Cedar, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff Medicentre, Heath Park, Wales, UK.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013 Feb;11(1):5-13. doi: 10.1007/s40258-012-0005-x.
As part of its Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer, Covidien, to provide clinical and economic evidence for the evaluation of the Pipeline™ embolization device (PED) for the treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms. Cedar; a consortium between Cardiff and Vale University Health Board and Cardiff University, was commissioned to act as an External Assessment Centre (EAC) for NICE to independently critique the manufacturers' submissions. This article gives an overview of the evidence provided, the findings of the EAC and the final guidance published by NICE. The scope issued by NICE considered PED as the intervention in a patient population with complex unruptured intracranial aneurysms (IAs), specifically large/giant, wide-necked and fusiform aneurysms. The comparator treatments identified were stent-assisted coiling, parent vessel occlusion, neurosurgical techniques and conservative management. The manufacturer claimed that PED fulfils a currently unmet clinical need in the treatment of large or giant, wide-necked or fusiform IAs. Thirteen studies were identified by the manufacturer as being relevant to the decision problem, with two of these included for data extraction. The EAC identified 16 studies as relevant, three of which had been published after the manufacturer's search. Data extraction was carried out on these studies as, although many were low level research comprising of case reports and case series, they provided useful, pertinent safety and outcome data. No relevant economic studies of the device were identified; therefore, a new economic model was designed by the manufacturer. The base-case scenario provided recognized the costs of PED to be higher than the costs for endovascular parent vessel occlusion, neurosurgical parent vessel occlusion, neurosurgical clipping and conservative management. However, PED was found to be cost saving compared with stent-assisted coiling, with a saving of £13,110 per patient. Analysis of the clinical data suggested that treatment with PED has high rates of clinical success with high rates of aneurysm occlusion and acceptable adverse events for the patient population. Economic evidence suggested that the costs in the base-case for PED may have been underestimated, meaning that PED would only become cost saving in patients who would otherwise require treatment with 32 coils or more. NICE Medical Technologies Guidance MTG10, issued in May 2012, recommends the adoption of PED in selected patients within the UK National Health Service (NHS).
作为其医学技术评估计划的一部分,国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)邀请制造商 Covidien 提供 Pipeline™ 栓塞装置(PED)治疗复杂颅内动脉瘤的临床和经济证据。Cardiff 和 Vale 大学健康委员会和 Cardiff 大学的 Cedar 联合体受委托作为 NICE 的外部评估中心(EAC),独立评估制造商的报告。本文概述了提供的证据、EAC 的发现以及 NICE 发布的最终指南。NICE 发布的范围考虑将 PED 作为患有复杂未破裂颅内动脉瘤(IA)的患者人群的干预措施,特别是大/巨型、宽颈和梭形动脉瘤。确定的对照治疗方法包括支架辅助线圈、母血管闭塞、神经外科技术和保守治疗。制造商声称,PED 满足了治疗大或巨型、宽颈或梭形 IA 目前未满足的临床需求。制造商确定了 13 项与决策问题相关的研究,其中 2 项被纳入数据提取。EAC 确定了 16 项相关研究,其中 3 项是制造商搜索后发表的。对这些研究进行了数据提取,尽管许多研究都是低水平的研究,包括病例报告和病例系列,但它们提供了有用的、相关的安全性和结果数据。未发现该设备的相关经济研究;因此,制造商设计了一个新的经济模型。基础案例考虑到 PED 的成本高于血管内母血管闭塞、神经外科母血管闭塞、神经外科夹闭和保守治疗的成本。然而,与支架辅助线圈相比,PED 被发现具有成本节约,每个患者节省 13,110 英镑。临床数据分析表明,PED 治疗具有较高的临床成功率、较高的动脉瘤闭塞率和可接受的患者人群不良事件发生率。经济证据表明,PED 的基础案例中的成本可能被低估了,这意味着只有在需要用 32 个或更多线圈治疗的患者中,PED 才会具有成本效益。2012 年 5 月发布的 NICE 医疗技术指南 MTG10 建议在英国国民保健制度(NHS)中为选定的患者采用 PED。