Nearest Neighbour (NN) propensity score (PS) matching methods are commonly used in pharmacoepidemiology to estimate treatment response using observational data. Unfortunately, there is limited evidence on the optimal approach for accurately estimating binary treatment response and, more so, to estimate its variance. Bootstrapping, although commonly used to accurately estimate variance, is rarely used together with PS matching. In this Monte Carlo simulation-based study, we examined the performance of bootstrapping used in conjunction with PS matching, as opposed to different NN matching techniques, on a simulated dataset exhibiting varying levels of real world complexity. Thus, an experimental design was set up that independently varied the proportion of patients treated, the proportion of outcomes censored and the amount of PS matches used. Simulation results were externally validated on a real observational dataset obtained from the Belgian Cancer Registry. We found all investigated PS methods to be stable and concordant, with k-NN matching to be optimally dealing with the censoring problem, typically present in chronic cancer-related datasets, whilst being the least computationally expensive. In contrast, bootstrapping used in conjunction with PS matching, being the most computationally expensive, only showed superior results in small patient populations with long-term largely unobserved treatment effects.

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.

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.

Background: Omics technologies, enabling the measurements of genes (genomics), mRNA (transcriptomics), proteins (proteomics) and metabolites (metabolomics), are valuable tools for personalized decision-making. We aimed to identify the existing value assessment frameworks used by health technology assessment (HTA) doers for the evaluation of omics technologies through a systematic review. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched to retrieve potential eligible articles published until 31 May 2020 in English. Additionally, through a desk research in HTA agencies’ repositories, we retrieved the published reports on the practical use of these frameworks. Results: Twenty-three articles were included in the systematic review. Twenty-two frameworks, which addressed genetic and/or genomic technologies, were described. Most of them derived from the ACCE framework and evaluated the domains of analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility. We retrieved forty-five reports, which mainly addressed the commercial transcriptomic prognostics and next generation sequencing, and evaluated clinical effectiveness, economic aspects, and description and technical characteristics. Conclusions: A value assessment framework for the HTA evaluation of omics technologies is not standardized and accepted, yet. Our work reports that the most evaluated domains are analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility and economic aspects.