IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v16y2018i4d10.1007_s40258-018-0389-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Memokath-051 Stent for the Treatment of Ureteric Obstruction: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Eaton Turner

    (University of York)

  • Michelle Jenks

    (University of York)

  • Rachael McCool

    (University of York)

  • Chris Marshall

    (University of York)

  • Liesl Millar

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Hannah Wood

    (University of York)

  • Alison Peel

    (University of York)

  • Joyce Craig

    (University of York)

  • Andrew J Sims

    (Freeman Hospital
    University of Newcastle Upon Tyne)

Abstract

Memokath-051 is a thermo-expandable, nickel-titanium alloy spiral stent used to treat ureteric obstruction resulting from malignant or benign strictures. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected Memokath-051 for evaluation. The company, PNN Medical, claimed Memokath-051 has clinical superiority and cost savings compared with double-J stents. It identified five studies reporting clinical evidence on Memokath-051 and constructed a de novo cost model comparing Memokath-051 to double-J stents. Results indicated that Memokath-051 generated cost savings of £4156 per patient over 2.5 years. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) critiqued the company’s submission and completed substantial additional work. Sixteen studies were identified assessing Memokath-051 and all listed comparators in the scope (double-J stents, reconstructive surgery and metallic and alloy stents) except nephrostomy. Similar success rates were reported for Memokath-051 compared with double-J and Resonance stents and worse outcomes compared with other options with evidence available. The EAC updated the company’s cost model structure and modified several inputs. The EAC’s model estimated that Memokath-051 generated savings of at least £1619 per patient over 5 years compared with double-J stents, was cost neutral compared with other metallic stents and was cost saving compared with surgery up to month 55. Overall, Memokath-051 is likely to be cost saving in patients not indicated for reconstructive surgery and those expected to require a ureteral stent for at least 30 months. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) reviewed the evidence and supported the case for adoption, issuing partially supportive recommendations published after public consultation as Medical Technologies Guidance 35.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Eaton Turner & Michelle Jenks & Rachael McCool & Chris Marshall & Liesl Millar & Hannah Wood & Alison Peel & Joyce Craig & Andrew J Sims, 2018. "The Memokath-051 Stent for the Treatment of Ureteric Obstruction: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 445-464, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0389-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0389-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0389-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-018-0389-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:16:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0389-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.