Key result
Using VQI registry data for vascular device decisions cuts costs ~59% versus traditional industry studies.
Why the study?
The cost and time required for registry-based studies supporting FDA regulatory decisions for vascular devices had not been compared to traditional independent industry studies.
Does using the VQI registry infrastructure reduce cost and time compared to traditional independent industry studies for vascular device evaluation?
Does using the VQI registry infrastructure reduce cost and time compared to traditional independent industry studies for vascular device evaluation?
Effect estimate: 143% ROI, 59% cost saving
Absolute Event Rate: 11000% vs 26000%
Using real-world data from the VQI registry for FDA regulatory decisions of vascular devices yields substantial cost and time savings compared to traditional industry studies.
May enable cost-efficient vascular device evaluation; leaves open whether registry data match traditional studies for regulatory rigor.
BACKGROUND: Real-world data (RWD) from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) registry has been used to support US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory decisions regarding vascular devices. The variables of cost and time needed for these registry-based studies have not been previously compared to traditional, independent, industry studies that would otherwise have been conducted to support regulatory decisions. OBJECTIVES: To determine the potential value (cost and time saving and return on investment) created by device evaluation studies using the VQI registry infrastructure. METHODS: We compared studies that used data from the VQI registry with estimated costs of independent industry studies (counterfactual studies) using an established model using design specifications determined by FDA reviewers. RESULTS: We analyzed the initial six studies evaluating vascular devices for regulatory decisions using data from the VQI registry that generated evidence for four device manufacturers. Return on investment for these studies was estimated to be 143% and cost saving as 59% based on an actual per patient (with 5-year follow-up) cost of US$11K using VQI data versus US$26K from the counterfactual when averaged across all studies. Significant enrollment time savings (45%-71%) were also realized compared with industry-based estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RWD from the VQI registry in this study and the transcatheter valve treatment coordinated registry network in a prior study indicates that substantial value was added to device evaluation projects by the reuse of registry data, with additional potential savings if linked claims data can be used instead of costly long-term in-person follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cronenwett et al. (2020) studied Vascular devices (n=6). VQI registry-based studies vs. Independent industry studies (counterfactual) was evaluated on Return on investment and cost saving (143% ROI, 59% cost saving). Using VQI registry data for vascular device regulatory decisions yielded a 143% return on investment and 59% cost savings ($11K vs $26K per patient) compared to traditional industry studies.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: