Determining value of Coordinated Registry Networks (CRNs): a case of transcatheter valve therapies.

BACKGROUND: The Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Coordinated Registry Network (CRN) supported 23 regulatory decisions and ensured evidence-based evaluation of the application of TVT technology. However, there are cost concerns that require value assessment of the TVT CRN compared with traditional study designs. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the value created by the TVT CRN based on (1) Return on investment (ROI), (2) Time saved (TS) in conducting necessary regulatory studies. METHODS: For both ROI and TS analyses, we compared studies that used the TVT CRN with those that would have been required if the registry did not exist (counterfactual studies). To estimate ROI, we accounted for the costs of investment and gain from investment. Both the counterfactual costs and length of studies were projected using design specifications determined by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewers. RESULTS: We identified 21 studies using the TVT CRN (supporting 23 FDA decisions) that generated evidence on TVT for three device manufacturers. ROI is estimated to be greater than 550%. TS by using the CRN ranged from months to years. CONCLUSIONS: The CRN method to evidence generation creates value for manufacturers and the broader device ecosystem, demonstrated with this example of the TVT CRN. The public health benefits of evidence created by this CRN outweighs the difference in data quality between traditional clinical studies and the CRN method.

In-hospital and 1-year outcomes among unselected percutaneous coronary intervention patients treated with either sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents: results from the EVENT (Evaluation of Drug Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events) registry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes among unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either sirolimus-eluting (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of both SES and PES are well-established, studies comparing these stents directly have yielded conflicting results. METHODS: We used data from the EVENT (Evaluation of Drug Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events) registry to compare in-hospital and 1-year outcomes among unselected patients undergoing nonemergent PCI with either SES or PES implantation. RESULTS: Between July 2004 and June 2006, 6,035 patients underwent PCI with either SES (n = 3,443) or PES (n = 2,592) at 47 U.S. centers. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were generally similar for the 2 stent types. At 1-year, there were no differences in the primary end point of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI) between the SES and PES groups (9.1% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.11) or in any individual end points including cardiac death, nonfatal MI, or stent thrombosis. In unadjusted analyses, target lesion revascularization (TLR) was slightly more common with SES than with PES (4.4% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.048), but this difference was no longer apparent after adjusting for baseline characteristics as well as site-related factors (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.78 to 1.50). CONCLUSIONS: Among unselected patients undergoing PCI, adjusted rates of both ischemic complications as well as clinically important restenosis were similar for SES and PES. The unexpected finding that TLR was influenced by site characteristics suggests that the correlation between TLR and angiographic restenosis might be weaker than previously described and warrants further study.