Methods for Including Adverse Events in Economic Evaluations: Suggestions for Improvement

OBJECTIVE

Inclusion of relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes in economic evaluation of health technologies is required to aid efficient healthcare decisions. Our objective was to identify the key issues related to the inclusion of adverse events (AEs) in economic evaluation and explore perspectives for good practice recommendations to handle these issues.

METHODS

We focused on the frequently encountered methodological issues related to the integration of AEs in economic evaluations of health technologies. We distinguished the following elements: the incorporation of AEs in decision models, the terminology of AEs, the estimation of AEs consequences in terms of quality of life (QoL) and costs, and the exploration of the uncertainty related to the impact of AEs on the economic results.

RESULTS

We illustrated and discussed each of the identified issues by giving health technology assessment examples. We focused on the extent to which the integration of AEs in decision models can be improved by dealing with the lack of relevant real-world safety data, estimating the consequences of AEs (eg, for costs and QoL loss), exploring the impacts of AEs that are not adequately captured in current measurement of health-related QoL, and identifying the need for development of a good terminology of relevant types of AEs to be incorporated in economic evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Based on a reflection the key methodological issues related to the incorporation of adverse drug events in economic evaluations, we suggested several recommendations to serve a starting point for health technology assessment agencies and researchers to develop good research practices in this field.

Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defect

INTRODUCTION

The diagnosis of airway obstruction can be made through FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7 or FEV1/VC ratio < lower limit of normality (LLN). Several authors advocate that FEV1/FEV6 ratio is an alternative to diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect, while others have determined that the best cut-off for this ratio (best combined sensitivity and specificity) is 0.73.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the non-inferiority of FEV1/FEV6 ratio < 0.73 when compared to FEV1/FVC ratio < 0.7 and FEV1/VC < LLN in diagnosing airway obstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the medical records from patients who underwent spirometry or plethysmography in a university central hospital from June 1st to December 31st, 2018 was carried out. Only medical records which included FEV1/FVC < 0.7 or FEV1/VC < LLN were selected, and these results were compared to FEV1/FEV6 ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 526 patients with obstructive ventilatory defect were identified by one of the two ratios described. Of these, 95.1%, 87.4% and 88.6% were obstructive by FEV1/FVC, FEV1/VC, and FEV1/FEV6 ratio, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/FVC ratio was 99.6% (p < 0.001) with a diagnostic efficacy of 92.8%, whereas the PPV of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/VC was 91.0% (p < 0.001) and diagnostic efficacy was 85.2%. Most false negatives, comparing FEV6 with the other two tests, were found in patients with FEV1 > 70% (mild obstruction) and in individuals aged >50 years.

CONCLUSIONS

FEV1/FEV6 < 0.73 may be a good alternative ratio, as it is non-inferior to FEV1/VC and FEV1/FVC in diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect.

Chromothripsis orchestrates leukemic transformation in blast phase MPN through targetable amplification of DYRK1A

Chromothripsis, the process of catastrophic shattering and haphazard repair of chromosomes, is a common event in cancer. Whether chromothripsis might constitute an actionable molecular event amenable to therapeutic targeting remains an open question. We describe recurrent chromothripsis of chromosome 21 in a subset of patients in blast phase of a myeloproliferative neoplasm (BP-MPN), which alongside other structural variants leads to amplification of a region of chromosome 21 in ∼25% of patients ('chr21amp'). We report that chr21amp BP-MPN has a particularly aggressive and treatment-resistant phenotype. The chr21amp event is highly clonal and present throughout the hematopoietic hierarchy. DYRK1A , a serine threonine kinase and transcription factor, is the only gene in the 2.7Mb minimally amplified region which showed both increased expression and chromatin accessibility compared to non-chr21amp BP-MPN controls. We demonstrate that DYRK1A is a central node at the nexus of multiple cellular functions critical for BP-MPN development, including DNA repair, STAT signalling and BCL2 overexpression. DYRK1A is essential for BP-MPN cell proliferation in vitro and in vivo , and DYRK1A inhibition synergises with BCL2 targeting to induce BP-MPN cell apoptosis. Collectively, these findings define the chr21amp event as a prognostic biomarker in BP-MPN and link chromothripsis to a druggable target.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration

OBJECTIVES

Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting.

RESULTS

We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied).

CONCLUSIONS

The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.

The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: do the approaches in submissions for NICE technology appraisals reflect the existing literature? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases negatively impact patients' quality of life, but the estimation of health state utility values (HSUVs) in research studies and cost-utility models for health technology assessment is challenging.

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the methods for estimating the HSUVs included in manufacturers' submissions of orphan drugs to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) with those of published studies addressing the same rare diseases to understand whether manufacturers fully exploited the existing literature in developing their economic models.

METHODS

All NICE Technology Appraisal (TA) and Highly Specialized Technologies (HST) guidance documents of non-cancer European Medicines Agency (EMA) orphan medicinal products were reviewed and compared with any published primary studies, retrieved via PubMed until November 2020, and estimating HSUVs for the same conditions addressed in manufacturers' submissions.

RESULTS

We identified 22 NICE TA/HST appraisal reports addressing 19 different rare diseases. Sixteen reports presented original HSUVs estimated using EQ-5D or Health Utility Index (n = 12), direct methods (n = 2) or mapping (n = 2), while the other six included values obtained from the literature only. In parallel, we identified 111 published studies: 86.6% used preference-based measures (mainly EQ-5D, 60.7%), 12.5% direct techniques, and 2.7% mapping. The collection of values from non-patient populations (using 'vignettes') was more frequent in manufacturers' submissions than in the literature (22.7% vs. 8.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The agreement on methodological choices between manufacturers' submissions and published literature was only partial. More efforts should be made by manufacturers to accurately reflect the academic literature and its methodological recommendations in orphan drugs submissions.

Commentary: Advocating for patient and public involvement and engagement in health economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care.

MAIN TEXT

The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) is a reporting guideline for authors publishing health economic evaluations. We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the update of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. This need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient organisations could use to support their members to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement to build the evidence base for practice and may provide some reassurance to the public that their voice has played a part in evidence development. The CHEERS 2022 guide for patient representatives and patient organisations aims to support that endeavour by enabling deliberative discussions among patient organisations and their members. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.

Determining the efficiency path to universal health coverage: cost-effectiveness thresholds for 174 countries based on growth in life expectancy and health expenditures

BACKGROUND

Assessment of the efficiency of interventions is paramount to achieving equitable health-care systems. One key barrier to the widespread use of economic evaluations in resource allocation decisions is the absence of a widely accepted method to define cost-effectiveness thresholds to judge whether an intervention is cost-effective in a particular jurisdiction. We aimed to develop a method to estimate cost-effectiveness thresholds on the basis of health expenditures per capita and life expectancy at birth and empirically derive these thresholds for 174 countries.

METHODS

We developed a conceptual framework to assess how the adoption and coverage of new interventions with a given incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will affect the rate of increase of health expenditures per capita and life expectancy at the population level. The cost-effectiveness threshold can be derived so that the effect of new interventions on the evolution of life expectancy and health expenditure per capita is set within predefined goals. To provide guidance on cost-effectiveness thresholds and secular trends for 174 countries, we projected country-level health expenditure per capita and life expectancy increases by income level based on World Bank data for the period 2010-19.

FINDINGS

Cost-effectiveness thresholds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ranged between US$87 (Democratic Republic of the Congo) and $95 958 (USA) and were less than 0·5 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 96% of low-income countries, 76% of lower-middle-income countries, 31% of upper-middle-income countries, and 26% of high-income countries. Cost-effectiveness thresholds per QALY were less than 1 GDP per capita in 168 (97%) of the 174 countries. Cost-effectiveness thresholds per life-year ranged between $78 and $80 529 and between 0·12 and 1·24 GDP per capita, and were less than 1 GDP per capita in 171 (98%) countries.

INTERPRETATION

This approach, based on widely available data, can provide a useful reference for countries using economic evaluations to inform resource-allocation decisions and can enrich international efforts to estimate cost-effectiveness thresholds. Our results show lower thresholds than those currently in use in many countries.

FUNDING

Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS).

How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy?

BACKGROUND

The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes.

METHODS

A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered.

RESULTS

The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

Diagnostic and therapeutic approach of central sleep apnea in heart failure - the role of adaptive servo-ventilation. A statement of the Portuguese society of pulmonology and the Portuguese sleep association

It is known that patients with heart failure (HF) have an increased risk of developing central sleep apnoea (CSA), with Cheyne-Stokes respiration. The development of servo-ventilation aimed to treat CSA and improve the quality of life (QoL) of these patients. A large randomized clinical study, SERVE-HF, was conducted in order to test this theory in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results from this trial seemed to indicate that, in these patients, there was no beneficial effect of the assisted ventilation in CSA treatment. More surprisingly, an increased rate of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality was observed. This has led to dramatic changes in clinical practice, with decreased frequency of servo-ventilation prescription across Europe, including Portugal, due to changes in the guidelines. However, SERVE-HF was conducted only in severe systolic HF patients with CSA, and caution must be taken when extrapolating these results to HF patients with preserved ejection fraction or CSA patients without HF. The study also showed poor adherence, methodological and statistical gaps, including study design, patient selection, data collection and analysis, treatment adherence, and group crossovers, which have not been discussed in the trial as potential confounding factors and raise several concerns. Moreover, the adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) device used in SERVE-HF was unable to lower the minimum support pressure below 3 mm H₂0, and this has been suggested as one of the probable contributing reasons to the excess mortality observed in this study. This limitation has since been solved, and this ASV device is no longer used. This paper describes the results of a Portuguese Task Force on the treatment of central sleep apnoea in patients with chronic HF.

The Societal Value of Vaccines: Expert-Based Conceptual Framework and Methods Using COVID-19 Vaccines as a Case Study

Health technology assessments (HTAs) of vaccines typically focus on the direct health benefits to individuals and healthcare systems. COVID-19 highlighted the widespread societal impact of infectious diseases and the value of vaccines in averting adverse clinical consequences and in maintaining or resuming social and economic activities. Using COVID-19 as a case study, this research work aimed to set forth a conceptual framework capturing the broader value elements of vaccines and to identify appropriate methods to quantify value elements not routinely considered in HTAs. A two-step approach was adopted, combining a targeted literature review and three rounds of expert elicitation based on a modified Delphi method, leading to a conceptual framework of 30 value elements related to broader health effects, societal and economic impact, public finances, and uncertainty value. When applying the framework to COVID-19 vaccines in post-pandemic settings, 13 value elements were consensually rated highly important by the experts for consideration in HTAs. The experts reviewed over 10 methods that could be leveraged to quantify broader value elements and provided technical forward-looking recommendations. Limitations of the framework and the identified methods were discussed. This study supplements ongoing efforts aimed towards a broader recognition of the full societal value of vaccines.

Improving Interpretation of Evidence Relating to Quality of Life in Health Technology Assessments of Rare Disease Treatments

Rare diseases are often severe, debilitating, life-limiting conditions, many of which occur in childhood. These complex conditions have a wide range of clinical manifestations that have a substantial impact on the lives of patients, carers and families and often produce heterogeneous clinical outcomes. Therefore, the evaluation of quality-of-life (QoL) impacts is important. In health technology assessment (HTA), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and/or health state utility values (HSUVs) are used to determine QoL impacts of new treatments, but their use in rare diseases is challenging due to small and heterogeneous populations and limited disease knowledge. This paper describes challenges associated with the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs)/HSUVs to evaluate QoL in HTA of rare disease treatments (RDTs) and identifies five recommendations to ensure appropriate interpretation of QoL impacts. These were derived from mixed methods research (literature reviews, appraisal document analyses, appraisal committee observations and interviews) examining the use of PROs/HSUVs in HTA of RDTs. They highlight that HTAs of RDTs must (1) understand the QoL impacts of the disease and of treatments; (2) critically assess PRO data, recognising the nuances in development and administration of PROMs/HSUVs, considering what is feasible and what matters most to the patient population; (3) recognise that lack of significant effect on a PRO does not imply no QoL benefit; (4) use different forms of evidence to understand QoL impacts, such as patient input; and (5) provide methodological guidance to capture QoL impacts on patients/carers.

Hypofractionated or Conventionally Fractionated Adjuvant Radiotherapy After Regional Lymph Node Dissection for High-Risk Stage III Melanoma

AIMS

Adjuvant radiotherapy can be beneficial after regional lymph node dissection for high-risk stage III melanoma, as it has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in the node field. However, the optimal fractionation schedule is unknown and both hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated adjuvant radiotherapy are used. The present study examined the oncological outcomes of these two approaches in patients treated in an era before effective systemic immunotherapy became available.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study involved 335 patients with stage III melanoma who received adjuvant radiotherapy after therapeutic regional lymph node dissection for metastatic melanoma between 1990 and 2011. Information on tumour characteristics, radiotherapy doses and fractionation schedules and patient outcomes was retrieved from the institution's database and patients' medical records.

RESULTS

Hypofractionated radiotherapy (median dose 33 Gy in six fractions over 3 weeks) was given to 95 patients (28%) and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (median dose 48 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) to 240 patients (72%). Five-year lymph node field control rates were 86.0% (95% confidence interval 78.4-94.4%) for the hypofractionated group and 85.5% (95% confidence interval 80.5-90.7%) for the conventional fractionation group (P = 0.87). There were no significant differences in recurrence-free survival (RFS) (41.7%, 95% confidence interval 32.5-53.5 versus 31.9%, 95% confidence interval 26.1-38.9; P = 0.18) or overall survival (41.2%, 95% confidence interval 32.1-52.8 versus 45.0%, 95% confidence interval 38.7-52.4; P = 0.77). On multivariate analysis, extranodal spread was associated with decreased RFS (P = 0.04) and the number of resected lymph nodes containing metastatic melanoma was associated with decreased RFS (P = 0.0006) and overall survival (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Lymph node field control rates, RFS and overall survival were similar after hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated adjuvant radiotherapy. The presence of extranodal spread and an increasing number of positive lymph nodes were predictive of an unfavourable outcome.

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

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

Assessing the potential of HTA to inform resource allocation decisions in low-income settings: The case of Malawi

Health technology assessment (HTA) offers a set of analytical tools to support health systems' decisions about resource allocation. Although there is increasing interest in these tools across the world, including in some middle-income countries, they remain rarely used in low-income countries (LICs). In general, the focus of HTA is narrow, mostly limited to assessments of efficacy and cost-effectiveness. However, the principles of HTA can be used to support a broader series of decisions regarding new health technologies. We examine the potential for this broad use of HTA in LICs, with a focus on Malawi. We develop a framework to classify the main decisions on health technologies within health systems. The framework covers decisions on identifying and prioritizing technologies for detailed assessment, deciding whether to adopt an intervention, assessing alternative investments for implementation and scale-up, and undertaking further research activities. We consider the relevance of the framework to policymakers in Malawi and we use two health technologies as examples to investigate the main barriers and enablers to the use of HTA methods. Although the scarcity of local data, expertise, and other resources could risk limiting the operationalisation of HTA in LICs, we argue that even in highly resource constrained health systems, such as in Malawi, the use of HTA to support a broad range of decisions is feasible and desirable.

Coverage with evidence development for medical devices in Europe: Can practice meet theory?

Health economists have written extensively on the design and implementation of coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes and have proposed theoretical frameworks based on cost-effectiveness modeling and value of information analysis. CED may aid decision-makers when there is uncertainty about the (cost-)effectiveness of a new health technology at the time of reimbursement. Medical devices are potential candidates for CED schemes, as regulatory regimes do not usually require the same level of efficacy and safety data normally needed for pharmaceuticals. The purpose of this research is to assess whether the actual practice of CED for medical devices in Europe meets the theoretical principles proposed by health economists and whether theory and practice can be more closely aligned. Based on decision-makers' perceptions of the challenges associated with CED schemes, plus examples from the schemes themselves, we discuss a series of proposals for assessing the desirability of schemes, their design, implementation, and evaluation. These proposals, while reflecting the practical challenges with developing CED programs, embody many of the principles suggested by economists and should support decision-makers in dealing with uncertainty about the real-world performance of devices.

Disease-Related Costs Published in The Middle East and North Africa Region: Systematic Review and Analysis of Transferability

BACKGROUND

In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) the scarcity of local cost data is a key barrier to conducting health economic evaluations. We systematically reviewed reports of disease-related costs from MENA and analysed their transferability within the region.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and included full text English papers that reported disease-related costs from the local populations of Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen between 1995 and 2019. Screening, study selection and data extraction were done in duplicate. Study-related variables, costing methods, all costs and their characteristics were extracted and analysed via descriptive methods. From multi-country studies of MENA employing homogenous costing methods, we estimated the ratio (cost transfer coefficient) between the relative differences in direct medical costs and macroeconomic indicators via robust regression. We predicted each cost via the estimated cost transfer formula and evaluated prediction error between true and predicted (transferred) costs.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1646 records, 206 full text papers and 3525 costs from 84 diagnoses. Transferability was analysed involving 144 direct medical costs from eight multi-country studies. Adjusting the average of available foreign costs by 0.28 times the relative difference in GDP per capita provided the most accurate estimates. The correlation between true and predicted costs was 0.96; 68% of predicted costs fell in the true ± 50% range. Predictions were more accurate for costs from studies that involved the largest number of countries, for countries outside the Gulf region and for drug costs versus unit or disease costs.

CONCLUSION

The estimated cost transfer formula allows the prediction of missing costs in MENA if only GDP per capita is available for adjustment to the local setting. Input costs for the formula should be collected from multiple sources and match the decision situation.

Consideration of quality of life in the health technology assessments of rare disease treatments

OBJECTIVES

Challenges with patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence and health state utility values (HSUVs) in rare diseases exist due to small, heterogeneous populations, lack of disease knowledge and early onset. To better incorporate quality of life (QoL) into Health Technology Assessment, a clearer understanding of these challenges is needed.

METHODS

NICE appraisals of non-oncology treatments with an EMA orphan designation (n = 24), and corresponding appraisals in the Netherlands, France, and Germany were included. Document analysis of appraisal reports investigated how PROs/HSUVs influenced decision-making and was representative of QoL impact of condition and treatment.

RESULTS

PRO evidence was not included in 6/24 NICE appraisals. When included, it either failed to demonstrate change, capture domains important for patients, or was uncertain. In the other countries, little information was reported and evidence largely did not demonstrate change. In NICE appraisals, HSUVs were derived through the collection of EQ-5D data (7/24 cases), mapping (6/24), vignettes (5/24), and published literature or other techniques (6/24). The majority did not use data collected alongside clinical trials. Few measures demonstrated significant change due to lack of sensitivity or face validity, short-term data, or implausible health states. In 8/24 NICE appraisals, patient surveys or input during appraisal committee meetings supported the interpretation of uncertainty or provided evidence about QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

This study sheds light on the nature of PRO evidence in rare diseases and associated challenges. Results emphasise the need for improved development and use of PRO/HSUVs. Other forms of evidence and expert input are crucial to support better appraisal of uncertain or missing evidence.

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

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

The impact of COVID-19 restrictions on perceived health and wellbeing of adult Australian sport and physical activity participants

Individuals’ access to sport and physical activity has been hampered due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. In Australia participation in community sport was cancelled during lockdowns. There is limited research on the impact of sport participation restrictions on the health and wellbeing of adults.

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the perceived health and wellbeing of a sample of predominantly active Australian adults, both during COVID-19 and in comparison with one year earlier (pre COVID-19).

Methods

A survey was conducted during the first COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns in Australia in May–June 2020. It was distributed by national and state sporting organisations and through researchers’ social media accounts. This particular paper focuses on adults aged 18–59 years. The survey collected information on participant demographics, the sport and physical activity patterns pre- COVID-19, and health and wellbeing outcomes during COVID-19 lockdown and compared to one year earlier. The health measures were cross-tabulated against the demographic and sport and physical activity variables, and group profiles compared with chi-square tests. Scales were derived from three wellbeing questions, and group differences were analysed by t-tests and F-tests.

Results

The survey sample included 1279 men and 868 women aged 18–59 years. Most (67%) resided in metropolitan cities. The great majority (83%) were sport participants. During COVID-19 lockdown men were significantly more likely than women to report worse or much worse general (p = 0.014), physical (p = 0.015) and mental health (p = 0.038) and lower life satisfaction (p = 0.016). The inactive adults were significantly more likely to report poorer general health (p = 0.001) and physical health (p = 0.001) compared to active adults. The younger age cohort (18–29 years) were significantly more likely to report poorer general wellbeing (p < 0.001), and lower life satisfaction (p < 0.001) compared to the older age groups.

Conclusion

It seems that the absence of playing competitive sport and training with friends, teams and within clubs has severely impacted males and younger adults in particular. Sports clubs provide an important setting for individuals’ health and wellbeing which is why clubs require the capacity to deliver sport and individuals may need to regain the motivation to return.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Functional antibody characterization via direct structural analysis and information-driven protein-protein docking

Detailed description of the mechanism of action of the therapeutic antibodies is essential for the functional characterization and future optimization of potential clinical agents. We recently developed KD035, a fully human antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2). KD035 blocked VEGF‐A, and VEGF‐C‐mediated VEGFR2 activation, as demonstrated by the in vitro binding and competition assays and functional cellular assays. Here, we report a computational model of the complex between the variable fragment of KD035 (KD035(Fv)) and the domains 2 and 3 of the extracellular portion of VEGFR2 (VEGFR2(D2‐3)). Our modeling was guided by a priori experimental information including the X‐ray structures of KD035 and related antibodies, binding assays, target domain mapping and comparison of KD035 affinity for VEGFR2 from different species. The accuracy of the model was assessed by molecular dynamics simulations, and subsequently validated by mutagenesis and binding analysis. Importantly, the steps followed during the generation of this model can set a precedent for future in silico efforts aimed at the accurate description of the antibody–antigen and more broadly protein–protein complexes.

Variation in market access decisions for cell and gene therapies across the United States, Canada, and Europe

Transformative cell and gene therapies have now launched worldwide, and many potentially curative cell and gene therapies are in development, offering the prospect of significant health gains for patients. Access to these therapies depend on decisions made by health technology assessment (HTA) and payer organizations. We sought to describe the emerging cell and gene therapies market access landscape by analyzing 17 US commercial payer medical policies, and HTA reports from five European countries and Canada. We found that some US health plans applied coverage restrictions more often than others (four plans applied restrictions in all decisions, while four plans applied restrictions in <30% of decisions). The European and Canadian HTA bodies recommend access to fewer therapies than US health plans, reflecting a more stringent approach in the context of limited evidence and high scientific uncertainty that is commonly associated with these treatments. Our findings suggest that patient access to approved cell and gene therapies is restricted in all regions studied, though the nature of these restrictions differs between US health plans and the European/Canada HTA recommendations. Payers, HTA groups, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders should collaborate to more clearly define the "uncertainties" and develop market access policies that balance benefits of early access with ongoing data collection to close evidence gaps over time.

Coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices in Europe: characteristics and challenges

OBJECTIVES

Medical devices are potentially good candidates for coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes, as clinical data at market entry are often sparse and (cost-)effectiveness depends on real-world use. The objective of this research was to explore the diffusion of CED schemes for devices in Europe, and the factors that favour or hamper their utilization.

METHODS

We conducted structured interviews with 25 decision-makers from 22 European countries to explore the characteristics of existing CED programmes for devices, and how decision makers perceived 13 pre-identified challenges associated with initiating and operating CED schemes for devices. We also collected data on individual schemes that were either initiated or still ongoing in the last 5 years.

RESULTS

We identified seven countries with CED programmes for devices and 78 ongoing schemes. The characteristics of CED programmes varied across countries, including eligibility criteria, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, funding arrangements, and type of decisions being contemplated at the outset of each scheme. We observed a high variability in how decision makers perceived CED-related challenges possibly reflecting country-specific arrangements and different experiences with CED. One general finding across all countries was that relatively little attention was paid to the evaluation of schemes, both during and at their completion.

CONCLUSIONS

CED programmes for devices with different characteristics exist in Europe. Decision-makers' perceptions differ on the challenges associated with these schemes. More exchange of knowledge and experience will help decision makers anticipate the likely challenges in CED schemes for devices, and to learn from good practices existing elsewhere.

OSA patients not treated with PAP - Evolution over 5 years according to the Baveno classification and cardiovascular outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The evolution of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) non-eligible for PAP-therapy at diagnosis is unknown. Currently, the severity of OSA is based on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), but its prognostic relevance has raised concerns. The Baveno classification may allow a better stratification of severity and therapeutic guidance in OSA.

METHODS

Patients with AHI≥5/h in 2015, classified into Baveno groups A and B and non-eligible for PAP therapy at diagnosis and over 5 years, were analyzed. Patients were reclassified into Baveno groups (A-D) and changes in groups over 5 years were explored. Patients in Baveno groups C and D, who developed major cardiovascular comorbidities (CVC) or end-organ damage (EOD group), were compared with patients in Baveno groups A and B (non-EOD group). To identify predictors of the development of major CVC or EOD, a logistic regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

There were 76 patients, 58% male, mean age 51.9 ± 10.1 years, mean body mass index (BMI) of 30.3 ± 5.0 kg/m2 and median AHI of 8.9 (5.9-12.0) events/h. At diagnosis, 46% and 54% of patients were classified into Baveno group A and group B, respectively. In total, 21% of patients developed major CVC or EOD (Baveno group C or D); higher age (p = 0.011) and BMI (p = 0.004) and a higher percentage of central apneas (p = 0.012) at diagnosis significantly predicted it, while sex, sleepiness, insomnia, AHI, ODI and T90 were not.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant percentage of patients non-eligible for PAP-therapy at diagnosis of OSA developed CVC or EOD; higher age and BMI and a higher percentage of central apneas were significant predictors.

The cost-effectiveness of an adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom (UK), both the MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV) and the high-dose QIV (QIV-HD) are preferred for persons aged 65 years and older but only aQIV is reimbursed by the National Health Service (NHS). The objective was to determine the potential cost-effectiveness of vaccinating adults aged 65 years and above with aQIV compared with QIV-HD in the UK. A dynamic transmission model, calibrated to match infection data from the UK, was used to estimate the impact of vaccination in 10 influenza seasons. Vaccine effectiveness was based on a meta-analysis that concluded the vaccines were not significantly different. Vaccine coverage, physician visits, hospitalizations, deaths, utility losses and NHS costs were estimated using published UK sources. The list price of aQIV was £11.88 while a range of prices were tested for QIV-HD. The price of the trivalent high-dose vaccine (TIV-HD) is £20.00 but a list price for QIV-HD is not yet available. The projected differences between the vaccines in terms of clinical cases and influenza treatment costs are minimal. Our analysis demonstrates that in order to be cost-effective, the price of QIV-HD must be similar to that of aQIV and may range from £7.57 to £12.94 depending on the relative effectiveness of the vaccines. The results of the analysis were most sensitive to variation in vaccine effectiveness and the rate of hospitalization due to influenza. Given the evidence, aQIV is cost-saving unless QIV-HD is priced lower than the existing list price of TIV-HD.

Economic evaluation of nutrition interventions: Does one size fit all?

BACKGROUND

Nutrition interventions have specific features that might warrant modifications to the methods used for economic evaluations of healthcare interventions.

AIM

The aim of the article is to identify these features and when they challenge the use of cost-utility analysis (CUA).

METHODS

A critical review of the literature is conducted and a 2 by 2 classification matrix for nutrition interventions is proposed based on 1) who the main party responsible for the implementation and funding of the intervention is; and 2) who the target recipient of the intervention is. The challenges of conducting economic evaluations for each group of nutrition interventions are then analysed according to four main aspects: attribution of effects, measuring and valuing outcomes, inter-sectorial costs and consequences and equity considerations.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

CUA is appropriate for nutrition interventions when they are funded from the healthcare sector, have no (or modest) spill-overs to other sectors of the economy and have only (or mainly) health consequences. For other interventions, typically involving different government agencies, with cost implications for the private sector, with important wellbeing consequences outside health and with heterogeneous welfare effects across socio-economic groups, other economic evaluation methods need to be developed in order to offer valid guidance to policy making. For these interventions, checklists for critical appraisal of economic evaluations may require some substantial changes.

Lentigo maligna: defining margins and predictors of recurrence utilizing clinical, dermoscopic, confocal microscopy and histopathology features

BACKGROUND

Lentigo maligna (LM) is a subtype of melanoma in situ with poorly defined margins and a high recurrence rate. The biological behaviour of LM appears to differ widely between cases, from biologically indolent to biologically active variants, with some patients experiencing multiple recurrences. It is not known whether this is secondary to inadequate margins, field cancerization or the innate biology of the lesion itself.

OBJECTIVES

(a) Describe the margins of LM in detail by analysing LM in three zones, that is centre, edge and surround using reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and histopathology; (b) ascertain association of histological distance of LM and atypical melanocytic hyperplasia from the surgical margin with multi-recurrent (MR) disease and (c) identify features (clinical, dermoscopy, RCM and histopathology) associated with MR LM.

METHODS

(1) Descriptive observational study comparing the centre, edge and surround of LM on histopathology and RCM; (2) retrospective cohort study comparing parameters associated with MR and non-recurrent (NR) LM.

RESULTS

30 patients (median follow-up time 6.2 years) were included. On histopathology, confluent or near confluent lentiginous proliferation, melanocyte density >15 per 0.5 mm and adnexal spread were best for distinguishing surround from edge of LM. On RCM, predominant melanocytes, lentiginous proliferation and pleomorphism distinguished surround from centre/edge. MR patients had a median histological distance of LM from the surgical margin of 2mm (versus NR patients with an average distance of 4mm). MR patients had a greater proportion of more florid features, compared with NR on histopathology at both the centre and the edge but were similar in the surround.

CONCLUSION

These data may help pathologists and confocalists better define margins of LM. More florid features in MR patients, despite a similar background of sun-damaged skin, suggest the innate biology of the lesion rather than the field of cancerization may explain MR LM.

Performance-based risk-sharing agreements in renal care: current experience and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Performance-based risk-sharing agreements (PBRSAs), between payers, health care providers, and technology manufacturers can be useful when there is uncertainty about the (cost-) effectiveness of a new technology or service. However, they can be challenging to design and implement.

AREAS COVERED

A total of 18 performance-based agreements were identified through a literature review. All but two of the agreements identified were pay-for-performance schemes, agreed between providers and payers at the national level. No examples were found of agreements between health care providers and manufacturers at the local level. The potential for these local agreements was illustrated by hypothetical case studies of water quality management and an integrated chronic kidney disease program.

EXPERT OPINION

Performance-based risk-sharing agreements can work to the advantage of patients, health care providers, payers, and technology manufacturers, particularly if they facilitate the introduction of technologies or systems of care that might not have been introduced otherwise. However, the design, conduct, and implementation of PBRSAs in renal care pose a number of challenges. Efforts should be made to overcome these challenges so that more renal care patients can benefit from technological advances and new models of care.

Quo Vadis HTA for Medical Devices in Central and Eastern Europe? Recommendations to Address Methodological Challenges

Objectives: Methodological challenges in the evaluation of medical devices (MDs) may be different for early and late technology adopter countries, as well as the potential health technology assessment (HTA) solutions to tackle them. This study aims to provide guidance to Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries on how to address key challenges of HTA for MDs with special focus on the transferability of scientific evidence.

Methods: As part of the COMED Horizon 2020 project, a comprehensive list of issues related to MD HTA were identified based on a targeted literature review. Health technology assessment issues which pose a greater challenge or require different solutions in late technology adopter countries were selected. Draught recommendations to address these issues were developed and discussed in a focus group. The recommendations were then validated with a wider group of experts, including HTA and reimbursement decision makers from CEE countries in May and June 2020.

Results: A consolidated list of 11 recommendations were developed in 3 major areas: (1) clinical value assessment, focusing on the use of joint EU work, relying on real-world evidence, use of coverage with evidence development schemes, transferring evidence from foreign countries and addressing the challenges of learning curve and centre effect; (2) economic value assessment, covering cost calculation of complex medical devices and transferability of economic evaluations of MDs; (3) HTA processes, related to the frequent product modifications and various indications of MDs.

Conclusions: Central and Eastern European countries with limited resources for conducting HTA, can benefit from HTA methods and evidence generated in early technology adopter countries. Considering the appropriate reuse of international HTA materials, late technology adopter countries can still implement HTA, even for MDs, which have a more limited evidence base compared with pharmaceuticals.