Recommendations for reporting economic evaluations of haemophilia prophylaxis: a nominal groups consensus statement on behalf of the Economics Expert Working Group of The International Prophylaxis Study Group

Abstract

The need for clearly reported studies evaluating the cost of prophylaxis and its overall outcomes has been recommended from previous literature. To establish minimal ''core standards'' that can be followed when conducting and reporting economic evaluations of hemophilia prophylaxis. Ten members of the IPSG Economic Analysis Working Group participated in a consensus process using the Nominal Groups Technique (NGT). The following topics relating to the economic analysis of prophylaxis studies were addressed; Whose perspective should be taken? Which is the best methodological approach? Is micro- or macro-costing the best costing strategy? What information must be presented about costs and outcomes in order to facilitate local and international interpretation? The group suggests studies on the economic impact of prophylaxis should be viewed from a societal perspective and be reported using a Cost Utility Analysis (CUA) (with consideration of also reporting Cost Benefit Analysis [CBA]). All costs that exceed $500 should be used to measure the costs of prophylaxis (macro strategy) including items such as clotting factor costs, hospitalizations, surgical procedures, productivity loss and number of days lost from school or work. Generic and disease specific quality of lífe and utility measures should be used to report the outcomes of the study. The IPSG has suggested minimal core standards to be applied to the reporting of economic evaluations of hemophilia prophylaxis. Standardized reporting will facilitate the comparison of studies and will allow for more rational policy decisions and treatment choices.