Search

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.

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 th

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.

508-513, OBJECTIVES: Clinical endpoints are defined as valid measures of clinical benefit or harm due to treatment, that describe the impact of treatment on how a patient feels, functions, and survives. The choice of endpoints and the manner in which they are reported have a major impact on the relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals. The aim of this article is to describe the guideline development process and the key findings that set a framework for appropriate use of endpoints in REAs in Europe. METHODS: A multi-health technology assessment (HTA)-agency collaborative process in EUnetHTA JA1 was used to scope, draft, and finalize methodological guidelines for REA in Europe. RESULTS: Patient-relevant clinical endpoints can be broadly categorized into: mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life. A clinical endpoint is a main symptom or sign of a disease that is clinically relevant, valid, reproducible and responsive to change. Preference is for long-term or final endpoints whenever possible. Surrogate endpoints may be used when there is compelling evidence of a clear and consistent correlation of treatment effects on the surrogate and final outcome of interest. CONCLUSIONS: The relevance and hierarchy of the different types of clinical endpoints depend on the research question, disease, and the treatment investigated. Not only the primary endpoint, but also other relevant endpoints are assessed in comparison to adequate comparator(s). This simultaneous assessment of all relevant endpoints is a hallmark of REA.

278-284, Objectives: High-quality clinical evidence is most often lacking when novel high-risk devices enter the European market. At the same time, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is often initiated as a requirement for obtaining market access in the US. Should coverage in Europe be postponed until RCT data are available? We studied the premarket clinical evaluation of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe compared with the US, and with medicines, where appropriate. Methods: The literature and regulatory documents were checked. Representatives from industry, Competent Authorities, Notified Bodies, Ethics Committees, and HTA agencies were consulted. We also discuss patient safety and the transparency of information. Results: In contrast to the US, there is no requirement in Europe to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of high-risk devices in the premarket phase. Patients in Europe can thus have earlier access to a potentially lifesaving device, but at the risk of insufficiently documented efficacy and safety. Variations in the stringency of clinical reviews, both at the level of Notified Bodies and Competent Authorities, do not guarantee patient safety. We tried to document the design of premarket trials in Europe and number of patients exposed, but failed as this information is not made public. Furthermore, the Helsinki Declaration is not followed with respect to the registration and publication of premarket trials. Conclusions: For innovative high-risk devices, new EU legislation should require the premarket demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety, using an RCT if possible, and a transparent clinical review, preferably centralized.