在选定的欧洲国家对卫生和技术机构批准创新卫生技术的不断演变的证据的接受程度进行定性研究。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
E Reith, L Maas, A Joos, I Heikkinen, M De Iaco, M Hiligsmann
{"title":"在选定的欧洲国家对卫生和技术机构批准创新卫生技术的不断演变的证据的接受程度进行定性研究。","authors":"E Reith, L Maas, A Joos, I Heikkinen, M De Iaco, M Hiligsmann","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2530622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>With increasing efforts of streamlining market access of innovative drugs, the current acceptance of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies on non-traditional trial designs is still unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the perspective of drug developers on the acceptance of non-traditional trial designs by HTA bodies in Europe.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts to gain insights on their perception of non-traditional trial design acceptance by HTA bodies from the Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, Sweden, and France. Future perspectives on and recommendations for facilitating the acceptance of non-traditional trials were provided.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All experts highlighted the HTA bodies' preference for randomized controlled trials over non-traditional trial designs. The degree of acceptance varied between countries. Experts recommended multistakeholder discussions between drug developers and HTA bodies for early scientific advice and reevaluation of evidence requirements. The EU-HTA regulation was viewed as both a potential opportunity for harmonization and limiting innovative approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study highlighted significant variations in the acceptance of non-traditional trial designs by HTA bodies across Europe. Actions are needed to facilitate a more progressive view on non-traditional clinical trial designs to ensure fast patient access to highly innovative treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualitative research on the acceptance of evolving evidence for HTA body approval of innovative health technologies in selected European countries.\",\"authors\":\"E Reith, L Maas, A Joos, I Heikkinen, M De Iaco, M Hiligsmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14737167.2025.2530622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>With increasing efforts of streamlining market access of innovative drugs, the current acceptance of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies on non-traditional trial designs is still unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the perspective of drug developers on the acceptance of non-traditional trial designs by HTA bodies in Europe.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts to gain insights on their perception of non-traditional trial design acceptance by HTA bodies from the Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, Sweden, and France. Future perspectives on and recommendations for facilitating the acceptance of non-traditional trials were provided.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All experts highlighted the HTA bodies' preference for randomized controlled trials over non-traditional trial designs. The degree of acceptance varied between countries. Experts recommended multistakeholder discussions between drug developers and HTA bodies for early scientific advice and reevaluation of evidence requirements. The EU-HTA regulation was viewed as both a potential opportunity for harmonization and limiting innovative approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study highlighted significant variations in the acceptance of non-traditional trial designs by HTA bodies across Europe. Actions are needed to facilitate a more progressive view on non-traditional clinical trial designs to ensure fast patient access to highly innovative treatments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2530622\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2530622","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

摘要

目的:随着创新药物市场准入的不断加强,目前卫生技术评估机构对非传统试验设计的接受程度尚不明确。本研究的目的是评估药物开发人员对欧洲HTA机构接受非传统试验设计的看法。方法:对来自荷兰、德国、英国、瑞典和法国的专家进行了11次半结构化访谈,以了解他们对来自荷兰、德国、英国和法国的HTA机构接受非传统试验设计的看法。提出了今后对促进接受非传统试验的看法和建议。结果:所有专家都强调了HTA机构对随机对照试验的偏好,而不是非传统的试验设计。接受程度因国家而异。专家建议药物开发人员和HTA机构就早期科学建议和重新评估证据要求进行多方利益相关者讨论。欧盟-卫生运输局的规定被认为是协调和限制创新方法的潜在机会。结论:本研究的结果突出了欧洲HTA机构接受非传统试验设计的显著差异。需要采取行动促进对非传统临床试验设计的更进步的看法,以确保患者快速获得高度创新的治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Qualitative research on the acceptance of evolving evidence for HTA body approval of innovative health technologies in selected European countries.

Objective: With increasing efforts of streamlining market access of innovative drugs, the current acceptance of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies on non-traditional trial designs is still unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the perspective of drug developers on the acceptance of non-traditional trial designs by HTA bodies in Europe.

Methods: Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts to gain insights on their perception of non-traditional trial design acceptance by HTA bodies from the Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, Sweden, and France. Future perspectives on and recommendations for facilitating the acceptance of non-traditional trials were provided.

Results: All experts highlighted the HTA bodies' preference for randomized controlled trials over non-traditional trial designs. The degree of acceptance varied between countries. Experts recommended multistakeholder discussions between drug developers and HTA bodies for early scientific advice and reevaluation of evidence requirements. The EU-HTA regulation was viewed as both a potential opportunity for harmonization and limiting innovative approach.

Conclusion: The results of this study highlighted significant variations in the acceptance of non-traditional trial designs by HTA bodies across Europe. Actions are needed to facilitate a more progressive view on non-traditional clinical trial designs to ensure fast patient access to highly innovative treatments.

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
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信