Transparency Tested: Conflict of Interest in EU HTA
Author(s)
Jessica Walters, MSc1, Ioannis Reklos, PhD2, Anke van Engen, MSc3, Sian Tanner, BA, PhD3, Edel Falla, MSc4.
1IQVIA, London, United Kingdom, 2IQVIA, Athens, Greece, 3IQVIA, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 4Director, IQVIA, London, United Kingdom.
1IQVIA, London, United Kingdom, 2IQVIA, Athens, Greece, 3IQVIA, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 4Director, IQVIA, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: The Health Technology Assessment Coordination Group (HTACG), established under the new EU HTA Regulation, coordinates joint health technology assessments across Member States (MS). The HTACG and stakeholder network must comply with transparency and conflict of interest (COI) rules under Regulation (EU) 2021/2282. This study examined the COI declarations of all subgroup representatives and stakeholders.
METHODS: COI forms were processed using OpenAI’s GPT-4.1 to extract conflicts and structured data with human-in-loop quality control. Results were synthesised to identify the prevalence and nature of declared conflicts and subgroup characteristics.
RESULTS: Among 190 JCA Subgroup representatives, 27 conflicts of interests were declared across nine yes/no questions. The greatest number of conflicts were declared for immediate family members with employment and financial interests in HTDs (15), followed by employment of the representatives by HTDs (6). All 27 EU MS (plus Norway) completed the COI form, with France (HAS) and Germany (52% G-BA, 44% IQWiG, 4% undeclared) providing 30% of the total representatives. Across the CG and its subgroups, representatives in the JCA subgroup were also members of one (26%), two (14%), three (6%) and four (4%) other subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals <15% declared conflicts in the JCA subgroup and a concentration of representation from France and Germany. The high degree of membership overlap across HTA groups highlights the interconnected nature of EU HTA governance, reinforcing the need for strong transparency and COI management to maintain trust in joint assessments.
METHODS: COI forms were processed using OpenAI’s GPT-4.1 to extract conflicts and structured data with human-in-loop quality control. Results were synthesised to identify the prevalence and nature of declared conflicts and subgroup characteristics.
RESULTS: Among 190 JCA Subgroup representatives, 27 conflicts of interests were declared across nine yes/no questions. The greatest number of conflicts were declared for immediate family members with employment and financial interests in HTDs (15), followed by employment of the representatives by HTDs (6). All 27 EU MS (plus Norway) completed the COI form, with France (HAS) and Germany (52% G-BA, 44% IQWiG, 4% undeclared) providing 30% of the total representatives. Across the CG and its subgroups, representatives in the JCA subgroup were also members of one (26%), two (14%), three (6%) and four (4%) other subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals <15% declared conflicts in the JCA subgroup and a concentration of representation from France and Germany. The high degree of membership overlap across HTA groups highlights the interconnected nature of EU HTA governance, reinforcing the need for strong transparency and COI management to maintain trust in joint assessments.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HTA339
Topic
Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, Organizational Practices
Topic Subcategory
Systems & Structure
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas