Search Results (8)

With the European Union (EU) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) regulation, Joint Clinical Assessments (JCA) are now required for oncological and advanced therapy medicinal products. The JCA assessment scope is determined through the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome). Given the tight JCA timelines, Health Technology Developers (HTD) must anticipate PICO elements early to prepare dossiers effectively. This study investigates whether PICO can be predicted across EU member states using publicly available information. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify relevant peer-reviewed articles. Additionally, an extensive search of publicly available HTA documents, including reports, methodological guidelines, submission templates, and market access information was performed across 29 European countries. Relevant information for PICO anticipation was extracted. For many member states, a wealth of relevant information is publicly accessible: 66% have HTA reports publicly available, 79% have HTA methodological guidelines, 69% have dossier templates, and 100% have market access status lists. Between countries, the requirements for population and outcomes are largely aligned, making comparator the central element in PICO anticipation. PICO can be anticipated reliably based on public information. HTDs must be prepared to adjust their strategies as national procedures adapt, ensuring alignment with both current and emerging EU and national requirements. Full article

Background: We examined four potential challenges for the implementation of the European Union (EU) Regulation 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment (EU HTAR): interaction with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), expert input, the interface of European health technology assessment (EU HTA) joint procedures with those within Member States, and the management of conflict of interest. This research aims to explore how to address these challenges in a balanced manner and prioritise key actions for effective collaboration in the context of the EU HTA. Methods: The methodology included a pre-convention survey among relevant stakeholders as well as working groups and the plenary ranking of discussion outcomes at the European Access Academy (EAA) Spring Convention 2024. Results: In the survey, 65.5% of respondents indicated that experts are currently not sufficiently included in the upcoming joint scientific consultations and clinical assessments; only 37.9% suggested that the EU HTA joint procedures would accelerate national appraisal decision-making, and 58.6% believed that the principles of ‘transparency’ and ‘competency’ are balanced in the EU HTA position on conflict of interest. The top priority action points identified in the working groups were the involvement of the best available expertise, the early and inclusive involvement of experts, strengthened early scientific dialogue, and the fostering of the political willingness/financial support of EU Member States to increase capacities. Conclusions: The key topics identified were an approach to conflict of interest that balances transparency obligations and the need for expertise, strengthens the involvement of clinical and patient experts, intensifies early interaction between the EMA and EU HTA, and increases the involvement of the EU Member States. Full article

The focus of manufacturers preparing for implementation of the EU HTA Regulation (HTAR) in 2025 has understandably been on their market access teams, and how they can be best equipped to adapt to this significant change. Considering the critical nature of market access in ensuring innovation reaches patients, it should be no surprise that the EU HTAR will have impacts far beyond this function. Here, we utilize published EU HTAR guidance, a pragmatic literature review, internal analysis, and insights from engagements with manufacturers, to outline some of the key cross-functional considerations arising from JSC and JCA, and how manufacturers should account for these in their EU HTAR readiness plans. Full article

Many countries around the world use health technology assessment (HTA) to inform reimbursement and pricing decisions. HTA is often split into two steps, called assessment and appraisal. While the term HTA itself has been defined by international consortia, there is heterogeneity in the way different stakeholders use the terms assessment and appraisal. This creates ambiguity regarding which activities are included in technology assessment. With the new EU HTA Regulation, the HTA community should urgently seek to clarify the distinction between assessment and appraisal, as the regulation aims to centralize the clinical part of technology assessment at the European level. Failure to clarify this terminology will put the ambition of the regulation such as increased efficiency and reduction in duplication at risk. In this article, we argue that the distinction between assessment and appraisal should be seen as a science/value dichotomy. We discuss the transition from centralized assessment activities to country-level appraisal, which should culminate in a categorization of the overall added benefit in a local context. Finally, we touch on the important dimension of uncertainty always present in medical decision making. Full article

The Government of Ireland has set a target of achieving 100% open access to publicly funded scholarly publications by 2030. As a key element of achieving this objective, the PublishOA.ie project was established to evaluate the feasibility of establishing an all-island [Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland] digital publishing platform for Diamond Open Access journals and monographs designed to advance best practice and meet the needs of authors, readers, publishers, and research funding organisations in Irish scholarly publishing. It should be noted in this context that there is substantial ‘north–south’ cooperation between public bodies in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, some of whom operate on what is commonly termed an ‘all-island’ basis. The project commenced in November 2022 and will run until November 2024, with the submission of a Final Report. This article originated as an interim project report presented in September 2023 at the PubMet2023 conference in Zadar, Croatia. The project is unique in its mandate to report on the feasibility of a shared platform that will encompass scholarly publishing across the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, which are now, post-Brexit, inside and outside the European Union (EU): the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. The project is co-led by the Royal Irish Academy (RIA), Ireland’s leading body of experts in the Sciences and Humanities, and the Trinity Long Room Hub Arts & Humanities Research Institute of Trinity College Dublin. There are sixteen partners and affiliates from universities and organisations from the island of Ireland. The feasibility study will be based on a review of the publishing practices in the island of Ireland, with gap analysis on standards, technology, processes, copyright practices, and funding models for Diamond OA, benchmarking against other national platforms, and specifications of the requirements, leading to the delivery of a pilot national publishing platform. A set of demonstrator journals and monographs will be published using the platform, which will be actively trialled by the partner publishers and authors. PublishOA.ie aims to deliver an evidence-based understanding of Irish scholarly publishing and of the requirements of publishers to transition in whole or in part to Diamond OA. This paper provides an interim report on progress on the project as of September 2023, ten months after its commencement. Full article

Background: This work aimed to determine the role and action points for the involvement of medical societies in the European Health Technology Assessment (EU HTA) Methods: An online pre-convention survey was developed addressing four areas related to the EU HTA: (i) medical societies’ role; (ii) role of clinical guidelines; (iii) interface with the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS); and (iv) approaching ‘best-available evidence’ (BAE). A descriptive analysis of questionnaire outcomes was conducted to inform the European Access Academy (EAA) Fall Convention 2023. Within the working groups (WGs), action points were identified and prioritised. Results: A total of 57 experts from 15 countries responded to the survey. The WGs were attended by (i) 11, (ii) 10, (iii) 12, and (iv) 12 experts, respectively, representing a variety of national backgrounds and stakeholder profiles. The most relevant action points identified were as follows: (i) incorporation of clinical context into population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) schemes, (ii) timely provision of up-to-date therapeutic guidelines, (iii) ensuring the inclusion of MCBS insights into the EU HTA process, and (iv) considering randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the gold standard and leveraging regulatory insights if development programs only include single-arm trials. Conclusions: The involvement of medical societies is a critical success factor for the EU HTA. The identified key action points foster the involvement of patient associations and medical societies. Full article

Objectives: Stakeholder involvement has long been considered a success factor for a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) process, and its relevance is now anchored in the EU HTA Regulation’s (EU HTAR) legislative wording. Therefore, we aimed to explore the roles, challenges, and most important activities to increase the level of involvement per stakeholder group. Methods: At the 2022 Fall Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), working groups addressed the involvement of patients, clinicians, regulators, health technology developers (HTD), and national HTA bodies and payers within the EU HTA process. Each working group revisited the pre-convention survey results, determined key role characteristics for each stakeholder, and agreed on the most important activities to fulfill the role profile. Finally, the activities suggested per group were prioritized by plenary group. Results: The prioritized actions for patients included training and capacity building, the establishment of a patient involvement committee, and the establishment of a patient unit at the EC secretariat. For clinicians, it included alignment on evidence assessment from a clinical vs. HTA point of view, capacity building, and standardization of processes. The most important actions for regulators are to develop joint regulatory-HTA guidance documents, align processes and interfaces under the regulation, and share discussions on post-licensing evidence generation. HTDs prioritized scientific advice capacity and the review of the scoping process, and further development of the scope of the assessment report fact checks. The top three actions for national HTA bodies and payers included clarification on the early HTD dialogue process, political support and commitment, and clarification on financial support. Conclusions: Addressing the activities identified as the most important for stakeholders/collaborators in the EU HTA process (e.g., in the implementation of the EU HTA Stakeholder Network and of the guidance documents developed by the EUnetHTA 21 consortium) will be key to starting an “inclusive civil society dialogue”, as suggested by the European Commission’s Pharmaceutical Strategy. Full article

Involvement of all relevant stakeholders will be of utmost importance for the success of the developing EU HTA harmonization process. A multi-step procedure was applied to develop a survey across stakeholders/collaborators within the EU HTA framework to assess their current level of involvement, determine their suggested future role, identify challenges to contribution, and highlight efficient ways to fulfilling their role. The ‘key’ stakeholder groups identified and covered by this research included: patients’, clinicians’, regulatory, and Health Technology Developer representatives. The survey was circulated to a wide expert audience including all relevant stakeholder groups in order to determine self-perception by the ‘key’ stakeholders regarding involvement in the HTA process (self-rating), and in a second, slightly modified version of the questionnaire, to determine the perception of ‘key’ stakeholder involvement by HTA bodies, payers, and policymakers (external rating). Predefined analyses were conducted on the submitted responses. Fifty-four responses were received (patients 9; clinicians: 8; regulators: 4; HTDs 14; HTA bodies: 7; Payers: 5; policymakers 3; others 4). The mean self-perceived involvement score was consistently lower for each of the ‘key’ stakeholder groups than the respective external ratings. Based on the qualitative insights generated in the survey, a RACI Chart (Responsible/Accountable/Consulted/Informed) was developed for each of the stakeholder groups to determine their roles and involvement in the current EU HTA process. Our findings suggest extensive effort and a distinct research agenda are required to ensure adequate involvement of the key stakeholder groups in the evolving EU HTA process. Full article