Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We evaluated a random sample of health economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE during 2019. We included articles written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years, and/or disability-adjusted life years. Reproducible research practices, openness, and transparency in each article were extracted in duplicate. We explored whether reproducible research practices were associated with self-report use of a guideline. RESULTS: We included 200 studies published in 147 journals. Almost half were published as open access articles (n = 93; 47%). Most studies (n = 150; 75%) were model-based economic evaluations. In 109 (55%) studies, authors self-reported use a guideline (e.g., for study conduct or reporting). Few studies (n = 31; 16%) reported working from a protocol. In 112 (56%) studies, authors reported the data needed to recreate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case analysis. This percentage was higher in studies using a guideline than studies not using a guideline (72/109 [66%] with guideline vs. 40/91 [44%] without guideline; risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.15-1.97). Only 10 (5%) studies mentioned access to raw data and analytic code for reanalyses. CONCLUSION: Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in the field.

Future Role of Health Technology Assessment for Genomic Medicine in Oncology: A Canadian Laboratory Perspective.

Genome-based testing in oncology is a rapidly expanding area of health care that is the basis of the emerging area of precision medicine. The efficient and considered adoption of novel genomic medicine testing is hampered in Canada by the fragmented nature of health care oversight as well as by lack of clear and transparent processes to support rapid evaluation, assessment, and implementation of genomic tests. This article provides an overview of some key barriers and proposes approaches to addressing these challenges as a potential pathway to developing a national approach to genomic medicine in oncology.

Commentary: Advocating for patient and public involvement and engagement in health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care. MAIN TEXT: The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) is a reporting guideline for authors publishing health economic evaluations. We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the update of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. This need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient organisations could use to support their members to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement to build the evidence base for practice and may provide some reassurance to the public that their voice has played a part in evidence development. The CHEERS 2022 guide for patient representatives and patient organisations aims to support that endeavour by enabling deliberative discussions among patient organisations and their members. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care. MAIN TEXT: We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the development of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about patient and public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support patient and public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. The need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient representatives and patient organisations could use as support to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement in order to build the evidence base for practice. The CHEERS 2022 guide aims to support patient representatives and patient organisations to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.

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.

Progress toward Health System Readiness for Genome-Based Testing in Canada.

(1) Background: Genomic medicine harbors the real potential to improve the health and healthcare journey of patients, care provider experiences, and improve the health system efficiency-even reducing healthcare costs. There is expected to be an exponential growth in medically necessary new genome-based tests and test approaches in the coming years. Testing can also create scientific research and commercial opportunities beyond healthcare decision making. The purpose of this research is to generate a better understanding of Canada's state of readiness for genomic medicine, and to provide some insights for other healthcare systems. (2) Methods: A mixed-methods approach of a review of the literature and key informant interviews with a purposive sample of experts was used. The health system readiness was assessed using a previously published set of conditions. (3) Results: Canada has created some of the established conditions, but further action needs to be taken to improve the state of readiness for genome-based medicine. The important gaps to be filled are the need for linked information systems and data integration; evaluative processes that are timely and transparent; navigational tools for care providers; dedicated funding to facilitate rapid onboarding and support test development and proficiency testing; and broader engagement with innovation stakeholders beyond care providers and patients. These findings highlight the role of the organizational context, social influence, and other factors that are known to affect the diffusion of innovation within health systems.

Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Rating Tool to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Questions for the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration.

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug's perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health's Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

A Guide to Selecting Flexible Survival Models to Inform Economic Evaluations of Cancer Immunotherapies.

OBJECTIVES: Parametric models are routinely used to estimate the benefit of cancer drugs beyond trial follow-up. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors has challenged this paradigm, and emerging evidence suggests that more flexible survival models, which can better capture the shapes of complex hazard functions, might be needed for these interventions. Nevertheless, there is a need for an algorithm to help analysts decide whether flexible models are required and, if so, which should be chosen for testing. This position article has been produced to bridge this gap. METHODS: A virtual advisory board comprising 7 international experts with in-depth knowledge of survival analysis and health technology assessment was held in summer 2021. The experts discussed 24 questions across 6 topics: the current survival model selection procedure, data maturity, heterogeneity of treatment effect, cure and mortality, external evidence, and additions to existing guidelines. Their responses culminated in an algorithm to inform selection of flexible survival models. RESULTS: The algorithm consists of 8 steps and 4 questions. Key elements include the systematic identification of relevant external data, using clinical expert input at multiple points in the selection process, considering the future and the observed hazard functions, assessing the potential for long-term survivorship, and presenting results from all plausible models. CONCLUSIONS: This algorithm provides a systematic, evidence-based approach to justify the selection of survival extrapolation models for cancer immunotherapies. If followed, it should reduce the risk of selecting inappropriate models, partially addressing a key area of uncertainty in the economic evaluation of these agents.

Effective and Efficient Delivery of Genome-Based Testing-What Conditions Are Necessary for Health System Readiness?

Health systems internationally must prepare for a future of genetic/genomic testing to inform healthcare decision-making while creating research opportunities. High functioning testing services will require additional considerations and health system conditions beyond traditional diagnostic testing. Based on a literature review of good practices, key informant interviews, and expert discussion, this article attempts to synthesize what conditions are necessary, and what good practice may look like. It is intended to aid policymakers and others designing future systems of genome-based care and care prevention. These conditions include creating communities of practice and healthcare system networks; resource planning; across-region informatics; having a clear entry/exit point for innovation; evaluative function(s); concentrated or coordinated service models; mechanisms for awareness and care navigation; integrating innovation and healthcare delivery functions; and revisiting approaches to financing, education and training, regulation, and data privacy and security. The list of conditions we propose was developed with an emphasis on describing conditions that would be applicable to any healthcare system, regardless of capacity, organizational structure, financing, population characteristics, standardization of care processes, or underlying culture.

Optimizing the delivery of genetic and advanced diagnostic testing in the province of Ontario: challenges and implications for laboratory technology assessment and management in decentralized healthcare systems.

AIMS: The Canadian province of Ontario provides full coverage for its residents (pop.14.8 M) for hospital-based diagnostic testing. Historical governance of the healthcare system and a legacy scheme of health technology assessment (HTA) and financing has led to a suboptimal approach of adopting advanced diagnostic technology (i.e. protein expression, cytogenetic, and molecular/genetic) for guiding therapeutic decisions. The aim of this research is to explore systemic barriers and provide guidance to improve patient and care provider experiences by reducing delays and inequity of access to testing, while benefitting laboratory innovators and maximizing system efficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mixed-methods approach including literature review, semi-structured interviews, and a multi-stakeholder forum involving patient representatives (n = 1), laboratory leaders (n = 6), physicians (n = 5), Ministry personnel (n = 4), administrators (n = 3), extra-provincial experts, and researchers (n = 7), as well as pharmaceutical (n = 5) and diagnostic companies (n = 2). The forum considered evidence of good practices in adoption, implementation, and financing laboratory services and identified barriers as well as feasible options for improving advanced diagnostic testing in Ontario. RESULTS: Overarching challenges identified included: barriers to define what is needed; need for a clear approach to adoption; and the need for more oversight and coordination. Recommendations to address these included a shift to an anticipatory system of test adoption, creating a fit-for-purpose system of health technology management that consolidates existing evaluation processes, and modernizing the governance and financing of testing so that it is managed at a care-delivery level. CONCLUSIONS: The proposals for change in Ontario highlight the role that HTA, governance, and financing of health technology play along the continuum of a health technology life cycle within a healthcare system where decision-making is highly decentralized. Resource availability and capacity were not a concern - instead, solutions require higher levels of coordination and system integration along with innovative approaches to HTA.

Redefining Health Technology Assessment: A Comment on "The New Definition of Health Technology Assessment: A Milestone in International Collaboration".

A new definition of health technology assessment (HTA), developed by an International Joint Task Group claims to be a "milestone," "an historic achievement," and "a cornerstone reference"-claims that we think to be unjustified. We too favor clear definitions, especially when confusion abounds. However, the Task Group seems to have developed a definition without the help of usual conventions regarding definitions and, in our view, through an ill-described process. A definition ought to differentiate the entity defined from other entities. This one fails to do so. It states traits that are true of HTA (e.g., that is interdisciplinary) but HTA is not alone in this. There are other concerns: examples of HTA's use are embodied in the definition, precluding other uses; the adjectives used, although generally true of HTA, are not differentiating features; and attributing to HTA specific purposes, thereby excluding other purposes. We have sympathy for these purposes but cannot consider them HTA's only purposes or even, its main purpose. A newcomer to HTA, on reading this definition, will have no idea of HTA's true potential. These numerous failings, we feel, send all the wrong signals, and could ultimately weaken, rather than strengthen perceptions of HTA's legitimacy and objectivity. The production of a good definition remains, therefore, a work in progress.

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap. METHODS: The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review. RESULTS: A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap. METHODS: The joint Task Force consisted of 15 members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to 2 rounds of peer review. RESULTS: A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by 6 phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Delivering precision oncology to patients with cancer.

With the increasing use of genomic profiling for diagnosis and therapy guidance in many tumor types, precision oncology is rapidly reshaping cancer care. However, the current trajectory of drug development in oncology results in a paradox: if patients cannot access advanced diagnostics, we may be developing drugs that will reach few patients. In this Perspective, we outline the major challenges to the implementation of precision oncology and discuss critical steps toward resolving these, including facilitation of equal access to genomics tests, ensuring that clinical studies provide robust evidence for new drugs and technologies, enabling physicians to interpret genomics data, and empowering patients toward shared decision-making. A multi-stakeholder approach to evidence generation, value assessment, and healthcare delivery is necessary to translate advances in precision oncology into benefits for patients with cancer globally.

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.

Estándares Consolidados de Reporte de Evaluaciones Económicas Sanitarias: adaptación al español de la lista de comprobación CHEERS 2022.

OBJECTIVES: Health economic evaluations (HEEs) are comparative analyses of courses of action in terms of both costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) original version and its adaptation to Spanish were published in 2013. Its objectives were to promote that the HEEs are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making and serve as a reporting guide. The new CHEERS 2022 replaces the previous one and tries to be more easily applied to any HEE and incorporates recent methodological advances and the importance of stakeholder involvement including patients and the general public. METHODS: For the present adaptation, the following stages were followed: (1) independent translations of the original list into Spanish, (2) blind back-translations, (3) evaluation of their quality, (4) preparation of a new version in Spanish, (5) review and improvement by the author team, (6) preparation of a new version in Spanish, (7) distribution of the preliminary Spanish version and the original one to the American HTA Network (Red de las Américas de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias) and Spanish-speaking experts for evaluation and feedback, (8) monitoring of changes to the original list under peer review at BritishMedicalJournal, and (9) consolidation of the final adaptation of the Spanish CHEERS 2022 checklist. RESULTS: In this article, we detail the process and the Spanish adaptation of the 28-item CHEERS 2022 checklist and its recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This list is intended for researchers reporting HEE in peer-reviewed journals and reviewers, editors, and, among others, health technology assessment bodies.