The Determination of Diabetes Utilities, Costs, and Effects Model: A Cost-Utility Tool Using Patient-Level Microsimulation to Evaluate Sensor-Based Glucose Monitoring Systems in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Comparative Validation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy and validity of the Determination of Diabetes Utilities, Costs, and Effects (DEDUCE) model, a Microsoft-Excel-based tool for evaluating diabetes interventions for type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The DEDUCE model is a patient-level microsimulation, with complications predicted based on the Sheffield and Risk Equations for Complications Of type 2 diabetes models for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. For this tool to be useful, it must be validated to ensure that its complication predictions are accurate. Internal, external, and cross-validation was assessed by populating the DEDUCE model with the baseline characteristics and treatment effects reported in clinical trials used in the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Mount Hood Diabetes Challenges. Results from the DEDUCE model were evaluated against clinical results and previously validated models via mean absolute percentage error or percentage error. RESULTS: The DEDUCE model performed favorably, predicting key outcomes, including cardiovascular disease in type 1 diabetes and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes. The model performed well against other models. In the Mount Hood 9 Challenge comparison, error was below the mean reported from comparator models for several outcomes, particularly for hazard ratios. CONCLUSIONS: The DEDUCE model predicts diabetes-related complications from trials and studies well when compared with previously validated models. The model may serve as a useful tool for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of diabetes technologies.

Willingness to pay for an mRNA-based anti-cancer treatment: results from a contingent valuation study in Israel.

BACKGROUND: mRNA technology is currently being investigated for a range of oncology indications. We assessed the willingness to pay (WTP) of the general population in Israel for a hypothetical novel mRNA-based treatment for oncology indications. METHODS: We used a contingent valuation methodology to elicit WTP using a web-based questionnaire. A sample of adult participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario in which an mRNA-based intervention increased the likelihood of a cure for various cancer types from 20% to 40% (half of the sample), or 60% (the other half of the sample). RESULTS: 531 respondents completed the questionnaire. The mean, median and mode WTP for the proposed hypothetical treatment in both scenarios were ILS65,000 (± ILS114,000), ILS20,000 and ILS50,000, respectively (1USD = 3.4ILS). The WTP was skewed towards zero, and 9.6% of the respondents were not willing to pay any amount. WTP higher amounts was significantly associated with higher income (p < 0.01), self-reported good health (p < 0.05), supplementary health insurance (p < 0.05), Jews compared to other populations (p < 0.01), interest in technology (p < 0.001) and a tendency to adopt medical innovations (p < 0.001). No statistical difference between the 40% vs. the 60% potential cure scenarios was found. Logistic and OLS regressions indicated that age, religion, income, and interest in adopting medical innovations were the best predictors of respondents' WTP. CONCLUSION: Despite the scientific breakthroughs in oncology treatment over the last few decades, many types of cancer are still incurable. Given the expected development of innovative mRNA-based treatments for cancer, these results should inform policymakers, the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders on the future coverage and reimbursement of these technologies incorporating patients' and societal views. To date, WTP considerations have not been given much weight in prioritization of drug reimbursement processes, neither in Israel nor in other countries. As a pioneer in adoption of the mRNA technology, Israel can also lead the incorporation of WTP considerations in this field.

Healthcare Resources Utilization throughout the Last Year of Life after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Healthcare resource utilization (HRU) peaks in the last year-of-life, and accounts for a substantial share of healthcare expenditure. We evaluated changes in HRU and costs throughout the last year-of-life among AMI survivors and investigated whether such changes can predict imminent mortality. This retrospective analysis included patients who survived at least one year following an AMI. Mortality and HRU data during the 10-year follow-up period were collected. Analyses were performed according to follow-up years that were classified into mortality years (one year prior to death) and survival years. Overall, 10,992 patients (44,099 patients-years) were investigated. Throughout the follow-up period, 2,885 (26.3%) patients died. The HRU parameters and total costs were strong independent predictors of mortality during a subsequent year. While a direct association between mortality and hospital services (length of in-hospital stay and emergency department visits) was observed, the association with ambulatory services utilization was reversed. The discriminative ability (c-statistics) of a multivariable model including the HRU parameters for predicting the mortality in the subsequent year, was 0.88. In conclusion, throughout the last year of life, hospital-centered HRU and costs of AMI survivors increase while utilization of ambulatory services decrease. HRUs are strong and independent predictors of an imminent mortality year among these patients.

The cost of inflammatory bowel disease in high-income settings: a Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology Commission.

The cost of caring for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) continues to increase worldwide. The cause is not only a steady increase in the prevalence of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in both developed and newly industrialised countries, but also the chronic nature of the diseases, the need for long-term, often expensive treatments, the use of more intensive disease monitoring strategies, and the effect of the diseases on economic productivity. This Commission draws together a wide range of expertise to discuss the current costs of IBD care, the drivers of increasing costs, and how to deliver affordable care for IBD in the future. The key conclusions are that (1) increases in health-care costs must be evaluated against improved disease management and reductions in indirect costs, and (2) that overarching systems for data interoperability, registries, and big data approaches must be established for continuous assessment of effectiveness, costs, and the cost-effectiveness of care. International collaborations should be sought out to evaluate novel models of care (eg, value-based health care, including integrated health care, and participatory health-care models), as well as to improve the education and training of clinicians, patients, and policy makers.

Randomised clinical trial: Psychological intervention improves work productivity and daily activity by reducing abdominal pain and fatigue in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic abdominal pain and fatigue are characteristics of Crohn's disease (CD) and contribute to functional impairments. AIMS: To examine whether CD-tailored cognitive-behavioural and mindfulness intervention (COBMINDEX) is effective in reducing abdominal pain and fatigue in patients with CD and whether changes in abdominal pain and fatigue mediate any beneficial effects of COBMINDEX on impairments in work productivity and daily activities. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial. Patients with mild-to-moderate CD (n = 142) were randomised into either intervention group receiving COBMINDEX, or control group receiving treatment-as-usual for 3 months followed by COBMINDEX. Complete data were collected from 120 patients (34.0 ± 10.7 years, 62.5% female, intervention = 60, control = 60). Analysis of covariance assessed group differences in 3-month follow-up scores, controlling for baseline scores. Multiple parallel mediation analysis assessed the proposed mechanisms for the entire sample. RESULTS: The intervention group demonstrated significantly lower levels of abdominal pain (F = 17.46, p < 0.001, η2 p  = 0.13), fatigue (F = 7.26, p = 0.008, η2 p  = 0.06) and impairments at work (F = 4.82, p = 0.032, η2 p  = 0.07) and daily activities (F = 6.26, p = 0.014, η2 p  = 0.05), compared with treatment-as-usual. Moreover, changes in abdominal pain and fatigue significantly mediated the beneficial effects of COBMINDEX on patients' work productivity (b = -9.90, SE = 2.86, 95% CI: -16.11 to -4.94) and daily activities (b = -9.65, SE = 1.91, 95% CI: -13.77 to 6.35), independent of changes in disease activity. CONCLUSIONS: COBMINDEX is effective at reducing abdominal pain and fatigue in patients with CD, which in turn leads to improvement in functioning. Clinicians should incorporate screening for severe abdominal pain and fatigue and consider offering cognitive-behavioural and mindfulness training. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT05085925. Ministry of Health in Israel (https://my.health.gov.il/CliniTrials/Pages/MOH_2020-02-24_008721.aspx).

Willingness to pay for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies' publication. AREAS COVERED: We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997-2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention's mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000. EXPERT OPINION: The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents' characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.

Real World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Population Screening for BRCA Variants among Ashkenazi Jews Compared with Family History-Based Strategies.

Identifying carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 variants reduces cancer morbidity and mortality through surveillance and prevention. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of BRCA1/BRCA2 population screening (PS) in Ashkenazi Jews (AJ), for whom carrier rate is 2.5%, compared with two existing strategies: cascade testing (CT) in carrier's relatives (≥25% carrier probability) and international family history (IFH)-based guidelines (>10% probability). We used a decision analytic-model to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PS vs. alternative strategies. Analysis was conducted from payer-perspective, based on actual costs. Per 1000 women, the model predicted 21.6 QALYs gained, a lifetime decrease of three breast cancer (BC) and four ovarian cancer (OC) cases for PS vs. CT, and 6.3 QALYs gained, a lifetime decrease of 1 BC and 1 OC cases comparing PS vs. IFH. PS was less costly compared with CT (−3097 USD/QALY), and more costly than IFH (+42,261 USD/QALY), yet still cost-effective, from a public health policy perspective. Our results are robust to sensitivity analysis; PS was the most effective strategy in all analyses. PS is highly cost-effective, and the most effective screening strategy for breast and ovarian cancer prevention. BRCA testing should be available to all AJ women, irrespective of family history.

Public legitimacy of healthcare resource allocation committees: lessons learned from assessing an Israeli case study.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Insurance Law enacted in 1995 stipulates a list of health services to which all Israeli residents are entitled. For the past 20 years, the list has been updated annually, as a function of a predetermined budget, according to recommendations from the Public National Advisory Committee (PNAC), which evaluates and prioritizes candidate technologies. We assessed the legitimacy of this resource-allocation process as reflected in Israeli public discourse and its congruence with the accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework. METHODS: A qualitative analysis of public discourse documents (articles in the print media, court rulings and parliamentary debates (N = 119) was conducted to assess the perceived legitimacy by the Israeli public of the PNAC. Further content analysis of these documents and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (N = 70) revealed the mainstays and threats to its legitimacy. Based on these data sources, on governmental documents specifying PNAC's procedures, and on data from participant observations, we assessed its congruence with A4R's four conditions: publicity, relevance, revision and appeals, regulation. RESULTS: The PNAC enjoys ongoing support for its legitimacy in Israeli public discourse, which stem from its perceived professional focus and transparency. These strengths are consistent with the A4R's emphasis on the publicity and the relevance conditions. The three major threats to PNAC's legitimacy pertain to: (1) the composition of the committee; (2) its operating procedures; (3) its guiding principles. These perceived shortcomings are also consistent with incongruencies between PNAC's work model and A4R. These findings thus further support the empirical validity of the A4R. CONCLUSION: The analysis of the fit between the PNAC and A4R points to refinements in all four conditions that could make the A4R a more precise evaluative framework. Concurrently, it highlights areas that the PNAC should improve to increase its legitimacy, such as incorporating cost-effectiveness analyses and including patient representatives in the decision-making process. Hebrew and Arabic abstracts for this article are available as an additional file.

Standardization of a Developmental Milestone Scale Using Data From Children in Israel.

Importance: Routine developmental screening tests for children are used worldwide for early detection of developmental delays. However, assessment of developmental milestone norms lacks strong normative data, and there are inconsistencies among different screening tools. Objective: To establish milestone norms and build an updated developmental scale. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cross-sectional, population-based study conducted between 2014 and 2020. Developmental assessments were conducted by trained public health nurses, documented in national maternal child health clinics, known as Tipat Halav, which serve all children in Israel. Participants included all children born between January 2014 and September 2020, who were followed at the maternal child health clinics from birth to age 6 years. Exclusion criteria were preterm birth, missing gestational age, low birth weight (<2.5 kg), abnormal weight measurement (<3% according to standardized child growth charts), abnormal head circumference measurement (<3% or >97% according to standardized child growth charts), and visits without developmental data or without the child's age. Data analysis was performed from September 2020 to June 2021. Exposures: In total, 59 milestones in 4 developmental domains were evaluated, and the achievement rate per child's age was calculated for each milestone. Main Outcomes and Measures: A contemporary developmental scale, the Tipat Halav Israel Screening (THIS) Developmental Scale, was built, presenting the 75%, 90%, and 95% achievement rates for each milestone. The THIS scale was compared with other commonly used screening tests, including the Denver Developmental Screening Test II (Denver II), the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Developmental Assessment. Results: A total of 839 574 children were followed in the maternal child health clinics between January 2014 and September 2020 in Israel, and 195 616 children were excluded. A total of 3 774 517 developmental assessments were performed for the remaining 643 958 children aged 0 to 6 years (319 562 female children [49.6%]), resulting in the establishment of new developmental norms. In terms of the comparable milestones, THIS milestones had a match of 18 of 27 (67%) with the Denver II, 7 of 7 (100%) with AIMS, and 10 of 19 (53%) with the CDC Developmental Assessment. The remaining unmatched milestones were achieved earlier in the THIS scale compared with other screening tools. Conclusions and Relevance: The THIS developmental scale is based on the largest population evaluated to date for developmental performance, representing the heterogeneous, multicultural population comprising this cohort. It is recommended for further evaluation worldwide.

Norton Scale Score and long-term healthcare services utilization after acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS: Many patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have considerable multimorbidity, sometimes associated with functional limitations. The Norton Scale Score (NSS) evaluates clinical aspects of well-being and predicts numerous clinical outcomes. We evaluated the association between NSS and long-term healthcare utilization (HU) following a non-fatal AMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective observational study including AMI survivors during 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2015 with a filled NSS report. Data were recouped from the electronic medical records of the hospital and two Health Maintenance Organizations. Norton Scale Score ≤16 or >16 was defined as low or high respectively. The outcome was annual HU, encompassing length of hospital stay (LOS), emergency department (ED) visits, primary care, and other ambulatory service utilization during up to 10 years of follow-up. HU costs were compared between groups. Two-level models were built: unadjusted and adjusted for patients' baseline characteristics. The study included 4613 patients, 784 (17%) had low NSS. Patients with low NSS compared with patients with high NSS were older, had a higher rate of multimorbidity, and had significantly lower coronary angiography and revascularization rates. In addition, low NSS patients presented higher annual HU costs (4879 vs. 3634 Euro, P <0.001), primarily due to LOS, ED visits, and less frequent ambulatory services usage. CONCLUSION: In patients after non-fatal AMI, low NSS is a signal for higher long-term costs reflecting the presence of expensive comorbidities. Management disparity and impaired mobility may offset the real need of these patients. Therefore, the specific proactive nursing intervention in that population is recommended.

It probably worked: a Bayesian approach to evaluating the introduction of activity-based hospital payment in Israel.

BACKGROUND: In 2013-2014, Israel accelerated adoption of activity-based payments to hospitals. While the effects of such payments on patient length of stay (LoS) have been examined in several countries, there have been few analyses of incentive effects in the Israeli context of capped reimbursements and stretched resources. METHODS: We examined administrative data from the Israel Ministry of Health for 14 procedures from 2005 to 2016 in all not-for-profit hospitals (97% of the acute care beds). Survival analyses using a Weibull distribution allowed us to examine the non-negative and right-skewed data. We opted for a Bayesian approach to estimate relative change in LoS. RESULTS: LoS declined in 7 of 14 procedures analyzed, notably, in 6 out of 7 urological procedures. In these procedures, reduction in LoS ranged between 11% and 20%. The estimation results for the control variables are mixed and do not indicate a clear pattern of association with LoS. CONCLUSIONS: The decrease in LoS freed resources to treat other patients, which may have resulted in reduced waiting times. It may have been more feasible to reduce LoS for urological procedures since these had relatively long LoS. Policymakers should pay attention to the effects of decreases in LoS on quality of care. Stretched hospital resources, capped reimbursements, retrospective subsidies and underpriced procedures may have limited hospitals' ability to reduce LoS for other procedures where no decrease occurred (e.g., general surgery).

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Brain-immune axis regulation is responsive to cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness intervention: Observations from a randomized controlled trial in patients with Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease associated with psychological stress that is regulated primarily by the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Here, we determined whether the psychological characteristics of CD patients associate with their inflammatory state, and whether a 3-month trial of cognitive-behavioral and mindfulness-based stress reduction (COBMINDEX) impacts their inflammatory process. METHODS: Circulating inflammatory markers and a wide range of psychological parameters related to stress and well-being were measured in CD patients before and after COBMINDEX. Inflammatory markers in CD patients were also compared to age- and sex-matched healthy controls (HCs). RESULTS: CD patients exhibited increased peripheral low-grade inflammation compared with HCs, demonstrated by interconnected inflammatory modules represented by IL-6, TNFα, IL-17, MCP-1 and IL-18. Notably, higher IL-18 levels correlated with higher score of stress and a lower score of wellbeing in CD patients. COBMINDEX was accompanied by changes in inflammatory markers that coincided with changes in cortisol: changes in serum levels of cortisol correlated positively with those of IL-10 and IFNα and negatively with those of MCP-1. Furthermore, inflammatory markers of CD patients at baseline predicted COBMINDEX efficacy, as higher levels of distinct cytokines and cortisol at baseline, correlated negatively with changes in disease activity (by Harvey-Bradshaw Index) and psychological distress (global severity index measure) following COBMINDEX. CONCLUSION: CD patients have a characteristic immunological profile that correlates with psychological stress, and disease severity. We suggest that COBMINDEX induces stress resilience in CD patients, which impacts their well-being, and their disease-associated inflammatory process.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement, including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.