Original articleEvidence Requirements for Innovative Imaging Devices: From Concept to Adoption
Introduction
The first generations of plain film x-ray, CT, ultrasound, and MRI were so transformative that questions of efficacy and effectiveness were usually nonexistent. Today, with the rise in health care expenditures and advances in computer science fueling growth in technologies throughout the life sciences, innovations in imaging, especially major advances, are coming under increased public policy analysis. Manufacturers deciding to introduce new imaging technologies into the US market must plan for an increasing set of regulatory, reimbursement, and adoption hurdles.
Specifically, federal regulators and payers (and their private counterparts) regularly invoke more highly defined requirements for evidence of efficacy and effectiveness, and safety and necessity. We characterize the types of clinical evidence corresponding to the 5 phases in a successful product lifecycle from clinical introduction to full adoption and the appropriate means of generating and using such evidence. We describe (1) product design, (2) FDA clearance and approval, (3) early clinical adoption, (4) reimbursement, and (5) full clinical adoption.
This sequence of evidence phases for new applications of novel features in medical devices is driven by the unique US regulatory and reimbursement environment. Although the development of imaging technology is global, the United States has been the largest and most influential adopter of advanced imaging. Therefore, increases in US evidentiary standards may have a global impact on innovation and access to imaging.
In general, private markets, whether for health care or other goods, ensure economically valuable and efficient transactions through price signaling as consumers match their personal marginal utility to market prices while at the same time producers are matching their marginal costs to those same prices. In the US health care system, most coverage and payments are effectively set by CMS, heavily influencing private payers. Historically, CMS paid for services that were “medically necessary,” so the discussion of value was not part of this conversation, but new measures of utility or value are increasingly being demanded [1].
Assessment of clinical utility will differ according to the varying perspectives of payers, providers, employers, patients, and politicians. Utility from the vantage point of payers and providers may be driven by cost, each driven by a profit motive, while from the vantage point of employers, the time to return to work would also be considered. Conversely, patients may be less concerned with cost (if they are not paying) but more concerned about quality and quantity of life; for them, the relevant outcome of a diagnostic procedure is change in diagnosis or treatment. That is to say, diagnostics are different from therapeutics; as distinct from the outcome of a therapeutic intervention, a diagnostic outcome is a change in treatment plan. This is clear from the fact that a diagnostic test may result in changing plans for concerted therapeutic intervention to watchful waiting or palliative care.
Politicians may be concerned with access across the entire population. These viewpoints can lead to divergent assessments. For example, if a category of expensive imaging procedures enabled a choice of therapy to prevent sudden death, a patient's perspective might suggest that this is extremely valuable, whereas a payer's perspective might suggest the opposite because the procedure may now generate an entirely new set of care expenditures in exchange for a relatively small overall improvement in survival. An employer or societal perspective might be influenced by whether the patients are of working age [2]. Changes in the current evidentiary standards are being driven by payers' perspective, so we will focus on that reasoning.
In this paper, we outline the sequential generation of clinical evidence for new imaging technologies. We do so from the point of view of a manufacturer deciding whether to make an investment in research and development of innovative features or applications in imaging.
We outline 5 phases of evidence development for imaging applications and technologies (Table 1). Each of the 5 phases of evidentiary development leads to a decision point for investors in and manufacturers of imaging technologies as they weigh opportunity costs. The monetization of investment costs and returns stretches over many years, and therefore investment decisions will be discounted over time using net present value calculations.
Section snippets
Phase 1: Product Design and Introduction
Unmet clinical imaging needs can be addressed by new devices or novel features in current devices. Whether as additions to existing products or as elements of a completely new product, these features are captured in a design history file with a view to describing the product for which marketing authorization is requested. Clinical evidence gathered during this phase is useful in refining the design, gaining commitment to further investment in development of the product, and confirming the
Phase 2: Regulatory Clearance and Approval
Once a company decides to move forward with market introduction (on the basis of business planning, clinical and bench data, etc), the regulatory strategy and evidence needs are mapped out. The FDA classifies medical devices into 3 groups: classes I, II, and III.
Class I devices are considered low risk and primarily exempt from the 510(k) premarket notification clearance route. The 510(k) route (21CFR807.81) is the submission process to the FDA to demonstrate that the medical device is at least
Phase 3: Early Adoption
Once the FDA has cleared or approved a product for marketing, the device will likely become available for physicians to use. To the extent that the device is innovative, new clinical questions can be answered. For example, when spiral CT scanners became available, radiologists could look for appendicitis; as faster CT scanners and power injectors became available, chest CT could be used to look for pulmonary emboli; and more recently, as 64-slice CT became available, coronary arteries could be
Phase 4: Reimbursement
Historically, reimbursement for new health care technologies was directly tied to physician adoption. If the technology was “medically necessary,” as loosely defined under the original Medicare enabling statute, it would be covered [1]. From a manufacturer or investor perspective, this reimbursement policy meant that simple product utility to clinicians in clinical decision making was the prime determinant of business success or failure.
Congressional concern with spending growth has led to
Phase 5: Full Adoption
Widespread adoption of the technology or device is the final hurdle for manufacturers of imaging equipment. Manufacturers and investors perform significant “due diligence” in coming to their prediction of the level of adoption of their products by clinicians. Historically, the evidence the manufacturers used was grounded in market research and expert opinion rather than clinical evidence. Even without any formal clinical trials, the discipline of the marketplace exerted very strong pressure on
Conclusions
Many factors influence medical imaging technology adoption with various stakeholders, but the ultimate basis of acceptance and use is strong clinical evidence supporting the diagnostic value.
Advances in computer science are driving rapid growth in the capabilities of imaging devices, increasing the adoption of these devices and thus the substitution of precision diagnosis for empiric clinical evaluation. The resulting growth in the proportion of health care dollars spent on imaging has occurred
Cost Benefit Analysis
Compares potential monetary costs with benefits of initiative.
Cost-Effectiveness
Measures monetary costs relative to a measure of effectiveness (incremental cost per units of blood pressure or cholesterol reduced). Since costs and benefits are measured in noncomparable units, their ratio provides a yardstick with which to assess relative (productive) efficiency. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio’s (ICER) allow CE comparison between technologies.
Cost Utility
Is an adaptation of cost-effectiveness analysis that measures an
Acknowledgment
We gratefully acknowledge work by Eric Z. Silfen, MD, chief medical officer of Philips Healthcare, in the strategic direction of this paper.
References (30)
- et al.
The current status of local Medicare payment policy: how specialty societies can influence local coverage determinations
J Am Coll Radiol
(2008) The diffusion of new imaging technologies: a molecular imaging prospective
J Am Coll Radiol
(2006)- et al.
Grounding a new information technology implementation framework in behavioral science: a systematic analysis of the literature on IT use
J Biomed Inform
(2003) Why Medicare has not established criteria for coverage decisions
N Engl J Med
(2004)Part 1: quality of care—what is it?
N Engl J Med
(1996)- et al.
When is the right time to conduct a clinical trial of a diagnostic imaging technology?
Radiology
(2008) - et al.
Medicare and medical technology—the growing demand for relevant outcomes
N Engl J Med
(2010) - et al.
CMS's landmark decision on CT colonography—examining the relevant data
N Engl J Med
(2009) FDA medical device approval: things you didn't learn in medical school or residency
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)
(2007)Medical devices—shortcomings in FDA's premarket review, postmarket surveillance, and inspections of device manufacturing establishments (report GAO-09-370T)
(2009)
Potential legal barriers to increasing CMS/FDA collaboration: the law of trade secrets and related considerations
Food Drug Law J
The National Oncologic PET Registry: expanded Medicare coverage for PET under coverage with evidence development
AJR Am J Roentgenol
Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's “coverage with evidence development.”
Health Aff (Millwood)
Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers
N Engl J Med
Decision memo for screening computed tomography colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer (CAG-00396N)
Cited by (8)
Regulatory considerations for drugs and devices seeking FDA approval or off-label uses
2023, Translational Interventional RadiologyClinical and Biomedical Engineering Evidence Strategy
2017, Managing Medical Devices within a Regulatory FrameworkThe Evidence Value Matrix for Diagnostic Imaging
2016, Journal of the American College of RadiologyCitation Excerpt :Additional funding and collaboration with specialties such as oncology and surgery (who have access to outcomes data) are needed to develop more diagnostic procedures into candidates and stars. As health care costs continue to rise, manufacturers of imaging technologies must plan for an increasing set of regulatory, reimbursement, and adoption hurdles [3]. Traditional business models built on rapid incremental innovation and strong physician preference are unlikely to suffice [26].
The ABCs of the FDA: A Primer on the Role of the United States Food and Drug Administration in Medical Device Approvals and IR Research
2015, Journal of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyCitation Excerpt :A PMA submission must demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a device with a thorough performance analysis of bench and clinical evidence data that demonstrate the ability to achieve the intended use of the device (5). Information contained in a PMA submission typically includes a device description and indications for use, manufacturing information, reference to any performance standard or voluntary standard, results of nonclinical laboratory studies, and results of human clinical studies (5). Kaplan et al (16) broke the PMA process into four basic stages as follows.
New pathways to medicare coverage for innovative PET radiopharmaceuticals: Report of a Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance (MITA) workshop
2012, Journal of the American College of RadiologyCitation Excerpt :The change in therapeutic planning resulting from a diagnostic test such as 18F-FDG PET is sometimes a change to fewer medical interventions and perhaps to watchful waiting or palliative care. A hierarchy of clinical evidence suitable for the investigation of new diagnostic imaging agents was recently proposed by Gazelle et al [8] and bears consideration in any discussion of a resolution to the PET noncoverage decision (see also Frank et al 2011 [9]). On the second day of the workshop, participants broke out into assigned teams, with a single coverage option assigned to each team.
Industrial perspective of academic prototypes
2014, Translational Research in Biophotonics: Four National Cancer Institute Case Studies