Health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines are intended to support the successful implementation of HTA by enhancing consistency and transparency in concepts, methods, processes, and use, thereby enhancing the legitimacy of the decision-making process. This report lays out good practices and practical recommendations for developing or updating HTA guidelines to ensure successful implementation.

The task force was established in 2022 and comprised experts and academics from various geographical regions, each with substantial experience in developing HTA guidelines for national health policy making. Literature reviews and key informant interviews were conducted to inform these good practices. Stakeholder consultations, open peer reviews, and expert opinions validated the recommendations. A series of teleconferences among task force members was held to iteratively refine the report.

The recommendations cover six key aspects throughout the guideline development cycle: (1) setting objectives, scope, and principles of the guideline, (2) building a team for a quality guideline, (3) defining a stakeholder engagement plan, (4) developing content and utilizing available resources, (5) putting in place appropriate institutional arrangements, and (6) monitoring and evaluating guideline success.

This report presents a set of resources and context-appropriate practices for developing or updating HTA guidelines. Across all contexts, the recommendations emphasize transparency, building trust among stakeholders, and fostering a culture of ongoing learning and improvement. The report recommends timing development and revision of guidelines according to the HTA landscape and pace of HTA institutionalization. Because HTA is increasingly used to inform different kinds of decision making in a variety of country contexts, it will be important to continue to monitor lessons learned to ensure the recommendations remain relevant and effective.

This study investigates the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on HTAsiaLink members at the organizational level and provides recommendations for mitigating similar challenges in the future.

A survey was disseminated among HTAsiaLink members to assess the COVID-19 impact in three areas: (i) inputs, (ii) process, and (iii) outputs of the Health Technology Assessment organizations’ (HTAOs) research operations and HTA process in general.

Survey results showed that most HTAOs hired more staff and secured similar or higher funding levels during COVID-19. Nevertheless, some organizations reported high staff turnover. COVID-19-relevant research was prioritized, and most of the organizations had to adapt their research design to meet the needs of policymakers. Time constraints in conducting research and inability to collect primary data were reported as impacts on the research process. Overall, the number of research projects and accessibility of respondents’ publications increased during COVID-19.

Research demand for HTAOs increased during COVID-19 and impacted their research process; however, they demonstrated resilience and adaptability to provide timely evidence for policymakers. With the growing reliance on HTA, HTAOs require adequate financial support, continuous capacity building, collaboration, and partnership, innovative HTA methods, and a pragmatic yet robust, evidence-to-policy process in preparation for future pandemics.

The primary objectives of this umbrella review were to (a) quantify the relative importance, of “severity” and “rarity” criteria in health resource allocation; and (b) analyze the contextual factors influencing the relative importance. The secondary objective was to examine how “severity” and “rarity” criteria are defined.

Searches were carried out in PubMed and Embase to identify eligible systematic reviews. Quality appraisal of systematic reviews was undertaken. From identified systematic reviews, primary studies were extracted and further screened for eligibility. The inclusion of severity and rarity criteria and their respective weights in primary studies were examined. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed.

Twenty-nine systematic reviews were screened, of which nine met the inclusion criteria. Primary studies included in these systematic reviews were retrieved and screened, resulting in forty articles included in the final analysis. Disease severity was more frequently considered (n = 29/40) than disease rarity (n = 23/40) as an evaluation criterion. Out of all cases where both were included as evaluation criteria, disease severity was assigned higher weights 84 percent of the time (n = 21/25).

Our review found consistent evidence that disease severity is more relevant and preferred to rarity as a priority-setting criterion albeit constraints in statistical analysis imposed by limited sample size and data availability. Where funding for rare diseases is concerned, we advocate that decision-makers be explicit in clarifying the significance of disease severity and/or rarity as a value driver behind decisions. Our findings also reinforce the relevance of disease severity as a criterion in priority setting.