Axonics Sacral Neuromodulation System for Treating Refractory Overactive Bladder: A NICE Medical Technologies Guidance

The Axonics sacral neuromodulation (SNM) system can be used by people with refractory overactive bladder (OAB) to reduce symptoms of urge urinary incontinence and urinary frequency, where conservative treatments have failed or are not suitable. It is the first system for this indication that makes use of a rechargeable battery to prolong the lifespan of the implanted device, with the potential advantage of reducing the frequency of surgical replacement procedures and associated complications. We describe the evidence considered by the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in their evaluation of this evidence, supported by Cedar Healthcare Technology Research Centre. Two observational studies provided descriptive data that suggested improvement in control of symptoms after implantation of the Axonics SNM system; however, there was no peer-reviewed evidence that directly compared rechargeable and non-rechargeable SNM systems. In the absence of long-term data, economic modelling relies on the accuracy of battery life estimates. The evidence supports the case for adopting the Axonics SNM system for treating refractory OAB, when conservative treatment or treatment with medicines has not worked. This conclusion is consistent with other relevant NICE guidelines. Use of Axonics SNM technology in the UK National Health Service (NHS) is associated with a potential cost saving of £6025 per person over a 15-year period when compared with an equivalent non-rechargeable SNM system, assuming the claimed battery life estimate (a minimum of 15 years) is accurate. The cost savings are estimated to start around 6 years after implantation.

The NICE Evidence Standards Framework for digital health and care technologies - Developing and maintaining an innovative evidence framework with global impact

Objective

In 2018, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), in partnership with Public Health England, NHS England, NHS Improvement and others, developed an evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health and care technologies (DHTs). The ESF was designed to provide a standardised approach to guide developers and commissioners on the levels of evidence needed for the clinical and economic evaluation of DHTs by health and care systems.

Methods

The framework was developed using an agile and iterative methodology that included a literature review of existing initiatives and comparison of these against the requirements set by NHS England; iterative consultation with stakeholders through an expert working group and workshops; and questionnaire-based stakeholder input on a publicly available draft document.

Results

The evidence standards framework has been well-received and to date the ESF has been viewed online over 55,000 times and downloaded over 19,000 times.

Conclusions

In April 2021 we published an update to the ESF. Here, we summarise the process through which the ESF was developed, reflect on its global impact to date, and describe NICE’s ongoing work to maintain and improve the framework in the context for a fast moving, innovative field.

Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel Dressings for the Prevention of Pressure Ulcers: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel dressings are self-adherent, multilayer foam dressings designed for use on the heel and sacrum aiming to prevent pressure ulcers. The dressings are used in addition to standard care protocols for pressure ulcer prevention. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected Mepilex Border Sacrum and Heel dressings for evaluation. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) critiqued the company's submission. Thirteen studies (four randomised controlled trials and nine nonrandomised comparative studies) were included. The majority of studies compared Mepilex Border Sacrum dressings (plus standard care) with standard care alone. Comparative evidence for Mepilex Border Heel dressings was limited. A meta-analysis indicated a non-statistically significant difference in favour of Mepilex Border Sacrum dressings for pressure ulcer incidence [RR 0.51 (95% CI 0.22-1.18)]. The company produced a de novo cost model, which was critiqued by the EAC. After the EAC updated input parameters, cost savings of £19 per patient compared with standard care alone for pressure ulcer prevention were estimated with Mepilex Border dressings predicted to be cost saving in 57% of iterations. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee reviewed the evidence and judged that, although Mepilex Border Heel and Sacrum dressings have potential to prevent pressure ulcers in people who are considered to be at risk in acute care settings, further evidence is required to address uncertainties around the claimed benefits of the dressings and the incidence of pressure ulcers in an NHS acute-care setting. After a public consultation, NICE published this as Medical Technology Guidance 40.