The 2022 Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Global Policy Forum (GPF) established the goal of developing a position statement and framework for lifecycle HTA (LC-HTA), through a Task Force leveraging multi-stakeholder monthly discussions and GPF member input. The Task Force developed a working definition: LC-HTA is a systematic process utilizing sequential HTA activities to inform decision making where the evidence base, the health technology itself, or the context in which it is applied, has a potential to meaningfully change at different points in its LC. Four key scenarios were identified where it was considered that an LC-HTA approach would add sufficient value to HTA bodies and their key stakeholders to justify the additional resource burden. Based on the four scenarios, a high-level LC-HTA framework was developed consisting of (i) defining the decision problem, (ii) sequencing of HTA activities, and (iii) developing optimization criteria. Subsequently, the Task Force developed operationalization guidance for LC-HTA in a companion paper.

Lifecycle considerations have always been part of health technology assessment (HTA). However, the concept of taking a fuller, more holistic “lifecycle approach” is gaining interest in the HTA community. The 2022 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed how adopting a lifecycle approach could promote stakeholder engagement and robust evidence generation, and whether it could enhance information sharing and transparency across stakeholder groups. This article summarizes the discussions held at the 2022 HTAi GPF and subsequent HTAi Annual Meeting panel session that debated some of the key challenges and opportunities, with particular focus on the pre- and postmarket and disinvestment phase activities. Core themes and recommendations identified that collaboration and patient involvement are happening but still needs to be strengthened, and moving to disease-based approaches may help, although individual contexts still need to be considered. Appropriately developed and mandated core outcome sets may help with information sharing and efficiency in all lifecycle activities. Further, methods for the appropriate use of big data and digital data collection should be developed and driven by the HTA community. The value of lifecycle activities should be reviewed; in particular, scientific advice appears valuable, but the magnitude of effect is somewhat unknown due to the challenges around the confidential nature of these activities. Not all lifecycle activities can be conducted for every technology, and while there is a move away from disinvestment phase activities, more structured prioritization criteria are required. This article ends with suggested next steps to bring forward some of the priority recommendations.