Feature | July 09, 2014

Drawing the Line When Evaluating Cost vs. Benefit

A big fly in the ointment for widespread adoption of many new technologies is cost. In today’s cost-conscience environment of healthcare reform, there needs to be a clear, quantifiable return of investment (ROI). This is especially true for new medical technologies that are competing with a long-established standard of care, where the new technology must show either a cost-benefit over the older technology, or must show a big improvement in patient outcomes to justify the added expense. With a device that shows only an incremental increase in benefit, say a 1-2 percent or less improvement over existing technology, the question may become one of economics rather than device effectiveness.


This is not only a question for physicians, as it applies to vendors developing these products as well. One of the biggest examples of this is the case of drug-eluting stents. During the last decade, key stent vendors were in an arms race to build a better device and capture a large share of the then lucrative coronary stent market. This included extremely expensive, blockbuster clinical trials, massive R&D efforts, and lawsuits and countersuits to try to slow down the competition. However, this came to a halt with the SPIRIT IV trial results in 2010, which proved the Abbott Xience stent was the best in the market for patient outcomes and beat out the long-time market leader, the Boston Scientific Taxus stent.  


However, the victory only just edged out Taxus. Stent thrombosis improvements were measured in fractions of less than 1 percent, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization improvements were less than a 2.6 percentage-point absolute reduction. The data proving that Abbott was the top performer by only a small margin came at a staggering cost of nearly a billion dollars and several years of data collection. Few vendors are willing to shell out that sort of cash today to conduct similar sized trials that will be powered with enough patients to show only small incremental improvements.  


In reality, all the drug-eluting stents on the U.S. market today are good devices and all have similar patient outcomes. This has led to stents becoming commodity items, where lower pricing can often trump slightly better trial data. This is why the Xience stent does not master the entire stent market and why competitors remain in the game. 


I shared some additional thoughts on things to consider when looking at new devices and software in the article The Basics for Evaluating New Technology in the July-August issue of DAIC.


Related Content

European interventional cardiology market, drug-eluting stents, Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Medtronic

Boston Scientific's Eluvia drug-eluting vascular stent system. Image courtesy of Boston Scientific.

Feature | Stents| July 31, 2015
According to a new report on the Europe market for interventional cardiology by iData Research, drug-eluting stents...
InspireMD, CGuard, PARADIGM study, EuroPCR 2015, Musialek

Image courtesy of InspireMD

News | Embolic Protection Devices| June 23, 2015
InspireMD Inc. announced that its CGuard embolic prevention system reported positive results in the PARADIGM study at...
Stentys, Xposition S, CE Mark, EuroPCR
News | Stents| June 18, 2015
Stentys announced in April that it received CE Marking for its new Self-Apposing stent system ahead of plan. The...
News | Stents Carotid| June 17, 2015
Karam Moon, M.D., winner of the DePuy Synthes Cerebrovascular Section Resident/Fellow Award, presented his research,...
Xposition S, Stentys, SETUP trial, results, EuroPCR, EuroIntervention

Xposition S image courtesy of Stentys

News | Stents Drug Eluting| June 17, 2015
Stentys announced that the findings of the first Xposition clinical experience, as part of the SETUP trial, were...
electronic stents, bioresorbable electronic stent, BES

An illustration of the bioresorbable electronic stent developed in the Korean study. It uses a magnesium stent which doubles as a wireless transmission antenna, flexible microelectronic sensors for blood flow and temperature, and a polylactic acid polymer coating with embedded drug-filled nanospheres that release the drug only when stimulated by heat or light. Image from ACS Nano.

Feature | May 28, 2015 | Dave Fornell
With the recent innovation of flexible microelectronic sensor circuits that can be made from bioresorbable materials,...
OrbusNeich, Combo, EPC, HARMONEE study, U.S.
News | May 28, 2015
OrbusNeich has announced that the first U.S. patient has been enrolled in the HARMONEE (Harmonized Assessment by...
Boston Scientific, Synergy, EVOLVE I, EVOLVE II, EuroPCR 2015, results
News | May 22, 2015
Boston Scientific reported positive, long-term data from the EVOLVE Trial of the Synergy everolimus-eluting...
Boston Scientific, investors, cardiology, growth, expansion
News | May 11, 2015
Boston Scientific Corp. presented an overview of its continued business momentum and long-term growth strategies at a...
BEST Trial
Feature | March 25, 2015
Despite the advent of a new generation of stents, patients with multiple narrowed arteries in the heart who received...
Overlay Init