Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting.

OBJECTIVE

The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.

METHODS

The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list.

RESULTS

Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).

CONCLUSIONS

We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force

BACKGROUND

Budget impact analyses (BIAs) are an essential part of a comprehensive economic assessment of a health care intervention and are increasingly required by reimbursement authorities as part of a listing or reimbursement submission.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this report was to present updated guidance on methods for those undertaking such analyses or for those reviewing the results of such analyses. This update was needed, in part, because of developments in BIA methods as well as a growing interest, particularly in emerging markets, in matters related to affordability and population health impacts of health care interventions.

METHODS

The Task Force was approved by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Health Sciences Policy Council and appointed by its Board of Directors. Members were experienced developers or users of BIAs; worked in academia and industry and as advisors to governments; and came from several countries in North America and South America, Oceania, Asia, and Europe. The Task Force solicited comments on the drafts from a core group of external reviewers and, more broadly, from the membership of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

RESULTS

The Task Force recommends that the design of a BIA for a new health care intervention should take into account relevant features of the health care system, possible access restrictions, the anticipated uptake of the new intervention, and the use and effects of the current and new interventions. The key elements of a BIA include estimating the size of the eligible population, the current mix of treatments and the expected mix after the introduction of the new intervention, the cost of the treatment mixes, and any changes expected in condition-related costs. Where possible, the BIA calculations should be performed by using a simple cost calculator approach because of its ease of use for budget holders. In instances, however, in which the changes in eligible population size, disease severity mix, or treatment patterns cannot be credibly captured by using the cost calculator approach, a cohort or patient-level condition-specific model may be used to estimate the budget impact of the new intervention, accounting appropriately for those entering and leaving the eligible population over time. In either case, the BIA should use data that reflect values specific to a particular decision maker's population. Sensitivity analysis should be of alternative scenarios chosen from the perspective of the decision maker. The validation of the model should include at least face validity with decision makers and verification of the calculations. Data sources for the BIA should include published clinical trial estimates and comparator studies for the efficacy and safety of the current and new interventions as well as the decision maker's own population for the other parameter estimates, where possible. Other data sources include the use of published data, well-recognized local or national statistical information, and, in special circumstances, expert opinion. Reporting of the BIA should provide detailed information about the input parameter values and calculations at a level of detail that would allow another modeler to replicate the analysis. The outcomes of the BIA should be presented in the format of interest to health care decision makers. In a computer program, options should be provided for different categories of costs to be included or excluded from the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend a framework for the BIA, provide guidance on the acquisition and use of data, and offer a common reporting format that will promote standardization and transparency. Adherence to these good research practice principles would not necessarily supersede jurisdiction-specific BIA guidelines but may support and enhance local recommendations or serve as a starting point for payers wishing to promulgate methodology guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report

Clinical trials evaluating medicines, medical devices, and procedures now commonly assess the economic value of these interventions. The growing number of prospective clinical/economic trials reflects both widespread interest in economic information for new technologies and the regulatory and reimbursement requirements of many countries that now consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy. As decision makers increasingly demand evidence of economic value for health care interventions, conducting high-quality economic analyses alongside clinical studies is desirable because they broaden the scope of information available on a particular intervention, and can efficiently provide timely information with high internal and, when designed and analyzed properly, reasonable external validity. In 2005, ISPOR published the Good Research Practices for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials: The ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. ISPOR initiated an update of the report in 2014 to include the methodological developments over the last 9 years. This report provides updated recommendations reflecting advances in several areas related to trial design, selecting data elements, database design and management, analysis, and reporting of results. Task force members note that trials should be designed to evaluate effectiveness (rather than efficacy) when possible, should include clinical outcome measures, and should obtain health resource use and health state utilities directly from study subjects. Collection of economic data should be fully integrated into the study. An incremental analysis should be conducted with an intention-to-treat approach, complemented by relevant subgroup analyses. Uncertainty should be characterized. Articles should adhere to established standards for reporting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic studies alongside trials are complementary to other evaluations (e.g., modeling studies) as information for decision makers who consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy when making resource allocation decisions.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

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.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website ( www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Effect of a Community Health Worker-Led Multicomponent Intervention on Blood Pressure Control in Low-Income Patients in Argentina: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Despite extensive knowledge of hypertension treatment, the prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension is high and increasing in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE

To test whether a community health worker-led multicomponent intervention would improve blood pressure (BP) control among low-income patients with hypertension.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cluster randomized trial was conducted in 18 centers for primary health care within a national public system providing free medications and health care to uninsured patients in Argentina. A total of 1432 low-income adult patients with uncontrolled hypertension were recruited between June 2013 and April 2015 and followed up to October 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Nine centers (743 patients) were randomized to the multicomponent intervention, which included a community health worker-led home intervention (health coaching, home BP monitoring, and BP audit and feedback), a physician intervention, and a text-messaging intervention over 18 months. Nine centers (689 patients) were randomized to usual care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The coprimary outcomes were the differences in systolic and diastolic BP changes from baseline to the end of follow-up of patients with hypertension. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients with controlled hypertension (BP <140/90 mm Hg). Three BP measurements were obtained at each of 2 baseline and 2 termination visits using a standard protocol, the means of which were used for analyses.

RESULTS

Of 1432 participants (mean age, 55.8 years [SD, 13.3]; 772 women [53.0%]), 1357 (94.8%) completed the trial. Baseline mean systolic BP was 151.7 mm Hg for the intervention group and 149.8 mm Hg for the usual care group; the mean diastolic BP was 92.2 mm Hg for the intervention group and 90.1 mm Hg for the usual care group. Systolic BP reduction from baseline to month 18 was 19.3 mm Hg (95% CI, 17.9-20.8 mm Hg) for the intervention group and 12.7 mm Hg (95% CI, 11.3-14.2 mm Hg) for the usual care group; the difference in the reduction was 6.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.6-8.6; P < .001). Diastolic BP decreased by 12.2 mm Hg (95% CI, 11.2-13.2 mm Hg) in the intervention group and 6.9 mm Hg (95% CI, 5.9-7.8 mm Hg) in the control group; the difference in the reduction was 5.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.0-6.8 mm Hg; P < .001). The proportion of patients with controlled hypertension increased from 17.0% at baseline to 72.9% at 18 months in the intervention group and from 17.6% to 52.2% in the usual care group; the difference in the increase was 20.6% (95% CI, 15.4%-25.9%; P < .001). No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Low-income patients in Argentina with uncontrolled hypertension who participated in a community health worker-led multicomponent intervention experienced a greater decrease in systolic and diastolic BP than did patients who received usual care over 18 months. Further research is needed to assess generalizability and cost-effectiveness of this intervention and to understand which components may have contributed most to the outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01834131.

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

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

The cost-effectiveness of screening for oral cancer in primary care

OBJECTIVES

To use a decision-analytic model to determine the incremental costs and outcomes of alternative oral cancer screening programmes conducted in a primary care environment.

DESIGN

The cost-effectiveness of oral cancer screening programmes in a number of primary care environments was simulated using a decision analysis model. Primary data on actual resource use and costs were collected by case note review in two hospitals. Additional data needed to inform the model were obtained from published costs, from systematic reviews and by expert opinion using the Trial Roulette approach. The value of future research was determined using expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for the decision to screen and for each of the model inputs.

SETTING

Hypothetical screening programmes conducted in a number of primary care settings. Eight strategies were compared: (A) no screen; (B) invitational screen--general medical practice; (C) invitational screen--general dental practice; (D) opportunistic screen--general medical practice; (E) opportunistic screen--general dental practice; (F) opportunistic high-risk screen--general medical practice; (G) opportunistic high-risk screen--general dental practice; and (H) invitational screen--specialist.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical population over the age of 40 years was studied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main measures were mean lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of each alternative screening scenario and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to determine the additional costs and benefits of each strategy over another.

RESULTS

No screening (strategy A) was always the cheapest option. Strategies B, C, E and H were never cost-effective and were ruled out by dominance or extended dominance. Of the remaining strategies, the ICER for the whole population (age 49-79 years) ranged from pound 15,790 to pound 25,961 per QALY. Modelling a 20% reduction in disease progression always gave the lowest ICERs. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that there is considerable uncertainty in the optimal decision identified by the ICER, depending on both the maximum amount that the NHS may be prepared to pay and the impact that treatment has on the annual malignancy transformation rate. Overall, however, high-risk opportunistic screening by a general dental or medical practitioner (strategies F and G) may be cost-effective. EVPIs were high for all parameters with population values ranging from pound 8 million to pound 462 million. However, the values were significantly higher in males than females but also varied depending on malignant transformation rate, effects of treatment and willingness to pay. Partial EVPIs showed the highest values for malignant transformation rate, disease progression, self-referral and costs of cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunistic high-risk screening, particularly in general dental practice, may be cost-effective. This screening may more effectively be targeted to younger age groups, particularly 40-60 year olds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the parameters used in the model, particularly malignant transformation rate, disease progression, patterns of self-referral and costs. Further study is needed on malignant transformation rates of oral potentially malignant lesions and to determine the outcome of treatment of oral potentially malignant lesions. Evidence has been published to suggest that intervention has no greater benefit than 'watch and wait'. Hence a properly planned randomised controlled trial may be justified. Research is also needed into the rates of progression of oral cancer and on referral pathways from primary to secondary care and their effects on delay and stage of presentation.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website ( www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp ).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA

The systematic use of evidence to inform healthcare decisions, particularly health technology assessment (HTA), has gained increased recognition. HTA has become a standard policy tool for informing decision makers who must manage the entry and use of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other technologies (including complex interventions) within health systems, for example, through reimbursement and pricing. Despite increasing attention to HTA activities, there has been no attempt to comprehensively synthesize good practices or emerging good practices to support population-based decision-making in recent years. After the identification of some good practices through the release of the ISPOR Guidelines Index in 2013, the ISPOR HTA Council identified a need to more thoroughly review existing guidance. The purpose of this effort was to create a basis for capacity building, education, and improved consistency in approaches to HTA-informed decision-making. Our findings suggest that although many good practices have been developed in areas of assessment and some other key aspects of defining HTA processes, there are also many areas where good practices are lacking. This includes good practices in defining the organizational aspects of HTA, the use of deliberative processes, and measuring the impact of HTA. The extent to which these good practices are used and applied by HTA bodies is beyond the scope of this report, but may be of interest to future researchers.

The EQ-HWB: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results

OBJECTIVES

Existing measures for estimating quality-adjusted life-years are mostly limited to health-related quality of life. This article presents an overview of the development the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing), which is a measure that encompasses health and wellbeing.

METHODS

Stages: (1) Establishing domains through reviews of the qualitative literature informed by a conceptual framework. (2) Generation and selection of items to cover the domains. (3) Face validation of these items through qualitative interviews with 168 patients, social care users, general population, and carers across 6 countries (Argentina, Australia, China, Germany, United Kingdom, United States). (4) Extensive psychometric testing of candidate items (using classical, factor analysis, and item response theory methods) on > 4000 respondents in the 6 countries. Stakeholders were consulted throughout.

RESULTS

A total of 32 subdomains grouped into 7 high-level domains were identified from the qualitative literature and 97 items generated to cover them. Face validation eliminated 36 items, modified 14, and added 3. Psychometric testing of 64 items found little difference in missing data or problems with response distribution, the conceptual model was confirmed except in China, and most items performed well in the item response theory in all countries. Evidence was presented to stakeholders in 2 rounds of consultation to inform the final selection of items for the EQ-HWB (25-item) and the short version of EQ-HWB (9-items).

CONCLUSIONS

EQ-HWB measures have been developed internationally for evaluating interventions in health, public health, and social care including the impact on patients, social care users, and carers.

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).

Estimation of the burden of cardiovascular disease attributable to modifiable risk factors and cost-effectiveness analysis of preventative interventions to reduce this burden in Argentina

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the primary cause of mortality and morbidity in Argentina representing 34.2% of deaths and 12.6% of potential years of life lost (PYLL). The aim of the study was to estimate the burden of acute coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke and the cost-effectiveness of preventative population-based and clinical interventions.

METHODS

An epidemiological model was built incorporating prevalence and distribution of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, hyperglycemia, overweight and obesity, smoking, and physical inactivity, obtained from the Argentine Survey of Risk Factors dataset. Population Attributable Fraction (PAF) of each risk factor was estimated using relative risks from international sources. Total fatal and non-fatal events, PYLL and Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) were estimated. Costs of event were calculated from local utilization databases and expressed in international dollars (I$). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated for six interventions: reducing salt in bread, mass media campaign to promote tobacco cessation, pharmacological therapy of high blood pressure, pharmacological therapy of high cholesterol, tobacco cessation therapy with bupropion, and a multidrug strategy for people with an estimated absolute risk > 20% in 10 years.

RESULTS

An estimated total of 611,635 DALY was lost due to acute CHD and stroke for 2005. Modifiable risk factors explained 71.1% of DALY and more than 80% of events. Two interventions were cost-saving: lowering salt intake in the population through reducing salt in bread and multidrug therapy targeted to persons with an absolute risk above 20% in 10 years; three interventions had very acceptable ICERs: drug therapy for high blood pressure in hypertensive patients not yet undergoing treatment (I$ 2,908 per DALY saved), mass media campaign to promote tobacco cessation amongst smokers (I$ 3,186 per DALY saved), and lowering cholesterol with statin drug therapy (I$ 14,432 per DALY saved); and one intervention was not found to be cost-effective: tobacco cessation with bupropion (I$ 59,433 per DALY saved)

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the interventions selected were cost-saving or very cost-effective. This study aims to inform policy makers on resource-allocation decisions to reduce the burden of CVD in Argentina.

Influenza A/H1N1 MF59 adjuvanted vaccine in pregnant women and adverse perinatal outcomes: multicentre study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of adverse perinatal events of vaccination of pregnant women with an MF59 adjuvanted vaccine.

DESIGN

Cross sectional multicentre study.

SETTING

49 public hospitals in major cities in Argentina, from September 2010 to May 2011.

PARTICIPANTS

30,448 mothers (7293 vaccinated) and their 30,769 newborns.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary composite outcome of low birth weight, preterm delivery, or fetal or early neonatal death up to seven days postpartum.

RESULTS

Vaccinated women had a lower risk of the primary composite outcome (7.0% (n=513) v 9.3% (n=2160); adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.89). The propensity score analysis showed similar results. Adjusted odds ratios for vaccinated women were 0.74 (0.65 to 0.83) for low birth weight, 0.79 (0.69 to 0.90) for preterm delivery, and 0.68 (0.42 to 1.06) for perinatal mortality. These findings were consistent in further subgroup analysis. No significant differences in maternal outcomes were found.

CONCLUSION

This large study using primary data collection found that MF59 adjuvanted A/H1N1 influenza vaccine did not result in an increased risk of adverse perinatal events and suggested a lower risk among vaccinated women. These findings should contribute to inform stakeholders and decision makers on the prescription of vaccination against influenza A/H1N1 in pregnant women.

Patient preferences for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

To assess patients' preferences for rheumatoid-arthritis treatments with biologic agents using a discrete-choice experiment.

METHODS

A discrete-choice experiment was conducted with adult rheumatoid-arthritis patients who had never been treated with biological agents from two university hospitals-public and private-in Buenos Aires, Argentina. We evaluated preferences for seven treatment attributes (with two to three levels each): effectiveness, mode of administration, frequency of administration, local and systemic adverse events, severe infections, and out-of-pocket costs.A probit regression model was used to analyze the relative importance of rheumatoid-arthritis treatment attributes. We estimated attributes' relative importance and their 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Survey responses from 240 patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were included in the study. All tested biological agents' attributes significantly affected the choice of treatment. Attributes' relative importance in decreasing order was the following (mean, confidence interval 95%): cost, 0.81 (0.69-0.92); systemic adverse events, 0.66 (0.57-0.76); frequency of administration, 0.61 (0.52-0.71); efficacy, 0.42 (0.32-0.51); route of administration, 0.41 (0.30-0.52); local adverse events, 0.40 (0.31-0.49); and serious infections, 0.29 (0.22-0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Different treatment attributes had a significant and different influence in rheumatoid-arthritis patients' choice of biological agents. This type of study can not only inform about patients' preferences but also about the trade-offs among different possible treatments or process-related attributes.

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.

Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis of a package of interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease in Buenos Aires, Argentina

BACKGROUND

Chronic diseases, represented mainly by cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer, are increasing in developing countries and account for 53% of chronic diseases in Argentina. There is strong evidence that a reduction of 50% of the deaths due to CVD can be attributed to a reduction in smoking, hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCE) is a methodology designed by WHO to inform decision makers about the extent to which current or new interventions represent an efficient use of resources. We aimed to use GCE analysis to identify the most efficient interventions to decrease CVD.

METHODS

Six individual interventions (treatment of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, smoking cessation and combined clinical strategies to reduce the 10 year CVD Risk) and two population-based interventions (cooperation between government, consumer associations and bakery chambers to reduce salt in bread, and mass education strategies to reduce hypertension, hypercholesterolemia and obesity) were selected for analysis. Estimates of effectiveness were entered into age and sex specific models to predict their impact in terms of age-weighted and discounted DALYs saved (disability-adjusted life years). To translate the age- and sex-adjusted incidence of CVD events into health changes, we used risk model software developed by WHO (PopMod). Costs of services were measured in Argentine pesos, and discounted at an annual rate of 3%. Different budgetary impact scenarios were explored.

RESULTS

The average cost-effectiveness ratio in argentine pesos (ARS$) per DALY for the different interventions were: (i) less salt in bread $151; (ii) mass media campaign $547; (iii) combination drug therapy provided to subjects with a 20%, 10% and 5% global CVD risk, $3,599, $4,113 and $4,533, respectively; (iv) high blood pressure (HBP) lowering therapy $7,716; (v) tobacco cessation with bupropion $ 33,563; and (iv) high-cholesterol lowering therapy with statins $ 70,994.

CONCLUSION

Against a threshold of average per capita income in Argentina, the two selected population-based interventions (lowering salt intake and health education through mass-media campaigns) plus the modified polypill strategy targeting people with a 20% or greater risk were cost-effective. Use of this methodology in developing countries can make resource-allocation decisions less intuitive and more driven by evidence.

Developing a New Generic Health and Wellbeing Measure: Psychometric Survey Results for the EQ-HWB

OBJECTIVES

The development of measures such as the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing) requires selection of items. This study explored the psychometric performance of candidate items, testing their validity in patients, social carer users, and carers.

METHODS

Article and online surveys that included candidate items (N = 64) were conducted in Argentina, Australia, China, Germany, United Kingdom, and the United States. Psychometric assessment on missing data, response distributions, and known group differences was undertaken. Dimensionality was explored using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Poorly fitting items were identified using information functions, and the function of each response category was assessed using category characteristic curves from item response theory (IRT) models. Differential item functioning was tested across key subgroups.

RESULTS

There were 4879 respondents (Argentina = 508, Australia = 514, China = 497, Germany = 502, United Kingdom = 1955, United States = 903). Where missing data were allowed, it was low (UK article survey 2.3%; US survey 0.6%). Most items had responses distributed across all levels. Most items could discriminate between groups with known health conditions with moderate to large effect sizes. Items were less able to discriminate across carers. Factor analysis found positive and negative measurement factors alongside the constructs of interest. For most of the countries apart from China, the confirmatory factor analysis model had good fit with some minor modifications. IRT indicated that most items had well-functioning response categories but there was some evidence of differential item functioning in many items.

CONCLUSIONS

Items performed well in classical psychometric testing and IRT. This large 6-country collaboration provided evidence to inform item selection for the EQ-HWB measure.

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.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in children in six Latin American countries

Background

A recently developed 10-valent pneumococcal non-typeable H influenzae protein D-conjugate vaccine (PHiD-CV) is expected to afford protection against more than two thirds of isolates causing IPD in children in Latin America, and also against acute otitis media caused by both Spn and NTHi. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of PHiD-CV in comparison to non-vaccination in children under 10 years of age in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru.

Methods

We used a static, deterministic, compartmental simulation model. The dosing regimen considered included three vaccine doses (at 2 months, 4 months and 6 months) and a booster dose (at 13 months) (3 + 1 schedule). Model outcomes included number of cases prevented, deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and costs. Discount for costs and benefits of long term sequelae was done at 3.5%, and currency reported in 2008-2009 U$S varying between countries.

Results

The largest effect in case prevention was observed in pneumococcal meningitis (from 27% in Peru to 47% in Colombia), neurologic sequelae after meningitis (from 38% in Peru to 65% in Brazil) and bacteremia (from 42% in Argentina to 49% in Colombia). The proportion of predicted deaths averted annually ranged from 18% in Peru to 33% in Brazil. Overall, the health benefits achieved with PHiD-CV vaccination resulted in a lower QALY loss (from 15% lower in Peru to 26% in Brazil). At a cost of USD 20 per vaccine dose, vaccination was cost-effective in all countries, from being cost saving in Chile to a maximum Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio of 7,088 US$ Dollars per QALY gained. Results were robust in the sensitivity analysis, and scenarios with indirect costs affected results more than those with herd immunity.

Conclusions

The incorporation of the 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine into routine infant immunization programs in Latin American countries could be a cost-effective strategy to improve infant population health in the region.