ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Comparing National Health Technology Assessment approaches and the new European Joint Clinical Assessment framework: The case of onco-hematological medicines.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze national-level evaluations conducted by selected Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies and compare them with the methodological framework outlined in the European HTA Regulation for Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA), in order to assess whether JCA would improve alignment among national practices.
methodsWe used onco-hematological medicines as a case model. From the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, we identified onco-hematological medicines licensed from January 2023 to April 2025 and the pivotal trials supporting their marketing authorization (MA). We retrieved the reports of seven national HTA agencies and examined the rationale and evidence underlying the agencies' evaluation and their final recommendations. To estimate how the JCA opinion would have changed compared to those taken by the national HTA authorities, we developed a set of possible Population, Intervention, Comparators, and Outcomes (PICOs) and applied JCA criteria to selected medicines.
resultsWe assessed ten trials supporting the MA of eight medicines. All except momelotinib were approved based on one single pivotal trial. Six were single-arm studies. By June 2025, 22 national HTA reports were available for six medicines, incorporating pivotal trial data and indirect treatment comparisons for five medicines. Overall, recommendations from HTA agencies varied. The PICO scoping process generated at least four PICOs per medicine, reflecting high heterogeneity across countries. The limited evidence at the time of MA was insufficient to address all the PICOs.
conclusionAlthough JCA strengthens procedural harmonization, the current HTA fragmentation may persist due to the proliferation of PICOs and divergent interpretations of evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371064What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.