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

Elixir Medical Corporation Unveils Transformational DynamX Stent Featuring Adaptive Segments that Uncage the Stented Artery
News | Stents | January 25, 2018
January 25, 2018 – Elixir Medical Corporation, a leader in the development of breakthrough adaptive remodeling techno
The TIDES-ACS results show us that the Optimax stent is noninferior in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared to Synergy.

The presentation of the ESC late-breaker TIDES-ACS results show us that the Optimax stent is noninferior in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared to Synergy.

News | Stents | November 24, 2017
November 24, 2017 – During a late-breaking session at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2017 meeting, presente
News | Stents | November 10, 2017
Cordis, a Cardinal Health company, recently unveiled a comprehensive interventional cardiology portfolio, which now...
OCT comparison between the Combo vs. Xience stents in the HARMONEE study.

OCT comparison between the Combo vs. Xience stents in the HARMONEE study.

Feature | Stents | November 08, 2017
November 8, 2017 – New results from the HARMONEE Japan/U.S.
FDA Approves COBRA REDUCE Trial of 14-Day DAPT With CeloNova Stent
News | Stents | October 27, 2017
CeloNova BioSciences Inc. announced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved expansion of CeloNova's...
CeloNova Cobra Pzf stent
Technology | Stents | March 02, 2017
March 2, 2017 — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared CeloNova BioSciences Inc.
OCT, intravascular imaging, stent, good stent apposition on vessel wall, TRANSFORM-OCT study

An OCT image showing good stent strut apposition against the vessel wall.

News | Stents | January 13, 2017
January 13, 2017 — Results from TRANSFORM-OCT, a prospective, randomized trial using optical coherence tomography (OC
EXCEL Trial, TCT 2016, drug-eluting stents, CABG, surgery left main heart disease, LMCAD

Gregg W. Stone, M.D., presenting the EXCEL data at TCT 2016 during a standing room only late-breaking trial session.

Feature | Stents | January 12, 2017 | Dave Fornell
The biggest news from the 2016 Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) meeting this past fall was the results
Biotronik's Osiro stent, prison IV trial

Biotronik's Osiro ultra-thin strut, sirolimus-eluting stent.

News | Stents | November 09, 2016
November 9, 2016 – Results from a randomized, multicenter trial failed to show non-inferiority of hybrid, ultra-thin
OCT stent strut coverage

OCT imaging showing neointimal tissue coverage of metallic stent struts.

News | Stents | November 07, 2016
November 7, 2016 – Results from TRANSFORM-OCT, a prospective, randomized trial using optical coherence tomography (OC
Overlay Init