Dave Fornell, DAIC Editor

Dave Fornell, Editor DAIC

Blog | Dave Fornell, DAIC Editor | 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

radial access, transradial
Feature | Radial Access| May 27, 2016 | Dave Fornell
The use of transradial artery vascular access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States has s
Toshiba, Infinix 4-D CT, first U.S. install, Arkansas cancer center
News | CT Angiography (CTA)| May 26, 2016
Cancer patients at the Carti Cancer Center, Conway, Ark., now have access to the latest innovation in diagnostic...
cath lab, radiation exposure, glocoma
Feature | Radiation Dose Management| May 26, 2016 | Dave Fornell
May 27, 2016 — Radiation exposure to cath lab staff and physicians has seen growing concern in recent years, as the p
anticoagulants, U.S. market, Technavio, 2020, trends
News | Antiplatelet and Anticoagulation Therapies| May 25, 2016
Technavio’s latest report on the U.S. anticoagulants market provides an analysis on the most important trends expected...
IVPA, intravascular photoacoustic imaging, fatty arteries, Purdue, Shanghai

IVPA/IVUS imaging of a perfused fresh human right coronary artery dissected from an explanted heart. (A) IVPA image. (B) IVUS image. (C) Merged IVPA/IVUS image. The 1 mm scale bar applies to all panels.

News | Intravascular Imaging| May 25, 2016
A new imaging system known as intravascular photoacoustic (IVPA) imaging that produces three-dimensional images of the...
News | Cath Lab| May 24, 2016
The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2016 Scientific Sessions took place May 4-7, 2016
HeartFlow, FFR-CT, ruptured coronary plaques, EMERALD study, EuroPCR 2016
News | CT Angiography (CTA)| May 23, 2016
First-in-human data presented at EuroPCR 2016 demonstrate that hemodynamic data from HeartFlow Inc. may help predict...
PCI, OFDI, OCT, optical coherence tomography, optimal frequency domain imaging, EuroPCR 2016 study
News | Intravascular Imaging| May 20, 2016
Using optimal frequency domain imaging (OFDI) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second-generation...
Watchman, left atrial appendage closure, LAA occluder, LAA. LAAO, laa occluder, left atrial appendage, Watchman

The Boston Scientific Watchman device is currently the only transcatheter LAA occluder cleared for use in the United States.

Feature | Left Atrial Appendage (LAA) Occluders| May 20, 2016 | Dave Fornell
Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects nearly 6 million Americans and the condition puts them at significantly greater risk
St. Jude Medical, EuroPCR 2016 studies, FFR, LAAO, left atrial appendage occlusion, fractional flow reserve, Amplatzer
News | Cath Lab| May 19, 2016
St. Jude Medical Inc. announced results from two cardiovascular clinical trials presented at EuroPCR 2016.
Overlay Init