Advice
Clinical and technical evidence
Clinical and technical evidence
A literature search was carried out for this briefing in accordance with the interim process and methods statement for medtech innovation briefings. This briefing includes the most relevant or best available published evidence relating to the clinical effectiveness of the technology. Further information about how the evidence for this briefing was selected is available on request by contacting mibs@nice.org.uk.
Published evidence
Three real-world evidence case study reports including 69 people are summarised in this briefing.
The reports were available in summary form only and were not peer reviewed. One of the reports included longitudinal data covering a 16‑month period.
The clinical evidence and its strengths and limitations is summarised in the overall assessment of the evidence.
Overall assessment of the evidence
Because of the limited information in the non-peer-reviewed, real-world evidence reports, the level of the methodological quality is unclear. The studies are non-comparative and have small numbers of patients. The evidence suggests that YOURmeds increases adherence and costs less. The evidence came from 3 case study reports, so more high-quality research is needed to evaluate YOURmeds.
West Lothian Council (2020)
Study size, design and location
A case study by West Lothian Council of 24 people in Scotland.
Key outcomes
The pilot showed that adherence was 83%, compared with 50% at baseline. One user showed very good adherence at the start of the pilot. But after 4 months, data showed that adherence reduced and an additional care package was quickly put in place, highlighting the need for a rapid response. West Lothian Council was able to save about 6,680 care visits with a saving of £27,008 across 8 users. The return on investment is 9:1, so for every £1 spent, £9.10 is saved.
Leeds City Council (2019)
Key outcomes
There were 3,636 individual medication rounds, with an average of 243 rounds per person. Over a period of 81 days, the average adherence was 59.5% (range 41% to 85%) and around 1,676 visits were saved. The average return on investment was 6.55:1 (range 1.5:1 to 21.2:1) showing that for each £1 spent, £6.55 was saved. Patient-reported benefits included increased independence, more social interaction and better health outcomes.
Strengths and limitations
This real-world case study evaluates a pilot of YOURmeds. In the calculation of the return on investment, only the pharmacy technician visits were included. All other aspects of social care and key relevant areas such as hospital admissions, GP visits (out of the usual routine) and delaying residential care costs were excluded. It is not peer reviewed and is in summary report form only, so it is limited in detail.
Company case study (2021)
Key outcomes
People were aged between 38 and 94 with multiple underlying conditions. The system completed 33,249 unsupported medication rounds between January 2020 and June 2021. Overall adherence was 84.7%. People aged 79 or over had 90.5% adherence and people under 79 had lower adherence (78.9%). There was no noticeable difference in adherence during lockdown in the COVID‑19 pandemic (82.2%) and outside of lockdown (84.4%).
Strengths and limitations
This case study evaluates a pilot of YOURmeds during lockdown. The study authors noted that the findings suggest that people can adapt to new technology quickly and that rapid rollout is possible. It is not peer reviewed and is in summary report form only, so it is limited in detail.
Sustainability
The device is made from recycled materials confirmed in manufacturer specification sheets. The company claims the technology can be readily recycled. There is no published evidence to support this claim.
Recent and ongoing studies
No ongoing or in‑development trials were identified.
One expert noted that there is 1 study for Manchester Local Care Organisation on Parkinson's disease.