Replies to post #43623 on Biotech Values

[aslan2772]

"the study is apt to add yet another
round of negative fallout for the stent makers,
especially BSX."

The impact on DES maker's share price is likely to be much larger (and probably transient) than the impact on DES market share, IMHO.

[shears]

The media blitz doesn't highlight this...

NEJM article

under secondary outcomes:

"At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, 21.1% of patients in the PCI group had additional revascularization, as compared with 32.6% of those in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.71; P<0.001). In the PCI group, 77 patients subsequently underwent CABG, as compared with 81 patients in the medical-therapy group. Revascularization was performed for angina that was unresponsive to maximal medical therapy or when there was objective evidence of worsening ischemia on noninvasive testing, at the discretion of the patient's physician. The median time to subsequent revascularization was 10.0 months (interquartile range, 4.5 to 28.0) in the PCI group and 10.8 months (interquartile range, 3.2 to 30.7) in the medical-therapy group.

There was a substantial reduction in the prevalence of angina in both groups during follow-up. There was a statistically significant difference in the rates of freedom from angina throughout most of the follow-up period, in favor of the PCI group (Table 2). At 5 years, 74% of patients in the PCI group and 72% of those in the medical-therapy group were free of angina (P=0.35)."

I just don't see Cardiologists dumping stents for a study that only included stable patients. Who defines stable? Who gets paid to put in stents? How could it be construed as unethical to offer freedom from chest pain? What about orthopedic interventions or many others that don't save lives?

"See you on the squash court, old chum. Mind if I bum a Viagra? I'm free of nitro, since the stenting, you know.... Is that Phoebe on the tennis courts? Nice legs"