Small changes to CHEERS criteria may increase modelling acceptance

Abstract

Small changes to Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist criteria may increase the acceptance of cost-effectiveness modelling studies, say authors of a study published in PharmacoEconomics. Four previously published state-transition models for assessing the cost utility of obesity interventions in adults in the UK were identified, selected for replication, and evaluated using the CHEERS checklist. Cost-effectiveness outcomes from the reproduced models were compared with original results, reproduction success was assessed, and facilitators and challenges to model replication were identified. In case studies, the models were used to compare incremental cost utility of orlistat, rimonabant or sibutramine versus placebo; standard behavioural therapy (SBT) plus meal plans and shopping lists versus SBT alone or nothing; rimonibant versus diet and exercise; and Slimming World versus best supportive care. Comparison of reproduction outcomes versus original outcomes from the four models found mean deviations of +3.78% in costs (ranging from –3.9% to +16.1%), –0.11% in QALYs (from –3.7% to +2.1%) and +4.28% in cost-utility ratios (from –3.0% to +17.9%). Based on published criteria, reproduction success was found for three of the four models. Input data tables and model diagrams were identified as the key replication facilitators, while missing standard deviations and missing formulae for equations were considered to be the key hurdles. Small changes to existing reporting criteria . . . may increase both the transparency of health economic model reporting and the success of reproducing its consequent results . . . model replications can help to assess the quality of health economic model documentation, can be used to validate and refine current model reporting practices, and might subsequently increase the transparency and acceptance of health economic modeling studies, concluded the authors.