Middle East NICE Move Towards Standardized Health Technology Assessment
Author(s)
Jorge Jacob, MSc, Dominika Meszarosova, MSc.
Precision AQ, London, United Kingdom.
Precision AQ, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: As the UAE strengthen its healthcare infrastructure, the Department of Health in Abu Dhabi (DoH) has introduced formal health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. This development aligns with global trends and invites comparison with established HTA frameworks. The aim of this research is to compare the DoH HTA guidelines (2025) with the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, highlighting methodological similarities and differences, and exploring the implications for pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers seeking reimbursement in Abu Dhabi.
METHODS: The comparison focused on key HTA components: submission requirements, clinical and economic evidence standards, budget impact and cost-effectiveness thresholds, stakeholder engagement opportunities, timelines and transparency.
RESULTS: Similar to NICE, the DoH HTA guidelines emphasize added clinical value and cost-effectiveness as key decision drivers. However, budget impact plays a more significant role in the DoH assessment. In line with NICE, RCTs are considered the gold standard for the clinical assessment, with RWE accepted as supportive evidence. While NICE uses defined cost-effectiveness thresholds adjusted for disease severity, the DoH adopts a more flexible approach. The threshold is based on GDP per capita and is adjusted for disease severity, rarity, and the magnitude of QALY gains. The guidelines introduce an expedited and temporary access pathways for severe, rare or disabling diseases without alternative treatment options. The submission process is similar to NICE, and engagement with the DoH through early advice is highly encouraged. Timelines for the appraisal in a full HTA process and expedited access are 60 and 30 days, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Abu Dhabi’s HTA framework reflects a pragmatic adaptation of international best practices from established cost-effectiveness driven markets, tailored to local healthcare needs. Similarities in evidence requirements and review processes with established HTA frameworks support ease of submission for global manufacturers, though early engagement is critical to ensure successful reimbursement.
METHODS: The comparison focused on key HTA components: submission requirements, clinical and economic evidence standards, budget impact and cost-effectiveness thresholds, stakeholder engagement opportunities, timelines and transparency.
RESULTS: Similar to NICE, the DoH HTA guidelines emphasize added clinical value and cost-effectiveness as key decision drivers. However, budget impact plays a more significant role in the DoH assessment. In line with NICE, RCTs are considered the gold standard for the clinical assessment, with RWE accepted as supportive evidence. While NICE uses defined cost-effectiveness thresholds adjusted for disease severity, the DoH adopts a more flexible approach. The threshold is based on GDP per capita and is adjusted for disease severity, rarity, and the magnitude of QALY gains. The guidelines introduce an expedited and temporary access pathways for severe, rare or disabling diseases without alternative treatment options. The submission process is similar to NICE, and engagement with the DoH through early advice is highly encouraged. Timelines for the appraisal in a full HTA process and expedited access are 60 and 30 days, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Abu Dhabi’s HTA framework reflects a pragmatic adaptation of international best practices from established cost-effectiveness driven markets, tailored to local healthcare needs. Similarities in evidence requirements and review processes with established HTA frameworks support ease of submission for global manufacturers, though early engagement is critical to ensure successful reimbursement.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HTA233
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes, Value Frameworks & Dossier Format
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas