首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >The Urolift System for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance
【2h】

The Urolift System for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

机译:Urolift系统治疗良性前列腺增生继发的下尿路症状:NICE医学技术指南

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:作为其医疗技术评估计划(MTEP)的一部分,美国国立卫生研究院(NICE)邀请Neotract(制造商)提交其前列腺尿道举升装置Urolift用于缓解下尿路的临床和经济证据前列腺增生(LUTS BPH)继发的症状。 Urolift系统使用植入物将前列腺小叶从尿道腔中缩回。制造商提交的文件中使用的临床证据表明,Urolift可有效治疗BPH。 Urolift的加权平均国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)提高了9.22至11.82点。这些Urolift改进措施大于已发布的IPSS评分“明显改进” 8.80。与TURP(经尿道前列腺电切术)和HoLEP(前列腺Ho激光除核术)的随机对照试验(RCT)的比较表明,就IPSS,QoL(寿命)和Qmax(最大尿流)。但是,Urolift在最小和轻度并发症方面似乎具有优势,这可能使患者和泌尿科医师感兴趣。 Urolift的经济案例是使用非常详细和彻底的从头成本模型进行的。制造商提出的基本案例是,与TURP相比,Urolift几乎处于成本中立(3英镑的成本,基于2014年价格),与HoLEP相比则为418英镑。在将日间Urolift与住院患者TURP进行比较的另一种情况下,与单极TURP(mTURP)相比,Urolift的估计每位患者节省费用为286英镑,与双极TURP(BiTURP)相比,估计每位患者节省159英镑。 NICE指南MTG26建议,在日间实施时,采用Urolift的案例应有证据支持。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号