A REVIEW OF THE USE OF CORE OUTCOME SETS (COS) TO INFORM HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS
Author(s)
Paula Williamson, PhD1, Sarah Gorst, PhD2.
1Liverpool, United Kingdom, 2University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
1Liverpool, United Kingdom, 2University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: In 2024, the EU Member State Coordination Group on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) issued their ‘Guidance on outcomes for joint clinical assessments’ stating that COS should be considered. Core outcome sets (COS) are an agreed standardised set of outcomes created by key stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, researchers, payers). This study aimed to review how COS have been used to inform HTA.
METHODS: We searched the COMET database for studies reporting/endorsing COS uptake in HTA. This living database is populated through annual systematic reviews of COS development studies and citation alerts for keywords, with studies relating to the implementation of COS also added to the database. The COMET website maintains a list of organisations endorsing consideration of COS.
RESULTS: Two studies assessed the similarity between 10 selected COS and outcomes chosen for HTAs, for 119 entries in the INAHTA database and 10 from NICE. Of a possible 1318 core outcome matches for INAHTA entries there were 562 (43%) matches; of 94 possible there were 73 (78%) for NICE HTAs. Endorsements for considering COS in HTA were identified from four organisations/groups: NICE (UK), SBU (Sweden), CDA-AMC (Canada) and the EU JCA (Europe). Others recognise the need and call for greater standardisation of outcome measurement, e.g. ICER (USA). The first published EU joint clinical assessment (JCA) in paediatric glioma was reviewed and compared to two existing COS. Both COS included patients and/or public representatives in the development process, with one having substantial input throughout. There is overlap between the COS and JCA for outcomes relating to survival, safety/adverse events, health-related quality of life, seizure activity, motor/physical functioning, and cognitive/neurological functioning.
CONCLUSIONS: Further work is required to promote the awareness and consideration of COS within HTAs. The degree of matching between COS and NICE HTA outcomes is encouraging, demonstrating acceptance of COS by HTA producers.
METHODS: We searched the COMET database for studies reporting/endorsing COS uptake in HTA. This living database is populated through annual systematic reviews of COS development studies and citation alerts for keywords, with studies relating to the implementation of COS also added to the database. The COMET website maintains a list of organisations endorsing consideration of COS.
RESULTS: Two studies assessed the similarity between 10 selected COS and outcomes chosen for HTAs, for 119 entries in the INAHTA database and 10 from NICE. Of a possible 1318 core outcome matches for INAHTA entries there were 562 (43%) matches; of 94 possible there were 73 (78%) for NICE HTAs. Endorsements for considering COS in HTA were identified from four organisations/groups: NICE (UK), SBU (Sweden), CDA-AMC (Canada) and the EU JCA (Europe). Others recognise the need and call for greater standardisation of outcome measurement, e.g. ICER (USA). The first published EU joint clinical assessment (JCA) in paediatric glioma was reviewed and compared to two existing COS. Both COS included patients and/or public representatives in the development process, with one having substantial input throughout. There is overlap between the COS and JCA for outcomes relating to survival, safety/adverse events, health-related quality of life, seizure activity, motor/physical functioning, and cognitive/neurological functioning.
CONCLUSIONS: Further work is required to promote the awareness and consideration of COS within HTAs. The degree of matching between COS and NICE HTA outcomes is encouraging, demonstrating acceptance of COS by HTA producers.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
HTA400
Topic
Health Technology Assessment, Methodological & Statistical Research, Patient-Centered Research
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas