Article contents
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
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 March 2022
Abstract
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.
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.
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.
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.
Keywords
- Type
- Article Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
We thank the EUnetHTA EDWP for reviewing and providing valuable input to the draft manuscript.
Luciana Ballini10, Antje Behring4, Carlos Collados1, Veronika Deak4, Veronika Dóczy6, Agniezska Dobrzybska2, Judith Fernandez5, Csilla Galambos6, Krystyna Hviding8, François Maignen7, Gergő Merész6, Deborah Morrison7, David Mwaura8, Mercé Obach3, Sonia Garcia Perez1, Stephanie Said4, Barbara Wernerné Sódar6, Camille Thomassin5, Giorgia Viceconte9, Roser Vilagut3
1Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios (AEMPS), Calle Campezo, 1 Edificio 8, 28022 Madrid, Spain
2Área de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía (AETSA), Avda. de la Innovación, Edificio ARENA 1, 41020 Sevilla, Spain
3Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya Servei Català de la Salut (AQuAS-CatSalut), Carrer de Roc Boronat 81, 08005 Barcelona, Spain
4Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), Gutenbergstraße 13, D-10587 Berlin, Germany
5Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), 5 Avenue du Stade de France, F-93218 Saint-Denis La Plaine Cedex, France
6National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition (NIPN), Zrínyi u.3., 1051 Budapest, Hungary
7National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Level 1A, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester M1 4BT, United Kingdom
8Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), Sven Oftedals vei 8, 0950 Oslo, Norway
9Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Via del Tritone 181, 00187 Rome, Italy
10Regione Emilia Romagna (RER), Viale Aldo Moro 52, 40127 Bologna, Italy
References
- 2
- Cited by