From Shadows to Spotlight: Exploring the Escalating Burden of Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease and Alcohol Use Disorder in Young Women.

INTRODUCTION: The burden of alcohol-related complications is considerable, particularly alcohol-associated liver disease and alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, there are deficiencies in comprehensive epidemiological research focusing on these issues, especially among young women who display higher susceptibility to such complications compared with their male counterparts. We thus aimed to determine the global burden of these conditions in this vulnerable group. METHODS: Leveraging data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, we analyzed the prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years of alcohol-associated cirrhosis (AC), liver cancer from alcohol, and AUD in young women. The findings were categorized by region, nation, and sociodemographic index. RESULTS: The highest age-standardized prevalence rates were observed in AUD (895.96 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 722.6-1,103.58]), followed by AC (65.33 [95% UI 48.37-86.49]) and liver cancer from alcohol (0.13 [95% UI 0.09-0.19]) per 100,000 people. The highest age-standardized mortality rates were observed in AC (0.75 [95% UI 0.55-0.97]), followed by AUD (0.48 [95% UI 0.43-0.53]) and liver cancer from alcohol (0.06 [95% UI 0.04-0.09]). The highest burdens of AC and AUD were observed in Central Europe, whereas the high-income Asia Pacific had the highest burden of liver cancer from alcohol. DISCUSSION: Throughout the past decade, the trend of AUD varied among regions while the impact of alcohol-associated liver disease has increased, requiring urgent public health strategy to mitigate these complications, particularly in female patients in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.

Are newer drugs better? An analysis of neonatal pharmacological treatments across generations.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the relative effects of newer versus older medications for neonatal conditions and trends in margin of superiority across generations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed network meta-analyses (NMAs) on neonatal pharmacological interventions identified from Medline, Cochrane, and PROSPERO. Interventions were chronologically arranged based on the earliest study and compared for their effects against placebo or no treatment and their immediate predecessor. We assessed the time trend in effect sizes using the Mann-Kendall test. RESULTS: From 8048 retrieved records, 10 neonatal NMAs covering 352 trials and 102,653 participants were included. Compared to placebo, 56/61 (91.8%) interventions showed superiority with 23 (37.7%) statistically significant. Compared to previous generation, 47/72 (65.3%) showed superiority with 3 (4.2%) statistically significant. No significant trends in effect sizes were observed across generations for most conditions (p = 0.09 to 1). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that newer-generation medications in neonatal care are consistently more effective than older-generation medications.

Effects of ketogenic diet on health outcomes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have reported the benefits of ketogenic diets (KD) in various participants such as patients with epilepsy and adults with overweight or obesity. Nevertheless, there has been little synthesis of the strength and quality of this evidence in aggregate. METHODS: To grade the evidence from published meta-analyses of RCTs that assessed the association of KD, ketogenic low-carbohydrate high-fat diet (K-LCHF), and very low-calorie KD (VLCKD) with health outcomes, PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane database of systematic reviews were searched up to February 15, 2023. Meta-analyses of RCTs of KD were included. Meta-analyses were re-performed using a random-effects model. The quality of evidence per association provided in meta-analyses was rated by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) criteria as high, moderate, low, and very low. RESULTS: We included 17 meta-analyses comprising 68 RCTs (median [interquartile range, IQR] sample size of 42 [20-104] participants and follow-up period of 13 [8-36] weeks) and 115 unique associations. There were 51 statistically significant associations (44%) of which four associations were supported by high-quality evidence (reduced triglyceride (n = 2), seizure frequency (n = 1) and increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (n = 1)) and four associations supported by moderate-quality evidence (decrease in body weight, respiratory exchange ratio (RER), hemoglobin A1c, and increased total cholesterol). The remaining associations were supported by very low (26 associations) to low (17 associations) quality evidence. In overweight or obese adults, VLCKD was significantly associated with improvement in anthropometric and cardiometabolic outcomes without worsening muscle mass, LDL-C, and total cholesterol. K-LCHF was associated with reduced body weight and body fat percentage, but also reduced muscle mass in healthy participants. CONCLUSIONS: This umbrella review found beneficial associations of KD supported by moderate to high-quality evidence on seizure and several cardiometabolic parameters. However, KD was associated with a clinically meaningful increase in LDL-C. Clinical trials with long-term follow-up are warranted to investigate whether the short-term effects of KD will translate to beneficial effects on clinical outcomes such as cardiovascular events and mortality.

Integrating real-world data in cost-effectiveness analysis of universal HLA-B*15:02 screening in Malaysia.

AIMS: Despite the availability of newer antiseizure medications, carbamazepine (CBZ) remains the gold standard. However, patients of Asian ancestry are susceptible to CBZ-related severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Universal HLA-B*15:02 screening is a promising intervention to address this. With the increasing recognition of integrating real-world evidence in economic evaluations, the cost-effectiveness of universal HLA-B*15:02 screening was assessed using available real-world data in Malaysia. METHODS: A hybrid model of a decision tree and Markov model was developed to evaluate 3 strategies for treating newly diagnosed epilepsy among adults: (i) CBZ initiation without HLA-B*15:02 screening (current practice); (ii) universal HLA-B*15:02 screening prior to CBZ initiation; and (iii) alternative prescribing without HLA-B*15:02 screening. The model was populated with real-world inputs derived from the Malaysian population. From a societal perspective, base-case analysis and sensitivity analyses estimated the costs and outcomes over a lifetime. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. RESULTS: In the base-cases analysis, universal HLA-B*15:02 screening yielded the lowest total costs and the highest total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Compared with current practice, universal screening was less costly by USD100 and more effective by QALYs increase of 0.1306, while alternative prescribing resulted in 0.1383 QALYs loss at additional costs of USD332. The highest seizure remission rate (56%) was estimated for universal HLA-B*15:02 screening vs. current practice (54%) and alternative prescribing (48%). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that universal HLA-B*15:02 screening is a cost-effective intervention in Malaysia. With the demonstrated value of real-world evidence in economic evaluations, more relevant standardization efforts should be emphasized to better inform decision-making.

Pneumococcal Vaccination in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) have significantly reduced disease burden caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, a leading cause of childhood morbidity and mortality globally. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the incremental net benefit (INB) of the 13-valent PCV (PCV13) and 10-valent PCV (PCV10) in children. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published before May 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of PCV13 or PCV10 compared with no vaccination or with each other in children. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were calculated and then pooled across studies stratified by country income level, perspective, and consideration of herd effects, using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Seventy studies were included. When herd effects were considered, PCV13 was cost-effective compared with PCV10 from the payer perspective in both high-income countries (HICs) (INB, $103.94; 95% confidence interval, $75.28-$132.60) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (INB, $53.49; 95% confidence interval, $30.42-$76.55) with statistical significance. These findings were robust across a series of sensitivity analyses. PCV13 was cost-effective compared with no vaccination across perspectives and consideration of herd effects in both HICs and LMICs, whereas findings were less consistent for PCV10. CONCLUSION: PCVs were generally cost-effective compared with no vaccination in HICs and LMICs. Our study found that PCV13 was cost-effective compared with PCV10 when herd effects were considered from the payer perspective in both HICs and LMICs. The results are sensitive to the consideration of herd effects.

Incremental net monetary benefit of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of using biologic therapies as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published until April 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness analyses reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year or life-year on any biologic therapies as an add-on treatment for moderate to severe asthma in patients of all ages. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were pooled across studies using a random-effects model, stratified by country income level (high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)) and perspectives (health care or payer perspective (HCPP) and societal perspective (SP)) and age group (>12 years and 6-11 years). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: A total of 32 comparisons from 25 studies were included. Pooled INB indicated that the use of omalizumab as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in those aged >12 years was not cost-effective in HICs from the HCPP (n = 8, INB, -6,341 (95% CI, -$25,000 to $12,210), I2=86.18%) and SP (n = 5, -$14,000 (-$170,000 to $140,000), I2=75.64%). A similar finding was observed in those aged 6-11 years from the HCPP in LMICs (n = 2, -$45,000 (-$73,000 to $17,000), I2=00.00%). Subgroup analyses provided no explanations of the potential sources of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The use of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma is not cost-effective compared to standard treatment alone.

A scoping review of direct oral anticoagulant ambulatory management practices.

Models of care for managing direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy are evolving. Little is known of what services are provided by anticoagulation managements services (AMS) for DOACs, or what necessitates comprehensive DOAC management and what differentiates it from usual care. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe services, management, or monitoring of DOACs distinct from prescriber-managed or usual care of DOACs. This scoping review reported followed the 2018 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE from inception to November 2020 to identify articles of interest. No language restriction was applied. Articles were included if they provided a description of DOAC management services, and described longitudinal anticoagulation follow-up that occurred in ambulatory care, community, or outpatient-related settings. Data was extracted from a total of 23 articles. The specific types of DOAC management interventions provided varied across the included studies. Nearly all studies described some form of DOAC therapy appropriateness assessment. Other common interventions included assessments of DOAC therapy compliance, adverse event triage and management, assessment of DOAC dosing appropriateness, periprocedural management of DOAC therapy, educational interventions, and renal function monitoring. A variety of DOAC management interventions were identified, but additional studies are needed to help health systems decide whether specific interventions performed by dedicated services are preferred over the usual care provided by clinicians prescribing DOAC therapy.

The economic burden associated with stillbirth: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the economic burden of stillbirth is limited. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify studies focusing on the economic burden of stillbirth, describe the methods used, and summarize the findings. METHOD: We performed a systematic search in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and EconLit from inception to July 2021. Original studies reporting the cost of illness, economic burden, or health care expenditures related to stillbirth were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated study quality using the Larg and Moss checklist. A narrative synthesis was performed. Costs were presented in US dollars (US$) in 2020. RESULTS: From the 602 records identified, a total of four studies were included. Eligible studies were from high-income countries. Only one study estimated both direct and indirect costs. Among three cost-of-illness studies, two studies undertook a prevalence-based approach. The quality of these studies varied and was substantially under-reported. Four studies describing direct costs ranged from $6934 to $9220 per stillbirth. Indirect costs account for around 97% of overall costs. No studies have incorporated intangible cost components. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of stillbirth has been underestimated and not extensively studied. There are no data on the cost of stillbirth from countries that bear a higher burden of stillbirth. Extensive variation in methodologies and cost components was observed in the studies reviewed. Future research should incorporate all costs, including intangible costs, to provide a comprehensive picture of the true economic impact of stillbirth on society.

Efficacy and safety of herbal medicine on dementia and cognitive function: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

This study aims to summarize the effects of herbs on dementia and assess the strength of evidence. Six international and local databases were searched from inception to October 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials investigated the effects of herbal medicine on dementia or cognitive function. Two researchers independently extracted data, assessed the methodological quality, and rated the credibility of evidence according to established criteria. Thirty-seven articles evaluating 13 herbal medicines were included. Of these, 65% were rated critically low using AMSTAR2. Of 90 unique outcomes, 41 (45.6%) were statistically significant based on random effects model (p ≤ .05). Only 3 herbs were supported by suggestive evidence whereas the others were supported by weak evidence. The suggestive evidence supported benefits of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) plus pharmacotherapy (WMD:1.84; 95% CI: 1.34, 2.35) and Vinpocetine (WMD: -0.94; 95%CI: -1.50, -0.38) on improving cognitive function assessing by Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Syndrom-Kurz-Test, respectively. Moreover, suggestive evidence supported benefit of Huperzia serrata on improving Activities of Daily Living (WMD:-7.18; 95%CI: -9.12, -5.23). No SAE was reported. In conclusion, several herbs were used for improving dementia and cognitive function but recent evidence were limited by the small sample size and poor methodological quality. Therefore, further large and well-designed studies are needed to support the evidence.

Clinical and economic implications of increasing access to herpes zoster vaccination rate in community pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: A community pharmacist plays an important role in providing vaccination to the general public in the United States. No economic models have been used to assess the impact of these services on public health and economic benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the clinical and economic implications of community pharmacy-based herpes zoster (HZ) vaccination services with a hypothetical scenario of nonpharmacy-based vaccination in the State of Utah. METHODS: A hybrid model of decision tree and Markov models was used to estimate lifetime cost and health outcomes. This open-cohort model was populated based on Utah population statistics and included a population of 50 years and older who were eligible for HZ vaccination between the years 2010 and 2020. Data were derived from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Utah Immunization Coverage Report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the CDC National Health Interview Survey, and existing literature. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective. A lifetime time horizon was used. The primary outcomes were the number of vaccination cases increased and the number of shingles and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) cases averted. Total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were also estimated. RESULTS: Based on a cohort of 853,550 people eligible for HZ vaccination in Utah, an additional 11,576 individuals were vaccinated in the community pharmacy-based scenario compared with the nonpharmacy-based vaccination, resulting in 706 averted cases of shingles and 143 averted cases of PHN. Community pharmacy-based HZ vaccination was less costly (-$131,894) and gained more QALYs (52.2) compared with the nonpharmacy-based vaccination. A series of sensitivity analyses showed that the findings were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacy-based HZ vaccination was less costly and gained more QALYs and was associated with improved other clinical outcomes in the State of Utah. This study might be used as a model for future evaluations of other community pharmacy-based vaccination programs in the United States.

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacologic interventions to prevent mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic interventions to prevent vertical transmission of the hepatitis B virus. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched up to October 28, 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials reporting vertical hepatitis B virus transmission with pharmacologic intervention were included. METHODS: Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool, version 2. Treatment efficacy was estimated using stratified network meta-analysis on the basis of maternal hepatitis B envelope antigen status. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included for mothers positive for hepatitis B surface and envelope antigens. Pooling indicated that a combination of hepatitis B vaccination and hepatitis B immunoglobulin in infants significantly reduced transmission risk compared with vaccination alone, with a risk ratio of 0.52 (95% confidence interval; 0.30-0.91). Only the addition of maternal tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, but not telbivudine, lamivudine, or maternal hepatitis B immunoglobulin further reduced transmission risk compared with a combination of hepatitis B vaccination and hepatitis B immunoglobulin in infants, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.10 (0.03-0.35). Twelve studies conducted in mothers with hepatitis B surface antigen positivity and mixed, unknown, or negative hepatitis B envelope antigen status provided limited evidence to suggest that maternal hepatitis B immunoglobulin combined with hepatitis B vaccination and immunoglobulin in infants was the likely best treatment, but this failed to reach statistical significance compared with a combination of hepatitis B vaccination and immunoglobulin in infants. Similarly, infant hepatitis B immunoglobulin, added to vaccination, likely provides additional benefit but failed to reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: A combination of hepatitis B vaccination and immunoglobulin in infants is the cornerstone for prevention of vertical transmission for mothers positive for both hepatitis B surface and envelope antigens. The addition of maternal tenofovir to this infant combination regimen was considered the likely most effective treatment. For infants of mothers with hepatitis B surface antigen positivity and mixed, unknown, or negative hepatitis B envelop antigen status, no additional agents provided further benefit beyond hepatitis B vaccination alone.

Effects of pharmacist interventions on cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes: An umbrella review of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: To grade the evidence from published meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed effects of pharmacist intervention on cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to July 2021. Meta-analyses of RCTs were eligible. Quality of evidence were assessed by GRADE approach. RESULTS: From 9308 publications, 149 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility, and 24 studies with 85 unique meta-analyses that assessed effects of pharmacist intervention on cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular outcomes were selected. Overall, 71.7% (61/85) of unique meta-analyses showed significant impacts of pharmacist intervention. For the quality of evidence, 63.4% of meta-analyses had large heterogeneity (I2 > 50%) while 1.2, 16.5, 32.9 and 49.4% of meta-analyses were graded as high, moderate, low and very low quality based on GRADE approach, respectively. Among meta-analyses with moderate quality, pharmacist interventions significantly mitigated risk factors (including 6/3 mmHg reduction of blood pressure, increased the rate of lipid control, glucose control and smoking cessation (pooled odds ratio, [95% confidence interval] 1.91 [1.55, 2.35], 3.11 [2.3, 4.3] and 2.3 [1.33, 3.97], respectively) and improved medication adherence (1.67 [1.38, 2.02]). Furthermore, pharmacist interventions significantly reduced all-cause mortality (0.72 [0.58, 0.89]) and improved quality of life in patients suffering from chronic heart failure. CONCLUSION: This umbrella review found convincing evidence that pharmacist intervention can provide a wide range of benefits in cardiovascular disease management, ranging from risk factor control, improvement in medication adherence and, in some settings, reduction in morbidity and mortality.

Association of proton-pump inhibitor use with adverse health outcomes: A systematic umbrella review of meta-analyses of cohort studies and randomised controlled trials.

AIMS: The aim was to perform an umbrella review to summarise the existing evidence on proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use and adverse outcomes and to grade the certainty of evidence. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to July 2021 for meta-analyses of cohort studies and/or randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Summary effect sizes from a random-effects model, between-study heterogeneity, 95% prediction interval, small-study effect, excess significance and credibility ceilings were devised to classify the credibility of evidence from meta-analyses of cohort studies, whereas the GRADE approach was used for meta-analyses of RCTs. RESULTS: In meta-analyses of cohort studies, 52 of the 91 examined associations were statistically significant (P ≤ .05). Convincing evidence emerged from main analysis for the association between PPI use and risk of all-site fracture and chronic kidney disease in the elderly population. However, none of these associations remained supported by convincing evidence after sensitivity analyses. The use of PPI is also associated with an increased risk of mortality due to COVID-19 infection and other related adverse outcomes, but the quality of evidence was weak. In meta-analyses of RCTs, 38 of the 63 examined associations were statistically significant. However, no associations were supported by high or moderate-quality evidence. CONCLUSION: This study's findings imply that most putative adverse outcomes associated with PPI use may not be supported by high-quality evidence and are likely to have been affected by underlying confounding factors. Future research is needed to confirm the causal association between PPI use and risk of fracture and chronic kidney disease.

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.

Efficacy and safety of urate-lowering agents in asymptomatic hyperuricemia: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic hyperuricemia was found to be associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk but the potential benefits of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) with frequentist model to estimate the efficacy and safety of ULT in asymptomatic hyperuricemia. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of adults with asymptomatic hyperuricemia were eligible if they compared any pair of ULTs (i.e., allopurinol, febuxostat, probenecid, benzbromarone, sulfinpyrazone, rasburicase, lesinurad, and topiroxostat) and placebo or no ULT, and had outcomes of interest, including composite renal events, major adverse cardiovascular events, serum urate levels, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), systolic blood pressure, and adverse events. RESULTS: NMA with frequentist approach was applied to estimate relative treatment effects, i.e., risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). A total of 23 RCTs were eligible. NMA identified beneficial effects of ULT on composite renal events and eGFR but not for other outcomes. Allopurinol and febuxostat had significantly lower composite renal events than placebo (RR 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.66, and RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.99, respectively). Both treatments also resulted in significantly higher eGFR than placebo (MD 3.69 ml/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 1.31 to 6.08, and MD 2.89 ml/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 0.69 to 5.09, respectively). No evidence of inconsistency was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that allopurinol and febuxostat are the ULTs of choice in reducing composite renal events and improving renal function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42019145908. The date of the first registration was 12th November 2019.

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.

Meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies: data harmonisation and methodological issues.

BACKGROUND: In the context of ever-growing health expenditure and limited resources, economic evaluations aid in making evidence-informed policy decisions. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is often used, and CUA data synthesis is also desirable, but methodological issues are challenged. Hence, we aim to provide a step-by-step process to prepare the CUA data for meta-analysis. METHODS: Data harmonisation methods were constructed specifically considering CUA methodology, including inconsistent reports, economic parameters, heterogeneity (i.e., country's income, time horizon, perspective, modelling approaches, currency, willingness to pay). An incremental net benefit (INB) and its variance were estimated and pooled across studies using a basic meta-analysis by COMER. RESULTS: Five scenarios show how to obtain INB and variance with various reported data: Study reports the mean and variance (Scenario 1) or 95% confidence interval (Scenario 2) of ΔC, ΔE, and ICER for INB/variance calculations. Scenario 3: ΔC, ΔE, and variances are available, but not for the ICER; a Monte Carlo was used to simulate ΔC and ΔE data, variance and covariance can be then estimated leading INB calculation. Scenario-4: Only the CE plane was available, ΔC and ΔE data can be extracted; means of ΔC, ΔE, and variance/covariance can be estimated accordingly, leading to INB/variance estimates. Scenario-5: Only mean cost/outcomes and ICER are available but not for variance and the CE-plane. A variance INB can be borrowed from other studies which are similar characteristics, including country income, ICERs, intervention-comparator, time period, country region, and model type and inputs (i.e., discounting, time horizon). CONCLUSION: Out data harmonisation and meta-analytic methods should be useful for researchers for the synthesis of economic evidence to aid policymakers 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.