Nevro or Nuvectra

Quote

















Nuvectra is nothing more than a Boston Scientific knock-off. Nevro is a one trick pony that has to be recharged everyday. Medtronic can't get low back coverage to save their life. St. Jude's ridiculous study on "burst" doesn't even equate to "1" full VAS point difference from their "tonic" stim, not to mention no low back coverage. So tell me one reason why ANYONE would want to use a company other than Boston Scientific to treat a patient with low back pain or low back with a leg component... not to mention it's the only complete wireless system on the market.
 








anonymous said:
Nuvectra is nothing more than a Boston Scientific knock-off. Nevro is a one trick pony that has to be recharged everyday. Medtronic can't get low back coverage to save their life. St. Jude's ridiculous study on "burst" doesn't even equate to "1" full VAS point difference from their "tonic" stim, not to mention no low back coverage. So tell me one reason why ANYONE would want to use a company other than Boston Scientific to treat a patient with low back pain or low back with a leg component... not to mention it's the only complete wireless system on the market.
Click to expand...

How about 5?

1. Nevro is clinically proven to provide more pain relief than BSX with durability to 24 mos for patients with low back and leg pain. (That's kind of a big deal)
2. Nevro crushed BSX in a head to head study, the largest ever done in SCS history, and designed with FDA guidance. It's level 1 data. The only kind payers care about.
3. Nevro is so much better that the FDA granted superiority labeling and CMS has granted it a code capturing additional reimbursement.
4. Nevro is the only 100% parathesia free system - requires no intra-operative mapping.
5. Patients do not care about daily charging. Its easy to do, and takes 30 mins. For someone with chronic pain its a very small trade off for superior pain relief. Many patients actually prefer a daily charge to a 3hr charge once a week.

So you tell me, why would ANYONE want a clinically inferior system like Boston Scientific?
 








anonymous said:
Nuvectra is nothing more than a Boston Scientific knock-off. Nevro is a one trick pony that has to be recharged everyday. Medtronic can't get low back coverage to save their life. St. Jude's ridiculous study on "burst" doesn't even equate to "1" full VAS point difference from their "tonic" stim, not to mention no low back coverage. So tell me one reason why ANYONE would want to use a company other than Boston Scientific to treat a patient with low back pain or low back with a leg component... not to mention it's the only complete wireless system on the market.
Click to expand...

I guess that all depends on what Nevro's "one trick" is. From all the data I've seen, it would be superior pain relief to paresthesia-based SCS. That's a pretty good "trick".
 








anonymous said:
How about 5?

1. Nevro is clinically proven to provide more pain relief than BSX with durability to 24 mos for patients with low back and leg pain. (That's kind of a big deal)
2. Nevro crushed BSX in a head to head study, the largest ever done in SCS history, and designed with FDA guidance. It's level 1 data. The only kind payers care about.
3. Nevro is so much better that the FDA granted superiority labeling and CMS has granted it a code capturing additional reimbursement.
4. Nevro is the only 100% parathesia free system - requires no intra-operative mapping.
5. Patients do not care about daily charging. Its easy to do, and takes 30 mins. For someone with chronic pain its a very small trade off for superior pain relief. Many patients actually prefer a daily charge to a 3hr charge once a week.
6. There are numerous Nevro reps trying to get out because the comp plan sucks after the guarantee runs out.
7. They now have a purported explant rate of 17-20%. Big battery, big pocket, big discharge, lousy recharge burden


So you tell me, why would ANYONE want a clinically inferior system like Boston Scientific?
Click to expand...

Lets not forget number 6 and 7
 








































According to their earning call yesterday they are the NUMBER 2 and in a free fall. For a company competing in $1.5 billion dollar market to only have annualized revenue of $12MM after 1 year and with the experienced management team they have, its alarming. 2017 will be the end of them.
 
















































































Top Bottom
Back
Quote