Quality Of Health Economic Studies Score Research Articles

Quality of health economic evaluations in emergency medicine journals: a systematic review.

Health economic evaluations are used in decision-making regarding resource allocation and it is imperative that they are completed with rigor. The primary objectives were to describe the characteristics and assess the quality of economic evaluations published in emergency medicine journals. Two reviewers independently searched 19 emergency medicine-specific journals via Medline and Embase from inception until March 3, 2022. Quality assessment was completed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, and the primary outcome was the QHES score out of 100. Additionally, we identified factors that may contribute to higher-quality publications. 7260 unique articles yielded 48 economic evaluations that met inclusion criteria. Most studies were cost-utility analyses and of high quality, with a median QHES score of 84 (interquartile range, IQR: 72, 90). Studies based on mathematical models and those primarily designed as an economic evaluation were associated with higher quality scores. The most commonly missed QHES items were: (i) providing and justifying the perspective of the analysis, (ii) providing justification for the primary outcome, and (iii) selecting an outcome that was long enough to allow for relevant events to occur. The majority of health economic evaluations in the emergency medicine literature are cost-utility analyses and are of high quality. Decision analytic models and studies primarily designed as economic analyses were positively correlated with higher quality. To improve study quality, future EM economic evaluations should justify the choice of the perspective of the analysis and the selection of the primary outcome.

A systematic review on the cost‐effectiveness of the computer‐assisted orthopedic system

AbstractComputer‐assisted orthopedic system (CAOS) is rapidly gaining popularity in the field of precision medicine. However, the cost‐effectiveness of CAOS has not been well clarified. We performed this review to summarize and assess the cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEAs) with regard to CAOS. Publications on CEA in CAOS have been searched in PubMed and CEA Registry up to May 31, 2022. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to estimate the quality of studies. Relationships between qualities and potential factors were also examined. There were 15 eligible studies in the present review. Twelve studies evaluated CAOS joint arthroplasties and found that CAOS joint arthroplasties were cost‐effective compared to manual methods. Three studies focused on spinal surgery, two of which analyzed the cost‐effectiveness of CAOS for patients after spinal fusion, with conflicting results. One study demonstrated that CAOS was cost‐effective in spinal pedicle screw insertion. The mean QHES score of CEAs included was 86.1. The potential factors had no significant relationship with the quality of studies. Based on available studies, our review reflected that CAOS was cost‐effective in the field of joint arthroplasty. While in spinal surgery, the answer was unclear. Current CEAs represent high qualities, and more CEAs are required in the different disciplines of orthopedics where CAOS is employed.

Evaluating the quality of the economic evidence in colorectal cancer genomics studies.

The increase in the use of genome-based screening and diagnostic tests adds to the overall costs of oncologic care for colorectal cancer. This, in turn, has resulted in an increase in published economic analyses. Aim: To perform a systematic literature review of the available economic evidence evaluating the value of genomic testing for colorectal cancer and appraise the quality of the economic studies conducted to date. Methods: A systematic review of the literature for economic studies of colorectal cancer genomics from January 2006 through October 2020, and evaluation of study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was conducted. The validated QHES was then applied to a final set of articles that met eligibility criteria. Results: Our search of the literature initially yielded 12,859 records. A final set of 49 articles met our inclusion criteria. The QHES score ranged from 24 to 100, with an average score of 82. Most of the studies (n=40, 82%) scored above 75 and were considered of good quality. Conclusion: Our analysis revealed that most of the economic analyses of colorectal cancer genomic molecular diagnostics in the literature may be of good quality. There is, however, some variation in methodological rigor between the articles.

Health Economic Evaluations of Hip and Knee Interventions in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.

Background:The economic burden of musculoskeletal diseases is substantial and growing. Economic evaluations compare costs and health benefits of interventions simultaneously to help inform value-based care; thus, it is crucial to ensure that studies are using appropriate methodology to provide valid evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. This is particularly the case in orthopaedic sports medicine, where several interventions of varying costs are available to treat common hip and knee conditions.Purpose:To summarize and evaluate the quality of economic evaluations in orthopaedic sports medicine for knee and hip interventions and identify areas for quality improvement.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:The Medline, AMED, OVID Health Star, and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to March 1, 2020, to identify economic evaluations that compared ≥2 interventions for hip and/or knee conditions in orthopaedic sports medicine. We assessed the quality of full economic evaluations using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, which consists of 16 questions for a total score of 100. We classified studies into quartiles based on QHES score (extremely poor quality to high quality) and we evaluated the frequency of studies that addressed each of the 16 QHES questions.Results:A total of 93 studies were included in the systematic review. There were 41 (44%) cost analyses, of which 21 (51%) inappropriately concluded interventions were cost-effective. Only 52 (56%) of the included studies were full economic evaluations, although 40 of these (77%) fell in the high-quality quartile. The mean QHES score was 83.2 ± 19. Authors consistently addressed 12 of the QHES questions; questions that were missed or unclear were related to statistical uncertainty, appropriateness of costing methodology, and discussion of potential biases. The most frequently missed question was whether the cost perspective of the analysis was stated and justified.Conclusion:The number of studies in orthopaedic sports medicine is small, despite their overall good quality. Yet, there are still many highly cited studies based on low-quality or partial economic evaluations that are being used to influence clinical decision-making. Investigators should follow international health economic guidelines for study design and critical appraisal of studies to further improve quality.

Cost-Effectiveness of Hip Arthroscopy for Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome and Labral Tears: A Systematic Review.

Background:Hip arthroscopy has frequently been shown to produce successful outcomes as a treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tears. However, there is less literature on whether the favorable results of hip arthroscopy can justify the costs, especially when compared with a nonoperative treatment.Purpose:To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy for treating FAI and labral tears.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched to identify articles that reported the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) generated by hip arthroscopy. The key terms used were “hip arthroscopy,” “cost,” “utility,” and “economic evaluation.” The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at $50,000/QALY. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies instrument and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) score were used to determine the quality of the studies. This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020172991).Results:Six studies that reported the cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy were identified, and 5 of these studies compared hip arthroscopy to a nonoperative comparator. These studies were found to have a mean QHES score of 85.2 and a mean cohort age that ranged from 33-37 years. From both a health care system perspective and a societal perspective, 4 studies reported that hip arthroscopy was more costly but resulted in far greater gains than did nonoperative treatment. The preferred treatment strategy was most sensitive to duration of benefit, preoperative osteoarthritis, cost of the arthroscopy, and the improvement in QALYs with hip arthroscopy.Conclusion:In the majority of the studies, hip arthroscopy had a higher initial cost but provided greater gain in QALYs than did a nonoperative treatment. In certain cases, hip arthroscopy can be cost-effective given a long enough duration of benefit and appropriate patient selection. However, there is further need for literature to analyze willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Cost-effectiveness analyses in shoulder arthroplasty: a critical review using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify cost-analysis studies pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty, provide a comprehensive review of published studies, and critically evaluate the quality of the available literature using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify cost analyses examining shoulder arthroplasty. The inclusion criteria included studies pertaining to either shoulder hemiarthroplasty (HA), total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), or reverse TSA. Articles were excluded based on the following: nonoperative studies, nonclinical studies, studies not based in the United States, and studies in which no cost analysis was performed. The quality of studies was assessed using the QHES instrument. One-sided Fisher exact testing was performed to identify predictors of both low-quality (ie, QHES score < 25th percentile) and high-quality (ie, QHES score > 75th percentile) cost analyses based on items within the QHES checklist. Of the 196 studies screened, 9 were included. Seven studies conducted cost analyses comparing reverse TSA vs. arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, HA, or total hip arthroplasty, and 2 studies examined TSA vs. HA for primary glenohumeral arthritis. The average QHES score amongall studies was 86.22 ± 13.39 points. Failure to include an annual cost discounting rate was associated with a low-quality QHES score (P = .03). In addition, including a discussion of the magnitude and direction of potential biases was associated with a high-quality score (P = .03). Shoulder arthroplasty is a cost-effective procedure when used to treat a multitude of shoulder pathologies. The overall quality of cost analysis in shoulder arthroplasty is relatively good, with an average QHES score of 86.22 points. Studies failing to include an annual cost discounting rate are more likely to score below the 25th percentile, whereas those including a discussion of the magnitude and direction of potential biases are more likely to achieve a score in excess of the 75th percentile.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of breast cancer medications use in developing countries: a systematic review

ABSTRACT Background Pharmacoeconomic evaluation is important for breast-cancer medications due to their high costs. To our knowledge, no systematic literature reviews of pharmacoeconomic studies for breast-cancer medication use are present in developing-countries. Objectives To systematically review the existing cost-effectiveness evaluations of breast-cancer medication in developing-countries. Methodology A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and EconLit. Two researchers determined the final articles, extracted data, and evaluated their quality using the Quality of Health-Economic Studies (QHES) tool. The interclass-correlation-coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess interrater-reliability. Data were summarized descriptively. Results Fourteen pharmacoeconomic studies published from 2009 to 2019 were included. Thirteen used patient-life-years as their effectiveness unit, of which 10 used quality-adjusted life-years. Most of the evaluations focused on trastuzumab as a single agent or on regimens containing trastuzumab (n = 10). The conclusion of cost-effectiveness analysis varied among the studies. All the studies were of high quality (QHES score >75). Interrater reliability between the two reviewers was high (ICC = 0.76). Conclusion In many studies included in the review, the use of breast-cancer drugs in developing countries was not cost-effective. Yet, more pharmacoeconomic evaluations for the use of recently approved agents in different disease stages are needed in developing countries.

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluation on Targeted Therapies for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Quality Evaluation.

BackgroundEvolving practices in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapy inevitably affect health care budgets, especially through the introduction of targeted therapies. This results in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEEs) in this domain. This article reviews the quality of the economic evidence of targeted therapies used in metastatic NSCLC.MethodsA literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and CRD (University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) databases to identify topical original articles published between 1/1/2000 and 3/31/2019. A quality of reporting assessment using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement) checklist was converted into a quantitative score and compared with the results of a QHES (Quality of Health Economic Studies) evaluation. Components of QHES were also used to analyze the validity of primary outcomes, consideration of heterogeneity and rationality of main assumptions of models in modeling studies.ResultsIn total, 25 HEEs were obtained and analyzed. From the CHEERS assessment, it was found that method description integrity (including setting, perspective, time horizon and discount rate), justification of data sources and a heterogeneity description were often absent or incomplete. Only five examined studies met the accepted standard of good quality. Modeled articles were examined with the QHES instrument, and a lack of illustrated structure, population variability, formula of the transitioning probability and justification for the choice of the model were the most frequently observed problems in the selected studies. After quantification, the CHEERS scores and QHES scores did not differ significantly.ConclusionCurrent NSCLC models generally lack consideration for demographic heterogeneity and transparency of data description, and it would be difficult to transfer or generalize from the scientific literature to real-world evidence-based decision-making. Frameworks of future models should be informed and justified based on the validity of model results and the improvement of modeling accuracy.

Economic evaluations of clinical pharmacy services in the United States: 2011‐2017

AbstractStudies evaluating the cost‐effectiveness of clinical pharmacy services (CPS) are needed to justify implementation and reimbursement. Through a systematic review, we describe services provided by pharmacists and their economic outcomes. We conducted a literature search of published studies in PubMed, Ovid, and Embase from January 2011 through December 2017. Manuscripts evaluating a CPS with patient‐level economic outcomes and conducted in the United States were included. Study risks of bias were classified by study design characteristics. Economic evaluations were classified according to the presence of a comparator, and cost and outcome measures included. The quality of full economic evaluations was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize CPS characteristics. After screening, 115 studies were included. Type of service provided included general pharmacotherapy (41%), disease management (30%), and targeted drug program (17%). Settings included hospital (34%), ambulatory care (28%), and community pharmacy (17%). Study designs were considered high risk of bias (use of a historical control group or no control group) in 69% of cases while 25% were medium risk of bias (non‐randomized with a concurrent control group) and 6% were low risk of bias (randomized experimental or multigroup interrupted time series). Economic evaluation types were descriptive studies that measured cost and/or outcomes of a CPS (55%), comparative studies that measured cost or outcomes of a CPS and a comparator (37%), and full evaluations that measured cost and outcomes of a CPS and a comparator (8%). Among nine full evaluations, the median (range) QHES score was 74 (59‐95) and four reported the CPS as being more effective at a lower cost. Few full economic evaluations were conducted, but supported the cost‐effectiveness of CPS. Use of a comparator group and measurement of economic inputs and outcomes would strengthen the body of evidence.

Meta-analysis of the cost-effectiveness of early versus delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

BackgroundAcute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is a common disease across the world and is associated with significant socioeconomic costs. Although contemporary guidelines support the role of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC), there is significant variation among units adopting it as standard practice. There are many resource implications of providing a service whereby cholecystectomies for acute cholecystitis can be performed safely.MethodsStudies that incorporated an economic analysis comparing early with delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) for acute cholecystitis were identified by means of a systematic review. A meta‐analysis was performed on those cost evaluations. The quality of economic valuations contained therein was evaluated using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) analysis score.ResultsSix studies containing cost analyses were included in the meta‐analysis with 1128 patients. The median healthcare cost of ELC versus DLC was €4400 and €6004 respectively. Five studies had adequate data for pooled analysis. The standardized mean difference between ELC and DLC was −2·18 (95 per cent c.i. −3·86 to −0·51; P = 0·011; I 2 = 98·7 per cent) in favour of ELC. The median QHES score for the included studies was 52·17 (range 41–72), indicating overall poor‐to‐fair quality.ConclusionEconomic evaluations within clinical trials favour ELC for ACC. The limited number and poor quality of economic evaluations are noteworthy.

Economic Value of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Cancer Drugs with Clinically Relevant Drug-Gene Associations: A Systematic Literature Review.

Pharmacogenetic testing can provide predictive insights about the efficacy and safety of drugs used in cancer treatment. Although many drug-gene associations have been reported in the literature, the strength of evidence supporting each association can vary significantly. Even among the subgroup of drugs classified by the PharmGKB database to have a high or moderate level of evidence, there is limited information regarding the economic value of pharmacogenetic testing. To: (a) summarize the available pharmacoeconomic evidence assessing the value of pharmacogenetic testing for cancer drugs with clinically relevant drug-gene associations; (b) determine the quality of the studies that contain this evidence; and (c) discuss the quality of this evidence with respect to the level of evidence of the drug-gene associations. The PharmGKB database was used to identify cancer drugs with clinically relevant drug-gene associations graded high (1A, 1B) or moderate (2A, 2B). A systematic literature review was conducted using these drugs. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched to identify cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization studies comparing pharmacogenetic testing to an alternative. Cost and effect values from every relevant comparison within the studies were extracted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was either extracted or calculated for each comparison. Quality assessment was conducted for each study using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the data. The search yielded 2,191 citations, of which 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacoeconomic studies were available for the following drugs from the PharmGKB database: fluoropyrimidine, 6-mercaptopurine, irinotecan, carboplatin, cisplatin, erlotinib, gefitinib, cetuximab, panitumumab, and trastuzumab. The studies were conducted in Asia, Europe, Canada, the United States, and Mexico and reported cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and cost-minimization outcomes. The mean QHES score was 80 (SD = 22) for the studies of drug-gene pairs with high (1A, 1B) and moderate (2A, 2B) levels of evidence (1A = 82, 1B = 93, 2A = 71, and 2B = 74). There was variation across studies in terms of reporting. 109 relevant comparisons were identified within the studies. Of those that reported cost per life-year or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (n = 58 comparisons), pharmacogenetic testing was dominant in 21% overall and 42%, 21%, 17%, and 5% of the comparisons in Asia, Europe, Canada, and the United States, respectively. Variability was observed in the ICER values regardless of geographic region or drug. Pharmacogenetic testing was cost saving in 17 of 19 cost-minimization comparisons and was favored most frequently when compared with genetically indiscriminate strategies containing the drug of interest. There was mixed evidence regarding the value of pharmacogenetic testing to guide cancer treatment. For future pharmacogenomic-related economic studies, we recommend prioritizing clinically relevant drug-gene associations and greater adherence to available best practice guidelines for conducting and reporting economic evaluation studies. No outside funding supported this review. Part of Hussain's research time was supported by a Merit Review Award (I01 BX000545), Medical Research Service, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Hussain also reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, and France Foundation, outside the submitted work. Onukwugha reports grants from Pfizer and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, along with advisory board fees from Novo Nordisk, outside the submitted work. Faruque, Neuberger, and Noh have nothing to disclose.

Patient-level costs in margin re-excision for breast-conserving surgery

High rates of reoperation following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for positive margins are associated with costs to healthcare providers. The aim was to assess the quality of evidence on reported re-excision costs and compare the direct patient-level costs between patients undergoing successful BCS versus reoperations after BCS. The study used data from women who had BCS with or without reoperation at a single institution between April 2015 and March 2016. A systematic review of health economic analysis in BCS was conducted and scored using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Financial data were retrieved using the Patient-Level Information and Costing Systems (PLICS) for patients. Exchange rates used were: US $1 = £0·75, £1 = €1·14 and US $1 = €0·85. The median QHES score was 47 (i.q.r. 32·5-79). Only two of nine studies scored in the upper QHES quartile (score at least 75). Costs of initial lumpectomy and reoperation were in the range US $1234-11786 and $655-9136 respectively. Over a 12-month interval, 153 patients had definitive BCS and 59 patients underwent reoperation. The median cost of reoperations after BCS (59 patients) was £4511 (range 1752-18 019), representing an additional £2136 per patient compared with BCS without reoperation (P < 0·001). The systematic review demonstrated variation in methodological approach to cost estimates and a paucity of high-quality cost estimate studies for reoperations. Extrapolating local PLICS data to a national level suggests that getting BCS right first time could result in substantial savings.

Do cancer biomarkers make targeted therapies cost-effective? A systematic review in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BackgroundRecent advances in targeted therapies have raised expectations that the clinical application of biomarkers would improve patient’s health outcomes and potentially save costs. However, the cost-effectiveness of biomarkers remains unclear irrespective of the cost-effectiveness of corresponding therapies. It is thus important to determine whether biomarkers for targeted therapies provide good value for money. This study systematically reviews economic evaluations of biomarkers for targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and assesses the cost-effectiveness of predictive biomarkers in mCRC.MethodsA literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, EconLit, NHSEED. Papers published from 2000 until June 2018 were searched. All economic evaluations assessing biomarker-guided therapies with companion diagnostics in mCRC were searched. To make studies more comparable, cost-effectiveness results were synthesized as per biomarker tests and corresponding therapies. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.ResultsForty-six studies were included in this review. Of these, 17 studies evaluated the intrinsic value of cancer biomarkers, whereas the remaining studies focused on assessing the cost-effectiveness of corresponding drugs. Most studies indicated favourable cost-effectiveness of biomarkers for targeted therapies in mCRC. Some studies reported that biomarkers were cost-effective, while their corresponding therapies were not cost-effective. A considerable number of economic evaluations were conducted in pre-defined genetic populations and thus, often failed to fully capture the biomarker’s clinical and economic values. The average QHES score was 73.6.ConclusionCancer biomarkers for targeted therapies in mCRC were mostly found to be cost-effective; otherwise, they at least improved the cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies by saving some costs. However, this did not necessarily make their corresponding therapies cost-effective. While companion biomarkers reduced therapy costs, the savings were not sufficient to make the corresponding agents cost-effective. Evaluation of biomarkers was often restricted to the cost of tests and did not consider their clinical values or biomarker prevalence.

Evaluation and Characterization of Health Economics and Outcomes Research in SAARC Nations.

To identify, evaluate, and characterize the variety, quality, and intent of the health economics and outcomes research studies being conducted in SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) nations. Studies published in English language between 1990 and 2015 were retrieved from Medline databases using relevant search strategies. Studies were independently reviewed as per Cochrane methodology and information on the type of research and outcomes were extracted. Quality of reporting was assessed. Of the 2638 studies screened from eight SAARC nations, a total of 179 were included for review (India = 140; Bangladesh = 12; Sri Lanka = 8; Pakistan = 7; Afghanistan = 5; Nepal = 4; Bhutan = 2; Maldives = 1). The broad study categories were cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs = 76 studies), cost analyses (35 studies), and burden of illness (BOI=26 studies). The outcomes evaluated were direct costs, indirect costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Cost of medicines, consultation and hospital charges, and monitoring costs were assessed as direct medical costs along with non-direct medical costs such as travel and food for patients and caregivers. The components of indirect costs were loss of income of patients and caregivers and loss of productivity. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed in 48 studies. The most commonly used instrument for assessing QoL was the WHO-Quality of Life BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire (76%). The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) score was used for quality assessment of full economic studies (44 studies). The mean QHES score was 43.76. This review identifies various patterns of health economic studies in eight SAARC nations. The quality of economic evaluation studies for health care in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and Maldives needs improvement. There is a need to generate the capacity of researchers to undertake quality economic evaluations as well as an orientation of the policy makers so that there is a demand for such studies as well as a scope for its use in policy making.

Evaluation of Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in Asia-Pacific Region and Identification of Influencing Variables

ObjectivesTo assess the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies and identify different variables influencing the quality of these studies conducted in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. MethodsA systematic literature search was performed with PubMed and Cochrane using different combinations of terms for cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-minimization analyses. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used for quality assessment of included studies. Logistic regression was performed to determine the association of factors with high-quality studies (QHES score ≥75). ResultsOf 262 retrieved studies, 128 met the inclusion criteria. The mean QHES score was 67.4 ± 1.35. The distribution of studies in each quality quartile was as follows: high (n = 59 [46.09%]), fair (n = 50 [39.06%]), and poor (n = 19 [14.83%]). Most of the high-quality studies (n = 80 [62.5%]) were conducted in Japan and Australia. Only 11 high-quality studies (18.64%) were published in specialty journals and 4 (6.78%) in Asian journals. Primary authors who had advanced training in health economics were associated with a higher number of high-quality studies (n = 51 [86.44%]). Training of primary authors was significantly associated with high-quality studies (odds ratio 7.1; 95% confidence interval 2.9–19.23). Impact factor of journal, per-capita expenditure on health care, and out-of-pocket expense on health did not have a significant association with high-quality scores. ConclusionsHigh-quality pharmacoeconomic research is confined to a few countries of the APAC; it can be improved by advance training of authors in public health or health economics. Also, a greater interest of various stakeholders in funding the research and the introduction of specialty journals in the APAC are warranted.

Assessing the Quality of Economic Evaluations of FDA Novel Drug Approvals: A Systematic Review.

To systematically review and assess the quality of the novel drugs' economic evaluation literature in print during the drugs' early commercial availability following US regulatory approval. MEDLINE and the United Kingdom National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched from 1946 through December 2011 for economic evaluations of the 50 novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2008 and 2009. The inclusion criteria were English-language, peer-reviewed, original economic evaluations (cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-minimization, and cost-benefit analyses). We extracted and analyzed data from 36 articles considering 19 of the 50 drugs. Two reviewers assessed each publication's quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument and summarized study quality on a 100-point scale. Study quality had a mean of 70.0 ± 16.2 QHES points. The only study characteristics associated with QHES score (with P < 0.05) were having used modeling or advanced statistics, 75.1 versus 61.9 without; using quality-adjusted life years as an outcome, 75.9 versus 64.7 without; and cost-utility versus cost-minimization analysis, 75.9 versus 58.7. Studies most often satisfied quality aspects about stating study design choices and least often satisfied aspects about justifying design choices. The reviewed literature considered a minority of the 2008-2009 novel drugs and had mixed study quality. Cost-effectiveness stakeholders might benefit from efforts to improve the quality and quantity of literature examining novel drugs. Editors and reviewers may support quality improvement by stringently imposing economic evaluation guidelines about justifying study design choices.

Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature.

ObjectiveDue to extended application of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic screening (PGx) tests it is important to assess whether they provide good value for money. This review provides an update of the literature.MethodsA literature search was performed in PubMed and papers published between August 2010 and September 2014, investigating the cost-effectiveness of PGx screening tests, were included. Papers from 2000 until July 2010 were included via two previous systematic reviews. Studies’ overall quality was assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.ResultsWe found 38 studies, which combined with the previous 42 studies resulted in a total of 80 included studies. An average QHES score of 76 was found. Since 2010, more studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most recent studies performed cost-utility analysis, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and discussed limitations of their economic evaluations. Most studies indicated favorable cost-effectiveness. Majority of evaluations did not provide information regarding the intrinsic value of the PGx test. There were considerable differences in the costs for PGx testing. Reporting of the direction and magnitude of bias on the cost-effectiveness estimates as well as motivation for the chosen economic model and perspective were frequently missing.ConclusionsApplication of PGx tests was mostly found to be a cost-effective or cost-saving strategy. We found that only the minority of recent pharmacoeconomic evaluations assessed the intrinsic value of the PGx tests. There was an increase in the number of studies and in the reporting of quality associated characteristics. To improve future evaluations, scenario analysis including a broad range of PGx tests costs and equal costs of comparator drugs to assess the intrinsic value of the PGx tests, are recommended. In addition, robust clinical evidence regarding PGx tests’ efficacy remains of utmost importance.

The Quality of Cost-Utility Analyses in Orthopedic Trauma.

As health care in the United States transitions toward a value-based model, there is increasing interest in applying cost-effectiveness analysis within orthopedic surgery. Orthopedic trauma care has traditionally underemphasized economic analysis. The goals of this review were to identify US-based cost-utility analysis in orthopedic trauma, to assess the quality of the available evidence, and to identify cost-effective strategies within orthopedic trauma. Based on a review of 971 abstracts, 8 US-based cost-utility analyses evaluating operative strategies in orthopedic trauma were identified. Study findings were recorded, and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to grade the overall quality. Of the 8 studies included in this review, 4 studies evaluated hip and femur fractures, 3 studies analyzed upper extremity fractures, and 1 study assessed open tibial fracture management. Cost-effective interventions identified in this review include total hip arthroplasty (over hemiarthroplasty) for femoral neck fractures in the active elderly, open reduction and internal fixation (over nonoperative management) for distal radius and scaphoid fractures, limb salvage (over amputation) for complex open tibial fractures, and systems-based interventions to prevent delay in hip fracture surgery. The mean QHES score of the studies was 79.25 (range, 67-89). Overall, there is a paucity of cost-utility analyses in orthopedic trauma; however, the available evidence suggests that certain operative interventions can be cost-effective. The quality of these studies, however, is fair, based on QHES grading. More attention should be paid to evaluating the cost-effectiveness of operative intervention in orthopedic trauma.

Systematic literature review to evaluate and characterize the health economics and outcomes research studies in India.

Aim:This systematic literature review was conducted to identify, evaluate, and characterize the variety, quality, and intent of the health economics and outcomes research studies being conducted in India.Materials and Methods:Studies published in English language between 1999 and 2012 were retrieved from Embase and PubMed databases using relevant search strategies. Two researchers independently reviewed the studies as per Cochrane methodology; information on the type of research and the outcomes were extracted. Quality of reporting was assessed for model-based health economic studies using a published 100-point Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.Results:Of 546 studies screened, 132 were included in the review. The broad study categories were cost-effectiveness analyses [(CEA) 54 studies], cost analyses (19 studies), and burden of illness [(BOI) 18 studies]. The outcomes evaluated were direct and indirect costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Direct medical costs assessed cost of medicines, monitoring costs, consultation and hospital charges, along with direct non-medical costs (travel and food for patients and care givers). Loss of productivity and loss of income of patients and care givers were identified as the components of indirect cost. Overall, 33 studies assessed the quality of life (QoL), and the WHO Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) was the most commonly used instrument. Quality assessment for modeling studies showed that most studies were of high quality [mean (range) QHES score to be 75.5 (34-93)].Conclusions:This review identified various patterns of pharmacoeconomic studies and good-quality CEA studies. However, there is a need for better assessment of utilization of healthcare resources in India.

Assessing the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in India: a systematic review.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies based in India. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EconLit, PsycInfo and Google Scholar to identify published work on pharmacoeconomics studies based in India. Articles were included if they were original studies that evaluated pharmaceuticals, were based in India and were conducted between 1990 and 2010. Two reviewers independently reviewed the articles using a subjective 10-point quality scale in addition to the 100-point Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) questionnaire. Twenty-nine articles published between 1998 and May 2010 were included in the review. The included articles were published in 23 different journals. Each article was written by an average of five authors. The mean subjective quality score of the 29 articles was 7.8 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.3) and the mean QHES scores for the complete pharmacoeconomic studies (n = 24) was 86 (SD = 6). The majority of authors resided in India (62%) at the time of publication and had a medical background (90%). The quality score was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) related to the country of residence of the primary author (non-India = higher) and the study design (randomized controlled trials = higher). Although the overall quality scores were comparable to (e.g. Nigeria) or higher than (e.g. Zimbabwe) similar studies in other developing countries, key features such as an explicit study perspective and the use of sensitivity analyses were missing in about 40% of the articles. The need for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals is imperative, especially in developing countries such as India as this helps decision makers allocate scarce resources in a justifiable manner.