The objective of this paper is to present the Environmental Sustainability in Health Technology Assessment (ESHTA) Working Group’s (WG’s) opinion on the definition and scope of early Health Technology Assessment (HTA) developed by a WG under HTA International. The aim is to provide suggestions on how early HTA can support the goals of enhancing environmental sustainability in healthcare.

The HTAi ESHTA WG presents our opinion on the proposed definition and scope of early HTA. This includes a broad range of perspectives from stakeholder groups including patient experts, a policy maker, a statistician, HTA researchers and a healthcare professional, located across lower to higher resource settings and several jurisdictions. We suggest how early HTA can support the goals of enhancing environmental sustainability in healthcare.

HTA agencies play a crucial role in embedding sustainability into their evaluations and practices. Integrating environmental sustainability into HTA at three critical stages – product conceptualization, reimbursement decisions, and point of care – can optimize resource use and reduce environmental impacts. Developing sustainability metrics, defining environmental impact categories, and identifying suitable methods for assessing health technologies are essential steps. Early engagement is also vital for optimizing trade-offs and increasing acceptance by diverse stakeholders.

Incorporating environmental sustainability into early HTA can enhance the likelihood of regulatory approval and reimbursement, ultimately benefiting patients and healthcare systems. By integrating sustainability considerations at the design stage, the potential for environmental impact reduction is maximized. Future efforts should focus on developing comprehensive guidelines and methods, ensuring collaboration between early HTA and ESHTA WGs.

To compare nutritional value and aspects with environmental impact of high-protein (HP) and ‘normal-protein’ (NP) ultra-processed foods (UPF).

299 HP and 286 NP products were evaluated regarding aspects of nutritional value, energy density, Nutri-Score, number of additives as well as hyper-palatability and price. Environmental impact of HP UPF was addressed by analysing protein sources and the use of environmentally persistent non-nutritive artificial sweeteners.

Cross-sectional market analysis in German supermarkets and online shops.

299 HP and 286 NP UPF products.

HP compared to NP UPF had a lower energy density, a lower content of sugar, total and saturated fat, whereas fibre and protein content (62·2 % animal protein) were higher (all P < 0·001). HP products therefore had a higher prevalence of Nutri-Score A (67·2 % v. 21·7 %) and a lower prevalence of Nutri-Score E (0·3 % v. 11·2 %) labelling (both P < 0·001). By contrast, salt content and the number of additives (environmentally persistent sweeteners, sugar alcohols, flavourings) were higher in HP compared to NP UPF (P < 0·001). When compared to HP products, twice as many NP were identified as hyper-palatable (82·5 % v. 40·5 %; P < 0·001). The price of HP was on average 132 % higher compared to NP UPF (P < 0·001).

While major adverse aspects of UPF regarding nutritional profile and hyper-palatability are less pronounced in HP compared to NP products, higher salt content, increased number of additives and negative environmental effects from frequent use of animal protein and environmentally persistent sweeteners are major drawbacks of HP UPF.