Abstract
Objectives This study assessed the reporting quality of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).
Methods We conducted a systematic literature search of four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the International HTA Database) for studies published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2022. Three pairs of reviewers independently screened and reviewed the full text and extracted the data. We included all ICIs approved up to December 31, 2022, in the United States (US), European Union, China, and Japan. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013 (CHEERS 2013). Subgroup analyses were also performed based on the risk of sponsorship bias or citation of CHEERS 2013.
Results A total of 5,368 records were identified, 252 of which were included after full-text review. The study design, setting, and ICIs most frequently observed were cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses (63.5%), the US (46.0%), and pembrolizumab (38.1%), respectively. Of the 24 items of CHEERS 2013, fully reported items were limited, particularly in the Methods section. Setting and location were not reported in 94.4% of the records. Similar trends were observed in subgroup analysis.
Conclusion HEE studies on ICIs between 2014 and 2022 had limited reporting across the 24 items of CHEERS 2013, regardless of sponsorship bias risk or citations. The items on setting and location in the Methods section were particularly underreported, emphasizing the need for transparent reporting in HEE studies of ICIs.
Highlights
The reporting quality of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards published in 2013 (CHEERS 2013). However, the reporting quality of HEEs of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which is an emerging health policy issue for the economic burden of cancer, remains unknown.
Despite the passage of a decade since the publication of CHEERS 2013, HEE studies on ICIs have generally not fully adhered to the CHEERS 2013 guidelines in the Methods section. This is particularly evident in the setting and location items, even after stratification by the presence or absence of risk of sponsorship bias or whether CHEERS 2013 statement was cited.
This study highlights the insufficient reporting of CHEERS items among current HEE studies of ICIs, especially in the Methods section, to researchers who conduct HEE studies of ICIs, and informs policymakers and stakeholders who refer to HEE studies of ICIs about underreporting.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=439699
Funding Statement
Funding/Support: This study was supported by a National Cancer Center Research Grant (grant number: 2022-A-25) for English language editing and by the National Institute of Public Health for publication fees and consultation fees for search strategy development. Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders did not participate in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, review, approval, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study used ONLY data from published studies that were openly available to the public before the initiation of this study.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Précis: Health economic evaluation studies on immune checkpoint inhibitors have generally been underreported, particularly in terms of methodology, highlighting the importance of transparency for future studies.