Healthcare utilisation in people with long COVID: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID potentially increases healthcare utilisation and costs. However, its impact on the NHS remains to be determined. METHODS: This study aims to assess the healthcare utilisation of individuals with long COVID. With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a matched cohort study using primary and secondary care data via OpenSAFELY, a platform for analysing anonymous electronic health records. The long COVID exposure group, defined by diagnostic codes, was matched with five comparators without long COVID between Nov 2020 and Jan 2023. We compared their total healthcare utilisation from GP consultations, prescriptions, hospital admissions, A&E visits, and outpatient appointments. Healthcare utilisation and costs were evaluated using a two-part model adjusting for covariates. Using a difference-in-difference model, we also compared healthcare utilisation after long COVID with pre-pandemic records. RESULTS: We identified 52,988 individuals with a long COVID diagnosis, matched to 264,867 comparators without a diagnosis. In the 12 months post-diagnosis, there was strong evidence that those with long COVID were more likely to use healthcare resources (OR: 8.29, 95% CI: 7.74-8.87), and have 49% more healthcare utilisation (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.48-1.51). Our model estimated that the long COVID group had 30 healthcare visits per year (predicted mean: 29.23, 95% CI: 28.58-29.92), compared to 16 in the comparator group (predicted mean visits: 16.04, 95% CI: 15.73-16.36). Individuals with long COVID were more likely to have non-zero healthcare expenditures (OR = 7.66, 95% CI = 7.20-8.15), with costs being 44% higher than the comparator group (cost ratio = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.39-1.50). The long COVID group costs approximately £2500 per person per year (predicted mean cost: £2562.50, 95% CI: £2335.60-£2819.22), and the comparator group costs £1500 (predicted mean cost: £1527.43, 95% CI: £1404.33-1664.45). Historically, individuals with long COVID utilised healthcare resources more frequently, but their average healthcare utilisation increased more after being diagnosed with long COVID, compared to the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID increases healthcare utilisation and costs. Public health policies should allocate more resources towards preventing, treating, and supporting individuals with long COVID.

Psychosocial factors in knee osteoarthritis: Scoping review of evidence and future opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: Identify, describe and produce an evidence map of studies investigating psychosocial factors association with, or effect on, clinical outcomes for people with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Scoping review of interventional and observational studies was performed. Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycInfo and Web of Science were searched on the 15th May 2023. Screening, data extraction and analysis was performed by two independent researchers. Extracted information included characteristics of studies plus which psychosocial factors were used to investigate association with, or effect on, clinical outcome(s). Descriptive statistics summarized the study design, temporal trend, geographic distribution, frequency of each psychosocial factor and whether associations/effects were observed. RESULTS: 23,065 records were screened, with 108 studies selected. Eighty-two percent of studies (n = 89/108) were cross-sectional in design. Number of studies increased over time and spanned 28 countries. Most research originated from the Americas region (55 %, 59/108). Twenty-four psychosocial factors (11 psychological, 13 social) were identified. Depression (47 %, n = 48/102) and education (28 %, n = 29/102) were the most frequently reported psychological and social factors, respectively. Psychological factors were often reported to have an association with/effect on pain (81 %, n = 71/88) and physical function (75 %, n = 56/74). Social factors were less frequently reported to have an association with or effect on pain (57 %, n = 46/81) and physical function (50 %, n = 18/36). CONCLUSION: Psychosocial factors are often associated with clinical outcomes for people with knee osteoarthritis. High-quality longitudinal studies examining a wide range of psychosocial factors across diverse cultural and geographical settings are key to continue informing the development of biopsychosocial models of care.

Collaborative model of care between orthopaedics and allied healthcare professionals (CONNACT) in knee osteoarthritis: Effectiveness-implementation hybrid randomized controlled trial of a community-based, multidisciplinary, stratified intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of the Collaborative Model of Care between Orthopaedics and Allied Healthcare Professionals (CONNACT), a community-based, stratified, multidisciplinary intervention consisting of exercise, education, psychological and nutrition delivered through a chronic care model to usual hospital care in adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Pragmatic, parallel-arm, single-blinded superiority RCT trial. Community-dwelling, ambulant adults with knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade > 1; Knee Injury and OA Outcome Score (KOOS4) ≤75) were enrolled. Primary outcome was KOOS4 at 12-months; secondary outcomes included: quality of life, physical performance measures, symptom satisfaction, psychological outcomes, dietary habits, and global perceived effect. Intention-to-treat analysis using generalized linear model (GLM) and regression modeling were conducted. Economic evaluation through a societal approach was embedded. RESULTS: 110 participants (55 control, 55 intervention) were randomized. No between-group difference found for the primary outcome (MD [95%CI]: -1.86 [-9.11. 5.38]), although both groups demonstrated within-group improvement over 12-months. Among the secondary outcomes, the CONNACT group demonstrated superior dietary change (12 months) and physical performance measures (3 months), and global perceived effect (6 months). While there was no between-group difference in total cost, significant productivity gains (reduced indirect cost) were seen in the CONNACT group. CONCLUSION: CONNACT was not superior to usual care at 1 year. Further efforts are needed to understand the underlying contextual and implementation factors in order to further improve and refine such community-based, stratified care models moving forward. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03809975. Registered January 18, 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03809975.

Acceptability, values, and preferences of older people for chronic low back pain management; a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) and other musculoskeletal conditions represent a sizable attribution to the global burden of disability, with rates greatest in older age. There are multiple and varied interventions for CPLBP, delivered by a wide range of health and care workers. However, it is not known if these are acceptable to or align with the values and preferences of care recipients. The objective of this synthesis was to understand the key factors influencing the acceptability of, and values and preferences for, interventions/care for CPLBP from the perspective of people over 60 and their caregivers. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and OpenAlex, for eligible studies from inception until April 2022. We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; explored the perceptions and experiences of older people and their caregivers about interventions to treat CPLBP; from any setting globally. We conducted a best fit framework synthesis using a framework developed specifically for this review. We assessed our certainty in the findings using GRADE-CERQual. RESULTS: All 22 included studies represented older people's experiences and had representation across a range of geographies and economic contexts. No studies were identified on caregivers. Older people living with CPLBP express values and preferences for their care that relate to therapeutic encounters and the importance of therapeutic alliance, irrespective of the type of treatment, choice of intervention, and intervention delivery modalities. Older people with CPLBP value therapeutic encounters that validate, legitimise, and respect their pain experience, consider their context holistically, prioritise their needs and preferences, adopt a person-centred and tailored approach to care, and are supported by interprofessional communication. Older people valued care that provided benefit to them, included interventions beyond analgesic medicines alone and was financially and geographically accessible. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide critical context to the implementation of clinical guidelines into practice, particularly related to how care providers interact with older people and how components of care are delivered, their location and their cost. Further research is needed focusing on low- and middle-income settings, vulnerable populations, and caregivers.

Beyond 10-Year Risk: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Statins for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Cholesterol guidelines typically prioritize primary prevention statin therapy on the basis of 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease. The advent of generic pricing may justify expansion of statin eligibility. Moreover, 10-year risk may not be the optimal approach for statin prioritization. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of expanding preventive statin eligibility and evaluated novel approaches to prioritization from a Scottish health sector perspective. METHODS: A computer simulation model predicted long-term health and cost outcomes in Scottish adults ≥40 years of age. Epidemiologic analysis was completed using the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort, Scottish Morbidity Records, and National Records of Scotland. A simulation cohort was constructed with data from the Scottish Health Survey 2011 and contemporary population estimates. Treatment and cost inputs were derived from published literature and health service cost data. The main outcome measure was the lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, evaluated as cost (2020 GBP) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Three approaches to statin prioritization were analyzed: 10-year risk scoring using the ASSIGN score, age-stratified risk thresholds to increase treatment rates in younger individuals, and absolute risk reduction (ARR)-guided therapy to increase treatment rates in individuals with elevated cholesterol levels. For each approach, 2 policies were considered: treating the same number of individuals as those with an ASSIGN score ≥20% (age-stratified risk threshold 20, ARR 20) and treating the same number of individuals as those with an ASSIGN score ≥10% (age-stratified risk threshold 10, ARR 10). RESULTS: Compared with an ASSIGN score ≥20%, reducing the risk threshold for statin initiation to 10% expanded eligibility from 804 000 (32% of adults ≥40 years of age without CVD) to 1 445 500 individuals (58%). This policy would be cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £12 300/QALY [95% CI, £7690/QALY-£26 500/QALY]). Incremental to an ASSIGN score ≥20%, ARR 20 produced ≈8800 QALYs and was cost-effective (£7050/QALY [95% CI, £4560/QALY-£10 700/QALY]). Incremental to an ASSIGN score ≥10%, ARR 10 produced ≈7950 QALYs and was cost-effective (£11 700/QALY [95% CI, £9250/QALY-£16 900/QALY]). Both age-stratified risk threshold strategies were dominated (ie, more expensive and less effective than alternative treatment strategies). CONCLUSIONS: Generic pricing has rendered preventive statin therapy cost-effective for many adults. ARR-guided therapy is more effective than 10-year risk scoring and is cost-effective.

Ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in initiation of second-line antidiabetic treatment for people with type 2 diabetes in England: A cross-sectional study.

AIMS: To assess any disparities in the initiation of second-line antidiabetic treatments prescribed among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in England according to ethnicity and social deprivation level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study used linked primary (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and secondary care data (Hospital Episode Statistics), and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). We included people aged 18 years or older with T2DM who intensified to second-line oral antidiabetic medication between 2014 and 2020 to investigate disparities in second-line antidiabetic treatment prescribing (one of sulphonylureas [SUs], dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitors, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors, in combination with metformin) by ethnicity (White, South Asian, Black, mixed/other) and deprivation level (IMD quintiles). We report prescriptions of the alternative treatments by ethnicity and deprivation level according to predicted percentages derived from multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 36 023 people, 85% were White, 10% South Asian, 4% Black and 1% mixed/other. After adjustment, the predicted percentages for SGLT2 inhibitor prescribing by ethnicity were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-23%), 20% (95% CI 18-22%), 19% (95% CI 16-22%) and 17% (95% CI 14-21%) among people with White, South Asian, Black, and mixed/other ethnicity, respectively. After adjustment, the predicted percentages for SGLT2 inhibitor prescribing by deprivation were 22% (95% CI 20-25%) and 19% (95% CI 17-21%) for the least deprived and the most deprived quintile, respectively. When stratifying by prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD) status, we found lower predicted percentages of people with prevalent CVD prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors compared with people without prevalent CVD across all ethnicity groups and all levels of social deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with T2DM, there were no substantial differences by ethnicity or deprivation level in the percentage prescribed either SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors or SUs as second-line antidiabetic treatment.

The Evolving Nature of Health Technology Assessment: A Critical Appraisal of NICE's New Methods Manual.

OBJECTIVES: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently completed a review of its methods for health technology assessment, involving a 2-stage public consultation. We appraise proposed methodological changes and analyze key decisions. METHODS: We categorize all changes proposed in the first consultation as "critical," "moderate" or "limited" updates, considering the importance of the topic and the degree of change or the level of reinforcement. Proposals were followed through the review process, for their inclusion, exclusion, or amendment in the second consultation and the new manual. RESULTS: The end-of-life value modifier was replaced with a new "disease severity" modifier and other potential modifiers were rejected. The usefulness of a comprehensive evidence base was emphasized, clarifying when nonrandomized studies can be used, with further guidance on "real-world" evidence developed separately. A greater degree of uncertainty was accepted in circumstances when evidence generation raised challenges, in particular for children, rare diseases, and innovative technologies. For some topics, such as health inequality, discounting, unrelated healthcare costs, and value of information, significant changes were possibly warranted, but NICE decided not to make any revisions at present. CONCLUSION: Most of the changes to NICE's health technology assessment methods are appropriate and modest in impact. Nevertheless, some decisions were not well justified and further research is needed on several topics, including investigation of societal preferences. Ultimately, NICE's role of protecting National Health Services resources for valuable interventions that can contribute toward improving overall population health must be safeguarded, without accepting weaker evidence.

Estimating health care costs at scale in low- and middle-income countries: Mathematical notations and frameworks for the application of cost functions.

Appropriate costing and economic modeling are major factors for the successful scale-up of health interventions. Various cost functions are currently being used to estimate costs of health interventions at scale in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) potentially resulting in disparate cost projections. The aim of this study is to gain understanding of current methods used and provide guidance to inform the use of cost functions that is fit for purpose. We reviewed seven databases covering the economic and global health literature to identify studies reporting a quantitative analysis of costs informing the projected scale-up of a health intervention in LMICs between 2003 and 2019. Of the 8725 articles identified, 40 met the inclusion criteria. We classified studies according to the type of cost functions applied-accounting or econometric-and described the intended use of cost projections. Based on these findings, we developed new mathematical notations and cost function frameworks for the analysis of healthcare costs at scale in LMICs setting. These notations estimate variable returns to scale in cost projection methods, which is currently ignored in most studies. The frameworks help to balance simplicity versus accuracy and increase the overall transparency in reporting of methods.

Guidance on the use of complex systems models for economic evaluations of public health interventions.

To help health economic modelers respond to demands for greater use of complex systems models in public health. To propose identifiable features of such models and support researchers to plan public health modeling projects using these models. A working group of experts in complex systems modeling and economic evaluation was brought together to develop and jointly write guidance for the use of complex systems models for health economic analysis. The content of workshops was informed by a scoping review. A public health complex systems model for economic evaluation is defined as a quantitative, dynamic, non-linear model that incorporates feedback and interactions among model elements, in order to capture emergent outcomes and estimate health, economic and potentially other consequences to inform public policies. The guidance covers: when complex systems modeling is needed; principles for designing a complex systems model; and how to choose an appropriate modeling technique. This paper provides a definition to identify and characterize complex systems models for economic evaluations and proposes guidance on key aspects of the process for health economics analysis. This document will support the development of complex systems models, with impact on public health systems policy and decision making.

Singapore KneE osTeoarthritis CoHort (SKETCH): protocol for a multi-centre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of global disability. The understanding of the role of psychosocial factors in knee OA outcomes is still evolving particularly in an Asian context. The primary aim of this study is to explore psychosocial factors that prognosticate short and long-term clinical outcomes, productivity, and healthcare utilization in patients with knee OA. Secondary aims are to explore the mediation and directional relationships and the role it plays in predicting the discordance between self-reported measures (SRM), physical-performance measures (PPMs) and objective clinical parameters. METHODS: A multi-centre prospective cohort study of community ambulant knee OA patients seeking treatment in the tertiary healthcare institutions in Singapore will be conducted. Patients with secondary arthritis, significant cognitive impairment, severe medical comorbidities or previous knee arthroplasty will be excluded. Primary clinical outcome measure is the Knee injury and OA Outcome Score-12 (KOOS-12). Baseline characteristics include sociodemographic status, arthritis status including symptom duration and radiographic severity, comorbidities and functional status through Charlson Comorbidities Index (CCI), Barthel Index (BI) and Parker Mobility Score (PMS). Psychosocial variables include social support, kinesiophobia, negative affect, self-efficacy, injustice, chronic illness shame and the built environment. Clinical outcomes include quality of life, physical performance, global assessment, satisfaction and physical activity levels. Productivity and healthcare utilization will be assessed by a modified OA Cost and Consequences Questionnaire (OCC-Q) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). Variables will be collected at baseline, 4, 12 months and yearly thereafter. Regression, mediation and structural equation modelling will be used for analysis. DISCUSSION: Results will allow contextualization, identification, and phenotyping of the critical (and potentially modifiable) psychosocial parameters that predict positive clinical outcomes in the OA population to guide optimization and refinement of healthcare and community. This will facilitate: 1. identification of high-risk knee OA subpopulations that will likely experience poor outcomes and 2. formulation of targeted multidisciplinary comprehensive approaches to address these psychosocial factors to optimize non-surgical treatment care, maximize functional outcomes and create more value-based care model for knee OA. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been registered under clinicaltrials.gov registry (Identifier: NCT04942236).

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. METHODS: We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. RESULTS: Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of -1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927 .).

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.

Estimating Long-Term Survival Outcomes for Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: Larotrectinib Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Larotrectinib is a precision oncology treatment for solid tumors with neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions. Larotrectinib efficacy has been evaluated in single-arm basket trials with limited follow-up and sample sizes at the initial regulatory approval due to the rarity of solid tumors with NTRK gene fusion. OBJECTIVES: We aim to demonstrate that trends in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in survival data with longer follow-up may be predicted from long-term survival estimates from survival data with shorter follow-up, including predictions for median survival when it is not observed in the trial. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from 3 clinical trials (NCT02122913, NCT02576431, and NCT02637687) using the 2018 and 2020 data cuts for the same subset of pediatric and adult patients. The Weibull distribution was selected for survival models. Survival predictions using 2018 data were compared to 2020 Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients representing 15 tumor types were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 37 years. When comparing PFS from the 2018 survival prediction to observed 2020 KM data, the 12-month PFS rate was identical (66.6%). The 36-month PFS rate was lower for the 2018 prediction (35.3%) compared to 2020 KM data (44.4%). The median OS had not yet been reached in either data cut but was predicted to be 90 months using the 2018 data. When comparing OS from the 2018 survival prediction to the observed 2020 KM data, the 12-month OS rate was 89.0% and 86.6% and the 48-month OS rate was 67.2% and 63.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Long-term PFS predictions deviated from observed PFS rates due to response differences across tumor types and heavy censoring towards the end of the survival curve. However, for OS, the 48-month survival prediction was consistent with the observed 2020 KM estimate.

Approaches for Enhanced Extrapolation of Long-Term Survival Outcomes Using Electronic Health Records of Patients With Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to demonstrate enhanced survival extrapolation methods using electronic health record-derived real-world data (RWD). METHODS: The study population included patients diagnosed of ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer who started first-line treatment with anastrozole or letrozole between November 18, 2014, and November 18, 2015. Two patient cohorts were constructed: a clinical trial cohort from digitized MONARCH-3 clinical trial results and a RWD cohort from a deidentified electronic health record-derived database. RWD patients were weighted to trial baseline covariate distributions. Standard parametric approaches were applied to trial data and a "best-fit" model was selected. We demonstrate traditional and enhanced hybrid (pooling with weighted RWD at start, 75%, or end of trial) extrapolation approaches. RESULTS: Observed and estimated 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates in extrapolating the trial control arm (n = 165) were comparable across all methods. Compared with the observed 5-year mean PFS in the RWD cohort (n = 118) of 20.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.9-23.8), there was some variation among studied methods. Best-fit standard parametric model (log-normal) had 5-year mean PFS of 21.3 months (95% CI 18.2-24.9), and for the hybrid methods in order of estimate conservativeness was start of trial (20.8 months; 95% CI 18.5-23.2), 75% of trial (21.3 months; 95% CI 18.1-24.5), and end of trial (21.8 months; 95% CI 18.8-25.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our study leverages RWD to enhance long-term survival extrapolation. Future use cases should include applying patient eligibility criteria, weighting on baseline characteristics, and choice of time window to add RWD to trial data.

Comparison of Alternative Methods to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Triangulation Approach Using Larotrectinib as a Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to investigate the economic value of tumor-agnostic therapies when only single-arm effectiveness data are available at launch by applying multiple methodologies to establish comparative effectiveness. METHODS: In the absence of direct comparative data, 3 methods were used to estimate the counterfactual: (1) a historical control based on a systematic literature review for each tumor site from the larotrectinib trials, (2) an intracohort comparison using the previous line of therapy time to progression from larotrectinib trials, and (3) a nonresponder control that applied outcomes for larotrectinib nonresponders. Cost-effectiveness was modeled using the partitioned survival approach. Stochastic parameter uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). A triangulated estimate of the mean cost-effectiveness result was generated combining all 3 counterfactual estimates. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were similar across the 3 methodologies in the deterministic analysis ranging from £83 868 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] £65 698-£107 668) to £104 922 per quality-adjusted life-year (95% UI £80 132-£139 658). PSA results for each method substantially overlapped when plotted on the cost-effectiveness plane. Weighting PSA results for each method equally in the triangulation method produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £95 587 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% UI £70 449-£137 431). CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of direct comparative data, different methods of estimating a counterfactual are possible, each with strengths and limitations. Triangulating results across the methods provides a composite view of the total uncertainty and a more consistent estimation of the cost-effectiveness of the tumor-agnostic intervention compared with choosing a single method.

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.

Healing the past, reimagining the present, investing in the future: What should be the role of race as a proxy covariate in health economics informed health care policy?

In this perspective, the assertion that race-free risk assessment would harm patients of all races is critiqued from the viewpoint that race is not just another covariate in our arsenal. Although race may be associated with outcome, it is nevertheless a proxy for a myriad of other potential explanatory variables that could be genetic/biological but in many circumstances are more likely to be sociological/socioeconomic. It is argued that the pursuit of health maximization through the use of socially constructed variables like race must be done sensitively, recognizing that racial covariates in the medical arena can be subject to structural, institutional or personal biases. Even when such biases are thought to be minimized, the appearance of such bias may be sufficient to justify the removal of its use, particularly where employing a racial covariate could further increase existing disparities. While racial covariates may have descriptive value in helping to understand such disparities, it is beholden on the scientific community to explore alternatives to racial covariates that may provide the same or perhaps even better prognostic value in our analyses.

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.