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

Synergy stent
Technology | October 05, 2015
October 5, 2015 — The U.S.
CeloNova BioSciences, Cobra PzF coronary stent system, second randomized trial, COBRA-REDUCE

Cobra PzF coronary stent system image courtesy of CeloNova BioSciences Inc.

News | Stents| September 23, 2015
CeloNova BioSciences Inc. announced that it has received conditional approval to start an investigational device...
Absorb, BVS, bioresorbable stent
News | Stents Bioresorbable| September 01, 2015
September 1, 2015 — A bioresorbable drug-eluting coronary stent showed similar efficacy and safety results compared t
Stent graft, computational fluid dynamics, CFD, stent engineering

In this vector velocity model, brighter colors indicate blood flow acceleration as it passes through a bifurcation. Computation fluid dynamic modeling provides insight on blood flow through and near the walls of the stent graft. Image courtesy of Sanford Health

News | Cath Lab| August 27, 2015
August 27, 2015 — The use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling has been used for years to better engineer l
News | Cath Lab| August 26, 2015
August 26, 2014 — The Cardiovascular Research Foundation (CRF) announced the late-breaking trials and first report in
global interventional cardiology devices market, worth, Grand View Research, stents, catheters
News | Cath Lab| August 17, 2015
The global interventional cardiology devices market is expected to reach $25.16 billion by 2020, according to a new...
bioabsorbable scaffolds, BAS, global market, 2021, 10MM, 5EU, GlobalData

Absorb BVS image courtesy of Abbott

News | Stents Bioresorbable| August 05, 2015
The global market value for bioabsorbable scaffolds (BAS) will expand rapidly from $143.7 million in 2014 to just under...
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...
Overlay Init