Development of the Indian Reference Case for undertaking economic evaluation for health technology assessment

Background

Health technology assessment (HTA) is globally recognised as an important tool to guide evidence-based decision-making. However, heterogeneity in methods limits the use of any such evidence. The current research was undertaken to develop a set of standards for conduct of economic evaluations for HTA in India, referred to as the Indian Reference Case.

Methods

Development of the reference case comprised of a four-step process: (i) review of existing international HTA guidelines; (ii) systematic review of economic evaluations for three countries to assess adherence with pre-existing country-specific HTA guidelines; (iii) empirical analysis to assess the impact of alternate assumptions for key principles of economic evaluation on the results of cost-effectiveness analysis; (iv) stakeholder consultations to assess appropriateness of the recommendations. Based on the inferences drawn from the first three processes, a preliminary draft of the reference case was developed, which was finalised based on stakeholder consultations.

Findings

The Indian Reference Case provides twelve recommendations on eleven key principles of economic evaluation: decision problem, comparator, perspective, source of effectiveness evidence, measure of costs, health outcomes, time-horizon, discounting, heterogeneity, uncertainty analysis and equity analysis, and for presentation of results. The recommendations are user-friendly and have scope to allow for context-specific flexibility.

Interpretation

The Indian Reference Case is expected to provide guidance in planning, conducting, and reporting of economic evaluations. It is anticipated that adherence to the Reference Case would increase the quality and policy utilisation of future evaluations. However, with advancement in the field of health economics efforts aimed at refining the Indian Reference Case would be needed.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The research was undertaken as part of doctoral thesis of Sharma D, who received scholarship from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India.

Recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis: outcomes of an experts' consensus meeting organized by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the US branch of the International Osteoporosis Foundation

Economic evaluations are increasingly used to assess the value of health interventions, but variable quality and heterogeneity limit the use of these evaluations by decision-makers. These recommendations provide guidance for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards.

INTRODUCTION

This paper aims to provide recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis in order to improve their transparency, comparability, and methodologic standards.

METHODS

A working group was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis to make recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, to define an osteoporosis-specific reference case to serve a minimum standard for all economic analyses in osteoporosis, to discuss methodologic challenges and initiate a call for research. A literature review, a face-to-face meeting in New York City (including 11 experts), and a review/approval by a larger group of experts worldwide (including 23 experts in total) were conducted.

RESULTS

Recommendations on the type of economic evaluation, methods for economic evaluation, modeling aspects, base-case analysis and population, excess mortality, fracture costs and disutility, treatment characteristics, and model validation were provided. Recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in osteoporosis were also made and an osteoporosis-specific checklist was designed that includes items to report when performing an economic evaluation in osteoporosis. Further, 12 minimum criteria for economic evaluations in osteoporosis were identified and 12 methodologic challenges and need for further research were discussed.

CONCLUSION

While the working group acknowledges challenges and the need for further research, these recommendations are intended to supplement general and national guidelines for economic evaluations, improve transparency, quality, and comparability of economic evaluations in osteoporosis, and maintain methodologic standards to increase their use by decision-makers.

A reference case for economic evaluations in osteoarthritis: an expert consensus article from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO)

BACKGROUND

General recommendations for a reference case for economic studies in rheumatic diseases were published in 2002 in an initiative to improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness studies in the field. Since then, economic evaluations in osteoarthritis (OA) continue to show considerable heterogeneity in methodological approach.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a reference case specific for economic studies in OA, including the standard optimal care, with which to judge new pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions.

METHODS

Four subgroups of an ESCEO expert working group on economic assessments (13 experts representing diverse aspects of clinical research and/or economic evaluations) were charged with producing lists of recommendations that would potentially improve the comparability of economic analyses in OA: outcome measures, comparators, costs and methodology. These proposals were discussed and refined during a face-to-face meeting in 2013. They are presented here in the format of the recommendations of the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, so that an initiative on economic analysis methodology might be consolidated with an initiative on reporting standards.

RESULTS

Overall, three distinct reference cases are proposed, one for each hand, knee and hip OA; with diagnostic variations in the first two, giving rise to different treatment options: interphalangeal or thumb-based disease for hand OA and the presence or absence of joint malalignment for knee OA. A set of management strategies is proposed, which should be further evaluated to help establish a consensus on the "standard optimal care" in each proposed reference case. The recommendations on outcome measures, cost itemisation and methodological approaches are also provided.

CONCLUSIONS

The ESCEO group proposes a set of disease-specific recommendations on the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in OA that could help the standardisation and comparability of studies that evaluate therapeutic strategies of OA in terms of costs and effectiveness.