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.

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.

Shaping a research agenda to ensure a successful European health technology assessment: insights generated during the inaugural convention of the European access academy.

OBJECTIVES: Key challenges for a joint European Health Technology Assessment (HTA) include consolidated approaches towards the choice of adequate comparator(s), selection of endpoints that are relevant to patients with a given disease, dealing with remaining uncertainties as well as transparent and consistent management of related processes. We aimed to further crystallize related core domains within these four areas that warrant further research and scrutiny. METHODS: Building on the outcomes of a previously conducted questionnaire survey, four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection, were identified. At the inaugural convention of the European Access Academy dedicated working groups were established defining and prioritizing core domains for each of the four areas. The working groups consisted of ~ 10 participants each, representing all relevant stakeholder groups (patients/ clinicians/ regulators/ HTA & payers/ academia/ industry). Story books identifying the work assignments were shared in advance. Two leads and one note taker per working group facilitated the process. All rankings were conducted on an ordinal Likert Response Scale scoring from 1 (low priority) to 7 (high priority). RESULTS: Identified key domains include for processes: i) address (resource-) challenge of multiple PICOs (Patient/ Intervention/ Comparator/ Outcomes), ii) time and capacity challenges, iii) integrating all involved stakeholders, iv) conflicts and aligning between different multi-national stakeholders, v) interaction with health technology developer; for uncertainty: i) early and inclusive collaboration, ii) agreement on feasibility of RCT and acceptance of uncertainty, iii) alignment on closing evidence gaps, iv) capacity gaps; for comparator choice: i) criteria for the choice of comparator in an increasingly fragmented treatment landscape, ii) reasonable number of comparators in PICOs, iii) shape Early Advice so that comparator fulfils both regulatory and HTA needs, iv) acceptability of Indirect Treatment Comparisons (ITC), v) ensure broad stakeholder involvement in comparator selection; for endpoint selection: i) approaching new endpoints; ii) patient preferences on endpoints; iii) position of HTA and other stakeholders; iv) long-term generation and secondary use of data; v) endpoint challenges in RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a joint European HTA assessment is a unique opportunity for a stronger European Health Union. We identified 19 domains related to the four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection that urgently need to be addressed for this regulation to become a success.

How can a joint European health technology assessment provide an 'additional benefit' over the current standard of national assessments? : Insights generated from a multi-stakeholder survey in hematology/oncology.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a multi-stakeholder survey to determine key areas where a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) could provide 'additional benefit' compared to the status quo of many parallel independent national and subnational assessments. METHODS: Leveraging three iterative Delphi cycles, a semiquantitative questionnaire was developed covering evidence challenges and heterogeneity of value drivers within HTAs across Europe with a focus on hematology/oncology. The questionnaire consisted of five sections: i) background information; ii) value drivers in HTA assessments today; iii) evolving evidence challenges; iv) heterogeneity of value drivers across Europe; v) impact of Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). The questionnaire was circulated across n = 189 stakeholder institutions comprising HTA and regulatory bodies, clinical oncology associations, patient representatives, and industry associations. RESULTS: N = 30 responses were received (HTA bodies: 9; regulators: 10; patients' and physicians' associations: 3 each; industry: 5). Overall, 17 countries and EU level institutions were represented in the responses. Consistency across countries and stakeholder groups was high. Most relevant value drivers in HTAs today (scale 1, low to 5, high) were clinical trial design (mean 4.45), right endpoints (mean 4.40), and size of comparative effect (mean 4.33). Small patient numbers (mean 4.28) and innovative study designs (mean 4.1) were considered the most relevant evolving evidence challenges. Heterogeneity between regulatory and HTA evidence requirements and heterogeneity of the various national treatment standards and national HTA evidence requirements was high. All clinical and patient participants stated to have been with EBCP initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: For a European HTA to provide an 'additional benefit' over the multitude of existing national assessments key methodological and process challenges need to be addressed. These include approaches to address uncertainty in clinical development; comparator choice; consistency in approaching patient-relevant endpoints; and a transparent and consistent management of both HTA and regulatory procedures as well as their interface, including all involved stakeholder groups.

Identification of CD24 as a marker of Patched1 deleted medulloblastoma-initiating neural progenitor cells.

High morbidity and mortality are common traits of malignant tumours and identification of the cells responsible is a focus of on-going research. Many studies are now reporting the use of antibodies specific to Clusters of Differentiation (CD) cell surface antigens to identify tumour-initiating cell (TIC) populations in neural tumours. Medulloblastoma is one of the most common malignant brain tumours in children and despite a considerable amount of research investigating this tumour, the identity of the TICs, and the means by which such cells can be targeted remain largely unknown. Current prognostication and stratification of medulloblastoma using clinical factors, histology and genetic profiling have classified this tumour into four main subgroups: WNT, Sonic hedgehog (SHH), Group 3 and Group 4. Of these subgroups, SHH remains one of the most studied tumour groups due to the ability to model medulloblastoma formation through targeted deletion of the Shh pathway inhibitor Patched1 (Ptch1). Here we sought to utilise CD antibody expression to identify and isolate TIC populations in Ptch1 deleted medulloblastoma, and determine if these antibodies can help classify the identity of human medulloblastoma subgroups. Using a fluorescence-activated cell sorted (FACS) CD antibody panel, we identified CD24 as a marker of TICs in Ptch1 deleted medulloblastoma. CD24 expression was not correlated with markers of astrocytes or oligodendrocytes, but co-labelled with markers of neural progenitor cells. In conjunction with CD15, proliferating CD24+/CD15+ granule cell precursors (GCPs) were identified as a TIC population in Ptch1 deleted medulloblastoma. On human medulloblastoma, CD24 was found to be highly expressed on Group 3, Group 4 and SHH subgroups compared with the WNT subgroup, which was predominantly positive for CD15, suggesting CD24 is an important marker of non-WNT medulloblastoma initiating cells and a potential therapeutic target in human medulloblastoma. This study reports the use of CD24 and CD15 to isolate a GCP-like TIC population in Ptch1 deleted medulloblastoma, and suggests CD24 expression as a marker to help stratify human WNT tumours from other medulloblastoma subgroups.

Sonic hedgehog and notch signaling can cooperate to regulate neurogenic divisions of neocortical progenitors.

BACKGROUND: Hedgehog (Hh) signaling is crucial for the generation and maintenance of both embryonic and adult stem cells, thereby regulating development and tissue homeostasis. In the developing neocortex, Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) regulates neural progenitor cell proliferation. During neurogenesis, radial glial cells of the ventricular zone (VZ) are the predominant neocortical progenitors that generate neurons through both symmetric and asymmetric divisions. Despite its importance, relatively little is known of the molecular pathways that control the switch from symmetric proliferative to differentiative/neurogenic divisions in neural progenitors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Here, we report that conditional inactivation of Patched1, a negative regulator of the Shh pathway, in Nestin positive neural progenitors of the neocortex leads to lamination defects due to improper corticogenesis and an increase in the number of symmetric proliferative divisions of the radial glial cells. Hedgehog-activated VZ progenitor cells demonstrated a concomitant upregulation of Hes1 and Blbp, downstream targets of Notch signaling. The Notch signaling pathway plays a pivotal role in the maintenance of stem/progenitor cells and the regulation of glial versus neuronal identity. To study the effect of Notch signaling on Hh-activated neural progenitors, we inactivated both Patched1 and Rbpj, a transcriptional mediator of Notch signaling, in Nestin positive cells of the neocortex. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that by mid neurogenesis (embryonic day 14.5), attenuation of Notch signaling reverses the effect of Patched1 deletion on neurogenesis by restoring the balance between symmetric proliferative and neurogenic divisions. Hence, our results demonstrate that correct corticogenesis is an outcome of the interplay between the Hh and Notch signaling pathways.

RBP-J is not required for granule neuron progenitor development and medulloblastoma initiated by Hedgehog pathway activation in the external germinal layer.

BACKGROUND: The Notch signalling pathway plays crucial roles in neural development, functioning by preventing premature differentiation and promotion of glial cell fates. In the developing cerebellum Notch pathway components are expressed in granule neuron progenitors of the external germinal layer (EGL) but the precise function of Notch in these cells is unclear. The Hedgehog pathway is also crucial in cerebellar development, mainly via control of the cell cycle, and persistent activation of the pathways leads to the cerebellar tumour medulloblastoma. Interactions between Hedgehog and Notch have been reported in normal brain development as well as in Hedgehog pathway induced medulloblastoma but the molecular details of this interaction are not known and we investigate here the role of Notch signalling in the development of the EGL and the intersection between the two pathways in cerebellar granule neuron progenitors and in medulloblastoma. RESULTS: RBP-J is the major downstream effector of all four mammalian Notch receptors and the RBP-J conditional mouse facilitates inactivation of canonical Notch signals. Patched1 is a negative regulator of Hedgehog signalling and the Patched1 conditional mouse is widely used to activate Hedgehog signalling via Patched1 deletion in specific cell types. The conditional mouse lines were crossed with a Math1-Cre line to delete the two genes in granule neuron progenitors from embryonic day 10.5. While deletion of only Patched1 as well as Patched1 together with RBP-J leads to formation of medulloblastoma concomitant with disorganisation of cell layers, loss of RBP-J from granule neuron progenitors has no obvious effect on overall cerebellar morphology or differentiation and maturation of the different cerebellar cell types. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that even though Notch signalling has been shown to play important roles in cerebellar development, signalling via RBP-J is surprisingly not required in granule neuron progenitors. Furthermore, RBP-J inactivation in these cells does not influence the formation of medulloblastoma initiated by Hedgehog pathway activation. This may suggest a requirement of Notch in cerebellar development at a different developmental stage or in a different cell type than examined here - for example, in the neural stem cells of the ventricular zone. In addition, it remains a possibility that, in granule neuron progenitors, Notch may signal via an alternative pathway without the requirement for RBP-J.