEALTH POLICY OPEN 2022; 3:100063. [PMID: 37383570 PMCID: PMC10297740 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpopen.2021.100063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2021] [Accepted: 12/10/2021] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
| | | | - Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
| | | | - Lisa Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
| | | | - Josephine Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS : HEPAC : HEALTH ECONOMICS IN PREVENTION AND CARE 2022; 23:1309-1317. [PMID: 35084632 PMCID: PMC9550741 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01426-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/23/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
- Institute of Health Economics, 879 Winnington Ave, Ottawa, ON, K2B 5C4, Canada.
| | | | - Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
| | | | - Lisa Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| | | | - Josephine Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Geng J, Bao H, Feng Z, Meng J, Yu X, Yu H. Investigating patients' preferences for new anti-diabetic drugs to inform public health insurance coverage decisions: a discrete choice experiment in China. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:1860. [PMID: 36199056 PMCID: PMC9533494 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14244-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinsong Geng
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.
| | - Haini Bao
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.,The First People's Hospital of Lianyungang, 222061, Lianyungang, Jiangsu, China
| | - Zhe Feng
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - Jingyi Meng
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - Xiaolan Yu
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - Hao Yu
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, 02215, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
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. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0273775. [PMID: 36084067 PMCID: PMC9462757 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273775] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2021] [Accepted: 08/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
22
|
Enzing JJ, Knies S, Engel J, IJzerman MJ, Sander B, Vreman R, Boer B, Brouwer WBF. Do Health Technology Assessment organisations consider manufacturers' costs in relation to drug price? A study of reimbursement reports. COST EFFECTIVENESS AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION 2022; 20:46. [PMID: 36045377 PMCID: PMC9434877 DOI: 10.1186/s12962-022-00383-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2022] [Accepted: 08/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joost J Enzing
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. .,Zorginstituut Nederland, Diemen, The Netherlands.
| | - Saskia Knies
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Zorginstituut Nederland, Diemen, The Netherlands
| | - Jop Engel
- Zorginstituut Nederland, Diemen, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten J IJzerman
- Cancer Health Services Research, School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Health Technology and Services Research Department, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Beate Sander
- Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (IHPME), University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Public Health Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada.,ICES, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Rick Vreman
- Zorginstituut Nederland, Diemen, The Netherlands.,Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Bert Boer
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Werner B F Brouwer
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Campolina AG, Yuba TY, Soárez PCD. Decision criteria for resource allocation: an analysis of CONITEC oncology reports. CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA 2022; 27:2563-2572. [PMID: 35730828 DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232022277.14242021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2021] [Accepted: 12/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina
- Centro de Investigação Translacional em Oncologia, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo. Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo. Av. Dr. Arnaldo 251, 8° andar. 01246-000 São Paulo SP Brasil.
| | - Tania Yuka Yuba
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo. São Paulo SP Brasil
| | - Patrícia Coelho de Soárez
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo. São Paulo SP Brasil
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Evidence to Decision frameworks enabled structured and explicit development of healthcare recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 150:51-62. [PMID: 35710054 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2022] [Revised: 05/06/2022] [Accepted: 06/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
25
|
Dai Z, Xu S, Wu X, Hu R, Li H, He H, Hu J, Liao X. Knowledge Mapping of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Healthcare: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front Public Health 2022; 10:895552. [PMID: 35757629 PMCID: PMC9218106 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.895552] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2022] [Accepted: 05/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zeqi Dai
- Center for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Simin Xu
- Center for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Xue Wu
- Center for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Ruixue Hu
- Center for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Huimin Li
- Center for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Haoqiang He
- Department of Cardiology, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Jing Hu
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Xing Liao
- Center for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2022; 40:601-609. [PMID: 35015272 PMCID: PMC9130151 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01112-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/07/2021] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
- Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AL, Canada.
| | | | - Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England
| | | | - Lisa Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| | | | - Josephine Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- Ministry of Health and Welfare, National Hepatitis C Program Office, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Whittal A, Jommi C, De Pouvourville G, Taylor D, Annemans L, Schoonaert L, Vermeersch S, Hutchings A, Patris J. Facilitating [corrected] More Efficient Negotiations for Innovative Therapies: A Value-Based Negotiation Framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2022; 38:e23. [PMID: 35274602 DOI: 10.1017/s0266462322000095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Claudio Jommi
- Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy
| | | | - David Taylor
- University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lieven Annemans
- Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | | | | | | | - Julien Patris
- Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Brussels, Belgium
- Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Zug, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2022; 20:213-221. [PMID: 35015207 PMCID: PMC8847248 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00704-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/23/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
- Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AL, Canada.
| | | | - Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England
| | | | - Lisa Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| | | | - Josephine Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Gasol M, Paco N, Guarga L, Bosch JÀ, Pontes C, Obach M. Early Access to Medicines: Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) as a Decision Tool in Catalonia (Spain). J Clin Med 2022; 11:jcm11051353. [PMID: 35268443 PMCID: PMC8910942 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11051353] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2022] [Revised: 02/21/2022] [Accepted: 02/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Montse Gasol
- Department of Pharmacology, Therapeutics and Toxicology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain;
- Catalan Health Service (CatSalut), 08007 Barcelona, Spain; (N.P.); (L.G.); (M.O.)
- Digitalization for the Sustainability of the Healthcare System (DS3), Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), 08006 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Noelia Paco
- Catalan Health Service (CatSalut), 08007 Barcelona, Spain; (N.P.); (L.G.); (M.O.)
| | - Laura Guarga
- Catalan Health Service (CatSalut), 08007 Barcelona, Spain; (N.P.); (L.G.); (M.O.)
| | - Josep Àngel Bosch
- Department of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain;
| | - Caridad Pontes
- Department of Pharmacology, Therapeutics and Toxicology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain;
- Catalan Health Service (CatSalut), 08007 Barcelona, Spain; (N.P.); (L.G.); (M.O.)
- Digitalization for the Sustainability of the Healthcare System (DS3), Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), 08006 Barcelona, Spain
- Correspondence:
| | - Mercè Obach
- Catalan Health Service (CatSalut), 08007 Barcelona, Spain; (N.P.); (L.G.); (M.O.)
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations. Clin Ther 2022; 44:158-168. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2022.01.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
31
|
Zhang M, Bao Y, Lang Y, Fu S, Kimber M, Levine M, Xie F. What Is Value in Health and Healthcare? A Systematic Literature Review of Value Assessment Frameworks. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2022; 25:302-317. [PMID: 35094803 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.07.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2020] [Revised: 07/05/2021] [Accepted: 07/12/2021] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mengmeng Zhang
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Yun Bao
- Institute of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China
| | - Yitian Lang
- Department of Pharmacy, Huangpu Branch, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Shihui Fu
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Melissa Kimber
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Mitchell Levine
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Feng Xie
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, de Bekker-Grob E, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BJOG 2022; 129:336-344. [PMID: 35014160 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - M Drummond
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
| | - F Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.,University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.,CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - A H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - C Carswell
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - L Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.,Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - N Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - E de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, School of Public Health, Israel
| | - E Loder
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,The BMJ, London, UK
| | - J Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C D Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - S Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - R-F Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - S Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2022; 28:146-155. [PMID: 35098747 PMCID: PMC10372979 DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2022.28.2.146] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- adjunct professor, senior associate, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
| | - Michael Drummond
- Michael Drummond, professor, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
| | - Federico Augustovski
- director, professor of public health, principal researcher, Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- full professor of health economics & health preferences, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- professor of health economics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
| | - Chris Carswell
- senior editor, Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Lisa Caulley
- assistant professor, associate scientist, doctoral candidate, Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada. Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- professor, Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
| | - Elizabeth Loder
- professor, head of research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; The BMJ, London, UK
| | - Josephine Mauskopf
- vice president, RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- professor and chair, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- professor of health economics, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- professor of health research, on behalf of CHEERS 2022 ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force. Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Wilson R, Chua J, Pryymachenko Y, Pathak A, Sharma S, Abbott JH. Prioritizing Healthcare Interventions: A Comparison of Multicriteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2022; 25:268-275. [PMID: 35094800 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.08.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2021] [Revised: 07/12/2021] [Accepted: 08/23/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ross Wilson
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
| | - Jason Chua
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
| | - Yana Pryymachenko
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
| | - Anupa Pathak
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
| | - Saurab Sharma
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; Department of Physiotherapy, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel, Nepal; School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Centre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia
| | - J Haxby Abbott
- Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMC Health Serv Res 2022; 22:114. [PMID: 35081957 PMCID: PMC8793223 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-07460-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
- Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
| | | | - Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
| | | | - Lisa Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| | | | - Josephine Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:179. [PMID: 35081920 PMCID: PMC8793177 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-12491-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
- Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
| | | | - Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
| | | | - Lisa Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| | | | - Josephine Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMC Med 2022; 20:23. [PMID: 35022047 PMCID: PMC8753858 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-021-02204-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 96] [Impact Index Per Article: 48.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2021] [Accepted: 12/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
- Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
| | | | - Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
| | | | - Lisa Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| | | | - Josephine Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2022:1-10. [PMID: 35016547 DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2022.cheers] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- adjunct professor, senior associate, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
| | - Michael Drummond
- professor, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
| | - Federico Augustovski
- director, professor of public health, principal researcher, Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- full professor of health economics & health preferences, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- professor of health economics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
| | - Chris Carswell
- senior editor, Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Lisa Caulley
- assistant professor, associate scientist, doctoral candidate, Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada. Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- professor, Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| | - Elizabeth Loder
- professor, head of research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; The BMJ, London, UK
| | - Josephine Mauskopf
- Josephine Mauskopf, vice president, RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- professor and chair, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- professor of health economics, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- professor of health research, on behalf of CHEERS 2022 ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force. Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMJ 2022; 376:e067975. [PMID: 35017145 PMCID: PMC8749494 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067975] [Citation(s) in RCA: 152] [Impact Index Per Article: 76.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
| | | | - Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires; University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires; CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
| | | | - Lisa Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| | - Elizabeth Loder
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; The BMJ, London, UK
| | - Josephine Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2022; 38:e13. [PMID: 35007499 DOI: 10.1017/s0266462321001732] [Citation(s) in RCA: 82] [Impact Index Per Article: 41.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
41
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations. J Med Econ 2022; 25:1-7. [PMID: 35012427 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2021.2014721] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
| | | | - Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires; University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires; CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
| | | | - Lisa Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| | | | - Josephine Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2022; 25:3-9. [PMID: 35031096 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1351] [Citation(s) in RCA: 305] [Impact Index Per Article: 152.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2021] [Accepted: 11/02/2021] [Indexed: 05/23/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada.
| | | | - Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
| | | | - Lisa Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| | - Elizabeth Loder
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA, The BMJ, London, UK
| | - Josephine Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. MDM Policy Pract 2022; 7:23814683211061097. [PMID: 35036563 PMCID: PMC8755935 DOI: 10.1177/23814683211061097] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Michael Drummond
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Federico Augustovski
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Chris Carswell
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Lisa Caulley
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Dan Greenberg
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Elizabeth Loder
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Josephine Mauskopf
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Stavros Petrou
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada
- Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
- Adis Journals, Springer Nature, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada, Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- The BMJ, London, UK
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA; Stavros Petros., Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Campolina AG, Yuba TY, Soárez PCD. Decision criteria for resource allocation: an analysis of CONITEC oncology reports. CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA 2022. [DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232022277.14242021en] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
45
|
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J, Mullins CD, Petrou S, Pwu RF, Staniszewska S. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2022; 25:10-31. [PMID: 35031088 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 283] [Impact Index Per Article: 141.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/03/2021] [Indexed: 05/22/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Don Husereau
- University of Ottawa, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (Husereau).
| | | | - Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department of the Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS- CONICET), Buenos Aires; University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires; CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andrew H Briggs
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK
| | | | - Lisa Caulley
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program and Center for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ontario, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Dan Greenberg
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er-Sheva, Israel
| | - Elizabeth Loder
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; The BMJ, London, UK
| | - Josephine Mauskopf
- RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - C Daniel Mullins
- School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Raoh-Fang Pwu
- National Hepatitis C Program Office, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Sophie Staniszewska
- Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Campolina AG, Suzumura EA, Hong QN, de Soárez PC. Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2021; 22:365-380. [PMID: 34913775 DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2022.2019580] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina Fmusp, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.,Centro de Investigação Translacional Em Oncologia, Instituto Do Cancer Do Estado de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina Fmusp, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Erica Aranha Suzumura
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina Fmusp, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Quan Nha Hong
- EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - Patrícia Coelho de Soárez
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina Fmusp, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Bou-Karroum L, Khabsa J, Jabbour M, Hilal N, Haidar Z, Abi Khalil P, Khalek RA, Assaf J, Honein-AbouHaidar G, Samra CA, Hneiny L, Al-Awlaqi S, Hanefeld J, El-Jardali F, Akl EA, El Bcheraoui C. Public health effects of travel-related policies on the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods systematic review. J Infect 2021; 83:413-423. [PMID: 34314737 PMCID: PMC8310423 DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.07.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2021] [Accepted: 07/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lama Bou-Karroum
- Center for Systematic Reviews for Health Policy and Systems Research, American University of Beirut, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Joanne Khabsa
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Clinical Research Institute, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Mathilda Jabbour
- Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Nadeen Hilal
- Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Zeinab Haidar
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Clinical Research Institute, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Pamela Abi Khalil
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Clinical Research Institute, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Rima Abdul Khalek
- Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia, P.O. Box 11-8575, Riad el-Solh Square, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Jana Assaf
- Department of Health Management and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Gladys Honein-AbouHaidar
- Rafic Hariri School of Nursing, American University of Beirut, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Clara Abou Samra
- Department of Health Management and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Layal Hneiny
- Saab Medical Library, American University of Beirut, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Sameh Al-Awlaqi
- Evidence-Based Public Health Unit, Center for International Health Protection, Robert Koch Institute, Nordufer. 20, Berlin 13353, Germany
| | - Johanna Hanefeld
- Center for International Health Protection, Robert Koch Institute, Nordufer. 20, Berlin 13353, Germany
| | - Fadi El-Jardali
- Center for Systematic Reviews for Health Policy and Systems Research, American University of Beirut, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, P.O.Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon.
| | - Charbel El Bcheraoui
- Evidence-Based Public Health Unit, Center for International Health Protection, Robert Koch Institute, Nordufer. 20, Berlin 13353, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Neumann PJ. Toward Better Data Dashboards for US Drug Value Assessments. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2021; 24:1484-1489. [PMID: 34593172 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.04.1287] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2021] [Revised: 04/19/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter J Neumann
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Elvira D, Obach M, Pontes C. Description of the use of multicriteria to support pricing and reimbursement decisions by European health technology assessment bodies. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21:814. [PMID: 34391431 PMCID: PMC8364048 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06784-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2021] [Accepted: 07/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Elvira
- Departament de Farmacologia, de Terapèutica i de Toxicologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sabadell (Barcelona), Spain
| | - Mercè Obach
- Servei Català de la Salut, Gerència del Medicament, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Caridad Pontes
- Departament de Farmacologia, de Terapèutica i de Toxicologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sabadell (Barcelona), Spain. .,Servei Català de la Salut, Gerència del Medicament, Barcelona, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
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. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21:807. [PMID: 34384428 PMCID: PMC8361840 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06827-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2020] [Accepted: 07/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|