Uncertainty In Long-term Relative Effectiveness Of Medicines In Health Technology Assessment: Comparing Assessments Of Medicines For Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Cystic Fibrosis, And Hypercholesterolemia.

OBJECTIVES: Uncertainty regarding the long-term relative effectiveness is an important factor in health technology assessment (HTA) of medicines. This study investigated how different HTA bodies address this uncertainty in their assessments. METHODS: 49 HTA reports from six national HTA bodies, assessing nine medicines for spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis, and hypercholesterolemia, were included. In these reports, 81 relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and 45 cost-effectiveness assessments (CEAs) were performed on an indication level. We collected information on included trials, assessment outcomes, uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, proposed managed entry agreements (MEAs), and reassessments. RESULTS: Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness was an important consideration in almost all CEAs (91%) and three quarters of REAs (74%), despite differences in methodologies between HTA bodies. There were considerable differences in the amount and type of long-term effectiveness data included by HTA bodies due to timing and inclusion criteria. In total 23 MEAs were proposed of which 14 were linked to uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness. Additionally, 13 reassessments were performed of which four led to an increase in patient access because of more available long-term effectiveness data. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness is an important challenge for HTA bodies. There are large differences in the acceptance of evidence between HTA bodies which leads to heterogeneity in the inclusion of available long-term effectiveness data for decision-making. In cases with large uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, outcome-based agreements and reassessments are used by HTA bodies, but differently between HTA bodies and indications.

Navigating the path towards successful implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: key takeaways from the 2023 Spring Convention of the European Access Academy.

BACKGROUND: The European Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (EU HTA R), effective since January 2022, aims to harmonize and improve the efficiency of common HTA across Member States (MS), with a phased implementation from January 2025. At "midterms" of the preparation phase for the implementation of the Regulation our aim was to identify and prioritize tangible action points to move forward. METHODS: During the 2023 Spring Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), participants from different nationalities and stakeholder backgrounds discussed readiness and remaining challenges for the Regulation's implementation and identified and prioritized action points. For this purpose, participants were assigned to four working groups: (i) Health Policy Challenges, (ii) Stakeholder Readiness, (iii) Approach to Uncertainty and (iv) Challenges regarding Methodology. Top four action points for each working group were identified and subsequently ranked by all participants during the final plenary session. RESULTS: Overall "readiness" for the Regulation was perceived as neutral. Prioritized action points included the following: Health Policy, i.e. assess adjustability of MS laws and health policy processes; Stakeholders, i.e. capacity building; Uncertainty, i.e. implement HTA guidelines as living documents; Methodology, i.e. clarify the Population, Intervention, Comparator(s), Outcomes (PICO) identification process. CONCLUSIONS: At "midterms" of the preparation phase, the focus for the months to come is on executing the tangible action points identified at EAA's Spring Convention. All action points centre around three overarching themes: harmonization and standardization, capacity building and collaboration, uncertainty management and robust data. These themes will ultimately determine the success of the EU HTA R in the long run.

Creating win-win-win situations with managed entry agreements? Prioritizing gene and cell therapies within the window of opportunity.

Outcome-based reimbursement models are gaining attention for managing the clinical uncertainties and financial impact of gene and cell therapies. Little guidance exists on how such models can create win-win-win situations, benefiting health-care payers, health-technology developers and patients. Our innovative approach prospectively prioritizes therapies for which a 'window of opportunity' might occur through the analysis of health-technology assessments and product characteristics. Within this window, one size does not fit all, and depending on the extent of clinical uncertainty and potential added benefit levels, different win-win-win situations exist in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Dutch Horizon scanning data prioritized etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix) and mozafancogene autotemcel for their potential to benefit from outcome-based reimbursement models. These insights extend beyond gene and cell therapies, and could help to provide sustainable health care and patient access to innovative therapies.

Healthcare decision-making for tumour-agnostic therapies in Europe: lessons learned.

The tumour-agnostic authorisations of larotrectinib and entrectinib shifted the paradigm for indication setting. European healthcare decision-makers agreed on their therapeutic potential but diverged primarily in identified uncertainties concerning basket trial designs and endpoints, prognostic value of neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions, and resistance mechanisms. In addition, assessments of relevant comparators, unmet medical needs (UMNs), and implementation of NTRK-testing strategies diverged. In particular, the tumour-specific reimbursement recommendations and guidelines do not reflect tumour-agnostic thinking. These differences indicate difficulties experienced in these assessments and provide valuable lessons for future disruptive therapies. As we discuss here, early multistakeholder dialogues concerning minimum evidence requirements and involving clinicians are essential.

Illustrating the financial consequences of outcome-based payment models from a payers perspective- the case of autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel (Libmeldy®).

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements ((MEA) for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel (AA, Libmeldy®), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct MEAs to aid future reimbursement decision-making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies. METHODS: Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in HTA reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the timeframe of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated. RESULTS: When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in HTA reports (Scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared to the discount (Scenario 1, €8,9 million to €6,6 million vs. €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (Scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, Scenario 2.C and 3.C, respectively) compared to implementing the discount (€9.2 million, Scenario 1.C). CONCLUSION: Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing AA. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted.

Increasing uptake through collaboration in the development of core outcome sets: Lessons learned at OMERACT 2023.

OBJECTIVE: This manuscript highlights the importance of enhancing the uptake of Core Outcome Sets (COS) by building partnerships with Collaborators and addressing their needs in COS development. METHODS AND SETTING: This session was structured as a simulation, resembling a format akin to a classic television game show. The moderator posed a series of questions to eight different Collaborator groups who briefly described the importance of COS within their areas of interest. Previous studies examining the uptake of individual core outcomes revealed disparities in uptake rates. The Identified barriers to the uptake of COS include the lack of recommendations for validated instruments for each domain, insufficient involvement of patients and key Collaborator groups in COS development, and a lack of awareness regarding the existence of COS. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis underscores the need for COS development approaches that prioritize the inclusion of patients and diverse Collaborator groups at every stage. While current studies on COS uptake are limited, future research should explore the broader implementation of COS across diverse disease categories and delve into the factors that hinder or facilitate their uptake such as, the importance of COS developers extending their work to recommending domains with well validated instruments. Embracing patient leadership and multifaceted engagement is essential for advancing the relevance and impact of COS in clinical research.

An Inclusive Civil Society Dialogue for Successful Implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: Call to Action to Ensure Appropriate Involvement of Stakeholders and Collaborators.

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 the EU HTA Stakeholder Network and of the guidance documents developed by the EUnetHTA 21 consortium) will be key to starting an "inclusive civil society dialogue", as suggested by the European Commission's Pharmaceutical Strategy.

A blueprint for health technology assessment capacity building: lessons learned from Malta.

OBJECTIVES: The development and strengthening of health technology assessment (HTA) capacity on the individual and organizational level and the wider environment is relevant for cooperation on HTAs. Based on the Maltese case, we provide a blueprint for building HTA capacity. METHODS: A set of activities were developed based on Pichler et al.'s framework and the starting HTA capacity in Malta. Individual level activities focused on strengthening epidemiological and health economic skills through online and in-person training. On the organizational level, a new HTA framework was developed which was subsequently utilized in a shadow assessment. Awareness campaign activities raised awareness and support in the wider environment where HTAs are conducted and utilized. RESULTS: The time needed to build HTA capacity exceeded the planned two years accommodating the learning progress of the assessors. In addition to the planned trainings, webinars supplemented the online courses, allowing for more knowledge exchange. The advanced online course was extended over time to facilitate learning next to the assessors' daily tasks. Training sessions were added to implement the new economic evaluation framework, which was utilized in a second shadow assessment. Awareness by decision-makers was achieved with reports, posters, and an article on the current and developing HTA capacity. CONCLUSIONS: It takes time and much (hands-on) training to build skills for conducting complex assessment such as HTAs. Facilitating exchange with knowledgeable parties is crucial for succeeding as well as the buy-in of local managers motivating staff. Decision-makers need to be on-boarded for the continued success of HTA capacity building.

A literature review of quality assessment and applicability to HTA of risk prediction models of coronary heart disease in patients with diabetes.

This literature review had two objectives: to identify models for predicting the risk of coronary heart diseases in patients with diabetes (DM); and to assess model quality in terms of risk of bias (RoB) and applicability for the purpose of health technology assessment (HTA). We undertook a targeted review of journal articles published in English, Dutch, Chinese, or Spanish in 5 databases from 1st January 2016 to 18th December 2022, and searched three systematic reviews for the models published after 2012. We used PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool) to assess RoB, and used findings from Betts et al. 2019, which summarized recommendations and criticisms of HTA agencies on cardiovascular risk prediction models, to assess model applicability for the purpose of HTA. As a result, 71 % and 67 % models reporting C-index showed good discrimination abilities (C-index >= 0.7). Of the 26 model studies and 30 models identified, only one model study showed low RoB in all domains, and no model was fully applicable for HTA. Since the major cause of high RoB is inappropriate use of analysis method, we advise clinicians to carefully examine the model performance declared by model developers, and to trust a model if all PROBAST domains except analysis show low RoB and at least one validation study conducted in the same setting (e.g. country) is available. Moreover, since general model applicability is not informative for HTA, novel adapted tools may need to be developed.

Tools for assessing quality of studies investigating health interventions using real-world data: a literature review and content analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify existing appraisal tools for non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) and to compare the criteria that the tools provide at the quality-item level. DESIGN: Literature review through three approaches: systematic search of journal articles, snowballing search of reviews on appraisal tools and grey literature search on websites of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search: Medline; Snowballing: starting from three articles (D'Andrea et al, Quigley et al and Faria et al); Grey literature: websites of European HTA agencies listed by the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Appraisal tools were searched through April 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included a tool, if it addressed quality concerns of NRSIs and was published in English (unless from grey literature). A tool was excluded, if it was only for diagnostic, prognostic, qualitative or secondary studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent researchers searched, screened and reviewed all included studies and tools, summarised quality items and scored whether and to what extent a quality item was described by a tool, for either methodological quality or reporting. RESULTS: Forty-nine tools met inclusion criteria and were included for the content analysis. Concerns regarding the quality of NRSI were categorised into 4 domains and 26 items. The Research Triangle Institute Item Bank (RTI Item Bank) and STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) were the most comprehensive tools for methodological quality and reporting, respectively, as they addressed (n=20; 17) and sufficiently described (n=18; 13) the highest number of items. However, none of the tools covered all items. CONCLUSION: Most of the tools have their own strengths, but none of them could address all quality concerns relevant to NRSIs. Even the most comprehensive tools can be complemented by several items. We suggest decision-makers, researchers and tool developers consider the quality-item level heterogeneity, when selecting a tool or identifying a research gap. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF registration DOI (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KCSGX).

Added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 1995 and 2020: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs, explore their association, and investigate potential discrepancies between added benefit and revenues across different approval pathways of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Oncology drugs and their indications approved by the EMA between 1995 and 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Added benefit was evaluated using ratings published by seven organisations: health technology assessment agencies from the United States, France, Germany, and Italy, two medical oncology societies, and a drug bulletin. All retrieved ratings were recategorised using a four point ranking scale to indicate negative or non-quantifiable, minor, substantial, or major added benefit. Revenue data were extracted from publicly available financial reports and compared with published estimates of research and development (R&D) costs. Finally, the association between added benefit and revenue was evaluated. All analyses were performed within the overall study cohort, and within subgroups based on the EMA approval pathway: standard marketing authorisation, conditional marketing authorisation, and authorisation under exceptional circumstances. RESULTS: 131 oncology drugs with 166 indications were evaluated for their added benefit by at least one organisation within the required timeframe, yielding a total of 458 added benefit ratings; 189 (41%) were negative or non-quantifiable. The median time to offset the median R&D costs ($684m, £535m, €602m, adjusted to 2020 values) was three years; 50 of 55 (91%) drugs recovered these costs within eight years. Drugs with higher added benefit ratings generally had greater revenues. Negative or non-quantifiable added benefit ratings were more frequent for conditional marketing authorisations and authorisations under exceptional circumstances than for standard marketing authorisations (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.89). Conditional marketing authorisations generated lower revenues and took longer to offset R&D costs than standard marketing authorisations (four years compared with three years). CONCLUSIONS: While revenues seem to align with added benefit, most oncology drugs recover R&D costs within a few years despite providing little added benefit. This is particularly true for drugs approved through conditional marketing authorisations, which inherently appear to lack comprehensive evidence. Policy makers should evaluate whether current regulatory and reimbursement incentives effectively promote development of the most effective drugs for patients with the greatest needs.

Disease severity-based subgrouping of type 2 diabetes does not parallel differences in quality of life: the Maastricht Study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Type 2 diabetes is a highly heterogeneous disease for which new subgroups ('clusters') have been proposed based on disease severity: moderate age-related diabetes (MARD), moderate obesity-related diabetes (MOD), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD) and severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD). It is unknown how disease severity is reflected in terms of quality of life in these clusters. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the cluster characteristics and cluster-wise evolution of quality of life in the previously defined clusters of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We included individuals with type 2 diabetes from the Maastricht Study, who were allocated to clusters based on a nearest centroid approach. We used logistic regression to evaluate the cluster-wise association with diabetes-related complications. We plotted the evolution of HbA1c levels over time and used Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression to evaluate the cluster-wise time to reach adequate glycaemic control. Quality of life based on the Short Form 36 (SF-36) was also plotted over time and adjusted for age and sex using generalised estimating equations. The follow-up time was 7 years. Analyses were performed separately for people with newly diagnosed and already diagnosed type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: We included 127 newly diagnosed and 585 already diagnosed individuals. Already diagnosed people in the SIDD cluster were less likely to reach glycaemic control than people in the other clusters, with an HR compared with MARD of 0.31 (95% CI 0.22, 0.43). There were few differences in the mental component score of the SF-36 in both newly and already diagnosed individuals. In both groups, the MARD cluster had a higher physical component score of the SF-36 than the other clusters, and the MOD cluster scored similarly to the SIDD and SIRD clusters. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Disease severity suggested by the clusters of type 2 diabetes is not entirely reflected in quality of life. In particular, the MOD cluster does not appear to be moderate in terms of quality of life. Use of the suggested cluster names in practice should be carefully considered, as the non-neutral nomenclature may affect disease perception in individuals with type 2 diabetes and their healthcare providers.

Opportunities and Challenges for Decentralized Clinical Trial Approaches: European Health Technology Assessment Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Decentralized clinical trial (DCT) approaches are clinical trials in which some or all trial activities take place closer to participants' proximities instead of a traditional investigative site. Data from DCTs may be used for clinical and economic evaluations by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to support reimbursement decision making. This study aimed to explore the opportunities and challenges for DCT approaches from an HTA perspective by interviewing representatives from European HTA bodies. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 European HTA representatives between September 2022 and February 2023, and transcripts were analyzed after thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two main themes were identified from the data relating to (1) DCT approaches in HTA and (2) trial-level acceptance and relevance. Experience with assessing DCTs was limited and a variety of knowledge about DCTs was observed. The respondents recognized the opportunity of DCTs to reduce recall bias when participant-reported outcome data can be collected more frequently and conveniently from home. Concerns were expressed about the data quality when participants become responsible for data collection. Despite this challenge, the respondents recognized the potential of DCTs to increase the generalizability of results because data can be collected in a setting reflective of the everyday situation potentially from a more diverse participant group. CONCLUSIONS: DCTs could generate relevant results for HTA decision making when data are collected in a real-world setting from a diverse participant group. Increased awareness of the opportunities and challenges could help HTA assessors in their appraisal of DCT approaches.

Importance of aligning the implementation of new payment models for innovative pharmaceuticals in European countries.

INTRODUCTION: The uptake of complex technologies and platforms has resulted in several challenges in the pricing and reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals. To address these challenges, plenty of concepts have already been described in the scientific literature about innovative value judgment or payment models, which are either (1) remaining theoretical; or (2) applied only in pilots with limited impact on patient access; or (3) applied so heterogeneously in many different countries that it prevents the health care industry from meeting expectations of HTA bodies and health care payers in the evidence requirements or offerings in different jurisdictions. AREAS COVERED: This paper provides perspectives on how to reduce the heterogeneity of pharmaceutical payment models across European countries in five areas, including 1) extended evaluation frameworks, 2) performance-based risk-sharing agreements, 3) pooled procurement for low volume or urgent technologies, 4) alternative access schemes, and 5) delayed payment models for technologies with high upfront costs. EXPERT OPINION: Whilst pricing and reimbursement decisions will remain a competence of EU member states, there is a need for alignment of European pharmaceutical payment model components in critical areas with the ultimate objective of improving the equitable access of European patients to increasingly complex pharmaceutical technologies.

Perspectives on how to build bridges between regulation, health technology assessment and clinical guideline development: a qualitative focus group study with European experts.

OBJECTIVE: Improving synergy among regulation, health technology assessment (HTA) and clinical guideline development is relevant as these independent processes are building on shared evidence-based grounds. The two objectives were first to assess how convergence of evidentiary needs among stakeholders may be achieved, and second, to determine to what extent convergence can be achieved. DESIGN: Qualitative study using eight online dual-moderator focus groups. SETTING: Discussions had a European focus and were contextualised in four case studies on head and neck cancer, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis and myelodysplastic syndromes. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two experienced (over 10 years) European regulators, HTA representatives and clinicians participated in the discussion. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received information on the case study and research topic in advance. An introductory background presentation and interview guide for the moderators were used to steer the discussion. RESULTS: Convergence may be achieved through improved communication institutionalised in multistakeholder early dialogues, shared definitions and shared methods. Required data sets should be inclusive rather than aligned. Deliberation and decision-making should remain independent. Alignment could be sought for pragmatic clinical trial designs and patient registries. Smaller and lower-income countries should be included in these efforts. CONCLUSION: Actors in the field expressed that improving synergy among stakeholders always involves trade-offs. A balance needs to be found between the convergence of processes and the institutional remits or geographical independence. A similar tension exists between the involvement of more actors, for example, patients or additional countries, and the level of collaboration that may be achieved. Communication is key to establishing this balance.

Recommendations for patient involvement in health technology assessment in Central and Eastern European countries.

Introduction: Meaningful patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in ensuring that the interests of the affected patient population, their families, and the general public are accurately reflected in coverage and reimbursement decisions. Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries are generally at less advanced stages of implementing HTA, which is particularly true for patient involvement activities. As part of the Horizon2020 HTx project, this research aimed to form recommendations for critical barriers to patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Methods: Built on previous research findings on potential barriers, a prioritisation survey was conducted online with CEE stakeholders. Recommendations for prioritised barriers were formed through a face-to-face workshop by CEE stakeholders and HTx experts. Results: A total of 105 stakeholders from 13 CEE countries completed the prioritisation survey and identified 12 of the 22 potential barriers as highly important. The workshop had 36 participants representing 9 CEE countries, and 5 Western European countries coming together to discuss solutions in order to form recommendations based on best practices, real-life experience, and transferability aspects. Stakeholder groups involved in both phases included HTA organisation representatives, payers, patients, caregivers, patient organisation representatives, patient experts, health care providers, academic and non-academic researchers, health care consultants and health technology manufacturers/providers. As a result, 12 recommendations were formed specified to the CEE region's context, but potentially useful for a broader geographic audience. Conclusion: In this paper, we present 12 recommendations for meaningful, systematic, and sustainable patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Our hope is that engaging more than a hundred CEE stakeholders in the study helped to spread awareness of the importance and potential of patient involvement and that the resulting recommendations provide tangible steps for the way forward. Future studies shall focus on country-specific case studies of the implemented recommendations.

The role of stakeholder involvement in the evolving EU HTA process: Insights generated through the European Access Academy's multi-stakeholder pre-convention questionnaire.

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.