Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Checklist Research Articles

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Asthma: A Systematic Review.

The objective of this article was to summarize the findings of all the available studies on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma and assess their methodological quality, as well as to identify the main drivers of the cost effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the disease. A systematic review of the literature in seven electronic databases was conducted in order to identify all the available health economic evidence on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma published up to April 2017. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. A total of 72 studies were included in the review, classified as follows: medications for acute asthma treatment (n = 5, 6.9%); inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered alone or in conjunction with long-acting β-agonists (LABA) or tiotropium for chronic asthma treatment (n = 38, 52.8%); direct comparisons between different combinations of ICS, ICS/LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), and sodium cromoglycate for chronic asthma treatment (n = 14, 19.4%); and omalizumab for chronic asthma treatment (n = 15, 20.8%). ICS were reported to be cost effective when compared with LTRA for the management of persistent asthma. In patients with inadequately controlled asthma taking ICS, the addition of long-acting β-agonist (LABA) preparations has been demonstrated to be cost effective, especially when combinations of ICS/LABA containing formoterol are used for both maintenance and reliever therapy. In patients with uncontrolled severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab therapy could be cost effective in a carefully selected subgroup of patients with the more severe forms of the disease. The quality of reporting in the studies, according to the CHEERS checklist, was very uneven. The main cost-effectiveness drivers identified were the cost or rate of asthma exacerbations, the cost or rate of the use of asthma medications, the asthma mortality risk, and the rate of utilization of health services for asthma. The present findings are in line with the pharmacological recommendations for stepwise management of asthma given in the most recent evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the disease. The identified reporting quality of the available health economic evidence is useful for identifying aspects where there is room for improvement in future asthma cost-effectiveness studies.

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of prevention and treatment for eating disorders.

Eating disorders are serious mental disorders and are associated with substantial economic and social burden. The aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness studies of both preventive and treatment interventions for eating disorder. Electronic databases (including the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Global Health, CINAHL complete, Health Business Elite, Econlit, Health Policy Reference Center and ERIC) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of eating disorder prevention and treatment including papers published up to January 2017. The quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. In all, 13 studies met the review inclusion criteria as full cost-effectiveness studies and 8 were published since 2011. The studies included three modelled and one trial-based study focused on prevention, two trial-based and one modelled study for anorexia nervosa treatment and three trial-based studies for bulimia nervosa treatment. The remaining studies targeted binge-eating disorder or non-specific eating disorder treatment. The average percent of CHEERS checklist items reported was 71% (standard deviation 21%). Eating disorder interventions were mainly cost-saving or more effective and more costly compared to comparators; however, some results did not reach statistical significance. In the two studies that achieved 100% CHEERS checklist, one study reported that a cognitive dissonance intervention might be cost-effective for prevention of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa with a 90% participation rate and the second study supported lisdexamfetamine to be cost-effective in the treatment of binge-eating disorder. Insufficient evidence for long-term cost-effectiveness (e.g. over 2 years) was found. Cost-effectiveness studies in eating disorder appear to be increasing in number over the last 6 years. Findings were inconsistent and no firm conclusion can be drawn with regard to comparative value-for-money conclusions. However, some promising interventions were identified. Further research with improved methodology is required.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeDouble reading is the strategy of choice for mammogram interpretation in screening programmes. It remains, however, unknown whether double reading is still the strategy of choice in the context of digital mammography. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of digital mammograms in screening programmes. MethodsWe performed a systematic review by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to April 2017. We used the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist to assess the methodological quality of the diagnostic studies and economic evaluations, respectively. A proportion’s meta-analysis approach, 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) and test of heterogeneity (P values) were used for pooled results. Costs are expressed US$ PPP (United States Dollar purchasing power parities). The PROSPERO ID of this Systematic Review’s protocol is CRD42014013804. ResultsOf 1473 potentially relevant hits, four high-quality studies were included. The pooled cancer detection rate of double reading was 6.01 per 1000 screens (CI: 4.47‰–7.77‰), and it was 5.65 per 1000 screens (CI: 3.95‰–7.65‰) for single reading (P=0.76). The pooled proportion of false-positives of double reading was 47.03 per 1000 screens (CI: 39.13‰–55.62‰) and it was 40.60 per 1000 screens (CI: 38.58‰–42.67‰) for single reading (P=0.12). One study reported, for double reading, an ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) of 16,684 Euros (24,717 US$ PPP; 2015 value) per detected cancer. Single reading+CAD (computer-aided-detection) was cost-effective in Japan. ConclusionThe evidence of benefit for double reading compared to single reading for digital mammography interpretation is scarce. Double reading seems to increase operational costs, have a not significantly higher false-positive rate, and a similar cancer detection rate.

The cost-effectiveness of oral health interventions: A systematic review of cost-utility analyses.

To assess the usage of cost-utility analysis (CUA) in oral health interventions and to evaluate the methods used and the reporting quality of CUA in publications on oral health interventions. A systematic review was performed on literature published between 2000 and 2016 where cost-utility analyses of oral health interventions were included. The reporting quality of these oral health CUAs was assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Of the 6637 publications identified initially, 23 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 (61%) had been published in the last 6 years. Included studies were on oral cancer (n = 6), provision of dental prosthesis (n = 6), dental caries (n = 4), periodontal diseases (n = 3), antibiotic prophylaxis (n = 2), dento-facial anomalies (n = 1) and dental service provision (n = 1). Twenty-one studies were able to identify the most cost-effective intervention among the different options compared. Of the 23 studies identified, 15 (65%) used quality-adjusted life years (QALY) as the outcome measure, and 18 (78%) reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The economic perspective was clearly stated in 13 articles (57%). Twenty studies (87%) reported the discount rate, and 22 (96%) undertook sensitivity analysis. The reporting quality of studies, appraised by the CHEERS checklist, varied from 75% to 100% (median 92%). The use of CUAs in evaluation of oral health interventions has been increasing recently, especially from 2011 to 2016. The majority of CUA articles were of good reporting quality as assessed by the CHEERS checklist and were able to provide conclusions regarding the most cost-effective intervention among the different options compared: this will assist in healthcare decision-making and resource allocation. These positive outcomes of our study encourage wider use of CUAs within the dental and oral health professions.

Value in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review of Economic Analyses

The purpose of this study is to describe the state of economic analyses in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS). A systematic search of published literature up to 2016 was performed. The inclusion criteria were as follows: English-language articles on economic analyses pertaining to OMS including anesthesia and pain management; dentoalveolar surgery; orthognathic, cleft, and/or obstructive sleep apnea treatment; pathology; reconstruction; temporomandibular disorders; trauma; and other.The exclusion criteria were as follows: opinion or perspective articles, studies unrelated to OMS, nonhuman research, and implant-related studies. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), cost-utility analyses, and cost-minimization analyses (CMAs) were evaluated with the original Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist or a modified CHEERS checklist. The search yielded 798 articles, 77 of which met the inclusion criteria (published from 1980 to 2016, 48 from the United States). There were an increasing number of studies over time (P for trend<.01). There were 7 economic studies on anesthesia and pain management (9.1%); 16 studies on dentoalveolar surgery (20.7%); 15 studies on orthognathic, cleft, and/or obstructive sleep apnea treatment (19.4%); 1study on pathology (1.3%); 6 studies on reconstruction (7.8%); no studies on temporomandibular joint disorders and/or facial pain (0%); 20 studies on trauma (25.9%); and 12 studies categorized as other (15.5%). CEAs made up 11.7% of studies, and CMAs comprised 58.4%. Of the 9 CEAs, 55.6% were published in 2010 or later.Of the 45 CMAs, 88.6% were published in 2000 or later and 61.4% in 2010 or later. CEAs met 56.0% (range, 29.2 to 87.5%) of the CHEERS criteria, whereas CMA studies met 45.1% (range, 23.9 to 76.1%) of the modified CHEERS criteria. Only 1 study succeeded in estimating costs and health outcomes (value) of an OMS procedure. There is an increasing trend in the number of economic studies in the field of OMS. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed to demonstrate the value of OMS procedures. To determine value, future studies should compare both costs and health-related outcomes.

What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions.

BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) is often reputed to be cost-effective or cost-saving. Despite optimism, the strength of the evidence supporting this assertion has been limited. In this systematic review the body of evidence related to economic evaluations of mHealth interventions is assessed and summarized.MethodsSeven electronic bibliographic databases, grey literature, and relevant references were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles, comparison of costs and consequences of interventions (one categorized as a primary mHealth intervention or mHealth intervention as a component of other interventions), health and economic outcomes and published in English. Full economic evaluations were appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist and The PRISMA guidelines were followed.ResultsSearches identified 5902 results, of which 318 were examined at full text, and 39 were included in this review. The 39 studies spanned 19 countries, most of which were conducted in upper and upper-middle income countries (34, 87.2%). Primary mHealth interventions (35, 89.7%), behavior change communication type interventions (e.g., improve attendance rates, medication adherence) (27, 69.2%), and short messaging system (SMS) as the mHealth function (e.g., used to send reminders, information, provide support, conduct surveys or collect data) (22, 56.4%) were most frequent; the most frequent disease or condition focuses were outpatient clinic attendance, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. The average percent of CHEERS checklist items reported was 79.6% (range 47.62–100, STD 14.18) and the top quartile reported 91.3–100%. In 29 studies (74.3%), researchers reported that the mHealth intervention was cost-effective, economically beneficial, or cost saving at base case.ConclusionsFindings highlight a growing body of economic evidence for mHealth interventions. Although all studies included a comparison of intervention effectiveness of a health-related outcome and reported economic data, many did not report all recommended economic outcome items and were lacking in comprehensive analysis. The identified economic evaluations varied by disease or condition focus, economic outcome measurements, perspectives, and were distributed unevenly geographically, limiting formal meta-analysis. Further research is needed in low and low-middle income countries and to understand the impact of different mHealth types. Following established economic reporting guidelines will improve this body of research.

PHARMACOECONOMIC STUDIES IN WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES: REPORTING COMPLETENESS.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent of reporting necessary information in published health economic research in World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Countries (WHO EMC). A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify pharmacoeconomic studies conducted in WHO EMC. The inclusion criteria for the studies were: (i) original studies, (ii) compared pharmaceutical services or drugs, (iii) conducted in WHO EMC, (iv) manuscript published in English. The articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. A total of seventeen studies were included, each of which were published in seventeen different journals. The mean CHEERS checklist score was 16 ± 4. Most studies were published in journals outside WHO EMC (n = 12; 71 percent). Cost-effectiveness (n = 5; 29 percent) and cost-utility analyses (n = 5; 29 percent) were the most frequently used methods of economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomic studies in WHO EMC are limited and sometimes incomplete. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals should be encouraged in WHO EMC to ensure the appropriate allocation of healthcare resources.

Cost effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a new class of antidiabetic drugs used for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus. While many studies have reported on the cost-effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors for treating type 2 diabetes, a systematic review of economic evaluations of DPP-4 inhibitors is currently lacking. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the cost effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Web of Science, EconLit databases, and the Cochrane Library were searched in November 2013. Studies assessing the cost effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes were eligible for analysis. DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy or combinations with other antidiabetic agents were included in the review. The DPP-4 inhibitors were all marketed drugs. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The quality of included studies was assessed according to the 24-item checklist of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. The costs reported by the included studies were converted to US dollars via purchasing power parities (PPP) in the year 2013 using the CCEMG-EPPI-Center Cost Converter. A total of 11 published studies were selected for inclusion; all were cost-utility analyses. Nine studies were conducted from a payer perspective and one used a societal perspective; however, the perspective of the other study was unclear. Four studies were of good quality, six were of moderate quality, and one was of low quality. Of the seven studies comparing DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin with sulfonylureas plus metformin, six concluded that DPP-4 inhibitors were cost effective in patients with type 2 diabetes who were no longer adequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. Five studies compared DPP-4 inhibitors with thiazolidinediones, and whether DPP-4 inhibitors were cost effective was uncertain. Only two economic evaluations provided data to compare DPP-4 inhibitors versus insulin, and the results favored the use of DPP-4 inhibitors as second-line therapy. Synthesis of the data was impossible because of heterogeneity in the methodology and data sources of the economic evaluations, and the inclusion criteria excluded conference abstracts. It was difficult to find reliable weightings for each of the items of the CHEERS checklist, and the ratings were dichotomous. This study provides the first systematic evaluation of DPP-4 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes. It found that, in patients with type 2 diabetes who do not achieve glycemic targets with antidiabetic monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors as add-on treatment may represent a cost-effective option compared with sulfonylureas and insulin. However, high-quality cost-effectiveness analyses that utilize long-term follow-up data and have no conflicts of interest are still needed.

Estándares Consolidados de Reporte de Evaluaciones Económicas Sanitarias: Versión en Español de la Lista de Comprobación CHEERS

ObjectiveIt is important to have adequate and updated guides for reporting health economic evaluations (HEE). Due to their nature and methodological complexity, HEE have particular challenges for adequate reporting, which can be greater than more traditional study designs such as randomized controlled trials. CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) have recently been published in English. Our objectives were to adapt the CHEERS list to Spanish. Methods and ResultsWe followed the recommended methods of the Equator (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of health Research) network. We made an initial translation to Spanish, a back translation to English, and an initial Spanish version that was circulated through ISPOR and REDETSA. Finally, a final Spanish version was consolidated. The list contains 24 items grouped in Title and Abstract; Introduction; Methods; Results; Discussion; and Other (which included conflict of interest reporting). The scope of use is independent of methodological vehicle (either single-study or evidence synthesis-based HEE); type of strategies to evaluate (clinical or public health; preventive, diagnostic, curative, palliative). Most of the items are generic and apply to any study design; while some of them are particularly oriented to single-study or evidence-synthesis/modeling studies. ConclusionsDiffusion and use of the CHEERS checklist in Spanish will contribute to a more consistent and transparent reporting of health economic evaluations in Spanish speaking contexts.

Fatal pulmonary aspiration of oral activated charcoal

<h3>Objectives</h3> The objectives of this study were to review economic data on the use of closed system drug transfer devices (CSTDs) for preparing and administering hazardous drugs, and to evaluate the quality of data reporting as defined by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). <h3>Methods</h3> All references from a recent Cochrane review about CSTDs were evaluated for inclusion. A literature review was also conducted. Articles containing economic data about the use of CSTDs were retained for analysis. Two researchers independently graded the articles according to the 24-item CHEERS checklist. <h3>Results</h3> Of the 138 articles identified initially, 12 were retained for analysis. Nine of these studies did not report acquisition costs or did not detail acquisition costs. Six studies reported economic benefits associated with the used of CSTDs, all related to extending the beyond-use date. The mean number of CHEERS criteria fulfilled by the included articles was 9.2 (SD 2.4). <h3>Conclusions</h3> CSTDs are costly to acquire. However, few studies have examined the economic impact of these devices, and the existing studies are incomplete. As a result, hospitals planning to implement these devices will be unable to make a sound economic evaluation. Robust economic evaluation of CSTDs is needed.