Background:The treatment of choice for acute ischaemic stroke is the intravenous administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator within 3-4.5 h of symptom onset. However, the use of a thrombolytic would be limited by its narrow therapeutic window and contraindications. As a result, in recent years, techniques such as mechanical thrombectomy have emerged, which employ thrombus retrieval devices, such as stent retrievers (Solitaire TM , Trevo ® or Revive TM ), whose safety and efficacy in the endovascular treatment of acute ischaemic stroke is analysed in this article. Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken until March 2015. The quality of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE methodology. A meta-analysis of the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed, and the weighted average for the case series' sample size was calculated (Review Manager v5.2 and SPSS v19). Results: Seventeen primary studies (2 RCTs, Solitaire TM and Trevo ® vs.Merci ® , and 15 case series) were selected. The RCT results show that stent retrievers have a safety profile similar to the Merci ® device. However, both Solitaire TM and Trevo ® achieved a higher recanalisation success rate (OR, 4.56; 95% CI, 2.63-7.90; p < 0.00001) and appropriate clinical outcome at 90 days (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.52-4.25; p < 0.0004), although the 90-day mortality rate was similar in both groups (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, p = 0.70). Conclusions: Stent retrievers appear to be safe and effective devices, achieving high recanalisation rates and good clinical outcomes in the endovascular treatment of patients with acute ischaemic stroke due to the occlusion of intracranial arteries in comparison with the clot retriever Merci ® .
The Monitoring Studies (MS) program, the approach developed by RedETS to generate postlaunch real-world evidence (RWE), is intended to complement and enhance the conventional health technology assessment process to support health policy decision making in Spain, besides informing other interested stakeholders, including clinicians and patients. The MS program is focused on specific uncertainties about the real effect, safety, costs, and routine use of new and insufficiently assessed relevant medical devices carefully selected to ensure the value of the additional research needed, by means of structured, controlled, participative, and transparent procedures. However, despite a clear political commitment and economic support from national and regional health authorities, several difficulties were identified along the development and implementation of the first wave of MS, delaying its execution and final reporting. Resolution of these difficulties at the regional and national levels and a greater collaborative impulse in the European Union, given the availability of an appropriate methodological framework already provided by EUnetHTA, might provide a faster and more efficient comparative RWE of improved quality and reliability at the national and international levels.
Objectives
The term Postlaunch Evidence Generation (PLEG) refers to evidence generated after the launch or licensing of a health technology. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the implementation of these practices in the European Union in order to explore cross-border cooperation opportunities.
Methods
In December 2019, a survey composed of nine closed-ended questions with multiple choice answers about the PLEG practices in each country was sent to all twenty-five dedicated work package (WP5B) partners of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3. In addition to the survey, the national practices were discussed during a face-to-face meeting with WP5B partners.
Results
Twelve Health TechnologyAssessment (HTA) bodies completed the survey. Of these, eleven reported procedures in place for official requests for PLEGs in their remit. In the large majority of cases, the requests are made at the time of the assessment/appraisal. Several agencies participate in the definition of the scope of the PLEG or review of its protocol. Data collection and analysis mainly lie with companies for pharmaceuticals, whereas it is more the responsibility of the HTA bodies for medical devices. Only one agency owns the data and is able to exchange them without asking permission.
Conclusions
Most agencies recommend European collaboration on PLEG commence once the evidence gaps have been defined or during the production of the HTA report in the case of European joint assessment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.