Our results indicate that PAE provides a clinically and statistically significant improvement in symptoms and QoL, although some of these improvements were greater in the TURP arm. The safety profile and quicker return to normal activities may be seen as highly beneficial by patients considering PAE as an alternative treatment to TURP, with the concomitant advantages of reduced length of hospital stay and need for admission after PAE. PAE is an advanced embolization technique demanding a high level of expertise, and should be performed by experienced interventional radiologists who have been trained and proctored appropriately. The use of cone-beam computed tomography is encouraged to improve operator confidence and minimize non-target embolizations. The place of PAE in the care pathway is between that of drugs and surgery, allowing the clinician to tailor treatment to individual patients' symptoms, requirements and anatomical variation.

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.

The aim of this study was to produce an economic cost model comparing the use of the Medaphor ScanTrainer virtual reality training simulator for obstetrics and gynaecology ultrasound to achieve basic competence, with the traditional training method. A literature search and survey of expert opinion were used to identify resources used in training. An executable model was produced in Excel. The model showed a cost saving for a clinic using the ScanTrainer of £7114 per annum. The uncertainties of the model were explored and it was found to be robust. Threshold values for the key drivers of the model were identified. Using the ScanTrainer is cost saving for clinics with at least two trainees per year to train, if it would take at least six lists to train them using the traditional training method and if a traditional training list has at least two fewer patients than a standard list.

The Thopaz+ portable digital system was evaluated by the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The manufacturer, Medela, submitted a case for the adoption of Thopaz+ that was critiqued by Cedar, on behalf of NICE. Due to a lack of clinical evidence submitted by the manufacturer, Cedar carried out its own literature search. Clinical evidence showed that the use of Thopaz+ led to shorter drainage times, a shorter hospital stay, lower rates of chest drain re-insertion and higher patient satisfaction compared to conventional chest drainage when used in patients following pulmonary resection. One comparative study of the use of Thopaz+ in patients with spontaneous pneumothorax was identified and showed shorter drainage times and a shorter length of hospital stay compared to conventional drainage. No economic evidence was submitted by the manufacturer, but a simple decision tree model was included. The model was improved by Cedar and showed a cost saving of £111.33 per patient when Thopaz+ was used instead of conventional chest drainage in patients following pulmonary resection. Cedar also carried out a sub-group analysis of the use of Thopaz+ instead of conventional drainage in patients with pneumothorax where a cost saving of £550.90 was observed. The main cost driver for the model and sub-group analysis was length of stay. The sub-group analysis was based on a single comparative study. However, the MTAC received details of an unpublished audit of Thopaz+ which confirmed its efficacy in treating patients with pneumothorax. Thopaz+ received a positive recommendation in Medical Technologies Guidance 37.