Stavros Petrou

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.

Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: The Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study

Objective To compare perinatal outcomes, maternal outcomes, and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour for women with low risk pregnancies. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting England: all NHS trusts providing intrapartum care at home, all freestanding midwifery units, all alongside midwifery units (midwife led units on a hospital site with an obstetric unit), and a stratified random sample of obstetric units. Participants 64 538 eligible women with a singleton, term (≥37 weeks gestation), and “booked” pregnancy who gave birth between April 2008 and April 2010. Planned caesarean sections and caesarean sections before the onset of labour and unplanned home births were excluded. Main outcome measure A composite primary outcome of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities (stillbirth after start of care in labour, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus, or fractured clavicle) was used to compare outcomes by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour (at home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units, and obstetric units). Results There were 250 primary outcome events and an overall weighted incidence of 4.3 per 1000 births (95% CI 3.3 to 5.5). Overall, there were no significant differences in the adjusted odds of the primary outcome for any of the non-obstetric unit settings compared with obstetric units. For nulliparous women, the odds of the primary outcome were higher for planned home births (adjusted odds ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.86) but not for either midwifery unit setting. For multiparous women, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the primary outcome by planned place of birth. Interventions during labour were substantially lower in all non-obstetric unit settings. Transfers from non-obstetric unit settings were more frequent for nulliparous women (36% to 45%) than for multiparous women (9% to 13%). Conclusions The results support a policy of offering healthy women with low risk pregnancies a choice of birth setting. Women planning birth in a midwifery unit and multiparous women planning birth at home experience fewer interventions than those planning birth in an obstetric unit with no impact on perinatal outcomes. For nulliparous women, planned home births also have fewer interventions but have poorer perinatal outcomes.

The Cost of Preterm Birth Throughout Childhood in England and Wales

BACKGROUND. Infants born preterm are at increased risk of adverse health and developmental outcomes. Mortality and morbidity after preterm birth impose a burden on finite public sector resources. This study considers the economic consequences of preterm birth from birth to adult life and compares the costs accruing to those born preterm with those born at term. METHODS. A decision-analytic model was constructed to estimate the costs to the public sector over the first 18 years after birth, stratified by week of gestational age at birth. Costs were discounted and reported in UK pounds at 2006 prices. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to examine uncertainty in the model parameters and generate confidence intervals surrounding the cost estimates. RESULTS. The model estimates the costs associated with a hypothetical cohort of 669601 children and is based on live birth and preterm birth data from England and Wales in 2006. The total cost of preterm birth to the public sector was estimated to be £2.946 billion (US

The economic consequences of preterm birth duringthe first 10 years of life

4.567 billion), and an inverse relationship was identified between gestational age at birth and the average public sector cost per surviving child. The incremental cost per preterm child surviving to 18 years compared with a term survivor was estimated at £22885 (US

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature

35471). The corresponding estimates for a very and extremely preterm child were substantially higher at £61781 (US

Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: Design, conduct, analysis, and reporting

95760) and £94740 (US

Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting

146847), respectively. CONCLUSIONS. Despite concerns about ongoing costs after discharge from perinatal services, the largest contribution to the economic implications of preterm birth are hospital inpatient costs after birth, which are responsible for 92.0% of the incremental costs per preterm survivor.

Economic consequences of preterm birth and low birthweight

Objective  To examine the association between gestational age at the time of birth and long‐term use and cost of hospital inpatient services.

Value in Health OnlineConsolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

BackgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health economics to address a wide range of health policy-related concerns.ObjectiveBroadly adopting the methodology of an earlier systematic review of health-related DCEs, which covered the period 2001–2008, we report whether earlier trends continued during 2009–2012.MethodsThis paper systematically reviews health-related DCEs published between 2009 and 2012, using the same database as the earlier published review (PubMed) to obtain citations, and the same range of search terms.ResultsA total of 179 health-related DCEs for 2009–2012 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We found a continuing trend towards conducting DCEs across a broader range of countries. However, the trend towards including fewer attributes was reversed, whilst the trend towards interview-based DCEs reversed because of increased computer administration. The trend towards using more flexible econometric models, including mixed logit and latent class, has also continued. Reporting of monetary values has fallen compared with earlier periods, but the proportion of studies estimating trade-offs between health outcomes and experience factors, or valuing outcomes in terms of utility scores, has increased, although use of odds ratios and probabilities has declined. The reassuring trend towards the use of more flexible and appropriate DCE designs and econometric methods has been reinforced by the increased use of qualitative methods to inform DCE processes and results. However, qualitative research methods are being used less often to inform attribute selection, which may make DCEs more susceptible to omitted variable bias if the decision framework is not known prior to the research project.ConclusionsThe use of DCEs in healthcare continues to grow dramatically, as does the scope of applications across an expanding range of countries. There is increasing evidence that more sophisticated approaches to DCE design and analytical techniques are improving the quality of final outputs. That said, recent evidence that the use of qualitative methods to inform attribute selection has declined is of concern.

Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial

Collecting economic data at the same time as evidence of effectiveness maximises the information available for analysis but requires proper consideration at the design stage