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

Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Model, CMS, reduce heart attacks and strokes, participants
News | Patient Engagement| July 22, 2016
July 22, 2016 — The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced 516 awardees in 47 states,
heart failure, after first heart attack, cancer risk, JACC study
News | Cardiac Diagnostics| July 21, 2016
People who develop heart failure after their first heart attack have a greater risk of developing cancer when compared...
Absorb, bioresorbable stent, BVS
Feature | Stents Bioresorbable| July 21, 2016 | Alphonse Ambrosia, D.O.
Some have labeled bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS), also known as bioresorbable stents, as the fourth revolution of inte
Sponsored Content | Videos | Inventory Management| July 19, 2016
You have bigger priorities than managing inventory.
Abbott Absorb bioresorbable stent, dissolving BVS, first West Coast implant, Good Samaritan Hospital Los Angeles
News | Stents Bioresorbable| July 19, 2016
Good Samaritan Hospital, Los Angeles, is the first hospital on the West Coast to offer patients with coronary artery...
Medtronic, In.Pact Admiral drug coated balloon, DCB, FDA approval, 150 mm length
Technology | Drug-Eluting Balloons| July 18, 2016
Medtronic plc has received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the IN.PACT Admiral drug-coated balloon...
3-D OCT

A 3-D OCT rendering of a stented vessel segment created on St. Jude Medical's Ilumien Optis OCT system. 

Feature | Angiography| July 15, 2016 | Dave Fornell
While angiographic X-ray fluoroscopy systems are the workhorse for transcatheter cardiovascular interventional proced
VentureMed Group, Flex Scoring Catheter, FDA approval, peripheral arterial disease, PAD, endovascular treatment
Technology | Catheters| July 13, 2016
July 13, 2016 — VentureMed Group Ltd., specializing in devices for the endovascular treatment of...
radial access, inserting stents, JACC Cardiovascular Interventions study
News | Radial Access| July 13, 2016
A new study in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions supports access through the wrist, or radial access, as the default...
Toshiba, Infinix, 4DCT, CT-Angio

Toshiba’s Infinix 4DCT combines an Infinix Elite angiography system an Aquilion One Vision edition CT system. It allows clinicians to plan, treat and verify in a single clinical setting. The CT system is capable of capturing an entire organ in one rotation with 640 slices and 16 cm of anatomical coverage. 

Feature | Angiography| July 12, 2016 | Dave Fornell
Angiographic imaging system vendors have developed new technologies to address emerging cath lab trends, including th
Overlay Init