绘制方法欧盟联合临床评估和当地卫生技术评估决策之间的差距:在选定的欧盟市场中指导的环境扫描和协调挑战。

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":"绘制方法欧盟联合临床评估和当地卫生技术评估决策之间的差距:在选定的欧盟市场中指导的环境扫描和协调挑战。","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":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12007483/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12007483/pdf/\",\"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\":\"2025/2/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"2025/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:根据新制定的卫生技术评估(HTA)法规(HTAR),卫生技术开发人员必须建立证据包,以满足即将到来的欧盟联合临床评估(JCA)和国家决策的需求。深入了解当地的方法要求以及为有效的战略发展做好准备是至关重要的。本研究旨在审查方法学指导文件,以绘制欧盟HTAR与选定HTA机构之间的相似/偏差。材料和方法:2024年3月对欧洲HTA网络、欧盟委员会和法国、德国、荷兰和西班牙的HTA机构的网站进行了环境扫描,并于2024年12月进行了更新。搜索的目的是系统地确定和总结各组织关于范围考虑、证据确定和综合的方法学指导文件。结果:总体而言,公布的EU HTAR方法指南是详细的,规范性的,并参考了对特定分析方法的偏好(或缺乏偏好)。欧盟JCA和当地HTA指南一致认为,临床比较评估应基于来自各种来源的系统识别、无偏见的精选证据基础。然而,各机构对间接治疗比较证据的相关指导意见存在分歧。结论:对方法文件的环境扫描显示,对于卫生技术开发人员来说,建立能够支持欧盟JCA和地方报销决策的强有力的证据包可能是具有挑战性的。需要更好地了解欧盟和当地HTA需求之间的异同,包括通过高级分析来展示价值的更大能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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