Skip to main content

Comparing Drug and Nondrug Technologies in Comparative Effectiveness Research

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Services

Part of the book series: Health Services Research ((HEALTHSR))

Abstract

Randomised Controlled trial evidence of efficacy and safety has long been a requirement for pharmaceuticals to gain market access. In contrast, the evidence requirements for the approval of nondrug technologies, in particular medical devices, have traditionally been much lower. However, with increasing health-care costs and pressure of limited budgets, policy-makers are increasingly turning to health technology assessment (that includes consideration of comparative effectiveness and economic value) to inform their decisions on technology coverage and reimbursement. This chapter describes the differences between medical devices and drugs that impact on the assessment of their comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness.

Most international health technology assessment agencies have a common mandate to evaluate both medical devices and drugs. At this time there appears to be little or no explicit consideration by the health technology assessment community of the potential differences between medical devices and drugs either in their assessment or appraisal processes. Comparing medical devices to drugs highlights the challenges in the common assessment – both comparative effectiveness and economic evaluation – of drug versus nondrug technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 279.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ades AE, Sculpher M, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(1):1–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Advamed. The medical technology industry at a glance. 2004. Retrieved Apr 2012 from http://www.lewin.com/~/media/lewin/site_sections/publications/2700.pdf

  • Boutron I, Moher D, et al. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(4):295–309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Challoner DR, Vodra WW. Medical devices and health–creating a new regulatory framework for moderate-risk devices. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(11):977–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ciani O, Wilcher B, Blankart CR, Hatz M, Rupel VP , Erker RS, Varabyova Y, Taylor RS. Health Technology Assessment of medical devices: An international survey of non-European Union HTA agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:154–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen D, Billingsley M. Europeans are left to their own devices. BMJ. 2011;342:d2748.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. 93/42/EEC. 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curfman GD, Redberg RF. Medical devices–balancing regulation and innovation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(11):975–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dhruva SS, Bero LA, et al. Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA. 2009;302(24):2679–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drummond M, Griffin A, et al. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs–same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):402–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eucomed. The medical technology industry in Europe accessed. 2011. Retrieved Mar 2012 from http://www.eucomed.org/medical-technology

  • European Commission. Exploring innovative healthcare. The role of medical technology innovation and regulation. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • FDA. Safety background and definitions. 2012. From http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/ucm165546.htm

  • Firth BG, Cooper LM, et al. The appropriate role of cost-effectiveness in determining device coverage: a case study of drug-eluting stents. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(6):1577–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). HTA glossary. 2010. Retrieved Nov 2010 from http://www.htaglossary.net/

  • Jonsson E, Banta D. Treatments that fail to prove their worth. Interview by Judy Jones. BMJ. 1999;319(7220):1293.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Medical Device Amendments of 1976: Pub. L. No. 94-295. 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Ischaemic heart disease – coronary artery stents (review): appraisal consultation document. 2007. Retrieved Mar 2012 from http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=article%26o=36946

  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Part review of NICE technology appraisal guidance 71. 2008a. Retrieved Mar 2012 from http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/TA152Guidance.pdf

  • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2008b. Retrieved Mar 2012 from http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf

  • Peinemann F, McGauran N, et al. Disagreement in primary study selection between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay CR, Grant AM, et al. Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies. A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(4):1095–108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds MR, Magnuson EA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard care among inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis: results from the placement of aortic transcatheter valves (PARTNER) trial (Cohort B). Circulation. 2012;125(9):1102–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodes-Cabau J, Webb JG, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients at very high or prohibitive surgical risk: acute and late outcomes of the multicenter Canadian experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(11):1080–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sedrakyan A, Marinac-Dabic D, et al. A framework for evidence evaluation and methodological issues in implantable device studies. Med Care. 2010;48 Suppl 6:S121–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry KM, McNamara J, et al. An economic evaluation of propofol/fentanyl compared with midazolam/fentanyl on recovery in the ICU following cardiac surgery. Anaesthesia. 1996;51(4):312–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003;327(7429):1459–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, Tarricone R, Vella VA et al. The role of product life cycle in medical technology innovation. J Medical Marketing. 2013;13:37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarricone R, Drummond M. Challenges in the clinical and economic evaluation of medical devices: the case of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Med Market. 2011;11(3):9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarricone R, Aguzzi G, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis for trigeminal neuralgia: cyberknife vs microvascular decompression. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2008;4(3):647–52.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor RS, Iglesias CP. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: are they that different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):404–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor RS, Drummond MF, et al. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ. 2004;329(7472):972–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • The Lancet. Silicone breast implants: lessons from the USA. Lancet. 2012;379(9811):93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson M, Heneghan C, et al. Medical device recalls and transparency in the UK. BMJ. 2011;342:d2973.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vahanian A, Alfieri O, et al. Transcatheter valve implantation for patients with aortic stenosis: a position statement from the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in collaboration with the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2008;29(11):1463–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Webb JG, Altwegg L, et al. A new transcatheter aortic valve and percutaneous valve delivery system. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(20):1855–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wendler O, Walther T, et al. Trans-apical aortic valve implantation: univariate and multivariate analyses of the early results from the SOURCE registry. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38(2):119–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilmshurst P. The regulation of medical devices. BMJ. 2011;342:d2822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rod S. Taylor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix Checklist of items for reporting trials of nonpharmacologic treatmentsa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Ciani, O., Tarricone, R., Taylor, R.S. (2016). Comparing Drug and Nondrug Technologies in Comparative Effectiveness Research. In: Levy, A., Sobolev, B. (eds) Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Services. Health Services Research. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7600-0_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7600-0_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-7599-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7600-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics