Content |
Definition of unmet need
Relevance of innovation for patients
Definition of patient relevant endpoints
Assessment of patient reported outcomes
Acceptability of adverse events
|
Definition of PICO Scheme i.e., definition of patient population; comparator choice; clinical trial endpoints etc.
Input on applied methodology
Application of standards of ‘evidence-based medicine’
Involvement in early multistakeholder dialogues on HTA processes (with patients, regulators, and HTDs)
|
Approach to unmet medical need
Early determination of evidence requirements for both benefit-risk evaluation and comparative benefit
Joint scientific consultations including feedback on key elements of PICO scheme and study design that reflect both regulatory and HTA requirements
|
Design of PICO scheme i.e., definition of patient population; comparator choice; clinical trial endpoints etc.
Design of applicable comparative evidence package
|
Key Challenges |
Lack of standardized procedure for involvementLack of capacities & resourcesAlignment of EU umbrella organizations with national organizationsManagement of conflict of interestNo consistent recognition of the value of patient input |
Lack of standardized procedure for involvement
Requirement of additional resources
Alignment of EU umbrella organizations with national organizations e.g., regarding guidelines
Management of conflict of interest
Heterogeneity in market access and clinical standards across Europe (e.g., eastern vs. Western Europe)
|
Lack of standardized procedure for involvement
Timing of EU HTA Process and EMA regulatory process will overlap and might incur time conflicts
Tailoring of EMA documents (e.g., EPAR) for utilization in the subsequent HTA processes
|
Lack of standardized procedure for involvement
Time constraints of EU HTA process
Limited opportunities of direct involvement before (e.g., in joint consultations) or after submission of a dossier
Concern that EU HTA might result in many diverging PICO schemes
|