Early technology review (ETR) serves as a critical strategic tool for health technology developers today. By engaging multiple stakeholders during the initial prototype phase, companies can align their products with the specific needs of payers and clinical experts. This proactive approach ensures that medical innovations are not only technically feasible but also commercially and clinically viable. Consequently, this method is especially relevant in rapidly growing healthcare markets like India.

Improving Outcomes through Early Technology Review

The ETR process provides a structured framework for evaluating outcomes at the proof-of-concept stage. For instance, generic case studies highlight how expert advice can significantly alter a technology's strategic direction. In one successful case, a company followed the advice and expedited its first-in-human study. Furthermore, the iterative nature of this review allows for continuous refinement. Moreover, developers can identify potential barriers to adoption early on. Because of this, they avoid facing costly setbacks after large-scale investments.

A Sequential Approach to Evidence Development

Additionally, adopting a sequential iterative approach across the entire technology life cycle reduces financial risk. Instead of relying on a single-stage assessment, this adaptive design allows for evidentiary development at multiple points. Researchers suggest that a lack of early engagement often leads to incomplete preparedness for clinical trials. Therefore, clinicians and innovators must advocate for early technology review to streamline the path from laboratory to bedside.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary goal of early technology review?

The primary goal is to align new health technologies with clinical and payer expectations during the prototype stage to reduce development costs and research waste.

Why is a sequential approach better than a single-stage review?

A sequential approach allows for iterative feedback and adaptive design. Consequently, it minimizes financial risks and allows for more efficient evidence development throughout the product life cycle.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice or professional consultation. Refer to the latest local and national guidelines for clinical practice.

References

Levin L et al. Early technology review during prototype development and at proof of concept: the case for developing a sequential versus a single-stage approach to early evidence development for health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2026 Apr 22. doi: 10.1017/S0266462326103596. PMID: 42017345.

Grutters JPC et al. Defining early health technology assessment: building consensus using Delphi technique. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2025;41(1):e1. doi: 10.1017/S026646232500001X.