Did Economic Evaluations on Pharmaceuticals and Vaccination for COVID-19 Maintain Adequate Reporting Quality? A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

Aim

This study seeks to assess the reporting quality of published health economic evaluations (HEEs) on vaccination and pharmaceuticals for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and identify potential predictors associated with reporting quality.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, INAHTA, and Chinese databases (e.g., SinoMed, CNKI, and WANGFANG Database). HEEs published between January 1, 2020, and August 20, 2022, that considered both costs and outcomes of vaccination and pharmaceuticals for COVID-19 were included. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement scored the reporting quality for incorporated studies. A linear regression analysis was employed to characterize the impact of various features on reporting quality.

Results

Fifty-two studies were included in the analysis. The average CHEERS score was 18.54±3.41, with the scoring rate of reporting quality was 67% (±12%). The most inadequately reported items included health economic analysis plan, time horizon, valuation of outcomes, heterogeneity, uncertainty, distributional effects, and stakeholder involvement. Higher reporting compliance was associated with articles applying a longer time horizon (no less than 1 year) and those using a societal perspective (p < 0.05). The investigations that did not specify a study perspective received the lowest scores among the subgroups.

Conclusion

Overall, the included HEEs on vaccination and pharmaceuticals for COVID-19 had moderate reporting quality. Future HEEs should be transparently and sufficiently reported in accordance with standard guidelines (e.g., the CHEERS 2022 statement), to increase the interpretability of results, improve the reporting quality, and better inform the decision-making.