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.

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 (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment of the quality and trend of reporting of health economic evaluation research in India.

Objectives: This study was conducted to assess the reporting quality of health economic evaluation studies using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement along with an analysis of their trend in India.Methods: Following ethical review exemption, PubMed and Google scholar were searched for Indian studies published in 5 years (2014-2019). Keywords used were cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, and cost-minimization analysis, economic evaluation, and India. CHEERS statement was used to assess the reporting quality and trend was studied using variables like a published year, type of analysis, therapy area, intervention. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.Results: Of the 39 studies analyzed, 17 scored less than 18 (represents 75% compliance) with a minimum score of 9 and a maximum of 23. The reporting quality was deficient with respect to heterogeneity characterization (25 studies), discount rate (18 studies), model choice, and assumptions (18 studies). Cost - effectiveness was the most common PE analysis (27 studies). The most commonly studied therapy area was infectious disorders (10) followed by oncology (5), and the commonest intervention was drugs (22).Conclusion: Inadequacy in reporting quality of health economic evaluation studies is evident. The trend revealed cost-effectiveness to be the most commonly performed type of analysis.Expert Opinion: Health economic evaluation research has gained considerable importance in healthcare decision making. Reporting quality is critical to enable efficient interpretation of health economic evaluation research. These studies have many elements, each of which have a significant impact on the conduct and outcome of the study. Hence, it is advisable to refer to any of the available guidelines [eg. CHEERS checklist] while preparing the manuscript so as to ensure all crucial elements of the study have been reported.

Competencies for Professionals in Health Economics and Outcomes Research: The ISPOR Health Economics and Outcomes Research Competencies Framework.

The need for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) has expanded globally, fueling demand for professionals trained in the discipline. By leveraging the expertise and perspectives of its members, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) established a set of competencies for HEOR professionals. The resulting 41 competencies were organized into 13 topic domains that collectively comprise the ISPOR Health Economics and Outcomes Research Competencies Framework. In this article, we explain the collaborative process used by the ISPOR Institutional Council and Faculty Advisor Council to identify and validate the framework. This process entailed expertise from the council members combined with natural language processing to examine competencies included in ISPOR Career Center HEOR job postings, qualitative input from a focused Institutional Council-Faculty Advisor Council workgroup, and quantitative input from 3 surveys of mutually exclusive member groups: a general member survey to assess importance and relevance of each competency, a faculty member survey to assess the extent to which HEOR graduate degree programs cover each of the competencies, and a student member survey to assess exposure to each of the competencies. Organization of the competencies into topic domains was achieved by engaging the Education Council, which applied a taxonomy consistent with ISPOR's educational programming. The resulting ISPOR Health Economics and Outcomes Research Competencies Framework has the important potential of serving as a tool to guide academic curricula, fellowships, and continuing education programs, and assessment of job candidates. As the HEOR field advances, so do the job types and the breadth of topics in which professionals must demonstrate competence. Future work will entail revisiting the competencies to ensure their currency and comprehensiveness, and tailoring the framework according to major specialty areas.

Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Numerous economic models have assessed the cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic medications in schizophrenia. It is important to understand what key impacts of antipsychotic medications were considered in the existing models and limitations of existing models in order to inform the development of future models. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to identify which clinical benefits, clinical harms, costs and cost savings of antipsychotic medication have been considered by existing models, to assess quality of existing models and to suggest good practice recommendations for future economic models of antipsychotic medications. METHODS: An electronic search was performed on multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, The NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database) to identify economic models of schizophrenia published between 2005-2020. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) checklist and the Cooper hierarchy. Key impacts of antipsychotic medications considered by exiting models were descriptively summarised. RESULTS: Sixty models were included. Existing models varied greatly in key impacts of antipsychotic medication included in the model, especially in clinical outcomes used for assessing reduction in psychotic symptoms and types of adverse events considered in the model. Quality of existing models was generally low due to failure to capture the health and cost impact of adverse events of antipsychotic medications and input data not obtained from best available source. Good practices for modelling antipsychotic medications are suggested. DISCUSSIONS: This review highlights inconsistency in key impacts considered by different models, and limitations of the existing models. Recommendations on future research are provided.

Why the Economic Aspects of Healthcare are not Unique.

Frequent claims suggest that healthcare and its production are not only different from other goods, but that they differ to such an extent that healthcare should be viewed as unique. Various features of healthcare, such as the lack of a perfect market and the existence of information asymmetry, are cited as evidence of this claim. However, such a view results from unduly emphasising the characteristics of healthcare as being atypical. This article redresses this imbalance by taking an alternative approach and examines the ways in which the economic aspects of healthcare are similar to those of other goods. It was found that the differential aspects are less distinctive than claimed and the economic aspects of healthcare are not unique.

Introduction to Metamodeling for Reducing Computational Burden of Advanced Analyses with Health Economic Models: A Structured Overview of Metamodeling Methods in a 6-Step Application Process.

Metamodels can be used to reduce the computational burden associated with computationally demanding analyses of simulation models, although applications within health economics are still scarce. Besides a lack of awareness of their potential within health economics, the absence of guidance on the conceivably complex and time-consuming process of developing and validating metamodels may contribute to their limited uptake. To address these issues, this article introduces metamodeling to the wider health economic audience and presents a process for applying metamodeling in this context, including suitable methods and directions for their selection and use. General (i.e., non-health economic specific) metamodeling literature, clinical prediction modeling literature, and a previously published literature review were exploited to consolidate a process and to identify candidate metamodeling methods. Methods were considered applicable to health economics if they are able to account for mixed (i.e., continuous and discrete) input parameters and continuous outcomes. Six steps were identified as relevant for applying metamodeling methods within health economics: 1) the identification of a suitable metamodeling technique, 2) simulation of data sets according to a design of experiments, 3) fitting of the metamodel, 4) assessment of metamodel performance, 5) conducting the required analysis using the metamodel, and 6) verification of the results. Different methods are discussed to support each step, including their characteristics, directions for use, key references, and relevant R and Python packages. To address challenges regarding metamodeling methods selection, a first guide was developed toward using metamodels to reduce the computational burden of analyses of health economic models. This guidance may increase applications of metamodeling in health economics, enabling increased use of state-of-the-art analyses (e.g., value of information analysis) with computationally burdensome simulation models.

Use of Checklists in Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations, 2010 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE: It is useful for reviewers of economic evaluations to assess quality in a manner that is consistent and comprehensive. Checklists can allow this, but there are concerns about their reliability and how they are used in practice. We aimed to describe how checklists have been used in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations. METHODS: Meta-review with snowball sampling. We compiled a list of checklists for health economic evaluations and searched for the checklists' use in systematic reviews from January 2010 to February 2018. We extracted data regarding checklists used, stated checklist function, subject area, number of reviewers, and issues expressed about checklists. RESULTS: We found 346 systematic reviews since 2010 that used checklists to assess economic evaluations. The most common checklist in use was developed in 1996 by Drummond and Jefferson, and the most common stated use of a checklist was quality assessment. Checklists and their use varied within subject areas; 223 reviews had more than one reviewer who used the checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Use of checklists is inconsistent. Eighteen individual checklists have been used since 2010, many of which have been used in ways different from those originally intended, often without justification. Different systematic reviews in the same subject areas would benefit from using one checklist exclusively, using checklists as intended, and having 2 reviewers complete the checklist. This would increase the likelihood that results are transparent and comparable over time.

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery has seen substantial scientific progress over recent decades. Health economic evaluations have become important tools for decision makers to prioritize scarce health resources. The present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the reporting quality of health economic evaluations conducted in the field of cardiac surgery. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify health economic evaluations in cardiac surgery. The consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of studies. RESULTS: A total 4,705 articles published between 1981 and 2016 were identified; sixty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a trend toward a greater number of publications and reporting quality over time. Six (8.7 percent) studies were conducted between 1981 and 1990, nine (13 percent) between 1991 and 2000, twenty-four (34.8 percent) between 2001 and 2010, and thirty (43.5 percent) after 2011. The mean CHEERS score of all articles was 16.7/24; for those published between 1980 and 1990 the mean (SD) score was 10.2 (±1.4), for those published between 1991 and 2000 it was 11.2 (±2.4), between 2001 and 2010 it was 15.3 (±4.8), and after 2011 it was 19.9 (±2.9). The quality of reporting was still insufficient for several studies after 2000, especially concerning items "characterizing heterogeneity," "assumptions," and "choice of model." CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that, even if the quantity and the quality of health economics evaluation in cardiac surgery has increased, there remains a need for improvement in several reporting criteria to ensure greater transparency.

Integrating clinical and economic evidence in clinical guidelines: More needed than ever!

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: In recent years, several expensive new health technologies have been introduced. The availability of those technologies intensifies the discussion regarding the affordability of these technologies at different decision-making levels. On the meso level, both hospitals and clinicians are facing budget constraints resulting in a tension to balance between different patients' interests. As such, it is crucial to make optimal use of the available resources. Different strategies are in place to deal with this problem, but decisions on a macro level on what to fund or not can limit the role and freedom of clinicians in their decisions on a micro level. At the same time, without central guidance regarding such decisions, micro level decisions may lead to inequities and undesirable treatment variation between clinicians and hospitals. The challenge is to find instruments that can balance both levels of decision making. DISCUSSION: Clinicians are becoming increasingly aware that their decisions to spend more resources (like time and budget) on 1 particular patient group reduce the resources available to other patients. Involving clinicians in thinking about the optimal use of limited resources, also in an attempt to bridge the world of economic reasoning and clinical practice, is crucial therefore. We argue that clinical guidelines may prove a clear vehicle for this by including both clinical and economic evidence to support the recommendations made. The development of such guidelines requires cooperation of clinicians, and health economists are cooperating with each other. CONCLUSION: The development of clinical guidelines which combine economic and clinical evidence should be stimulated, to balance central guidance and uniformity while maintaining necessary decentralized freedom. This is an opportunity to combine the reality of budgets and opportunity costs with clinical practice. Missing this opportunity risks either variation and inequity or central and necessarily crude measures.

Evaluation and Characterization of Health Economics and Outcomes Research in SAARC Nations.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, evaluate, and characterize the variety, quality, and intent of the health economics and outcomes research studies being conducted in SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) nations. METHODS: Studies published in English language between 1990 and 2015 were retrieved from Medline databases using relevant search strategies. Studies were independently reviewed as per Cochrane methodology and information on the type of research and outcomes were extracted. Quality of reporting was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 2638 studies screened from eight SAARC nations, a total of 179 were included for review (India = 140; Bangladesh = 12; Sri Lanka = 8; Pakistan = 7; Afghanistan = 5; Nepal = 4; Bhutan = 2; Maldives = 1). The broad study categories were cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs = 76 studies), cost analyses (35 studies), and burden of illness (BOI=26 studies). The outcomes evaluated were direct costs, indirect costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Cost of medicines, consultation and hospital charges, and monitoring costs were assessed as direct medical costs along with non-direct medical costs such as travel and food for patients and caregivers. The components of indirect costs were loss of income of patients and caregivers and loss of productivity. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed in 48 studies. The most commonly used instrument for assessing QoL was the WHO-Quality of Life BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire (76%). The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) score was used for quality assessment of full economic studies (44 studies). The mean QHES score was 43.76. CONCLUSION: This review identifies various patterns of health economic studies in eight SAARC nations. The quality of economic evaluation studies for health care in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and Maldives needs improvement. There is a need to generate the capacity of researchers to undertake quality economic evaluations as well as an orientation of the policy makers so that there is a demand for such studies as well as a scope for its use in policy making.

New decision-making processes for the pricing of health technologies in Japan: The FY 2016/2017 pilot phase for the introduction of economic evaluations.

Economic evaluation is used for decision-making processes in healthcare technologies in many developed countries. In Japan, no health economic data have been requested for drugs, medical devices, and interventions till date. However, economic evaluation is gradually gaining importance, and a trial implementation of the cost-effectiveness evaluation of drugs and medical devices has begun. Discussions on economic evaluation began in May 2012 within a newly established sub-committee of the Chuikyo, referred to as the "Special Committee on Cost Effectiveness." After four years of discussions, this committee determined that during the trial implementation, the results of the cost-effectiveness evaluation would be used for the re-pricing of drugs and medical devices at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2017. Chuikyo selected 13 products (7 drugs and 6 medical devices) as targets for this evaluation. These products will be evaluated until the end of FY 2017 based on the following process: manufacturers will submit the data of economic evaluation; the National Institute of Public Health will coordinate the review process; academic groups will perform the actual review of the submitted data, and the expert committee will appraise these data. This represents the first step to introducing cost-effectiveness analysis in the Japanese healthcare system. We believe that these efforts will contribute to the efficiency and sustainability of the Japanese healthcare system.

Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement.

BACKGROUND: 'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. METHODS: In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items was created by a working group comprising six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. A two-round, modified Delphi survey, with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list. RESULTS: From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorized within six sections: (1) title and abstract; (2) introduction; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS Explanation and Elaboration paper. CONCLUSION: It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of the reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality-of-life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time.