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.

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 comprised of 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 twenty-nine candidate items, a set of twenty-three essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorized within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion, and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document.

Conclusions: It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency. and completeness of 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 five years’ time.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nebulized magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) in acute asthma in children from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and personal social services.

Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted based on evidence from a randomized placebo controlled multi-center trial of nebulized MgSO4 in severe acute asthma in children. Participants comprised 508 children aged 2–16 years presenting to an emergency department or a children's assessment unit with severe acute asthma across thirty hospitals in the United Kingdom. Children were randomly allocated to receive nebulized salbutamol and ipratropium bromide mixed with either 2.5 ml of isotonic MgSO4 or 2.5 ml of isotonic saline on three occasions at 20-min intervals. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were constructed around the Yung Asthma Severity Score (ASS) after 60 min of treatment; whilst cost-utility outcomes were constructed around the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) metric. The nonparametric bootstrap method was used to present cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds for either: (i) a unit reduction in ASS; or (ii) an additional QALY.

Results: MgSO4 had a 75.1 percent probability of being cost-effective at a GBP 1,000 (EUR 1,148) per unit decrement in ASS threshold, an 88.0 percent probability of being more effective (in terms of reducing the ASS) and a 36.6 percent probability of being less costly. MgSO4 also had a 67.6 percent probability of being cost-effective at a GBP 20,000 (EUR 22,957) per QALY gained threshold, an 8.5 percent probability of being more effective (in terms of generating increased QALYs) and a 69.1 percent probability of being less costly. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the economic evaluation were particularly sensitive to the methods used for QALY estimation.

Conclusions: The probability of cost-effectiveness of nebulized isotonic MgSO4, given as an adjuvant to standard treatment of severe acute asthma in children, is less than 70 percent across accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds for an additional QALY.

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.

The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).

We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Objectives: Preterm birth contributes to a range of healthcare problems amongst infants surmounting to sizeable healthcare costs. Twin pregnancies are at particular risk of preterm birth. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of vaginal progesterone gel for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancies.

Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized placebo controlled trial (the STOPPIT trial) of vaginal progesterone gel for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancies. Five hundred women were recruited from nine maternity hospitals in the United Kingdom. The outcomes of the economic evaluation were presented in terms of net benefit statistics, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, generated using the nonparametric bootstrap method, and the expected value of perfect information.

Results: Mean health service costs between the period of randomization and discharge for mother and infant were £28,031 in the progesterone group and £25,972 in the placebo group, generating a mean nonsignificant cost difference of £2,059 (bootstrap mean cost difference £2,334; 95 percent confidence interval: −£5,023, £9,142; p = .33). The probability of progesterone being cost-effective was 20 percent at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000 per preterm birth prevented. There is little economic justification for conducting further research into the use of vaginal progesterone gel in twin pregnancies for the prevention of preterm birth.

Conclusions: Further studies of preventive interventions for preterm birth more generally are required given the scale of the clinical and economic burden of this condition. These studies should be sufficiently powered for economic endpoints and extend beyond hospital discharge.

Objectives: This study reports the cost-effectiveness of a preventive intervention, consisting of counseling and specific support for the mother–infant relationship, targeted at women at high risk of developing postnatal depression.

Methods: A prospective economic evaluation was conducted alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in which women considered at high risk of developing postnatal depression were allocated randomly to the preventive intervention (n = 74) or to routine primary care (n = 77). The primary outcome measure was the duration of postnatal depression experienced during the first 18 months postpartum. Data on health and social care use by women and their infants up to 18 months postpartum were collected, using a combination of prospective diaries and face-to-face interviews, and then were combined with unit costs (£, year 2000 prices) to obtain a net cost per mother–infant dyad. The nonparametric bootstrap method was used to present cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and net benefit statistics at alternative willingness to pay thresholds held by decision makers for preventing 1 month of postnatal depression.

Results: Women in the preventive intervention group were depressed for an average of 2.21 months (9.57 weeks) during the study period, whereas women in the routine primary care group were depressed for an average of 2.70 months (11.71 weeks). The mean health and social care costs were estimated at £2,396.9 per mother–infant dyad in the preventive intervention group and £2,277.5 per mother–infant dyad in the routine primary care group, providing a mean cost difference of £119.5 (bootstrap 95 percent confidence interval [CI], −535.4, 784.9). At a willingness to pay threshold of £1,000 per month of postnatal depression avoided, the probability that the preventive intervention is cost-effective is .71 and the mean net benefit is £383.4 (bootstrap 95 percent CI, −£863.3–£1,581.5).

Conclusions: The preventive intervention is likely to be cost-effective even at relatively low willingness to pay thresholds for preventing 1 month of postnatal depression during the first 18 months postpartum. Given the negative impact of postnatal depression on later child development, further research is required that investigates the longer-term cost-effectiveness of the preventive intervention in high risk women.

Objective: Individuals' recollections of the number and type of health service encounters are frequently required for health economic studies. We sought to establish whether the accuracy of self-reported healthcare resource utilization is a function of the duration of the recall period and the saliency of the health service encounter.

Methods: Patient recollections of a range of community services (general practitioner visits, community midwifery visits) and hospital services (accident and emergency attendances, hospital outpatient attendances, inpatient admissions) over 4-month and 8-month time periods were obtained from women participating in a randomized controlled trial. Comparisons were made with healthcare resource utilization data extracted from medical records. Where significant differences were identified between the self-reported and medically recorded data, a multivariate linear regression model was constructed to identify the factors associated with underreporting and overreporting of healthcare resource utilization.

Results: The study revealed a tendency to underreport community service utilization, which appears to be exacerbated when the recall period is extended. A number of sociodemographic and clinical factors significantly associated with this tendency to underreport community service utilization were identified. The self-reporting of hospital service utilization over varying periods of recall was found to be more accurate.

Conclusion: It is important that economic analysts establish optimal methods for estimating resource utilization quantities within health economic analytical designs. In particular, greater emphasis should be placed on extracting information on community service utilization from medical records or routine health service information systems.