Don Husereau

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 forces 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.

THE EFFECT OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE RESTRICTION ON SYSTEMATIC REVIEW-BASED META-ANALYSES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES

OBJECTIVES The English language is generally perceived to be the universal language of science. However, the exclusive reliance on English-language studies may not represent all of the evidence. Excluding languages other than English (LOE) may introduce a language bias and lead to erroneous conclusions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We conducted a comprehensive literature search using bibliographic databases and grey literature sources. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they measured the effect of excluding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in LOE from systematic review-based meta-analyses (SR/MA) for one or more outcomes. RESULTS None of the included studies found major differences between summary treatment effects in English-language restricted meta-analyses and LOE-inclusive meta-analyses. Findings differed about the methodological and reporting quality of trials reported in LOE. The precision of pooled estimates improved with the inclusion of LOE trials. CONCLUSIONS Overall, we found no evidence of a systematic bias from the use of language restrictions in systematic review-based meta-analyses in conventional medicine. Further research is needed to determine the impact of language restriction on systematic reviews in particular fields of medicine.

Value in Health OnlineConsolidated 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.

Efficacy of statins for primary prevention in people at low cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis

Background: Statins were initially used to improve cardiovascular outcomes in people with established coronary artery disease, but recently their use has become more common in people at low cardiovascular risk. We did a systematic review of randomized trials to assess the efficacy and harms of statins in these individuals. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (to Jan. 28, 2011), registries of health technology assessments and clinical trials, and reference lists of relevant reviews. We included trials that randomly assigned participants at low cardiovascular risk to receive a statin versus a placebo or no statin. We defined low risk as an observed 10-year risk of less than 20% for cardiovascular-related death or nonfatal myocardial infarction, but we explored other definitions in sensitivity analyses. Results: We identified 29 eligible trials involving a total of 80 711 participants. All-cause mortality was significantly lower among patients receiving a statin than among controls (relative risk [RR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–0.97) for trials with a 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease < 20% [primary analysis] and 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.94, for trials with 10-year risk < 10% [sensitivity analysis]). Patients in the statin group were also significantly less likely than controls to have nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.84) and nonfatal stroke (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68–0.96). Neither metaregression nor stratified analyses suggested statistically significant differences in efficacy between high-and low-potency statins, or larger reductions in cholesterol. Interpretation: Statins were found to be efficacious in preventing death and cardiovascular morbidity in people at low cardiovascular risk. Reductions in relative risk were similar to those seen in patients with a history of coronary artery disease.

Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches.

Objectives: This study sought to identify and compare various practical and current approaches of health technology assessment (HTA) priority setting. Methods: A literature search was performed across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and Cochrane. Given an earlier review conducted by European agencies (EUR-ASSESS project), the search was limited to literature indexed from 1996 onward. We also searched Web sites of HTA agencies as well as HTAi and ISTAHC conference abstracts. Agency representatives were contacted for information about their priority-setting processes. Reports on practical approaches selected through these sources were identified independently by two reviewers. Results: A total of twelve current priority-setting frameworks from eleven agencies were identified. Ten countries were represented: Canada, Denmark, England, Hungary, Israel, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and United States. Fifty-nine unique HTA priority-setting criteria were divided into eleven categories (alternatives; budget impact; clinical impact; controversial nature of proposed technology; disease burden; economic impact; ethical, legal, or psychosocial implications; evidence; interest; timeliness of review; variation in rates of use). Differences across HTA agencies were found regarding procedures for categorizing, scoring, and weighing of policy criteria. Conclusions: Variability exists in the methods for priority setting of health technology assessment across HTA agencies. Quantitative rating methods and consideration of cost benefit for priority setting were seldom used. These study results will assist HTA agencies that are re-visiting or developing their prioritization methods.

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 (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.

A Questionnaire to Assess the Relevance and Credibility of Observational Studies to Inform Health Care Decision Making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force Report

Evidence-based health care decisions are best informed by comparisons of all relevant interventions used to treat conditions in specific patient populations. Observational studies are being performed to help fill evidence gaps. Widespread adoption of evidence from observational studies, however, has been limited because of various factors, including the lack of consensus regarding accepted principles for their evaluation and interpretation. Two task forces were formed to develop questionnaires to assist decision makers in evaluating observational studies, with one Task Force addressing retrospective research and the other Task Force addressing prospective research. The intent was to promote a structured approach to reduce the potential for subjective interpretation of evidence and drive consistency in decision making. Separately developed questionnaires were combined into a single questionnaire consisting of 33 items. These were divided into two domains: relevance and credibility. Relevance addresses the extent to which findings, if accurate, apply to the setting of interest to the decision maker. Credibility addresses the extent to which the study findings accurately answer the study question. The questionnaire provides a guide for assessing the degree of confidence that should be placed from observational studies and promotes awareness of the subtleties involved in evaluating those.

Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to describe a current practical approach of priority setting of health technology assessment (HTA) research that involves multi-criteria decision analysis and a deliberative process. METHODS Criteria related to HTA prioritization were identified and grouped through a systematic review and consultation with a selection committee. Criteria were scored through a pair-wise comparison approach. Criteria were pruned based on the average weights obtained from consistent (consistency index < 0.2) responders and consensus. HTA proposals are ranked based on available information and a weighted criteria score. The rank, along with additional contextual information and discussion among committee members, is used to achieve consensus on HTA research priorities. RESULTS Six of eleven criteria represented > 75 percent of the weight behind committee member decisions to conduct an HTA. These criteria were disease burden, clinical impact, alternatives, budget impact, economic impact, and available evidence. Since May 2006, committees have considered 102 proposals at sixteen biannual in-person advisory committee meetings. These have selected twenty-nine research priorities for the HTA program. CONCLUSIONS The approach works well and was easy to implement. Feedback from committee members has been positive. This approach may assist HTA and other research agencies in better priority setting by informing the selection of the most important and policy-relevant topics in the presence of a wide variety of research proposals. This may in turn lead to efficiently allocating resources available for HTA research.

Personalized Medicine Beyond Genomics: New Technologies, Global Health Diplomacy and Anticipatory Governance.

Genomics is one of the key technologies enabling personalized medicine and the broader field of theragnostics (i.e., the fusion of therapeutics and diagnostic medicine). Yet other high-throughput technologies (e.g., nanotechnology and proteomics) are also rapidly emerging on the horizon in the postgenomics era since the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003. Applications of these health technologies, too, are being diversified in personalized medicine. These include both “old” and “new” applications aimed at better understanding host-environment interactions, for example, pharmacogenomics, nutrigenomics (featured in the June and September 2009 issues of the CPPM) and pharmacoproteomics, to name a few. Importantly, all these advances are now taking place both “in” and “outside” the traditional laboratory space as personalized medicine innovations diffuse, albeit slowly, from upstream discovery oriented applications (e.g., search for genes associated with common complex diseases) to downstream health products, diagnostics, and personalized interventions in the clinic [2], although not always in that linear direction [3]. Personalized medicine in the postgenomics era calls for a transdisciplinary approach [4], and considerations for how best to develop innovation frameworks to support safe and effective deployment of the new enabling diagnostic technologies. CPPM aims to address the previously unmet needs in both pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine, for example, by moving beyond the artificial compartmentalization of biomarkers and knowledge across health technologies and disciplinary silos. This is crucial as there are important lessons to be learned from different personalized health interventions, whether they involve pharmaceuticals, nutrition, stem cell therapy, or are enabled by genomics, proteomics and nanotechnology. Indeed, these health technologies and their applications can usefully cross-inform each other and thereby help strengthen and triangulate the attendant evidentiary base for personalized medicine. This integrative vision of personalized medicine that includes and extends beyond pharmacogenomics is now being put into practice by the CPPM through vigilant and transdisciplinary horizon scanning, and rigorous peer-review with strong international outreach to expertise available in different global regions. Hence, the December issue of the Journal features two new health technologies - nanotechnology and proteomics - that are already beginning to impact the individualization of drug therapy.