Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies have diverse expectations from health economic (HE) evaluations that vary by jurisdiction, evidence type (randomized controlled trials, real-world data, external controls, or synthetic populations), and decision context. National agencies, such as NICE provide jurisdiction-specific methodological guidance, while international frameworks including ISPOR-SMDM Good Research Practices and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) offer general principles applicable across these approaches, supporting transparency, methodological rigor, and validation. This review compares NICE DSU Technical Support Document (TSD) 15, ISPOR-SMDM, and CHEERS 2022 to identify areas of alignment, divergence, and complementarity.
METHODS: A structured qualitative review of three publicly available guidelines was performed. Assessment was focused on seven methodological domains: decision context and research question; model structure and conceptualization; transparency; quality implementation; internal verification; external validation; and reporting. The analysis focused on overarching methodological and reporting principles relevant to model credibility and reproducibility, rather than on jurisdiction-specific technical preferences. Similarities, differences and gaps were summarized to identify opportunities for methodological integration.
RESULTS: Although all three guidelines emphasize clarity, transparency, and the need to justify modelling choices, they take different approaches. NICE TSD 15 provides detailed, hands-on guidance for building and checking models, and performing robust error-checking for patient-level simulations. ISPOR-SMDM guidelines focus broadly on methodological rigor, reproducibility, and expectations for face, internal, external, and predictive validation. CHEERS 2022 emphasizes reporting clarity and data source justification but not guiding model development or validation. Overall, the three frameworks share common principles but differ in the depth and scope of methodological versus reporting recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: No single framework governs HE evaluation universally. Considering insights from NICE, ISPOR-SMDM, and CHEERS can provide a context for the development, appraisal, and reporting of HE models. Understanding their complementary roles may aid analysts in documenting evaluations transparently and with methodological integrity, potentially supporting applicability across multiple jurisdictions.