|Selected research from leading health care experts whose findings have a direct bearing on public policies effecting medical progress. Research is chosen based on its quality and relevance by the Medical Progress Today editorial staff.||
Sirolimus-Eluting Stents vs Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials
Better information about health outcomes should help drive funding toward better treatments—rewarding innovative companies in the process. For instance, this study uses a meta-analysis of several published studies to compare two drug-eluting stents made by competing manufacturers (Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific). (A New York Times article discussing this study is also available here.)
Although the study didn't find a mortality advantage for either stent, it did show that the J&J sent was less likely to cause side-effects that could require additional surgery. Physicians and patients, therefore, will probably gravitate towards J&J's stent.
Technical proficiency, however, doesn't win market share by itself. The Times article also points out that "[Johnson & Johnson continues] to struggle with manufacturing constraints that limit the treatment's availability," and might not be able to translate a better stent into market supremacy.
Placement of sirolimus-eluting stents [made by Johnson & Johnson] or paclitaxel-eluting stents [made by Boston Scientific] has emerged as the predominant percutaneous treatment strategy in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Whether there are any differences in efficacy and safety between these 2 drug-eluting stents is unclear.
Health-care competition, in other words, pays dividends as companies duel to bring the best products to market.
|home spotlight commentary research events news about contact links archives|