Mapping methods gaps between EU joint clinical assessments and local health technology assessment decision-making: an environmental scan of guidance in select EU markets and harmonization challenges.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Grammati Sarri, Lydia Vinals, Lilia Leisle, Ingrid Claverie Chau, David Smalbrugge, Kai Lucassen, Yannis Jemiai
{"title":"Mapping methods gaps between EU joint clinical assessments and local health technology assessment decision-making: an environmental scan of guidance in select EU markets and harmonization challenges.","authors":"Grammati Sarri, Lydia Vinals, Lilia Leisle, Ingrid Claverie Chau, David Smalbrugge, Kai Lucassen, Yannis Jemiai","doi":"10.57264/cer-2024-0240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Under the newly instituted health technology assessment (HTA) regulation (HTAR), health technology developers must build evidence packages that meet the needs for both the upcoming EU joint clinical assessment (JCA) and national decision-making. In-depth knowledge of local methodological requirements as well as preparedness for effective strategic development is crucial. This study aimed to review methodological guidance documents to map similarities/misalignments between the EU HTAR and select HTA agencies. <b>Materials & methods:</b> An environmental scan was performed in March 2024 and updated in December 2024 of the websites for European Network for HTA, the European Commission and HTA agencies in France, Germany, The Netherlands and Spain. The search aimed to systematically identify and summarize methodological guidance documents from the respective organizations on scoping considerations, evidence identification and synthesis. <b>Results:</b> Overall, published EU HTAR methods guidelines are detailed, prescriptive and make reference to a preference (or lack thereof) for specific analytical methods. There was consensus among EU JCA and local HTA guidelines that clinical comparative assessments should be based on a systematically identified, unbiased selected evidence base derived from various sources. However, agencies differed on guidance related to evidence derived from indirect treatment comparisons. <b>Conclusion:</b> An environmental scan of methods documents revealed that it will likely be challenging for health technology developers to build strong evidence packages that can support both EU JCA and local reimbursement decision-making. A greater understanding of the similarities and differences between EU and local HTA requirements will be needed, including a greater capacity to demonstrate value through advanced analytics.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e240240"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0240","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Under the newly instituted health technology assessment (HTA) regulation (HTAR), health technology developers must build evidence packages that meet the needs for both the upcoming EU joint clinical assessment (JCA) and national decision-making. In-depth knowledge of local methodological requirements as well as preparedness for effective strategic development is crucial. This study aimed to review methodological guidance documents to map similarities/misalignments between the EU HTAR and select HTA agencies. Materials & methods: An environmental scan was performed in March 2024 and updated in December 2024 of the websites for European Network for HTA, the European Commission and HTA agencies in France, Germany, The Netherlands and Spain. The search aimed to systematically identify and summarize methodological guidance documents from the respective organizations on scoping considerations, evidence identification and synthesis. Results: Overall, published EU HTAR methods guidelines are detailed, prescriptive and make reference to a preference (or lack thereof) for specific analytical methods. There was consensus among EU JCA and local HTA guidelines that clinical comparative assessments should be based on a systematically identified, unbiased selected evidence base derived from various sources. However, agencies differed on guidance related to evidence derived from indirect treatment comparisons. Conclusion: An environmental scan of methods documents revealed that it will likely be challenging for health technology developers to build strong evidence packages that can support both EU JCA and local reimbursement decision-making. A greater understanding of the similarities and differences between EU and local HTA requirements will be needed, including a greater capacity to demonstrate value through advanced analytics.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信