Evidence development for medical devices is often focused on satisfying regulatory requirements with the result that health professional and payer expectations may not be met, despite considerable investment in clinical trials. Early engagement with payers and health professionals could allow companies to understand these expectations and reflect them in clinical study design, increasing chances of positive coverage determination and adoption into clinical practice.

An example of early engagement through the EXCITE International model using an early technology review (ETR) is described which includes engagement with payers and health professionals to better inform companies to develop data that meet their expectations. ETR is based on an early evidence review, a framework of expectations that guides the process and identified gaps in evidence. The first fourteen ETRs were reviewed for examples of advice to companies that provided additional information from payers and health professionals that was thought likely to impact on downstream outcomes or strategic direction. Given that limitations were imposed by confidentiality, examples were genericized.

Advice through early engagement can inform evidence development that coincides with expectations of payers and health professionals through a structured, objective, evidence-based approach. This could reduce the risk of business-related adverse outcomes such as failure to secure a positive coverage determination and/or acceptance by expert health professionals.

Early engagement with key stakeholders exemplified by the ETR approach offers an alternative to the current approach of focusing on regulatory expectations. This could reduce the time to reimbursement and clinical adoption and benefit patient outcomes and/or health system efficiencies.

Uncertainty is a fundamental component of decision making regarding access to and pricing and reimbursement of drugs. The context-specific interpretation and mitigation of uncertainty remain major challenges for decision makers. Following the 2021 HTAi Global Policy Forum, a cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary HTAi-DIA Working Group (WG) was initiated to develop guidance to support stakeholder deliberation on the systematic identification and mitigation of uncertainties in the regulatory-HTA interface.

Six online discussions among WG members (Dec 2021–Sep 2022) who examined the output of a scoping review, two literature-based case studies and a survey; application of the initial guidance to a real-world case study; and two international conference panel discussions.

The WG identified key concepts, clustered into twelve building blocks that were collectively perceived to define uncertainty: “unavailable,” “inaccurate,” “conflicting,” “not understandable,” “random variation,” “information,” “prediction,” “impact,” “risk,” “relevance,” “context,” and “judgment.” These were converted into a checklist to explain and define whether any issue constitutes a decision-relevant uncertainty. A taxonomy of domains in which uncertainty may exist within the regulatory-HTA interface was developed to facilitate categorization. The real-world case study was used to demonstrate how the guidance may facilitate deliberation between stakeholders and where additional guidance development may be needed.

The systematic approach taken for the identification of uncertainties in this guidance has the potential to facilitate understanding of uncertainty and its management across different stakeholders involved in drug development and evaluation. This can improve consistency and transparency throughout decision processes. To further support uncertainty management, linkage to suitable mitigation strategies is necessary.

A core outcome set (COS) is a minimum standardized set of agreed-upon outcomes for clinical trials of a specific condition. COS development can improve research by aligning stakeholder priorities for the outcomes most important in decision-making across the life-cycle of a product. It is important to include health technology assessment (HTA) representatives in COS development to ensure that outcomes useful to HTA are consistently included in clinical trials. Here we describe the role of HTA representatives in two COS projects: coreHEM, for gene therapy for hemophilia, a genetic blood clotting disease; and coreNASH, for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), a progressive form of fatty liver disease that can lead to cirrhosis. We will describe the voting patterns of HTA representatives and consider aspects of their role in shaping the final COS.

For each multi-stakeholder COS, a modified Delphi process was utilized (three online surveys plus an in-person consensus meeting). Candidate outcome lists were compiled via a literature review complemented by participant interviews. Voters condensed and prioritized the lists by rating each outcome on a scale of 1-9 (not important-essential). Votes on each outcome were stratified by stakeholder group; HTA votes were compared with those of other stakeholders.

HTA representatives made up 12.2 percent and 13.5 percent of the voters in coreHEM and coreNASH, respectively. They tended to give the highest votes to mortality outcomes, outcomes measuring the severity of disease, and outcomes related to a patient's quality of life, general well-being and general health perspective. HTA votes helped certain outcomes meet the inclusion criteria in the final voting rounds; without HTA voters, the “mental health status” outcome in coreHEM and the “hepatic-related mortality” and “liver transplantation” outcomes in coreNASH would have been eliminated.

HTA participation in COS projects provides HTA representatives an opportunity to help shape COS in clinical research for better decision-making.

Hemophilia gene therapy trials demonstrate a “cure” could be achievable, thereby changing disease management. CoreHEM aims to develop multi-stakeholder consensus around a clearly defined, core outcome set (COS) - a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition - that will demonstrate and allow differentiation of the effectiveness and value of gene therapy relative to the current standard of care. Health technology assessment (HTA) frequently suffers from a lack of relevant, consistently reported outcomes. When uniformly implemented, COS increase the predictability and consistency of appraisals, coverage, and reimbursement decisions by payers and HTA agencies.

A COS was developed using a modified Delphi process, including online surveys and an in-person consensus meeting. A literature review and key informant interviews were used to create an initial list of outcomes for voting. Participants (patients, including representatives from the National Hemophilia Foundation and the World Federation of Hemophilia, healthcare providers, payers, HTA agencies, regulators and industry representatives) condensed and prioritized the list by rating each outcome on a scale of 1 (not important to include) to 9 (essential). Participants could also suggest outcomes for voting. Outcomes were eliminated from consideration if <70 percent rated the outcome from 7–9, unless the patient stakeholder group average score was ≥7.

After two Delphi rounds, there was consensus on three outcomes: frequency of bleeds, factor activity level, and duration of expression. Additional outcomes included after an in-person consensus meeting were chronic pain, mental health status, and utilization of the healthcare system (direct costs). Adverse events of interest were evaluated and separately reported.

Including the coreHEM COS in clinical development programs will ensure that relevant, consistent outcomes are available for decisions by HTA agencies, clinicians, and patients. This should result in faster access to novel, high-value therapies for appropriate patients.