Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:57:31.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DYNAMICS OF DEVICE INNOVATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR ASSESSING VALUE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2013

Annetine C. Gelijns ,
Mark J. Russo ,
Kimberly N. Hong ,
Lawrence D. Brown ,
Deborah D. Ascheim  and
Alan J. Moskowitz
Annetine C. Gelijns
Affiliation:
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Mark J. Russo
Affiliation:
Barnabas Health Heart Centers
Kimberly N. Hong
Affiliation:
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Lawrence D. Brown
Affiliation:
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Columbia University
Deborah D. Ascheim
Affiliation:
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Alan J. Moskowitz
Affiliation:
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: In recent years, there has been growing interest in evaluating the health and economic impact of medical devices. Payers increasingly rely on cost-effectiveness analyses in making their coverage decisions, and are adopting value-based purchasing initiatives. These analytic approaches, however, have been shaped heavily by their use in the pharmaceutical realm, and are ill-adapted to the medical device context.

Methods: This study focuses on the development and evaluation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) to highlight the unique challenges involved in the design and conduct of device trials compared with pharmaceuticals.

Results: Devices are moving targets characterized by a much higher degree of post-introduction innovation and “learning by using” than pharmaceuticals. The cost effectiveness ratio of left ventricular assist devices for destination therapy, for example, decreased from around $600,000 per life year saved based on results from the pivotal trial to around $100,000 within a relatively short time period.

Conclusions: These dynamics pose fundamental challenges to the evaluation enterprise as well as the policy-making world, which this paper addresses.

Keywords

Medical devicesValue purchasing
Type
THEME - HTA and Value
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 365 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Porter, ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2477–2481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Gelijns, AC, Killelea, B, Vitale, M, Mankad, V, Moskowitz, AJ. The dynamics of pediatric device innovation: Putting evidence in context. In: Safe medical devices for children. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press; 2006:302–326.Google Scholar
3.Gelijns, AC, Rosenberg, N. The dynamics of technological change in medicine. Health Aff (Millwood). 1994;13:28–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Drummond, M, Griffin, A, Tarricone, R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs–same or different? Value Health. 2009;12:402–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Sorenson, C, Tarricone, R, Siebert, M, Drummond, M. Applying health economics for policy decision making: Do devices differ from drugs? Europace. 2011;13 (Suppl 2):ii54–ii58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Taylor, RS, Iglesias, CP. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: Are they that different? Value Health. 2009;12:404–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Ernst & Young. Pulse of the Industry Medical Technology Report 2012. - http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Pulse_medical_technology_report_2012/$FILE/Pulse_medical_technology_report_2012.pdf (accessed July 23, 2013).Google Scholar
8.Kirisits, A, Redekop, WK. The economic evaluation of medical devices: Challenges ahead. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:15–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.US Food and Drug Administration. Medical devices. 2012 Monthly PMA Listings. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/PMAApprovals/ucm295841.htm (accessed July 23, 2013).Google Scholar
10.US Food and Drug Administration. Medical devices. 2012 Medical Device 510(k) Clearances. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/510kClearances/ucm289685.htm (accessed July 23, 2013).Google Scholar
11.Hulstaert, F, Neyt, M, Vinck, I, et al.Pre-market clinical evaluations of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:278–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Dhruva, SS, Bero, LA, Redberg, RF. The strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in pre-market approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA. 2009;302:2679–2685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Chen, CE, Dhruva, SS, Redberg, RF. Inclusion of comparative effectiveness data in high-risk cardiovascular device studies at the time of premarket approval. JAMA. 2012;308:1740–1742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Rose, EA, Gelijns, AC, Moskowitz, AJ, et al.Long-term mechanical left ventricular assistance for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1435–1443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.National Coverage Determinations Manual. http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Transmittals/downloads/R2NCD1.pdf (accessed July 23, 2013).Google Scholar
16.Parides, MK, Moskowitz, AJ, Ascheim, DD, Rose, EA, Gelijns, AC. Progress versus precision: Challenges in clinical trial design for left ventricular assist devices. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:1140–1146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.National Institute for Health Care Management, (NIHCM). Changing patterns of pharmaceutical innovation 2002. http://nihcm.org/pdf/innovations.pdf (accessed July 23, 2013).Google Scholar
18.Dowling, RD, Park, SJ, Pagani, FD, et al.HeartMate VE LVAS design enhancements and its impact on device reliability. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004;25:958–963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Alli, OO, Booker, JD, Lennon, RJ, et al.Transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Assessing the learning curve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:72–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Lange, R, Bleiziffer, S, Mazzitelli, D, et al.Improvements in transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcomes in lower surgical risk patients. A glimpse into the future. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:280–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Pisano, GP, Bohmer, R, Edmondson, AC. Organizational differences in rates of learning: Evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Manage Sci. 2001;47:752–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Holzhey, DM, Seeburger, J, Misfeld, M, Borger, MA, Mohr, FW. Learning minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: A cumulative sum sequential probability analysis of 3895 operations from a single high-volume center. Circulation. 2013;128:483–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Rosenberg, N.Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Lietz, K, Long, JW, Kfoury, AG, et al.Outcomes of left ventricular assist device implantation as destination therapy in the post-REMATCH era: Implications for patient selection. Circulation. 2007;116:497–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Cowger, J, Sundareswaran, K, Rogers, JG, et al.Predicting survival in patients receiving continuous flow left ventricular assist devices: The HeartMate II risk score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:313–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Gregoric, I, Wadia, Y, Radovancevic, B, et al.HeartMate vented-electric left ventricular assist system: Technique for intrathoracic or intraperitoneal implantation via a left thoracotomy. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2004;23:759–762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Pasque, MK, Hanselman, T, Shelton, K, Hedges, R, Keohe-Huck, B. Operative strategies to reduce complications in Novacor left ventricular assist device placement. J Card Surg. 2004;19:329–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Wagner, F, Buz, S, Neumeyer, HH, Hetzer, R, Hocher, B, Nitric oxide inhalation modulates endothelin-1 plasma concentration gradients following left ventricular assist device implantation. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2004;44 (Suppl 1):S89–S91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Holdy, K, Dembitsky, W, Eaton, LL, et al.Nutrition assessment and management of left ventricular assist device patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24:1690–1696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Dang, NC, Naka, Y. Perioperative pharmacotherapy in patients with left ventricular assist devices. Drugs Aging. 2004;21:993–1012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Holman, WL, Rayburn, BK, McGiffin, DC, et al.Infection in ventricular assist devices: Prevention and treatment. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75(Suppl):S48–S57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Zietkiewicz, M, Garlicki, M, Domagała, J, et al.Successful use of activated recombinant factor VII to control bleeding abnormalities in a patient with a left ventricular assist device. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;123:384–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Miller, LW, Nelson, KE, Bostic, RR, et al.Hospital costs for left ventricular assist devices for destination therapy lower costs for implantation in the post-REMATCH era. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006;25:778–784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Pagani, FD, Long, JW, Dembitsky, WP, Joyce, LD, Miller, LW. Improved mechanical reliability of the HeartMate XVE left ventricular assist system. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:1413–1418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Long, JW, Healy, AH, Rasmusson, BY, et al.Improving outcomes with long-term “destination” therapy using left ventricular assist devices. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:1353–1360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Slaughter, MS, Sobieski, MA, Gallagher, C, Dia, M, Silver, MA. Low incidence of neurologic events during long-term support with the HeartMate XVE left ventricular assist device. Tex Heart Inst J. 2008;35:245–249.Google ScholarPubMed
37.Feldman, AM, de Lissovoy, G, Bristow, MR, et al.Cost effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:2311–2321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Yao, G, Freemantle, N, Calvert, MJ, et al.The long-term cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:42–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Pagani, FD, Miller, LW, Russell, SD, et al.Extended mechanical circulatory support with a continuous-flow rotary left ventricular assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:312–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Boyle, A, Teuteberg, J, Ascheim, DD, et al.Clinical outcomes for continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients stratified by pre-operative INTERMACS classification. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:402–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Kirklin, JK, Naftel, DC, Kormos, RL, et al.Fifth INTERMACS annual report: Risk factor analysis from more than 6,000 mechanical circulatory support patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.Slaughter, MS, Rogers, JG, Milano, CA, et al.HeartMate II Investigators. Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2241–2251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Park, SJ, Milano, CA, Tatooles, AJ, et al.Outcomes in advanced heart failure patients with left ventricular assist devices for destination therapy. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5:241–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44.Ascheim, DD, Gelijns, AC, Rose, EA. Innovation with experience using implantable left ventricular assist devices. Circ Heart Fail. 2009;2:1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Tunis, SR, Pearson, SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's ‘coverage with evidence development’. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:1218–1230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Campbell, B. NICE medical technology guidance: Devices and diagnostics. Heart. 2011;97:1794–1795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Campbell, B. The NICE Medical Technologies Advisory Committee and medical technologies guidance. Heart. 2011;97:674–675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed