There are wide variations in the practices of patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) in Europe. The field is lacking a consensus on good practices, leading to divergent processes, methods, and evaluation of patient involvement. To identify potential good practice approaches and current gaps, a structured online survey was conducted among HTA stakeholders, including HTA practitioners, patient stakeholders, industry representatives, and others who had experienced patient involvement in HTA.

The questionnaire was co-created by HTA experts, patient stakeholders, and industry representatives and disseminated between 29 April and 14 September 2022.

Responses (n = 168) were submitted from thirty-two European countries by HTA practitioners (n = 33), patient stakeholders (n = 75), industry stakeholders (n = 42), providers (n = 5), academics (n = 7), and others (n = 6). The responses indicated that “allowing access to treatments that have demonstrated value”is the principle rationale for conducting HTA. In terms of the importance of patient involvement, there was consensus across stakeholder groups that “patients have insights and information [that] no other stakeholder has” and that patient involvement is important “to inform HTA which evidence is most patient-relevant”. Shortcomings were identified in the lack of systematic and transparent processes, an unsatisfactory level of information and guidance, and minimal communication and collaboration.

The diverse stakeholders who responded highlighted the need for improving specific aspects of patient involvement practices, including better guidance and information, a more consistent flow of communication between the HTA body and participating patient stakeholders, and the need to develop and implement a consensus on good practices.

This paper reports on the process used to embark on one of the core strategies of Abu Dhabi’s Department of Health, which was to develop a roadmap for HTA implementation and institutionalization, based on the aspirations and needs of local stakeholders and making use of the evidence-informed deliberative processes framework. The paper also highlights the main features of the road map that may be expected to address some of the current challenges.

A series of activities were undertaken that informed the subsequent development of the roadmap. They comprised a situation analysis using a combination of desk research and semistructured (group) interviews with 45 stakeholders. The findings were discussed in two workshops; face-to-face with nonindustry stakeholders from Abu Dhabi, and online with industry representatives.

Guided by the EDP framework, the roadmap provides instructions how to organize stakeholder involvement, how to identify and operationalize decision criteria, and how to ensure that the decision-making process is transparent. Specific guidance is given on establishing an HTA structure with an appropriate policy framework, the formulation of an HTA program, a communication strategy, as well as building and leveraging HTA expertise.

Broad stakeholder consultation has been instrumental toward the establishment of a comprehensive HTA framework in Abu Dhabi, and the development of a road map. The interest raised during stakeholder consultations and the commitments made hold promise for the adoption and establishment of EDP principles to support HTA in Abu Dhabi that have potential to contribute to a sustainable high-quality healthcare system.

Digital health technologies have been enhancing the capacity of healthcare providers and, thereby, the delivery of targeted health services. The Southeast Asia Region (SEAR) has invested in strengthening digital public health. Many digital health interventions have been implemented in public health settings but are rarely assessed using the holistic health technology assessment (HTA) approach.

A systematic literature review was performed to provide an overview of evaluations of digital public health interventions in the World Health Organization (WHO) SEAR. Searches were conducted on four electronic databases. Screening title abstracts and full texts was independently conducted by two reviewers, followed by data extraction. Dimensions of HTA were analyzed against the EUnetHTA Core Model 3.0. Quality assessment of included articles was conducted using the JBI Checklist for Economic Evaluation and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist to assess the reporting quality. The findings are presented using systematic evidence tables and bar charts.

Of the forty-three studies screened at the full-text stage, thirteen studies conducted across six countries were included in the analysis. Telemedicine and m-health interventions were assessed in ten studies. Nine studies conducted cost-effectiveness analysis, and five assessments were conducted from a societal perspective. Four studies utilized more than one perspective for the assessment. Health problem definition and current use of technology, description and technical characteristics of the technology, clinical effectiveness, costs, economic evaluation, and organizational aspects were assessed by all the studies, whereas legal aspects were least assessed.

The lack of HTAs on digital public health interventions in the region highlights the need for capacity-building efforts.

Constrained resources under universal health coverage (UHC) necessitate a balance between medication costs and essential health system requirements. Policymakers practice priority-setting, as either implicit or explicit rationing, embedded in evidence-informed decision-making processes to guide funding decisions. Health technology assessment (HTA) is a method that may assist explicit evidence-informed priority setting. South Africa developed an official HTA methods guide in 2022, however before this, commissioning and performing economic evaluations was not standardized.

We conducted a descriptive collective case study to explore the impact of economic analyses on the selection of, and access to, essential medicines in South Africa. Four cases were purposefully selected, and both official information and secondary data, including media reports, were reviewed. Data elements were extracted and organized in a matrix. Cases were reported narratively with a positivist epistemological approach, presenting the authors’ reflections.

We found economic analyses that reflected methodologies described in the HTA guide: international reference pricing, cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and budget impact analyses. Economic analyses informing the ‘resource-use’ domain in the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework supported decision-making, influenced market-shaping with price reductions of interventions through benchmarking (fosfomycin, flucytosine), improved equitable access nationally (flucytosine), and prioritized a defined patient group in a justifiable and transparent manner (bortezomib).

A standardized HTA evaluation process guided by a nationally accepted framework is necessary for evidence-informed decision-making. Economic analyses (cost-effectiveness, affordability, and resource use) should be consistently included when making decisions on new interventions.

The China Rural Hypertension Control Project (CRHCP) is a nonphysician-led community-based hypertension intervention program that has demonstrated clear benefits in improving blood pressure (BP) control and reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease events among hypertensive patients in rural areas of China. However, it is currently unclear whether the benefits of the CRHCP outweigh its costs, and whether promoting this project in China is justifiable from a perspective of healthcare system.

We employed a Markov model to forecast the anticipated 20-year costs and effectiveness of the CRHCP trial. Cost data for this study was gathered from public records or published papers, whereas clinical data was extracted from the CRHCP trial. Our primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, expressed in Chinese Yuan (CNY) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), representing the additional cost per additional QALY gained.

Over a span of 20 years, the cost for a rural hypertensive individual in China who received intensive BP intervention by a nonphysician community healthcare provider would amount to 25,129 CNY, yielding an effectiveness of 8.19 QALY. In contrast, if usual care was provided, the cost would be 26,709 CNY with an effectiveness of 7.94 QALY. The CRHCP program demonstrated lower costs and greater effectiveness for rural hypertensive individuals in China.

Our study indicates that the implementation of the CRHCP program among rural hypertensive individuals in China resulted in increased effectiveness and reduced costs. From the perspective of Chinese healthcare system, the CRHCP program proves to be cost-saving within the current healthcare landscape.

It is vital that horizon scanning organizations can capture and disseminate intelligence on new and repurposed medicines in clinical development. To our knowledge, there are no standardized classification systems to capture this intelligence. This study aims to create a novel classification system to allow new and repurposed medicines horizon scanning intelligence to be disseminated to healthcare organizations.

A multidisciplinary working group undertook literature searching and an iterative, three-stage piloting process to build consensus on a classification system. Supplementary data collection was carried out to facilitate the implementation and validation of the system on the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Innovation Observatory (IO)‘s horizon scanning database, the Medicines Innovation Database (MInD).

Our piloting process highlighted important issues such as the patency and regulatory approval status of individual medicines and how combination therapies interact with these characteristics. We created a classification system with six values (New Technology, Repurposed Technology (Off-patent/Generic), Repurposed Technology (On-patent/Branded), Repurposed Technology (Never commercialised), New + Repurposed Technology (Combinations-only), Repurposed Technology (Combinations-only)) that account for these characteristics to provide novel horizon scanning insights. We validated our system through application to over 20,000 technology records on the MInD.

Our system provides the opportunity to deliver concise yet informative intelligence to healthcare organizations and those studying the clinical development landscape of medicines. Inbuilt flexibility and the use of publicly available data sources ensure that it can be utilized by all, regardless of location or resource availability.

The aim of this study is to understand the path for establishing digital health technologies-health technology assessment (DHT-HTA) in India.

A rapid review of HTA and DHT frameworks on PubMed (MEDLINE) and Google Scholar was conducted to identify DHT-HTA guidelines, and HTA processes in India. MS-Excel template was created with key domains for assessing DHT in resource-constrained settings based on studies and reports identified. Responses received from seventeen experts with varying expertise in DHT, HTA, clinical, and research were contacted using an online form. Following the principles of qualitative research rooted on grounded theory approach, themes and domains were derived for a framework which was again circulated through participants. Weightage for each theme was assigned based on the frequency of responses and qualifiers were used to interpret results. Inductively derived themes from these responses were clubbed together to identify macro-level systems requirements, and finally pre-requisites for setting up DHT-HTA framework was synthesized.

HT are commonly perceived by experts (64.7 percent participants) as a technology strictly connected to health information. Real-world data (i.e., electronic health data) are recognized as a relevant tool in support of decision-making for clinical and managerial levels. Experts identified some pre-requisites for the establishment of DHT-HTA in the country in terms of infrastructure, contextual factors, training, finance, data security, and scale-up.

Our research not only identified the pre-requisites for the adoption of a DHT-HTA framework for India, but confirmed the need to address DHT-HTA’s acceptability among. Hospitals and health insurance providers.

Ministry of Health (MOH) Malaysia stakeholders seek primary care access to sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i). Addressing this required a complex decision, selecting among three SGLT2i for two different indications and two practice settings. The options include expanding the existing SGLT2i (empagliflozin) in the MOH Medicines Formulary to primary care and/or having dapagliflozin and/or luseogliflozin as alternatives. This study aimed to conduct a multiple health technology assessment (HTA) to determine the SGLT2i of choice for the MOH setting.

The clinical benefits of SGLT2i were assessed through a systematic literature review and affordability was assessed through the development of three budget impact analysis models simulating seventy scenarios. Each model varied by prescribing indications, restrictions, and SGLT2i involved (M1: glycemic control, HbA1c between 6.5 percent and 10 percent, empagliflozin–dapagliflozin–luseogliflozin; M2: cardiovascular benefits, HbA1c less than 10 percent, empagliflozin-dapagliflozin; M3: a composite of M1 and M2). The outcome of the HTA was presented to the MOH decision-makers.

Although there was no significant difference in glycemic control between the SGLT2i, differences exist in cardiovascular benefits conferred. Despite having scenarios with lower net budget impact (NBI) in the M1, M2, and M3 models, decision-makers decided to expand empagliflozin use to primary care setting and add dapagliflozin for hospital-only setting for both indications [NBI of $4.38 mil] due to empagliflozin’s advantage in reducing risk for cardiovascular death and prior experience of its use in MOH.

The multiple HTA approach guided the complex decision-making process by providing a holistic understanding of the decision’s impact.

The number of orphan drug (OD) approvals has increased sharply in Europe. In Germany, all ODs are initially subject to a limited assessment after market access. Their added benefit over the standard of care is accepted as established upon EU approval; a regular health technology assessment (HTA) is performed only in certain cases.

We assessed whether the increase in OD approvals has led to improvements in patient-relevant outcomes as supported by the evidence submitted by market authorization holders (MAHs) for HTA in Germany. We also examined the extent to which these ODs address unmet medical needs.

The results of limited assessments and regular HTAs of ODs in Germany (January 2011–September 2021, plus January–December 2023) were analyzed to determine their added benefit based on MAH-submitted dossiers. Added benefit was reported separately for each research question generated from the EU-approved therapeutic indications and any sub-indications (e.g., different subpopulations or control interventions) specified for HTA in Germany.

Eighty-nine ODs (limited assessments: sixty-nine; regular HTAs: twenty) were evaluated in 175 research questions (limited assessments: ninety-seven; regular HTAs: seventy-eight). The added benefit granted in limited assessments was non-quantifiable in nearly eighty percent of the ninety-seven questions. In regular HTAs, no proof of added benefit was shown in fifty-four percent of the seventy-eight questions, mainly due to insufficient comparative data with the standard of care. Established treatments were available for fifty-eight percent of the seventy-eight questions; more than half of which addressed oncology indications (although these account for only eight percent of rare diseases).

Due to evidence gaps in post-approval HTA, many ODs approved in the EU lack proof of added benefit in terms of improving patient-relevant outcomes. Moreover, most approved ODs are indicated for diseases with established treatments and oncology indications, while many unmet medical needs remain. Incentives are required to encourage research in areas of unmet medical need and to generate comparative data with the standard of care.

In the field of Laboratory Medicine, the evolution of knowledge and the innovation of technologies are the basis of analytical and diagnostic progress, leading to the development of new solutions based on innovative technologies. However, these advances must be accompanied by evidence of appropriateness, diagnostic effectiveness, and organizational efficiency, considering the test’s first impact on patient outcomes.

The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a valid management tool to support Laboratory Medicine professionals in assessing technologies and which is the most appropriate to adopt. This study is an illustrative case of the application of HTA, exploiting the EUnetHTA Core Model, on two analyzers able to determine the glycated hemoglobin (Hemoglobin A1c, HbA1c), the Capillarys 2 Flex piercing analyzer and the HLC-723G11 analyzer in the Laboratory Medicine Service of the IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, IT). The main focus is related to potential differences in methods, organizational aspects, and clinical effectiveness of these approaches for measuring HbA1c.

The EUnetHTA Core Model has proven to be the optimal method for HTA in the field of Laboratory Medicine, as it allows to highlight both the peculiarities of the methods on which the analyzers are based and the clinical efficacy of the laboratory test on specific patient populations, considering individual variations in treatment responses, assessing the potential benefits for individual patients or small groups.

This granular analysis helps provide insights into the effectiveness and value of healthcare interventions at the patient level, contributing to evidence-based decision-making in clinical practice and healthcare policy.

Healthcare stakeholders in Latin America, including payers, manufacturers, and patients, seek to expedite access to technologies. However, uncertainty sometimes surrounds their true benefits and budgetary implications. Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are proposed to address this uncertainty by redistributing risks among key actors.

The objective of Health Technology Assessment International’s 2023 Latin American Policy Forum was to examine the potential utility of MEA in technology reimbursement and decision-making processes in the region.

This article is based on a background document, a survey, and the deliberative work of the country representatives and others who participated in the Policy Forum.

Interest in MEA in Latin America is increasing, with financial agreements being more prevalent than those based on clinical outcomes. During the Policy Forum, potential barriers to MEA implementation were identified, such as the lack of legal frameworks, insufficient reliable data, and, in some cases, distrust among stakeholders. Some potential solutions were also identified, including early stakeholder involvement to enhance dialogue and understanding, and piloting shorter-duration MEA to facilitate the revision of agreement terms, especially in situations of epidemiological uncertainty.

The Policy Forum served as a valuable platform for discussing the importance of flexible MEA implementation that acknowledges data uncertainty, promotes transparent dialogue to incorporate opinions and values from all stakeholders, and develops legal frameworks to support effective technology access schemes in Latin America.

Health technologies play a relevant role in environmental sustainability (ES). However, limited evidence exists on approaches and methods to integrate ES into the Health Technology Assessment (HTA).

The purpose of this study is: (i) to provide an overview of global HTA organizations’ progression toward the integration of ES into HTA; (ii) to investigate various paths for this integration, highlighting obstacles, priorities, potential approaches, and methods.

Data were collected via questionnaires from organizations belonging to HTA networks, International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, and European Network for HTA. To complement the results of the survey, the authors carried out a desk analysis with strategic documents available on institutional websites.

The survey included twenty-six respondents from twenty different countries (thirty-three percent response rate). Among the study’s participants, there is a notable acknowledgment of the importance of integrating ES into HTA. However, only nine organizations are actively engaged in these integration efforts, each employing unique methodologies and perspectives. There is a substantial consensus on the application of life cycle assessment, with a particular emphasis on the use of environmentally extended input–output analysis, and a stronger preference for cost-utility analysis. Nevertheless, evidence on integrating ES into HTA remains scarce. Major challenges identified include data collection difficulties and the necessity for interdisciplinary teams.

Our study represents a preliminary effort to systematize initiatives aimed at integrating ES into HTA. Further research is required to customize methods and tools for appropriately evaluating the environmental impacts of technologies. The findings suggest that achieving ES-HTA integration demands a multi-tiered, interdisciplinary approach.

This study investigates the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on HTAsiaLink members at the organizational level and provides recommendations for mitigating similar challenges in the future.

A survey was disseminated among HTAsiaLink members to assess the COVID-19 impact in three areas: (i) inputs, (ii) process, and (iii) outputs of the Health Technology Assessment organizations’ (HTAOs) research operations and HTA process in general.

Survey results showed that most HTAOs hired more staff and secured similar or higher funding levels during COVID-19. Nevertheless, some organizations reported high staff turnover. COVID-19-relevant research was prioritized, and most of the organizations had to adapt their research design to meet the needs of policymakers. Time constraints in conducting research and inability to collect primary data were reported as impacts on the research process. Overall, the number of research projects and accessibility of respondents’ publications increased during COVID-19.

Research demand for HTAOs increased during COVID-19 and impacted their research process; however, they demonstrated resilience and adaptability to provide timely evidence for policymakers. With the growing reliance on HTA, HTAOs require adequate financial support, continuous capacity building, collaboration, and partnership, innovative HTA methods, and a pragmatic yet robust, evidence-to-policy process in preparation for future pandemics.

The European Union Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) process aligns with the regulatory process to promote faster patient access. The PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) scoping for the JCA must occur before the regulatory process concludes. The risk of indication change during this period is one of the concerns for the success of the JCA process. We investigated the frequency and type of changes that are made to proposed indications and examined how such changes could impact the PICO scoping for JCA.

Twenty-seven recently approved oncology and 15 Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMP) products were included. Observed indication changes were categorized into editorial or population changes population changes were graded based on the anticipated impact on JCA scope depending on their nature.

The majority of products had only editorial changes between proposed and approved indications (67 percent). Once amended, it was common for the indicated population to be narrowed, and rare for it to be broadened. The most common change observed was the shift to a later treatment line. The greatest risk for PICO rescoping would be when new populations would have been added, or new subpopulations or subgroups would have been omitted from the initial scope.

The impact on JCA scope depends on the proposed indication wording and how the PICO scoping would have been conducted. Rescoping warrants a considered decision, and to mitigate the risk of delays, dialogue between the assessors and the developer is recommended for informed decision-making.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based health technologies (AIHTs) have already been applied in clinical practice. However, there is currently no standardized framework for evaluating them based on the principles of health technology assessment (HTA).

A two-round Delphi survey was distributed to a panel of experts to determine the significance of incorporating topics outlined in the EUnetHTA Core Model and twenty additional ones identified through literature reviews. Each panelist assigned scores to each topic. Topics were categorized as critical to include (scores 7–9), important but not critical (scores 4–6), and not important (scores 1–3). A 70 percent cutoff was used to determine high agreement.

Our panel of 46 experts indicated that 48 out of the 65 proposed topics are critical and should be included in an HTA framework for AIHTs. Among the ten most crucial topics, the following emerged: accuracy of the AI model (97.78 percent), patient safety (95.65 percent), benefit–harm balance evaluated from an ethical standpoint (95.56 percent), and bias in data (91.30 percent). Importantly, our findings highlight that the Core Model is insufficient in capturing all relevant topics for AI-based technologies, as 14 out of the additional 20 topics were identified as crucial.

It is imperative to determine the level of agreement on AI-relevant HTA topics to establish a robust assessment framework. This framework will play a foundational role in evaluating AI tools for the early diagnosis of dementia, which is the focus of the European project AI-Mind currently being developed.

The roles and potential value of patient preference (PP) data in health technology assessment (HTA) remain to be fully realized despite an expanding literature and various efforts to establish their utility. This article reports lessons learned through a series of collaborative workshops with HTA representatives, organized by the Health Technology Assessment International’s Patient Preferences Project Subcommittee.

Five online workshops were conducted between June 2022 and June 2023, seeking to facilitate collaborative learning and reflection on ways that PP data can be integrated into HTA. Participants included nine HTA representatives from the United States, Canada, Australia, England, and the Netherlands. Workshops were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed.

Despite appreciating the value of PP data, participants were ambivalent about their use in HTA. Some felt that they were already getting the information they needed from the cost-effectiveness analysis or existing patient involvement processes. Others thought that PP data would be very helpful at the initial and final stage of the decision-making process and, particularly, in the following cases: (a) when technology has important non-health benefits; (b) when the clinical and/or cost-effectiveness evidence is marginal; and (c) when treatment is indicated for a large and heterogeneous population. Issues related to the validity and reliability of PP studies were frequently raised, with preference heterogeneity at the core of these concerns.

Collaborating with HTA representatives in the “co-creation” of PP research can help address their concerns and facilitate mutual learning about how PP data can be used in HTA.