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.     

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

ObjectivesAs healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a “living” systematic review approach.MethodsKey databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer.ResultsOverall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price.ConclusionsPresently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this “living” review.     

Another Step Toward Hepatitis C Elimination: An Economic Evaluation of an Irish National Birth Cohort Testing Program

ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of offering once-off birth cohort testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) to people in Ireland born between 1965 and 1985, the cohort with the highest reported prevalence of undiagnosed chronic HCV infection.MethodsSystematic and opportunistic HCV birth cohort testing programs, implemented over a 4-year timeframe, were compared with the current practice of population risk-based testing only in a closed-cohort decision tree and Markov model hybrid over a lifetime time horizon. Outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were presented from the health system’s perspective in 2020 euro (€). Uncertainty was assessed via deterministic, probabilistic, scenario, and threshold analyses.ResultsIn the base case, systematic testing yielded the largest cost and health benefits, followed by opportunistic testing and risk-based testing. Compared with risk-based testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for opportunistic testing was €14 586 (95% confidence interval €4185-€33 527) per QALY gained. Compared with opportunistic testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for systematic testing was €16 827 (95% confidence interval €5106-€38 843) per QALY gained. These findings were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsBoth systematic and opportunistic birth cohort testing would be considered an efficient use of resources, but systematic testing was the optimal strategy at willingness-to-pay threshold values typically used in Ireland. Although cost-effective, any decision to introduce birth cohort testing for HCV (in Ireland or elsewhere) must be balanced with considerations regarding the feasibility and budget impact of implementing a national testing program given high initial costs and resource use.     

经典名方中藿香类药材的本草考证

通过查阅古代相关本草、医籍、经史及近现代文献资料,笔者对藿香类药材的名称、基原、产地、品质评价、栽培、采收加工及炮制方法等进行了系统梳理与考证,可为含藿香类药材的经典名方开发利用提供依据。通过本草考证分析可知,历代本草多以“藿香”为正名,所用主流基原均为Pogostemon cablin,为区别于明代以来我国民间习用的同科另一种植物土藿香Agastache rugosa及推崇道地产区而有“广藿香”之名;广藿香原产于越南等东南亚国家,早期因作香料经广东等地传入我国,宋代以来便已在我国南方引种成功;药用部位多为其干燥地上部分,亦有将其叶、梗分开单独使用;历代推崇的道地产区为广东,现广东广州、肇庆、湛江和海南省多有栽培,以石牌所产最为知名;广藿香主要为扦插繁殖,二月生苗,六月采收;产地加工方法主要为闷晒法,放置阳光下反复闷晒至有芳香气味、颜色转黄;炮制方法多以净选后生品入药。基于考证结果,建议养胃汤中所用藿香以P. cablin为基原,取叶片生品入药,而藿朴夏苓汤则建议选择土藿香A. rugosa除去根及老茎的生品入药。     

经典名方中石决明的本草考证

通过查阅历代本草、医籍、方书及现代文献资料,笔者对经典名方中所用石决明药材进行系统本草考证,涉及名称、基原、产地、品质评价、采收加工及炮制等方面内容,以期为含石决明的经典名方开发提供依据。经考证可知,历代皆以石决明为正名,亦有以其功效、性状及近音字而命名的“千里光”“九孔螺”“珍珠母”等异名。唐代以前石决明药材动物基原因形态描述过于简练,仅能考订为鲍科鲍属动物;宋元明清时期主流基原为杂色鲍Haliotis diversicolor与皱纹盘鲍H. discus hannai;民国时期开始将鲍属多种动物作为石决明基原使用,品种繁杂并延续至今。古今我国国内主要产区为海南、广东及山东地区,国外产地主要为日本及越南。古籍中对石决明品质评价大致以呼水孔的开孔数量为准,以七孔和九孔的鲍壳为佳;近现代则以性状个大整齐、无破碎、内外洁净并有光彩、壳厚者为佳。基于考证结果,结合石决明散的记载年代,建议开发该经典名方时石决明药材使用杂色鲍H. diversicolor或皱纹盘鲍H. discus hannai的贝壳,且以生品入药。     

长效可逆避孕措施在人工流产后即刻实施的效果评价

目的探究长效可逆避孕措施在人工流产后即刻实施的效果。方法从2017年7月-2018年7月,抽选在广州市增城区妇幼保健院行人工流产女性1200例,按照随机数字表法分为常规组(612例)和强化干预组(588例)。常规组给予常规流产后关爱(PAC)服务,强化干预组在常规PAC服务的基础上采用长效可逆避孕措施。对比两组长效可逆避孕措施使用情况、重复人工流产率以及避孕措施的持续时间情况。结果强化干预组的高效避孕措施使用率比常规组更高,同时重复人工流产率比常规组低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);强化干预组长效可逆避孕措施LARC(IUS/IUD)避孕术后6个月、1年使用率明显高于常规组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);复方口服避孕药优思悦(COC)避孕术后3个月、6个月、1年的使用率比常规组高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论人工流产后即刻实施长效可逆避孕措施,可提升高效避孕措施的使用率,减少意外妊娠及再次人工流产的几率,值得推广。     

Three-Year Follow-Up of the POIBA Intervention on Childhood Obesity: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Childhood obesity has increased worldwide over the past four decades. This quasi-experimental study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a multicomponent and multilevel school-based intervention (POIBA) at 3 years of follow-up. The nutrition intervention focused on food groups, food pyramid, nutrients, portions, and balanced menus. In total, 3624 children participated in the study. Anthropometric measurements and information on food frequency and behavior, physical activity, and daily screen use were collected in the intervention (IG) and comparison group (CG). Positive unadjusted changes toward adherence to recommendations were found for water, meat, sweets, and fried potato consumption, proper breakfast, not having dinner in front of the TV, out-of-school physical activity, and daily screen use. Three scores were used to calculate the proportion of children making more than one change to improve healthy habits regarding physical activity (global Activity score), nutrition (global Nutrition score), and both (global score). Students exposed to the intervention had a significantly better global Activity score (16.2% IG vs. 11.9% CG; p = 0.012) and Global score (63.9% IG vs. 58.5% CG; p = 0.025). Intervention effects on obesity incidence at 3-year follow-up lost significance but maintained the positive trend. In conclusion, school-based interventions including a family component could be useful to address the childhood obesity problem.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Providing the Depression Care for People With Cancer Program to Patients With Prostate Cancer in the United States

ObjectivesThe Depression Care for People with Cancer program (DCPC) is a cost-effective depression care model for UK patients with cancer. However, DCPC’s cost-effectiveness in the United States is unknown, particularly for patients with prostate cancer in the United States. This study evaluates the health and economic impact of providing DCPC to patients with prostate cancer.MethodsDCPC was compared with usual care in a mathematical model that simulates depression and its outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of US patients with prostate cancer. DCPC was modeled as a sequential combination of universal depression screening, post-screening evaluations, and first-line combination therapy. Primary outcomes were lifetime direct costs of depression care, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Secondary outcomes included life expectancy, number of depression-free months and lifetime depressive episodes, duration of depressive episodes, cumulative incidence of depression, lifetime depression diagnoses/misdiagnoses, and the cumulative incidence of maintenance therapy for depression. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainty.ResultsIn the base case, DCPC dominated usual care by offering 0.11 more QALYs for $2500 less per patient (from averted misdiagnoses). DCPC also offered 5 extra depression-free months, shorter depressive episodes, and a lower chance of maintenance therapy. DCPC’s trade-offs were a higher cumulative incidence of depression and more lifetime depressive episodes. Life expectancy was identical under usual care and DCPC. Sensitivity analyses indicate that DCPC was almost always preferable to usual care.ConclusionCompared with usual care, DCPC may offer more value to US patients with prostate cancer. DCPC should be considered for inclusion in prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines.     

Antimicrobial Resistance: Is Health Technology Assessment Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?

Antimicrobial resistance is a serious challenge to the success and sustainability of our healthcare systems. There has been increasing policy attention given to antimicrobial resistance in the last few years, and increased amounts of funding have been channeled into funding for research and development of antimicrobial agents. Nevertheless, manufacturers doubt whether there will be a market for new antimicrobial technologies sufficient to enable them to recoup their investment. Health technology assessment (HTA) has a critical role in creating confidence that if valuable technologies can be developed they will be reimbursed at a level that captures their true value. We identify 3 deficiencies of current HTA processes for appraising antimicrobial agents: a methods-centric approach rather than problem-centric approach for dealing with new challenges, a lack of tools for thinking about changing patterns of infection, and the absence of an approach to epidemiological risks. We argue that, to play their role more effectively, HTA agencies need to broaden their methodological tool kit, design and communicate their analysis to a wider set of users, and incorporate long-term policy goals, such as containing resistance, as part of their evaluation criteria alongside immediate health gains.     

某钢丝绳生产企业职业危害现状调查及控制对策

目的了解某钢丝绳生产企业职业病危害现状,为控制该企业职业病危害因素提供依据。方法通过对某钢丝绳生产企业进行职业卫生现场调查、职业病危害因素检测,收集有关数据和资料,结合职业病危害防护设施、个人职业病危害防护、应急救援措施、职业健康检查结果等进行分析评价。结果粉尘、毒物、高温检测结果均符合国家职业卫生标准,合绳捻股车间捻股机、合绳机岗位噪声强度检测结果超标率100%,拉丝车间噪声检测合格率16.7%。职业卫生管理措施不够完善。结论该公司属于职业病危害较重企业,劳动者有发生职业性慢性铅中毒、职业性化学性灼伤、职业性噪声聋的风险,需采取有效措施进行整改。