Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards for Interventions That Use Artificial Intelligence (CHEERS-AI).

OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations (EEs) are commonly used by decision makers to understand the value of health interventions. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) provide reporting guidelines for EEs. Healthcare systems will increasingly see new interventions that use artificial intelligence (AI) to perform their function. We developed Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards for Interventions that use AI (CHEERS-AI) to ensure EEs of AI-based health interventions are reported in a transparent and reproducible manner. METHODS: Potential CHEERS-AI reporting items were informed by 2 published systematic literature reviews of EEs and a contemporary update. A Delphi study was conducted using 3 survey rounds to elicit multidisciplinary expert views on 26 potential items, through a 9-point Likert rating scale and qualitative comments. An online consensus meeting was held to finalize outstanding reporting items. A digital health patient group reviewed the final checklist from a patient perspective. RESULTS: A total of 58 participants responded to survey round 1, 42, and 31 of whom responded to rounds 2 and 3, respectively. Nine participants joined the consensus meeting. Ultimately, 38 reporting items were included in CHEERS-AI. They comprised the 28 original CHEERS 2022 items, plus 10 new AI-specific reporting items. Additionally, 8 of the original CHEERS 2022 items were elaborated on to ensure AI-specific nuance is reported. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS-AI should be used when reporting an EE of an intervention that uses AI to perform its function. CHEERS-AI will help decision makers and reviewers to understand important AI-specific details of an intervention, and any implications for the EE methods used and cost-effectiveness conclusions.

IPECAD Modeling Workshop 2023 Cross Comparison Challenge on Cost-Effectiveness Models in Alzheimer's Disease.

OBJECTIVES: Decision-analytic models assessing the value of emerging Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatments are challenged by limited evidence on short-term trial outcomes and uncertainty in extrapolating long-term patient-relevant outcomes. To improve understanding and foster transparency and credibility in modeling methods, we cross-compared AD decision models in a hypothetical context of disease-modifying treatment for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD. METHODS: A benchmark scenario (US setting) was used with target population MCI due to AD and a set of synthetically generated hypothetical trial efficacy estimates. Treatment costs were excluded. Model predictions (10-year horizon) were assessed and discussed during a 2-day workshop. RESULTS: Nine modeling groups provided model predictions. Implementation of treatment effectiveness varied across models based on trial efficacy outcome selection (CDR-SB, CDR-global, MMSE, FAQ) and analysis method (observed severity transitions, change from baseline, progression hazard ratio, or calibration to these). Predicted mean time in MCI ranged from 2.6-5.2 years for control strategy, and from 0.1-1.0 years for difference between intervention and control strategies. Predicted quality-adjusted life-year gains ranged from 0.0-0.6 and incremental costs (excluding treatment costs) from -US$66,897 to US$11,896. CONCLUSIONS: Trial data can be implemented in different ways across health-economic models leading to large variation in model predictions. We recommend 1) addressing the choice of outcome measure and treatment effectiveness assumptions in sensitivity analysis, 2) a standardized reporting table for model predictions, and 3) exploring the use of registries for future AD treatments measuring long-term disease progression to reduce uncertainty of extrapolating short-term trial results by health economic models.

New International Pharmaco-Economic Collaboration on Alzheimer's Disease (IPECAD) Open-Source Model Framework for the Health Technology Assessment of Early Alzheimer's Disease Treatment: Development and Use Cases.

OBJECTIVES: Reimbursement decisions for new Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatments are informed by economic evaluations. An open-source model with intuitive structure for model cross-validation can support the transparency and credibility of such evaluations. We describe the new International Pharmaco-Economic Collaboration on Alzheimer's Disease (IPECAD) open-source model framework (version 2) for the health-economic evaluation of early AD treatment and use it for cross-validation and addressing uncertainty. METHODS: A cohort state-transition model using a categorized composite domain (cognition and function) was developed by replicating an existing reference model and testing it for internal validity. Then, features of existing Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) and Alzheimer's Disease Archimedes Condition-Event Simulator (AD-ACE) models assessing lecanemab treatment were implemented for model cross-validation. Additional uncertainty scenarios were performed on choice of efficacy outcome from trial, natural disease progression, treatment effect waning and stopping rules, and other methodological choices. The model is available open-source as R code, spreadsheet, and web-based version via https://github.com/ronhandels/IPECAD. RESULTS: In the IPECAD model incremental life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gains and cost savings were 21% to 31% smaller compared with the ICER model and 36% to 56% smaller compared with the AD-ACE model. IPECAD model results were particularly sensitive to assumptions on treatment effect waning and stopping rules and choice of efficacy outcome from trial. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the ability of a new IPECAD open-source model framework for researchers and decision makers to cross-validate other (Health Technology Assessment submission) models and perform additional uncertainty analyses, setting an example for open science in AD decision modeling and supporting important reimbursement decisions.

Health economic evaluation of blended collaborative care for older multimorbid heart failure patients: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care, in particular the 'Blended Collaborative Care (BCC)' strategy, may have the potential to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in multimorbid patients with heart failure (HF) and psychosocial burden at no or low additional cost. The ESCAPE trial is a randomised controlled trial for the evaluation of a BCC approach in five European countries. For the economic evaluation of alongside this trial, the four main objectives were: (i) to document the costs of delivering the intervention, (ii) to assess the running costs across study sites, (iii) to evaluate short-term cost-effectiveness and cost-utility compared to providers' usual care, and (iv) to examine the budgetary implications. METHODS: The trial-based economic analyses will include cross-country cost-effectiveness and cost-utility assessments from a payer perspective. The cost-utility analysis will calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D-5L and national value sets. Cost-effectiveness will include the cost per hospital admission avoided and the cost per depression-free days (DFD). Resource use will be measured from different sources, including electronic medical health records, standardised questionnaires, patient receipts and a care manager survey. Uncertainty will be addressed using bootstrapping. DISCUSSION: The various methods and approaches used for data acquisition should provide insights into the potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of a BCC intervention. Providing the economic evaluation of ESCAPE will contribute to a country-based structural and organisational planning of BCC (e.g., the number of patients that may benefit, how many care managers are needed). Improved care is expected to enhance health-related quality of life at little or no extra cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study follows CHEERS2022 and is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00025120).

Mapping of Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores to EQ-5D: algorithm to calculate utility values.

OBJECTIVE: Although decision scientists and health economists encourage inclusion of family member/informal carer utility in health economic evaluation, there is a lack of suitable utility measures comparable to patient utility measures such those based on the EQ-5D. This study aims to predict EQ-5D-3L utility values from Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores, to allow the use of FROM-16 data in health economic evaluation when EQ-5D data is not available. METHODS: Data from 4228 family members/partners of patients recruited to an online cross-sectional study through 58 UK-based patient support groups, three research support platforms and Welsh social services departments were randomly divided five times into two groups, to derive and test a mapping model. Split-half cross-validation was employed, resulting in a total of ten multinomial logistic regression models. The Monte Carlo simulation procedure was used to generate predicted EQ-5D-3L responses, and utility scores were calculated and compared against observed values. Mean error and mean absolute error were calculated for all ten validation models. The final model algorithm was derived using the entire sample. RESULTS: The model was highly predictive, and its repeated fitting using multinomial logistic regression demonstrated a stable model. The mean differences between predicted and observed health utility estimates ranged from 0.005 to 0.029 across the ten modelling exercises, with an average overall difference of 0.015 (a 2.2% overestimate, not of clinical importance). CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm developed will enable researchers and decision scientists to calculate EQ-5D health utility estimates from FROM-16 scores, thus allowing the inclusion of the family impact of disease in health economic evaluation of medical interventions when EQ-5D data is not available.

Health-economic evaluation of orthogeriatric co-management for patients with pelvic or vertebral fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND: Orthogeriatric co-management (OGCM) addresses the special needs of geriatric fracture patients. Most of the research on OGCM focused on hip fractures while results concerning other severe fractures are rare. We conducted a health-economic evaluation of OGCM for pelvic and vertebral fractures. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used German health and long-term care insurance claims data and included cases of geriatric patients aged 80 years or older treated in an OGCM (OGCM group) or a non-OGCM hospital (non-OGCM group) due to pelvic or vertebral fractures in 2014-2018. We analyzed life years gained, fracture-free life years gained, healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness within 1 year. We applied entropy balancing, weighted gamma and two-part models. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: We included 21,036 cases with pelvic (71.2% in the OGCM, 28.8% in the non-OGCM group) and 33,827 with vertebral fractures (72.8% OGCM, 27.2% non-OGCM group). 4.5-5.9% of the pelvic and 31.8-33.8% of the vertebral fracture cases were treated surgically. Total healthcare costs were significantly higher after treatment in OGCM compared to non-OGCM hospitals for both fracture cohorts. For both fracture cohorts, a 95% probability of cost-effectiveness was not exceeded for a willingness-to-pay of up to €150,000 per life year or €150,000 per fracture-free life year gained. CONCLUSION: We did not obtain distinct benefits of treatment in an OGCM hospital. Assigning cases to OGCM or non-OGCM group on hospital level might have underestimated the effect of OGCM as not all patients in the OGCM group have received OGCM.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation of elderly frail or pre-frail patients prior to elective surgery (PRAEP-GO) versus usual care - Protocol for a health economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation aims to improve patients' functional capacity before surgery to reduce perioperative complications, promote recovery and decrease probability of disability. The planned economic evaluation is performed alongside a large German multi-centre pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, randomized controlled trial on prehabilitation for frail elderly patients before elective surgery compared to standard care (PRAEP-GO RCT). The aim is to determine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of prehabilitation for frail elderly before an elective surgery. METHODS: The planned health economic evaluation comprises cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Analyses are conducted in the German context from different perspectives including the payer perspective, i.e. the statutory health insurance, the societal perspective and the health care provider perspective. Data on outcomes and costs, are collected alongside the ongoing PRAEP-GO RCT. The trial population includes frail or pre-frail patients aged ≥70 years with planned elective surgery. The intervention consists of frailty screening (Fried phenotype), a shared decision-making conference determining modality (physiotherapy and unsupervised physical exercises, nutrition counselling, etc.) and setting (inpatient, day care, outpatient etc.) of a 3-week individual multimodal prehabilitation prior to surgery. The control group receives standard preoperative care. Costs include the intervention costs, the costs of the index hospital stay for surgery, and health care resources consumed during a 12-month follow-up. Clinical effectiveness outcomes included in the economic evaluation are the level of care dependency, the degree of disability as measured by the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), quality-adjusted life years (QALY) derived from the EQ-5D-5L and the German utility set, and complications occurring during the index hospital stay. Each adopted perspective considers different types of costs and outcomes as outlined in the protocol. All analyses will feature Intention-To-Treat analysis. To explore methodological and parametric uncertainties, we will conduct probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses will be performed as secondary analyses. DISCUSSION: The health economic evaluation will provide insights into the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation in older frail populations, informing decision-making processes and contributing to the evidence base in this field. Potential limitation includes a highly heterogeneous trial population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRAEP-GO RCT: NCT04418271; economic evaluation: OSF ( https://osf.io/ecm74 ).

Electronic monitoring versus manual paper-based monitoring for hand hygiene compliance: a comprehensive health economic assessment analysis.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring hand hygiene compliance (HHC) of healthcare providers (HCPs) in healthcare facilities is critical for hand hygiene (HH) promotion. However, less is known about the cost and effectiveness of different HHC monitoring tools. In this study, we aimed to compare various health economic indicators corresponding to electronic system-based monitoring (ESM) and manual paper-based monitoring (MPM) for HHC to provide evidence-based advice for HHC monitoring measures targeted selecting. METHODS: A before and after study in 40 clinical departments with 4,524 healthcare providers was conducted from December 2022 to January 2023 (MPM implementation phase) and March 2023 to May 2023 (ESM implementation phase). The cost-effectiveness, cost-efficiency, the extent of the Hawthorne effect, and indirect cost-benefit of the two monitoring methods were compared. RESULTS: The total cost spent on ESM for the 40 departments (17,702.92 CNY) was 4,123.76 CNY lower than that of MPM (21,826.68 CNY). The HHC of MPM (80.16%) was higher than that of ESM (69.82%) (p < 0.01). In high- and medium-risk departments, the cost-effectiveness ratio of ESM (7,977.90 CNY and 13,794.60 CNY, respectively) was lower than that of MPM (9,039.61 CNY and 14,549.05 CNY, respectively). In low-risk departments, the cost-effectiveness ratio of ESM (3,910.77 CNY) was higher than that of MPM (3,899.06 CNY). Compared with ESM, the incremental cost of MPM in all departments was 4,123.76 CNY, the incremental effectiveness was 10.34%, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 39,881.62 CNY. Between the two monitoring methods, the efficiency of ESM (48.11%) in all departments was higher than that of MPM (14.20%) (p < 0.01). The cost-efficiency ratio of MPM in all departments (155,775.56 CNY) was higher than that of ESM (36,796.76 CNY). The extent of Hawthorne effect of MPM of HHC in all departments (43.99%) was higher than that of ESM (35.69%) (p < 0.01). When ESM was used as the HHC monitoring approach, the HAI rates (1.39%) in all departments were higher than that when MPM was used (1.34%) (p = 0.562). When the payment willingness was less than 40,000 CNY, the ESM method was the better option for cost-effectiveness; When the input exceeded this threshold, the MPM method was the better option for cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: ESM exhibited notable advantages over MPM in terms of cost-effectiveness, cost-efficiency, cost-benefit, and the Hawthorne effect.

Health-economic evaluation of orthogeriatric co-management for patients with forearm or humerus fractures: an analysis of insurance claims data from Germany.

Orthogeriatric co-management (OGCM) describes a collaboration of orthopedic surgeons and geriatricians for the treatment of fragility fractures in geriatric patients. While its cost-effectiveness for hip fractures has been widely investigated, research focusing on fractures of the upper extremities is lacking. Thus, we conducted a health economic evaluation of treatment in OGCM hospitals for forearm and humerus fractures.In a retrospective cohort study with nationwide health insurance claims data, we selected the first inpatient stay due to a forearm or humerus fracture in 2014-2018 either treated in hospitals that were able to offer OGCM (OGCM group) or not (non-OGCM group) and applied a 1-year follow-up. We included 31,557 cases with forearm (63.1% OGCM group) and 39,093 cases with humerus fractures (63.9% OGCM group) and balanced relevant covariates using entropy balancing. We investigated costs in different health sectors, length of stay, and cost-effectiveness regarding total cost per life year or fracture-free life year gained.In both fracture cohorts, initial hospital stay, inpatient stay, and total costs were higher in OGCM than in non-OGCM hospitals. For neither cohort nor effectiveness outcome, the probability that treatment in OGCM hospitals was cost-effective exceeded 95% for a willingness-to-pay of up to €150,000.We did not find distinct benefits of treatment in OGCM hospitals. Assigning cases to study groups on hospital-level and using life years and fracture-free life years, which might not adequately reflect the manifold ways these fractures affect the patients' health, as effectiveness outcomes, might have underestimated the effectiveness of treatment in OGCM hospitals.

Health economic evaluation of weight reduction interventions in individuals suffering from overweight or obesity and a musculoskeletal diagnosis-a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Most of the worldwide population is overweight and suffers from the resulting musculoskeletal comorbidities such as knee osteoarthritis or back pain. Practice guidelines recommend weight loss interventions for individuals suffering from these conditions. This systematic review investigated whether including a weight loss intervention in the musculoskeletal therapy of these individuals was cost-effective compared to administering the musculoskeletal therapy alone. METHODS: This study followed the PRISMA guidelines to systematically and independently search six databases and select full health economic evaluations published up to May 2024 from health care or societal perspectives according to predefined eligibility criteria. Cost data were standardised to 2023 Belgium Euros. The methodological quality was assessed using two health economic-specific checklists. RESULTS: The searches produced 5'305 references, of which 8 studies were selected for a total of 1'726 participants. The interventions consisted of different exercise plans and nutritional targets. Six values were in the north-eastern; leading to increased quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and higher costs; and two in the south-eastern quadrant of the cost-utility plane; leading to increased QALYs and lower costs. Two studies observed no differences in QALYs. Incremental cost utility ratios (ICUR) ranged from €13'580.10 to €34'412.40 per additional QALY from a healthcare perspective. From a societal perspective, the ICUR was €30'274.84. The included studies fulfilled 86 percent of the criteria in trial-based economic evaluations and 57 percent in model-based economic evaluations. The most common limitations of the studies were related to appropriate cost measures' specifications, research questions, time horizon choices, and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review showed weak but consistent evidence of cost-effectiveness for adding a weight loss intervention to musculoskeletal therapy for individuals with overweight, from either perspective. Further economic evaluations should evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols INPLASY (2022,110,122).

The economic impact of anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains a burdensome complication following colorectal surgery, with increased morbidity, oncological compromise, and mortality. AL may impose a substantial financial burden on hospitals and society due to extensive resource utilization. Estimated costs associated with AL are important when exploring preventive measures and treatment strategies. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the existing literature on (socio)economic costs associated with AL after colorectal surgery, appraise their quality, compare reported outcomes, and identify knowledge gaps. METHODS: Health economic evaluations reporting costs related to AL after colorectal surgery were identified through searching multiple online databases until June 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated the quality using an adapted version of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. Extracted costs were converted to 2022 euros (€) and also adjusted for purchasing power disparities among countries. RESULTS: From 1980 unique abstracts, 59 full-text publications were assessed for eligibility, and 17 studies were included in the review. The incremental costs of AL after correcting for purchasing power disparity ranged from €2250 (+39.9%, Romania) to €83,633 (+ 513.1%, Brazil). Incremental costs were mainly driven by hospital (re)admission, intensive care stay, and reinterventions. Only one study estimated the economic societal burden of AL between €1.9 and €6.1 million. CONCLUSIONS: AL imposes a significant financial burden on hospitals and social care systems. The magnitude of costs varies greatly across countries and data on the societal burden and non-medical costs are scarce. Adherence to international reporting standards is essential to understand international disparities and to externally validate reported cost estimates.

[Mental health problems among employees: service use and costs to the German healthcare system]. / Psychische Belastungen bei Erwerbstätigen: Leistungsinanspruchnahme und Kosten für das deutsche Gesundheitssystem.

BACKGROUND: Service use among employees with mental health problems and the associated costs for the health and social system have not yet been systematically analysed in studies or have only been recorded indirectly. The aim of this article is to report the service use in this target group, to estimate the costs for the health and social system and to identify possible influencing factors on the cost variance. METHODS: As part of a multicentre study, use and costs of health and social services were examined for a sample of 550 employees with mental health problems. Service use was recorded using the German version of the Client Sociodemographic Service Receipt Inventory (CSSRI). Costs were calculated for six months. A generalized linear regression model was used to examine influencing cost factors. RESULTS: At the start of the study, the average total costs for the past six months in the sample were €â€¯5227.12 per person (standard deviation €â€¯7704.21). The regression model indicates significant associations between increasing costs with increasing age and for people with depression, behavioural syndromes with physiological symptoms, and other diagnoses. DISCUSSION: The calculated costs were similar in comparison to clinical samples. It should be further examined in longitudinal studies whether this result changes through specific interventions.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting. RESULTS: We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied). CONCLUSIONS: The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.

Prioritization of intervention domains to prevent cardiovascular disease: a country-level case study using global burden of disease and local data.

AIM: We aimed to combine Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study data and local data to identify the highest priority intervention domains for preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the case study country of Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). METHODS: Risk factor data for CVD in NZ were extracted from the GBD using the "GBD Results Tool." We prioritized risk factor domains based on consideration of the size of the health burden (disability-adjusted life years [DALYs]) and then by the domain-specific interventions that delivered the highest health gains and cost-savings. RESULTS: Based on the size of the CVD health burden in DALYs, the five top prioritized risk factor domains were: high systolic blood pressure (84,800 DALYs; 5400 deaths in 2019), then dietary risk factors, then high LDL cholesterol, then high BMI and then tobacco (30,400 DALYs; 1400 deaths). But if policy-makers aimed to maximize health gain and cost-savings from specific interventions that have been studied, then they would favor the dietary risk domain (e.g., a combined fruit and vegetable subsidy plus a sugar tax produced estimated lifetime savings of 894,000 health-adjusted life years and health system cost-savings of US$11.0 billion; both 3% discount rate). Other potential considerations for prioritization included the potential for total health gain that includes non-CVD health loss and potential for achieving relatively greater per capita health gain for Maori (Indigenous) to reduce health inequities. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to show how CVD risk factor domains could be systematically prioritized using a mix of GBD and country-level data. Addressing high systolic blood pressure would be the top ranked domain if policy-makers focused just on the size of the health loss. But if policy-makers wished to maximize health gain and cost-savings using evaluated interventions, dietary interventions would be prioritized, e.g., food taxes and subsidies.

The influence of COVID-19 epidemic on the number of orthopaedic surgeries in Japan.

BACKGROUND: There is limited data on the impact of COVID-19 epidemic on the number of orthopaedic surgeries in Japan. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide hospital survey asking for the monthly number of orthopaedic surgeries performed at each facility from January 2019 to June 2021. Those facilities that had performed at least 100 surgeries in 2019 were included for analyses. The facilities were further grouped by prefecture and by hospital characteristics. A brief health economic evaluation was also performed. Risk ratios were compared using univariate analyses with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Questionnaire was sent to 1988 hospitals with 1671 hospitals (84%) responding. The survey data indicated a total number of orthopaedic surgeries decreased in 2020 compared to 2019 (1,061,541 vs 1,119,955 P < 0.01), and also for the first six months of 2021 compared to the same period in 2019 (530,388 vs 550,378 P < 0.01). In 2020, over 50% of all facilities in nearly all of the prefectures saw a decline in surgical procedures. The risk of incurring more than a 25% decease in the number of surgeries was significantly higher in 2020 for class I designated medical institutions compared to those that were not designated for any types of infectious diseases among the institutions with a tertiary emergency medical center in 2020 (crude risk ratio 2.9: 95% CI 1.2-7.4, p = 0.02) and in 2021 (crude risk ratio 4.7: 95% CI 1 0.9-12.1, p < 0.01). The estimated total nationwide decrease of revenue were in the range of approximately ¥29.2 to ¥116.8 billion per year for orthopaedic surgeries alone. CONCLUSION: There was a statistically significant decrease in the number of orthopaedic surgeries in Japan. The magnitude of the decline varied by prefectures and hospital characteristics, with the greater impact imposed on medical institutions with higher classification functions. The estimated immediate health economic impact was sizable.

[Utilization of routine data from different statutory health insurance funds: a practical report of experience from the TIM-HF2 study about data acquisition, validation, and processing]. / Nutzung von Routinedaten unterschiedlicher gesetzlicher Krankenkassen: Ein Erfahrungsbericht aus der TIM-HF2-Studie zur Datenerschließung, -validierung und -aufbereitung.

BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled clinical trial "TIM-HF2" investigated the benefit of telemonitoring in chronic heart failure. The health economic evaluation of this intervention was based on routine data from statutory health insurance (SHI) funds. Since participants were recruited independently of their SHI affiliation, there was a large number of potential data-providing SHI funds. This resulted in both organizational and methodological challenges, from participation of the data providers to data preparation. METHOD: The procedures are described from study planning and data acquisition to data review and processing in the TIM-HF2 trial. Based on the identification of potential problems for data completeness and data quality, possible solutions have been derived. RESULTS: In total, participants were insured with 49 different SHI funds, which provided routine data for a total of 1450 participants. About half of all initial data deliveries were correct. The most common problems in data preparation occurred in the machine readability of the data. Success factors for a high level of data completeness were close communication with the SHI funds and a high level of time and personnel commitment to intensive data checking and preparation. DISCUSSION: Based on the experience of the TIM-HF2 trial, a high heterogeneity has been detected in data management and transmission of routine data. Universally applicable data descriptions are desired to improve data access, quality, and usability for research purposes.

Health economic evaluation on population-based Helicobacter pylori eradication and endoscopic screening for gastric cancer prevention.

Gastric cancer is a global public health burden, nearly one million new cases are diagnosed per year worldwide, of which 44% of cases occur in China. The prognosis of gastric cancer varies remarkably by the stage of cancer, and most of the patients in China are diagnosed at advanced stages, resulting in poor prognoses. Effective strategies to reduce the burden of gastric cancer include primary prevention through testing and treatment of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) and secondary prevention by screening and early detection. Although many countries have issued management guidelines and consensus reports concerning these strategies, the limited availability of healthcare resources often precludes their widespread implementation. Therefore, assessing the costs, benefits, and harms of population-based intervention measures through health economic evaluation is necessary for informed health policy decisions. Accordingly, we synthesize management approaches from different countries on H. pylori eradication and endoscopic screening, and also summarize recent advancements in health economic evaluations on population-based preventive strategies. The goal of the review is to provide empirical evidence supporting optimal resource allocation, maximizing benefits for the population, and ultimately reducing the burden of gastric cancer.

Gene panel to guide antiseizure medication prescribing: Does the cost justify the benefits?

Pharmacogenomics hold the potential to identify variants associated with adverse drug reactions and treatment efficacy of anti-seizure medications. A model-based cost-utility analysis by Gordon and colleagues showed that genetically-guided therapy costs more, yielded higher quality-adjusted life years outcomes, and was considered to be cost-effective compared to usual care. The study provided preliminary evidence on the value of pharmacogenetic testing in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. However, data input for the model was based on assumptions that need to be empirically tested. Further, there are many other factors that may affect the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing that need to be considered, including the model of service delivery, its implementation in complex clinical service, whether clinicians will modify treatment decisions based on pharmacogenetic information, and the fidelity with which recommendation on testing is adhered to in the real-world. The cost-effectiveness analysis should be repeated when more robust data on the effectiveness of pharmacogenetics are available and conducted alongside a budget impact analysis, incorporating the direct health care resources required to implement widespread testing and potential subsequent changes in treatment.

Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations Focused on Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: The Tortoise and the Cheetah.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review recent health economic evaluations (HEEs) of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare. The aim was to discuss pertinent methods, reporting quality and challenges for future implementation of AI in healthcare, and additionally advise future HEEs. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in 2 databases (PubMed and Scopus) for articles published in the last 5 years. Two reviewers performed independent screening, full-text inclusion, data extraction, and appraisal. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Philips checklist were used for the quality assessment of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 884 unique studies were identified; 20 were included for full-text review, covering a wide range of medical specialties and care pathway phases. The most commonly evaluated type of AI was automated medical image analysis models (n = 9, 45%). The prevailing health economic analysis was cost minimization (n = 8, 40%) with the costs saved per case as preferred outcome measure. A total of 9 studies (45%) reported model-based HEEs, 4 of which applied a time horizon >1 year. The evidence supporting the chosen analytical methods, assessment of uncertainty, and model structures was underreported. The reporting quality of the articles was moderate as on average studies reported on 66% of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards items. CONCLUSIONS: HEEs of AI in healthcare are limited and often focus on costs rather than health impact. Surprisingly, model-based long-term evaluations are just as uncommon as model-based short-term evaluations. Consequently, insight into the actual benefits offered by AI is lagging behind current technological developments.

Self-care time and rating of health state in persons with diabetes: results from the population-based KORA survey in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The amount of empirical research on whether people in fact include health-related changes in leisure time into health state valuations is limited and the results are inconclusive. In this exploratory study, we analyse whether time aspects of diabetes self-care might explain the ratings of the health state (HSR) in addition to the effects of physical and mental health-related quality of life. METHODS: Using the data from participants with diagnosed type 2 diabetes in the population-based KORA FF4 study (n = 190, 60% Male, mean age 69 ± 10 years), multiple logistic regression models were fitted to explain HSR (good vs. poor) in terms of the SF-12 physical and mental component summary (PCS and MCS) scores, time spent on diabetes self-care and a number of background variables. RESULTS: There was no significant association between time spent on diabetes self-care and HSR in models without interaction. Significant interaction term was found between the SF-12 PCS score and time spent on self-care. In models with interaction self-care time has a small, but significant impact on the HSR. In particular, for a PCS score under 40, more time increases the chance to rate the health state as "good", while for a PCS score above 40 there is a reverse effect. CONCLUSIONS: The additional impact of self-care time on HSR in our sample is small and seems to interact with physical health-related quality of life. More research is needed on whether inclusion of health-related leisure time changes in the denominator of cost-effectiveness analysis is sufficient.