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

被引:0
|
作者
Sarri, Grammati [1 ]
Vinals, Lydia [2 ]
Leisle, Lilia [3 ]
Chau, Ingrid Claverie [4 ]
Smalbrugge, David [5 ]
Lucassen, Kai [6 ]
Jemiai, Yannis [7 ]
机构
[1] Cytel Inc, Hamilton House,Mabledon Pl, London WC1H 9BB, England
[2] Cytel Inc, 1 Univ Ave,3rd Floor, Toronto, ON M5J 2P1, Canada
[3] Cytel Inc, Potsdamer Str 58, D-10785 Berlin, Germany
[4] Steveconsultants a Cytel Co, Oullins, France
[5] Cytel Inc, Weena 316-318, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[6] Faktor GmbH, Cytel Brand, Potsdamer Str 58, D-10785 Berlin, Germany
[7] Cytel Inc, 675 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
关键词
comparative effectiveness; data; European Union; health technology assessment; joint clinical assessment; methods; uncertainty;
D O I
10.57264/cer-2024-0240
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
empty
未找到相关数据