VibraTip™ was selected by the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) to undergo evaluation through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). VibraTip™ provides a vibratory stimulus for the purpose of detecting diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, and is intended to replace the current practice of using the 128 Hz tuning fork or 10 g monofilament (comparators). The sponsor (McCallan Medical) provided clinical and economic submissions which were evaluated by an External Assessment Centre (EAC). Of six diagnostic studies identified, the EAC considered that only one was directly relevant to the assessment. This study indicated VibraTip™ had a sensitivity of 0.79 (95 % CI 0.69–0.90) and specificity of 0.82 (95 % CI 0.74–0.90) for DPN using a neurothesiometer at 25 V as a reference standard. This was non-inferior to the comparators, but the sample size (n = 141) was too small to draw unequivocal conclusions and it is unclear how generalisable results were to clinical practice. The sponsor presented a de facto cost-minimisation model that in the base case showed minimal cost savings and, in sensitivity analysis which assumed diagnostic superiority of VibraTip™, showed large savings. The EAC appraised this model and concluded it was flawed as it was not evidence based and costs were likely to be unrealistic. The MTAC considered that the technology showed promise but decided the case for adoption was not proven, and therefore made a research recommendation as is reflected in NICE Medical Technology Guidance 22.

The Spectra Optia® automated apheresis system, indicated for red blood cell exchange in people with sickle cell disease, underwent evaluation by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which uses its Medical Technologies Advisory Committee to make recommendations. The company (Terumo Medical Corporation) produced a submission making a case for adoption of its technology, which was critiqued by the Newcastle and York external assessment centre. Thirty retrospective observational studies were identified in their clinical submission. The external assessment centre considered these were of low methodological and reporting quality. Most were single-armed studies, with only six studies providing comparative data. The available data showed that, compared with manual red blood cell exchange, Spectra Optia reduces the frequency of exchange procedures as well as their duration, but increases the requirement for donor blood. However, other clinical and patient benefits were equivocal because of an absence of robust clinical evidence. The company provided a de novo model to support the economic proposition of the technology, and reported that in most scenarios Spectra Optia was cost saving, primarily through reduced requirement of chelation therapy to manage iron overload. The external assessment centre considered that although the cost-saving potential of Spectra Optia was plausible, the model and its clinical inputs were not sufficiently robust to demonstrate this. However, taking the evidence together with expert and patient advice, the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee considered Spectra Optia was likely to save costs, provide important patient benefits, and reduce inequality, and gave the technology a positive recommendation in Medical Technology Guidance 28.