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

News | Stents Bioresorbable| June 06, 2016
Amaranth Medical announced that it completed enrollment in May in the RENASCENT-II study of its novel Aptitude 120-...
Biotronik, ORIENT trial results, EuroPCR 2016, Orsiro DES, hybrid drug-eluting stent
News | Stents Drug Eluting| June 03, 2016
Biotronik announced results establishing non-inferiority of the Orsiro hybrid drug-eluting stent (DES) to the Resolute...
congenital heart, pulmonary artery stenting, JACC study
News | Congenital Heart| May 31, 2016
In a recent study, the use of a stent to repair pulmonary artery stenosis in children and adults with congenital heart...
Biotronik, Magmaris bioresorbable magnesium scaffold, BIOSOLVE-II Trial, 12-month results, EuroPCR 2016
News | Stents Bioresorbable| May 17, 2016
Biotronik presented 12-month data from the BIOSOLVE-II trial during a Hotline Session at EuroPCR 2016.

Biosensors' Biomatrix stent.

Feature | Stents| May 16, 2016
May 16, 2016 — Cardinal Health announced it has entered into a distribution agreement with Biosensors that enables Co
TOBA-BTK study, twelve-month results, SCAI 2016, Tack Endovascular System, critical limb ischemia
News | Peripheral Arterial Disease (PAD)| May 05, 2016
Intact Vascular Inc. announced that positive twelve-month results from its Tack Optimized Balloon Angioplasty – Below-...
Medtronic, Drug-Filled Stent, RevElution Trial results, ACC.16, CE Mark
News | Stents Drug Eluting| April 21, 2016
Medtronic plc announced new clinical data from one of the endpoints in the RevElution Trial for its novel, next-...
STEMI, delayed or deferred stent implantation, DANAMI-3-DEFER trial, ACC.16
News | Cath Lab| April 18, 2016
Delayed or deferred stent implantation in patients showed no clinical benefit in patients experiencing the deadliest...
Absorb, bioresorbable stents
Feature | Stents Bioresorbable| April 13, 2016 | Dave Fornell
Bioresorbable stents have been one of the hottest new cardiovascular technologies discussed at cardiology meetings ov
Sponsored Content | Videos | Stents Bioresorbable| April 12, 2016
Gregg Stone, M.D., director of cardiovascular research and education at Columbia University Medical Center / New York
Overlay Init