Are the UK systems of innovation and evaluation of medical devices compatible? The role of NICE's Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP)

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 347-357

  Chapman, A M ^b   Taylor, C A ^a   Girling, A J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b OFFICE OF HEALTH ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EVALUATION STUDY; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL DEVICE; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATION PROGRAMME; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE; PROGRAM COST EFFECTIVENESS; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM; DEVICE APPROVAL; DEVICES; DRUG APPROVAL; STANDARDS;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; DEVICE APPROVAL; DRUG APPROVAL; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; GREAT BRITAIN;

EID: 84905126269     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-014-0104-y     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2003;63(2):121-32. (Pubitemid 36132298)
2. Hutton J, McGrath C, Frybourg JM, Tremblay M, Bramley-Harker E, Henshall C. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(1):10-8. (Pubitemid 43376234)
3. Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs-same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402-4.
4. Taylor RS, Iglesias CP. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: are they that different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):404-6.
5. Kirisits A, Redekop WK. The economic evaluation of medical devices: challenges ahead. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(1):15-26.
6. Wanless D. Securing our future health: taking a long-term view. 2002. Report No.: Final Report. HM Treasurey; London; April 2002.
7. House of Commons Health Committee. The use of new medical technologies within the NHS; 2005. Report No.: 5. 5 April 2005.
8. Department of Health. High quality care for all: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report; 2008. 6/200 Report No.: CM 7432.
9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme process guide and methods guide. NICE [Internet]; 2011. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whatwedo/ aboutmedicaltechnologies/MTEPProcessGuideAndMethodsGuide.jsp. 14 May 2011.
10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC): terms of reference; 2010. Report No.: Final. 8 July 2010.
11. Campbell B, Campbell M. NICE medical technologies guidance: a novel and rigorous methodology to address a new health technology assessment challenge. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(5):295-7.
12. Campbell G. Statistics in the world of medical devices: the contrast with pharmaceuticals. J Biopharm Stat. 2008;18(1):4-19.
13. WHO. World Health Organisation: Clinical evidence for medical devices: regulatory processes focussing on Europe and the United States of America; 2010. Report No.: [Background Paper 3]. Aug 2010.
14. HM Government. Strength and opportunity 2011: The landscape of the medical technology, medical biotechnology, industrial biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors in the UK; 2011. Report No.: 3. Dec 2011.
15. Wilkinson J. The Medical Technology Industry in Europe. EUCOMED Medical TechnologyBrussels presentation [Internet]; 2011. http://www.eucomed.org/ uploads/Modules/Publications/110527-the-medical-technology-industry-in-europe. pdf. 1 June 2011.
16. IMS. Top-Line Market Data 2011; 2011. http://www.imshealth.com/portal/ site/ims/menuitem.5ad1c081663fdf9b41d84b903208c22a/?vgnextoid= fbc65890d33ee210VgnVCM10000071812ca2RCRD.
17. Longson C. Foreward by the Director of the Centre for Health Technology Evaluation. J R Soc Med. 2012;105 Suppl 1:S2-S.
18. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Measuring the use of NICE guidance. NICE online [Internet]; 2012. http://www.nice.org.uk/ usingguidance/measuringtheuseofguidance/evaluation-and-review-of-nice- implementation-evidence-ernie.jsp. 29 May 2013.
19. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). MTAC Minutes of the Meeting on Thursday 17th June 2010. NICE [Internet]; 2010. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/AA3/FE/MTACMeetingMinutes170610.pdf. 16 Oct 2010.
20. Eucomed. Medical Technology [Internet]; 2011. http://www.eucomed.org/. 6 June 2011.
21. BIS. Healthcare Technology. Department for Business Innovation & Skills [Internet]; 2009. http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-sectors/ biotechnology-pharmaceuticals-and-healthcare/healthcare-technology. 28 Nov 2009.
22. BIS. R&D Scoreboard. Department for Business Innovation & Skills [Internet]; 2009. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dius. gov.uk/innovation/statistics-and-analysis/randd-scoreboard/sector-summaries/ pharma-biotech. 27 Nov 2009.
23. ABPI. Knowledge hub. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry [Internet]; 2011. http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/ Pages/default.aspx. 4 April 2011.
24. HM Government. Strength and Opportunity 2012. The landscape of the medical technology, medical biotechnology, industrial biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors in the UK; 2012. Report No.: 4. Dec 2012.
25. Karlberg J. Industry sponsored medical device clinical trials. Clinical Trial Magnifier. 2009;2(7):348-60.
26. Cookson R, Hutton J. Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: European perspective. Health Policy. 2003;63(2):167-78. (Pubitemid 36132302)
27. Becker KM, Whyte JJ. Clinical evaluation of medical devices: principles and case studies. 2nd ed. Totowa: Humana Press; 2006. p. 2006.
28. Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Harris J, Gill T. Trials in surgery. Br J Surg. 2004;91(1):6-16. (Pubitemid 38122044)
29. Wittes J. Clinical trials of the effectiveness of devices: an analogy with drugs. Surgery. 2001;129(5):517-23. (Pubitemid 32374981)
30. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does, "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):699-707. (Pubitemid 27067504)
31. Sorenson C, Tarricone R, Siebert M, Drummond M. Applying health economics for policy decision making: do devices differ from drugs? Europace. 2011;13 Suppl 2:ii54-ii8.
32. Tarricone R, Drummond M. Challenges in the clinical and economic evaluation of medical devices: the case of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Med Marketing. 2011;11(3):221-9.
33. Gelijns A, Russo M, Hong K, Brown L, Ascheim D, Moskowitz A. Dynamics of device innovation: implications for assessing value. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):365-73.
34. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Notify a product to the Medical Technology Evaluation Programme. NICE [Internet]; 2012. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whatwedo/aboutmedicaltechnologies/ notifyaproducttoep.jsp. 24 April 2012.
35. Campbell B. NICE medical technologies guidance: aims for clinical practice. Perioper Med. 2013;2(15).
36. Hogan M. NICE To Seek Candidates For New-Tech Evaluation Program In First Half Of '10. EuroPharma Today [Internet]; 2009. http://www.europharmatoday.com/ 2009/12/nice-to-seek-candidates-for-newtech-evaluation-program-in-first-half-of- 10-.html. 7 Jan 2010.
37. Sprange K, Clift M. The NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP): manufacturer submission challenges. J R Soc Med. 2012;105(Suppl 1):S4-11.
38. Hoyle M. Historical lifetimes of drugs in England: application to value of information and cost-effectiveness analyses. Value Health. 2010;13(8):885-92.
39. Holmes DR Jr, Firth BG, Hodgson PK, Rihal CS, Wood DL, Cohen DJ. Evolving challenges in medical device evaluation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72(1):1-6.
40. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the single technology appraisal process; 2009. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/42D/B3/ STAGuideLrFinal.pdf. Oct 2009.
41. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme: PROCESS GUIDE; 2011. http://www.nice.org.uk/ media/3A6/14/MedicalTechnologiesEvaluationProgrammeProcessGuideMarch2012.pdf. April 2011.
42. Hawe E, Yuen P, Baillie L. OHE Guide to UK Health and Health Care Statistics; 2011. Report No.: 978-1-899040-09-4. July 2011.
43. OECD. OECD Health Data 2012 [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development]; 2012. http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/oecdhealthdata. htm. 28 June 2012.
44. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Technology Appraisals. NICE [Internet]; 2011. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA. 26 March 2011.
45. Yeo A. UK healthcare: the challenge of keeping the momentum going. Clinica [Internet]; 2009. http://www.abhi.org.uk/multimedia/docs/news/2009/ Clinica%2016%20December%202009.pdf. 14 May 2012.
46. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Public Board Meeting (21 July 2010): Agenda & Papers. ITEM 2-Chief Executive's Report. The Post Graduate Centre, Birmingham; 2010.
47. Linden L, Vondeling H, Packer C, Cook A. Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence only appraise new pharmaceuticals? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(3):349-53. (Pubitemid 46956883)
48. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Health Technologies Adoption Programme; 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/usingguidance/ healthtechnologiesadoptionprogramme/HealthTechnologiesAdoptionProgramme.jsp.
49. Willits I, Keltie K, Craig J, Sims A. Watch BP Home A for opportunistically detecting atrial fibrillation during diagnosis and monitoring of hypertension: a NICE medical technology guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2014;12(3):255-65.
50. White J, Carolan-Rees G. PleurX peritoneal catheter drainage system for vacuum-assisted drainage of treatment-resistant, recurrent malignant ascites: a NICE medical technology guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(5):299-308.
51. Withers K, Carolan-Rees G, Dale M. Pipeline™ embolization device for the treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms: a NICE Medical Technology Guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(1):5-13.
52. Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ. 2001;10(2):179-84.
53. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE-recommended clinical trial due to start on promising wound healing device. NICE Press releases [Internet]; 2012. http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/ pressreleases/ NICERecommendedClinicalTrialDueToStartOnPromisingWoundHealingDevice.jsp.
54. Trueman P, Grainger DL, Downs KE. Coverage with evidence development: applications and issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(1):79-85.
55. NHS England. NHS England invites specialised services providers to take part in its innovative new programme 'Commissioning through Evaluation'; 2013. http://www.england.nhs.uk/2013/09/26/com-through-eval/. 26 Sep 2013.
56. Girling A, Young T, Brown C, Lilford R. Early-stage valuation of medical devices: the role of developmental uncertainty. Value Health. 2010;13(5):585-91.
57. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE Scientific Advice; 2014. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/scientificadvice/ AboutScientificAdvice.jsp.
58. Ambu. Press release: Ambu launches 3rd generation of unique video scope. Ambu Ltd [Internet]; 2013. http://www.ambu.com/corp/investor-relations/ambu- news/newsshow.aspx?Action=1&NewsId=1642&M=NewsV2&PID=22245. 29 May 2013.
59. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). MTG 14. Ambu aScope2 for use in unexpected difficult airways; 2013. Report No.: 14. July 2013.
60. Hoyle M. Accounting for the drug life cycle and future drug prices in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(1):1-15.
61. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Interim process and methods statement for the production of Medtech Innovation Briefings (MIBs); 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/mib.
62. Eucomed. Medical Technology Brief 2007. Eucomed [Internet]; 2007. http://www.eucomed.org/uploads/Modules/Publications/ Medical%20Technology%20Brief%202007.pdf. 8 Nov 2010.
63. OECD. OECD Health Data 2010 [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development]; 2010. http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/oecdhealthdata. htm. June 2010.
64. HM Government. Strength and Opportunity. The landscape of the medical technology, medical biotechnology and industrial biotechnology sectors in the UK; 2010. Report No.: 2.
65. Office for Life Sciences. Life Sciences 2010: Delivering the Blueprint; 2010. Report No.: BIS/1k/01/10/NP. Jan 2010.
66. HM Government. Strength and Opportunity. The landscape of the medical technology, medical biotechnology and industrial biotechnology enterprises in the UK; 2009. Report No.: 1.
67. PICTF. Ministerial Industry Strategy Group Pharmaceutical Industry: Competitiveness and Performance Indicators 2009; 2010. http://webarchive. nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120104125945; http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod-consum-dh/ groups/dh-digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh-113133.pdf. 25 Feb 2010.
68. BIS. BIS Economics Paper No.2. Life Sciences in the UK-economic analysis and evidence for 'Life Sciences 2010: Delivering the Blueprint'; 2010. Report No.: 2.