Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff 
WelshClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

The Urolift System for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a NICE medical technology guidance

Ray, Alistair, Morgan, Helen Elizabeth, Wilkes, Antony, Carter, Kimberley and Carolan-Rees, Grace 2016. The Urolift System for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a NICE medical technology guidance. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 14 (5) , pp. 515-526. 10.1007/s40258-015-0218-x

[img]
Preview
PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (503kB) | Preview

Abstract

As part of its Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Neotract (manufacturer) to submit clinical and economic evidence for their prostatic urethral lift device, Urolift, for the relief of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS BPH). The Urolift System uses implants to retract the prostatic lobe away from the urethral lumen. The clinical evidence used in the manufacturer’s submission shows that Urolift is effective for the treatment of BPH. Urolift delivers a weighted mean International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) improvement of between 9.22 and 11.82 points. These Urolift improvements are greater than a published ‘marked improvement’ in IPSS score of 8.80. Comparison with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of TURP (Transurethral Resection of Prostate) and HoLEP (Holmium Laser Enucleation of Prostate) show that Urolift does not yield better clinical outcomes from baseline compared to TURP and HoLEP in terms of IPSS, QoL (Quality of Life) and Qmax (maximum urinary flow). However, Urolift appears to have the advantage in terms of minimal and mild complications, and this may be of interest to patients and urologists. The economic case for Urolift was made using a very detailed and thorough de novo cost model. The base case posed by the manufacturer placed Urolift at almost cost-neutral (£3 cost incurring, based on 2014 prices) compared to TURP, and £418 cost incurring compared to HoLEP. In an additional scenario comparing day-case Urolift with in-patient TURP, the estimated per-patient savings with Urolift were £286 compared with monopolar TURP (mTURP) and £159 compared with bipolar TURP (BiTURP). NICE guidance MTG26 recommends that the case for adoption of Urolift was supported by the evidence, when implemented in a day-case setting.

Item Type: Article
Date Type: Publication
Status: Published
Schools: Engineering
Subjects: R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
T Technology > TS Manufactures
Publisher: Springer
ISSN: 1175-5652
Funders: NICE
Date of First Compliant Deposit: 30 March 2016
Last Modified: 10 Jul 2019 10:29
URI: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/id/eprint/86233

Citation Data

Cited 12 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics