Opportunities to improve the adoption of health-related quality of life evidence as part of the French Health Technology Assessment process.

OBJECTIVES: Patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome measure that is considered by many payers and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies in the evaluation of treatments. We aimed to identify opportunities for HRQoL to be further incorporated into the assessment of the French HTA by comparing three health systems. We put forward recommendations that could bring further innovations to French patients. METHODS: We reviewed methodologies by the French, German and British HTA, and conducted a systematic review of all French (n = 312) and German (n = 175) HTA appraisals from 01 January 2019 to 31 December 2021. We also setup an advisory board of 11 ex-HTA leaders, payers, methodologists, healthcare providers and patient advocates, from France, Britain and Germany, to discuss opportunities to improve acceptance and adoption of HRQoL evidence in France. RESULTS: Our systematic review of HTA appraisals showed a higher HRQoL data rejection rate in France: in > 75% of cases the HRQoL evidence submitted was not accepted for the assessment (usually for methodological reasons, for example, data being considered exploratory; 16-75% of the appraisals mentioned HRQoL evidence, varying by therapeutic area). Overall, we found the French HTA to be more restrictive in its approach than IQWiG. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings we articulate collaborative proposals for industry and the HAS to improve acceptance of HRQoL evidence and create a positive feedback loop between HAS and industry along four dimensions (1) patient perception, (2) testing hierarchy, (3) trial design and (4) data collection.

Early Dialogues for Pharmaceutical Products in European Network for Health Technology Assessment Joint Action 3: What Was Done and Where to Go in the Future.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to describe the process, results, and experiences of European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3's (JA3) Early Dialogue (ED) activities and to highlight opportunities for improving the processes. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of the steps of the EUnetHTA ED process and evaluation of the data from the EDs conducted by EU health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, published guidelines, and documents, as well as internal statistics. RESULTS: In JA3, an Early Dialogues Working Party (EDWP) was established, responsible for developing and improving processes and providing advice to pharmaceutical companies, supported by the ED Secretariat. From June 2017 to May 2021, 113 requests for pharmaceutical EDs were received and 38 conducted. The process was continuously optimized, and different approaches for involving patients were tested. Finally, a centralized procedure was chosen with the key documents produced by two responsible agencies and reviewed by the EDWP. Patient involvement was primarily done by interviewing a national patient representative to obtain general feedback on the disease and the planned study design. CONCLUSIONS: During JA3, EDs were established as an efficient, successful product. Pharmaceutical companies benefited not only from the positions of the individual agencies for the national HTA, but also from the recommendations that were common to all HTA authorities. In addition, regarding the European HTA Regulation, it will be important to conduct Joint Scientific Consultations with a view toward future Joint Clinical Assessments and to further develop processes aligned with the high demand for consultation.

The role of ethical analysis in conducting a health technology assessment of medical treatments for gender dysphoria.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment seeking for gender dysphoria (GD) has increased manifold in western countries. This has led to increased interest on evidence-base of treatments, but also discussions related to human rights, identity politics, gender-related structures, and medicalization. Combining these discourses into coherent health policy is difficult. Health technology assessment (HTA) is the golden standard for assessing whether a medical intervention should be included in a health system. A comprehensive HTA should include medical, safety, and cost-utility perspectives, but often also ethical, societal, organizational, and legal concerns. Still, ethics is often omitted in practice. This paper aims to demonstrate how integrated ethical analysis influenced a HTA of complex and controversial topics like GD. METHODS: A HTA of medical treatments of GD was conducted using integrated ethical analysis based on the EUnetHTA-model. This integrates ethical thinking into the whole HTA, explicitly analyses ethical topics, and balances arguments using several ethical theories. RESULTS: Integrating ethics had a significant impact on the HTA process and recommendations. It influenced how the HTA was planned and executed, emphasized autonomy and justice when creating the recommendations, and helped the workgroup to understand the complexity of combining different stakeholders' discourses. Tensions between scientific evidence, expectations, and values became explicit. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive HTA provides an important, integrative approach to considering complex and controversial topics in health systems. HTA emphasizes multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder approach but simultaneously forces a pragmatic, results-oriented, and evidence-based approach on all argumentation. Ethical analysis can facilitate interactions between stakeholders, bridge different discourses, and help formulate widely acceptable guidelines and policy decisions.

European Network for Health Technology Assessment's Response to COVID-19: Rapid Collaborative Reviews on Diagnostic Tests and Rolling and Rapid Collaborative Reviews on Therapeutics.

OBJECTIVES: In spring 2020, The European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) decided to join forces to produce best evidence to inform health policy in the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this paper is to describe the process and output of the coordinated and collaborative activities of EUnetHTA. METHODS: Relevant published and internal documents were retrieved for a descriptive analysis of EUnetHTA processes, methods, and outputs related to EUnetHTA's response to the pandemic. RESULTS: Process: In April 2020, a COVID-19 task force was set up and a survey collected pressing health policy questions across Europe. Two coordinating agencies for diagnostic tests and therapeutics were assigned. A process for prioritization and selection was set up for therapeutics, as well as explicit starting and stopping rules. Methodology: To increase a timely response, it was agreed that the rapid collaborative reviews (rapid CRs) would not require the consultation of manufacturers and the involvement of external experts, but would not differ in the methods and conduct of the systematic search, review, and synthesis of all available evidence, nor in the requirement for reviewing by EUnetHTA partners. Final reports: The joint effort resulted in the production of two rapid CRs on diagnostic tests, nineteen collaborative rolling reviews on therapeutics, three of which later moved to rapid CRs. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19 pandemic, the EUnetHTA partners proved capable of prompt collaboration, which allowed speeding up the production and release of high-quality EUnetHTA outputs, while the relationships with the other European institutions facilitated their quick dissemination.

Postlaunch evidence generation practices among health technology assessment bodies in Europe.

OBJECTIVES: The term Postlaunch Evidence Generation (PLEG) refers to evidence generated after the launch or licensing of a health technology. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the implementation of these practices in the European Union in order to explore cross-border cooperation opportunities. METHODS: In December 2019, a survey composed of nine closed-ended questions with multiple choice answers about the PLEG practices in each country was sent to all twenty-five dedicated work package (WP5B) partners of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3. In addition to the survey, the national practices were discussed during a face-to-face meeting with WP5B partners. RESULTS: Twelve Health TechnologyAssessment (HTA) bodies completed the survey. Of these, eleven reported procedures in place for official requests for PLEGs in their remit. In the large majority of cases, the requests are made at the time of the assessment/appraisal. Several agencies participate in the definition of the scope of the PLEG or review of its protocol. Data collection and analysis mainly lie with companies for pharmaceuticals, whereas it is more the responsibility of the HTA bodies for medical devices. Only one agency owns the data and is able to exchange them without asking permission. CONCLUSIONS: Most agencies recommend European collaboration on PLEG commence once the evidence gaps have been defined or during the production of the HTA report in the case of European joint assessment.

EUnetHTA relative effectiveness assessments: efforts to increase usability, transparency and inclusiveness.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3 (JA3) was to develop a sustainable European model for future collaboration on HTA, by reducing duplication in HTA production and increasing patient access to health technologies. Compared to the previous JA2, several procedural changes were made aiming to increase usability, transparency, and inclusiveness of relative effectiveness assessments (REAs). This article presents and highlights these changes, explains their rationale as well as their influence on HTA production. METHODS: Feedback from REA teams and project managers was collected. At the end of JA3, all lessons learned were mapped, resulting in a set of recommendations for a future REA production process. RESULTS: In JA3, forty-three EUnetHTA REAs have been produced. Efforts to increase the usability of the REAs were made by focussing on the needs of REA producers and users (HTA agencies) and by increasing stakeholder involvement. Huge steps were taken with regard to transparency, which was achieved through publication of guidances, templates, and up-to-date information on the EUnetHTA website. In an attempt to improve inclusiveness, (stakeholder) interaction and involvement as well as feedback procedures were enhanced and streamlined. The fine-tuned project management brought all aspects together and facilitated a consistent and reliable workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Despite that HTA agencies have different national requirements, the procedural changes made in JA3 proved to counteract some of these challenges. Nevertheless, it is of utmost importance that further perceived methodological differences are being resolved to ensure a strong base for future European collaboration on REA production.

Developing a quality management system for the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA): toward European HTA collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was established in 2006 and comprises over eighty organizations from thirty European countries. In its fifth project phase (Joint Action 3), EUnetHTA set up a quality management system (QMS) to improve the efficiency and standardization of joint work. This article presents EUnetHTA's new QMS and outlines experiences and challenges during its implementation. METHODS: Several working groups defined processes and methods to support assessment teams in creating high-quality assessment reports. Existing guidelines, templates, and tools were refined and missing parts were newly created and integrated into the new QMS framework. EUnetHTA has contributed to Health Technology Assessment (HTA) capacity building through training and knowledge sharing. Continuous evaluation helped to identify gaps and shortcomings in processes and structures. RESULTS: Based on a common quality management concept and defined development and revision procedures, twenty-seven partner organizations jointly developed and maintained around forty standard operating procedures and other components of the QMS. All outputs were incorporated into a web-based platform, the EUnetHTA Companion Guide, which was launched in May 2018. Concerted efforts of working groups were required to ensure consistency and avoid duplication. CONCLUSIONS: With the establishment of a QMS for jointly produced assessment reports, EUnetHTA has taken a significant step toward a sustainable model for scientific and technical collaboration within European HTA. However, the definition of processes and methods meeting the numerous requirements of healthcare systems across Europe remains an ongoing and challenging task.

Introducing enhanced recovery after surgery in a high-volume orthopaedic hospital: a health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients undergoing joint arthroplasty is increasing worldwide. An Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway for hip and knee arthroplasty was introduced in an Italian high-volume research hospital in March 2018. METHODS: The aim of this mixed methods observational study is to perform a health technology assessment (HTA) of the ERAS pathway, considering 938 procedures performed after its implementation, by means of a hospital-based approach derived from the EUnetHTA (European Network for Health Technology Assessment) Core Model. The assessment process is based on dimensions of general relevance, safety, efficacy, effectiveness, economic and financial impact, equity, legal aspects, social and ethical impact, and organizational impact. A narrative review of the literature helped to identify general relevance, safety and efficacy factors, and a set of relevant sub-dimensions submitted to the evaluation of the professionals who use the technology through a 7-item Likert Scale. The economic and financial impact of the ERAS pathway on the hospital budget was supported by quantitative data collected from internal or national registries, employing economic modelling strategies to identify the amount of resources required to implement it. RESULTS: The relevance of technology under assessment is recognized worldwide. A number of studies show accelerated pathways to dominate conventional approaches on pain reduction, functional recovery, prevention of complications, improvements in tolerability and quality of life, including fragile or vulnerable patients. Qualitative surveys on clinical and functional outcomes confirm most of these benefits. The ERAS pathway is associated with a reduced length of stay in comparison with the Italian hospitalization average for the same procedures, despite the poor spread of the pathway within the country may generate postcode inequalities. The economic analyses show how the resources invested in training activities are largely depreciated by benefits once the technology is permanently introduced, which may generate hospital cost savings of up to 2054,123.44 € per year. CONCLUSIONS: Galeazzi Hospital's ERAS pathway for hip and knee arthroplasty results preferable to traditional approaches following most of the HTA dimensions, and offers room for further improvement. The more comparable practices are shared, the before this potential improvement can be identified and addressed.

The fourth edition of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment Forum: highlights and outcomes.

The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) organizes an annual Forum with stakeholders to receive feedback on its activities, processes, and outputs produced. The fourth edition of the EUnetHTA Forum brought together representatives of HTA bodies, patient organizations, healthcare professionals (HCPs), academia, payers, regulators, and industry. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the highlights presented at the 2019 EUnetHTA Forum, reporting the main items and themes discussed in the plenary panel and breakout sessions. The leading topic was the concept of unmet medical need seen from different stakeholders' perspectives. Breakout sessions covered the joint production of assessment reports and engagement with payers, patients, and HCPs. Synergies, pragmatism, and inclusiveness across Member States and stakeholders were emphasized as leading factors to put in place a collaboration that serves the interest of patients and public health in a truly European spirit.

European Collaboration in Health Technology Assessment (HTA): goals, methods and outcomes with specific focus on medical devices.

The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was founded to support efficient production and use of health technology assessments (HTAs) across Europe by reducing redundancies through collaboration. To facilitate collaboration, a range of practical tools, methods and process definitions were developed. The article describes when and how these tools and methods are used along the HTA process with specific focus on "other technologies", that is medical devices and non-pharmaceutical procedures. EUnetHTA was able to deliver tangible achievements complying with its goals. The practical tools and the developed methods formed a basis for close collaboration among over 70 agencies at a European level. The activities of EUnetHTA laid a strong foundation for sustainable cooperation. In the long run, jointly produced assessments could realise economies of scale with improved quality, consistency and transparency for the health systems in Europe.

Improving the contribution of regulatory assessment reports to health technology assessments--a collaboration between the European Medicines Agency and the European network for Health Technology Assessment.

In response to a recommendation from the Pharmaceutical Forum, the European Medicines Agency and the European network for Health Technology Assessment initiated a collaboration with the aim to improve the contribution regulatory assessment reports can make to the assessment of relative effectiveness of medicinal products by health technology assessment bodies. This collaboration on improving European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) started in February 2010 and was performed over 2 years. As a result, the templates for preparing EPARs were revised to better address the needs of heath technology organizations. The better understanding of information needs was a key outcome of the collaboration. To ascertain whether these template changes led to the inclusion of relevant information, a review of a small set of EPARs for recently approved medicinal products was carried out in parallel by both the European network for Health Technology Assessment and the European Medicines Agency. This report provides an account of this project on improving EPARs, which is part of the ongoing dialogue between regulators and health technology assessment bodies on a European level to support policymaker decisions in the future.

EUnetHTA information management system: development and lessons learned.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the techniques used in achieving consensus on common standards to be implemented in the EUnetHTA Information Management System (IMS); and to describe how interoperability between tools was explored. METHODS: Three face to face meetings were organized to identify and agree on common standards to the development of online tools. Two tools were created to demonstrate the added value of implementing interoperability standards at local levels. Developers of tools outside EUnetHTA were identified and contacted. RESULTS: Four common standards have been agreed on by consensus; and consequently all EUnetHTA tools have been modified or designed accordingly. RDF Site Summary (RSS) has demonstrated a good potential to support rapid dissemination of HTA information. Contacts outside EUnetHTA resulted in direct collaboration (HTA glossary, HTAi Vortal), evaluation of options for interoperability between tools (CRD HTA database) or a formal framework to prepare cooperation on concrete projects (INAHTA projects database). CONCLUSIONS: While being entitled a project on IT infrastructure, the work program was also about people. When having to agree on complex topics, fostering a cohesive group dynamic and hosting face to face meetings brings added value and enhances understanding between partners. The adoption of widespread standards enhanced the homogeneity of the EUnetHTA tools and should thus contribute to their wider use, therefore, to the general objective of EUnetHTA. The initiatives on interoperability of systems need to be developed further to support a general interoperable information system that could benefit the whole HTA community.

Is the planned and ongoing project (POP) database a suitable tool to reduce duplication in the process of assessing new health technologies in the European Union? Preliminary experience in the context of the EUnetHTA Joint Action Project Framework (2010-2012).

OBJECTIVES: The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action Project Framework, 2010-12, Work Package 7B (WP 7B), was aimed at facilitating collaboration between HTA agencies to avoid duplication of assessment efforts. A major task of WP 7B was to collect information on planned and ongoing (POP) projects by EUnetHTA agencies and to incorporate this information in a POP Database. We analyzed whether the Database served its intended purpose. METHODS: A survey was sent to all fifty-seven EUnetHTA partners, complemented by telephone interviews with the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of HTA in Austria (lead institution). Furthermore, detailed documentation on the activities of the POP Database was provided to the research team at CAST (University of Southern Denmark) by the lead institution. RESULTS: Forty-two of fifty-seven agencies (74 percent) responded to the survey. Eleven collaborations initiated by agencies themselves were reported. The scope of these collaborative activities was usually limited to information exchange on for example literature search protocols. A slight reduction of duplication of effort was documented. In addition, twelve collaborations at the full report level were initiated by the lead institution. CONCLUSION: While the POP Database has the potential to reduce duplication of effort, this has not been realized during the 3-year period of the EUnetHTA Joint Action Project Framework, 2010-12. Further evidence needs to be gathered to determine whether the POP Database is effective and whether the benefits outweigh the resources required to maintain it.

EU HTA Regulation and Joint Clinical Assessment-Threat or Opportunity?

The vision of a unified European HTA is by no means a new endeavor. At its core are the publicly declared ambitions to harmonize assessments of clinical data within the EU and avoid the duplication of efforts. Not surprisingly, these ambitions are publicly announced to be motivating the new 2022 EU HTA regulation. However, industry experts typically see more of a risk for additional bureaucracy resulting in delays, further scrutiny, and one additional EU (clinical) dossier to submit on top of all national HTA dossiers, which could be considered a duplication of effort and therefore counterproductive. Regardless of how the details of the process will be defined and how the entire process will work in practice, we can be sure that EU officials will refer to the EU HTA and Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) in particular as a learning system. The purpose of this article is to take a closer look at the new EU HTA regulation and analyze threats and opportunities for manufacturers and what the resulting opportunities and threats will be at the affiliate level throughout the EU.

Towards compatibility of EUnetHTA JCA methodology and German HTA: a systematic comparison and recommendations from an industry perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The transferability of the EU joint clinical assessment (JCA) reports for pharmaceuticals for the German benefit assessment was evaluated by systematically comparing EU JCA and German clinical assessments (CA) based on established assessment elements for HTA and assessing the potential impact of differences on Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) ability to derive the therapeutic added value. METHODS: Identification of all pharmaceuticals undergoing both, EU JCA and German CA between January 2016-June 2020. Qualitative review and data extraction from the assessments, assessment of methodological differences using a hierarchical model. Recommendations for harmonisation were developed and consented with pharmaceutical industry stakeholders. RESULTS: Differences with potentially major impact: (1) View on differing treatment algorithms and definition of corresponding subpopulations/respective comparators. (2) Clinical relevance of surrogate/intermediate endpoints. Inclusion of different/surrogate morbidity endpoints resulting in different relative effectiveness conclusions. (3) Tolerance of study interventions not used according to marketing authorisation. (4) Different operationalisation and/or weighting of individual safety endpoints leading to differing relative safety conclusions. Differences with potentially minor impact: (1) Disagreement in risk of bias assessment for overall survival and its robustness against study limitations. (2) Use of patient-reported outcome symptom scales as measurements for health-related quality of life instruments. CONCLUSION: While many synergies between EU JCA and German CA exist, we identified several aspects in HTA methodology that would benefit of harmonisation and ensure the transferability of future EU JCA to the German HTA process without duplicated evaluation requirements. For those, a set of recommendations was developed.

Time to Align: A Call for Consensus on the Assessment of Genetic Testing.

In this paper, we updated our 2018 systematic review aimed to identify and compare ad hoc designed frameworks for genetic testing evaluation. Overall, we identified 30 frameworks (29 in the first systematic review and one in the update): they were mainly based on the ACCE model, whereas a minority were adjustments of the more traditional Health Technology Assessment (HTA) approach. After discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the retrieved frameworks, this perspective calls for consensus on the assessment of genetic testing. In line with the recent European recommendations that encouraged the generation of comparable evidence across Member States, we believe that the time has come to align all the ideas that have emerged over the last few decades and find a sustainable and sharable tool for the evaluation of genetic and genomic applications. Therefore, we suggest stopping the evaluation of such technologies using ad hoc strategies-affected by validation, implementation, and adoption issues-and we propose to use a general HTA approach, particularly the European reference tool for the assessment of health technologies, the EUnetHTA HTA core model, that is built on solid theoretical and methodological principles and provides a comprehensive assessment of the technologies value.

Review of Relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of pharmaceuticals at the European network for health technology assessment (EUnetHTA): A first step towards a consolidated European perspective on comparative effectiveness & safety?

OBJECTIVES: REAs from Joint Action (JA1-3) were reviewed and compared versus Health Technology Assessments (HTA) in France, Germany, UK, Italy. METHODS: EUnetHTA REAs published until end of 2019 were identified. Leveraging information derived from the HTA bodies' website key process (population; timing; national HTA bodies involved) and content characteristics (evidence base; comparative therapy, endpoints, subgroups) were determined and compared against national appraisals. RESULTS: All twelve pharmaceutical EUnetHTA assessment finalized until end of 2019 were included with Ustekinumab being the most recent (October 2019) and Pazopanib the first assessment (September 2012). In all but three assessments EUnetHTA's assessment did not cover the full EMA indication. Since JA3 time intervals between EMA approval and EUnetHTA assessment were < 80 days. Number of (co-)authoring HTA bodies ranged between 2 (in 6 REAs) and > 10 (Pazopanib). EUnetHTA did consider non - RCT evidence in 7 procedures; take a rather inclusive approach regarding appropriate comparative treatments; approach endpoints less restrictively than e.g. the German IQWiG/GBA; not apply a predetermined set of subgroups analyses. In seven REAs, national appraisal showed inhomogeneities across the 4 countries. National appraisals for Sotagliflozin and Ustekinumab were not yet available. CONCLUSIONS: A joint European HTA assessment has the potential to address the challenge of heterogeneity across the various national European HTA bodies and to determine joint European clinical development data standards that are aligned with regulatory requirements.

The transferability of health technology assessment: the European perspective with focus on central and Eastern European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Lower-income European countries have a worse health status and less funds for health care compared to Western Europe. Despite their limited human and financial capacities for conducting Health Technology Assessment (HTA), the need for evidence-based decision-making is growing. Two main approaches emerged as potential solutions: joint clinical assessments on the European level, and simplified procedures relying on the judgments of well-established HTA agencies of Western countries. AREAS COVERED: Based on considerations of transferability, the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was built up to harmonize HTA methodologies across the European Union, and to develop an HTA Core Model by focusing on joint production of relative effectiveness assessment, which can be used as a basis for national value assessments. The second approach has been suggested in various forms without considering transferability issues. EXPERT OPINION: Joint clinical assessments reduce duplication of efforts based on appropriate scientific rationale. On the other hand, recent examples show that relying on judgments of HTA agencies from wealthier countries with potentially different health-care priorities can lead to suboptimal allocation decisions. In the short term, some stakeholders may benefit from ignoring transferability, but it will ultimately lead to limited access in other disease areas.

Proposal for a regulation on health technology assessment in Europe - opinions of policy makers, payers and academics from the field of HTA.

INTRODUCTION: In January 2018 the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (HTA): 'Proposal for a Regulation on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU'. A number of stakeholders, including some Member States, welcomed this initiative as it was considered to improve collaboration, reduce duplication and improve efficiency. There were however a number of concerns including its legal basis, the establishment of a single managing authority, the preservation of national jurisdiction over HTA decision-making and the voluntary/mandatory uptake of joint assessments by Member States. Areas covered: This paper presents the consolidated views and considerations on the original Proposal as set by the European Commission of a number of policy makers, payers, experts from pricing and reimbursement authorities and academics from across Europe. Expert commentary: The Proposal has since been extensively discussed at Council and while good progress has been achieved, there are still divergent positions. The European Parliament gave a number of recommendations for amendments. If the Proposal is approved, it is important that a balanced, improved outcome is achieved for all stakeholders. If not approved, the extensive contribution and progress attained should be sustained and preserved, and the best alternative solutions found.

Leveraging EUnetHTA's conceptual framework to compare HTA decision drivers in France, Italy, and Germany from a manufacturer's point of view.

BACKGROUND: Health Technology Assessments (HTA) procedures differ substantially across the various European countries. We reviewed recent appraisals of a pharmaceutical manufacturer in three major European markets (France; Italy; Germany) and identified and categorized related decision drivers. METHODS: New marketing authorisation between January 2011 and August 2017, and Roche being the Marketing Authorization Holder, were included. Outcome of HTA appraisals by the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), and Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) were reviewed. Respective decision drivers were identified and commonalities and differences across the three countries were determined leveraging the EUnetHTA conceptual taxonomy (i.e. the 9 domains of the EUnetHTA core model). RESULTS: Within that time period Roche received European marketing authorization for eight new molecular entities (10 indications, respectively). Outcome of HTA appraisals was heterogeneous across the three countries. However, the four clinical domains of the EUnetHTA core model were driving the national HTA appraisals, with the clinical effectiveness domain being of most importance. Important drivers related to the other three clinical domains included the target patient population (subgroups, Germany), the current management of the condition (unmet need, Italy), the regulatory status (Orphan Designation, Germany), as well as safety considerations (all three countries). Average time between EMA approval and full commercial availability of new medicines was 63 (Germany), 459 (Italy), and 557 days (France). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical domains of the EUnetHTA framework are mainly driven by national HTA appraisals, providing a suitable starting point for further developing a joint European view on value and evidence. Underlying topics and issues still reveal considerable differences.