Global Market For Medical Device Technologies in Spine Surgery, 2014-2020

MedMarket Diligence is completing a global analysis of spine surgery technologies, scheduled for publication in August/September:

Global Market For Medical Device Technologies in Spine Surgery, 2014-2020:
Established and Emerging Products, Technologies and Markets in the Americas, Europe, Asia/Pacific and Rest of World.” See link.

This report is a detailed market and technology assessment and forecast of the products and technologies in the management of diseases and disorders of the spine. The report describes the diseases and disorders of the spine, characterizing the patient populations, their current clinical management, and trends in clinical management as new techniques and technologies are expected to be developed and emerge. The report details the currently available products and technologies, and the manufacturers offering them. The report details the products and technologies under development and markets for each in spine surgery. The report provides a current and forecast assessment by region/country of procedures, unit sales, average selling price and manufacturer revenues for, specifically, Americas (United States, Rest of North America, Latin America), European Union (United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Rest of Europe), Asia-Pacific (Japan, China, India, Rest of Asia/Pacific) and Rest of World. The forecast addresses the product- and country-specific impacts in the market of new technologies through the coming decade. The report profiles 75 of the most notable current and emerging companies in this industry, providing data on their current products, current market position and products under development.

See the full description and table of contents at Report #M540.

Medtech succeeds by responding to multiple demands

Medtech is resilient, adapting to the changing demands of patients, payers, regulators, and the economy, but only in the hands of the innovators who keep a finger in the wind on these demands.

  1. Comprehensive outcomes versus symptomatic intervention. Competition in medtech, heightened by cost pressures in particular, is characterized by the demand for comprehensive solutions to disease/trauma rather than technologies that simply ameliorate symptoms. Manufacturers are focusing on longer term solutions, competing against the full spectrum of therapeutic alternatives rather than incremental improvements in their widgets.
  2. Whatever the cost, make it lower. Cost is poorly understood in healthcare (hence the problem!), but it is recognized as important simply by the rate at which premiums increase, the percentage of GDP adding to healthcare spending, the cost of Medicare and other similar benchmarks. Cost is difficult to assess in medical technologies, because there are long term, unforeseen implications of nearly every medtech development. Nonetheless, the manufacturer who does not only bow down in homage to cost but also makes cost at least an implicit part of its value proposition will be quickly put out of business.
  3. The life spans of “gold standards” of treatment are getting shorter and shorter. Technology solutions are being developed, from different scientific disciplines, at such a pace as to quickly establish themselves, in a broad enough consensus, as new gold standards. Physicians are increasingly compelled to accept these new new standards or find their caseload shifting to those who do.
  4. Many manufacturers strive for being able to claim their products are “disruptive” — overturning existing paradigms. However, few medtech manufacturers really ever achieve anything more than marginal improvements. Note the relative amount of 510Ks versus PMAs in regulatory approvals (not that a PMA denotes a “disruptive” development).
  5. Materials technologies are defining what is a “device” as well as what they can accomplish. Competitive manufacturers are aggressively gaining a broad understanding of materials technologies to encompass traditional device, pharma, biopharma, biotech, cell biology and others, ensuring their success from a broadly competitive position.
  6. Interest in startup innovations by VCs and large-cap medtech companies has never been more intense, but funding still demands concrete milestones. Proof-of-concept gets entrepreneurs excited, but 510(K) or better is what gets the money flowing. This is not the credit-crunch of 2008, when the sour economy caused funding to largely dry up. Money is indeed flowing into medtech now, as evidenced by the IPO market and the volume of early stage funding, but potential investments — especially at very early stages — are no less intensively vetted. Startups must therefore carry the risk well into the development timeline, when the prospect of their products reaching the market has been demonstrated far more effectively.
  7. Medtech markets are influenced by many forces, but none more strongly than the drive of companies to succeed. Reimbursement. Regulatory hurdles. Healthcare reform. Cost reduction, even a 2.3% medical device excise tax, et cetera, et cetera. None of these hold sway over innovation and entrepreneurship. And the rate of innovation is accelerating, further insulating medtech against adverse policy decisions. Moreover, that innovation is reaching a sort of critical mass in which the convergence of different scientific disciplines — materials technology, cell biology, biotech, pharma and others — is leading to solutions that stand as formidable buttresses against market limiters.
  8. Information technology is having, and will have, profound effects on medical technology development. The manufacturers who “get” this will always gain an advantage. This happens in ways too numerous to mention in full, but worth noting are: drug and device modeling/testing systems, meta-analysis of clinical research, information technology embedded in implants (“smart” devices), and microprocessor-controlled biofeedback systems (e.g., glucose monitoring and insulin delivery). The information dimension of virtually every medtech innovation must be considered by manufacturers, given its potential to affect the cost/value of those innovations.

This is not a comprehensive list of drivers/limiters in medtech, but these stand behind the success or failure of many, many companies.

Patrick Driscoll is an industry analyst and publisher of content on advanced medtech markets through MedMarket Diligence.

Growth in Sealants, Glues, Hemostats, and Wound Closure is Absolute, Relative

Of late, I have needed to re-emphasize the difference between absolute and relative growth in medtech markets (and its importance). So, here it is again, this time regarding surgical sealants and other wound closure products.

The lowest relative rate of growth in this industry is the well-established sutures and staples segment. Sales of these products globally, even supported by innovations in bioresorbables and laparoscopic delivery technologies, are only growing at a 5.6% compound annual growth rate from 2013 to 2018. By comparison, growth of sales of surgical glues and sealants is at 9.4% for 2013-2018.

But from an absolute sales growth point of view, sales of sutures and staples will go from $5.2 billion to $6.9 billion, or absolute growth of $1.7 billion. Simultaneously, the relatively high growth in surgical glues and sealants translates to the absolute growth from 2013 to 2018 of only $0.9 billion.

Obviously, both absolute and relative growth are of interest.

Screen Shot 2015-07-23 at 2.31.03 PM

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S192.

Bioactive Agents in Wound Sealing and Closure

Excerpt from Report #S192, “Worldwide Surgical Sealants, Glues, and Wound Closure 2013-2018″.

Screen Shot 2015-03-30 at 10.14.59 AMBiologically active sealants typically contain various formulations of fibrin and/or thrombin, either of human or animal origin, which mimic or facilitate the final stages of the coagulation cascade. The most common consist of a liquid fibrin sealant product in which fibrinogen and thrombin are stored separately as a frozen liquid or lyophilized powder. Before use, both components need to be reconstituted or thawed and loaded into a two-compartment applicator device that allows mixing of the two components just prior to delivery to the wound. Because of the laborious preparation process, these products are not easy to use. However, manufacturers have been developing some new formulations designed to make the process more user friendly.

Selected Biologically Active Sealants, Glues, and Hemostats 

[table id=17 /]

Note: Status of products detailed in Report #S192.

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC

What is spine surgery?

What is spine surgery? Specifically it’s:

  • Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF)
  • Anterior Cervical Corpectomy
  • Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF)
  • Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion (AXiaLIF)
  • Cervical Laminaplasty
  • Cervical Posterior Foraminotomy
  • Direct Lateral Interbody Fusion (DLIF)
  • Discectomy
  • Endoscopic Surgery
  • eXtreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF)
  • Foraminotomy and Foraminectomy
  • Intradiscal Electrothermal Therapy (IDET)
  • Kyphoplasty
  • Laminectomy
  • Laminoplasty
  • Laminotomy
  • LASER Surgery
  • Microdiscectomy (Minimally Invasive Technique)
  • Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF)
  • Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF)
  • Scoliosis Correction
  • Spinal Decompression
  • Spinal Fusion
  • Spinal Instrumentation
  • Spinal Osteotomy
  • Thoracoscopic Release
  • Transforamenal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF)

These represent the range of options to address diseases and trauma of the spine. To varying degrees, these procedures can require multiple instruments and/or implants and other products, which encompass the following:

  • Cervical interbody cages or spacers
  • Anterior cervical plates
  • Artificial cervical discs
  • Thoracolumbar plate systems
  • Interbody fusion devices
  • Thoracolumbar screw/rod systems
  • Minimally invasive implants
  • Artificial disc replacement implants
  • Interspinous implants
  • Demineralized bone matrix
  • Synthetic bone graft substitutes

See pending Report #M540.

Medtech Fundings Over $3.2 Billion by Mid-2015

Medical technology fundings through mid-2015 are on pace to equal 2014 by year end, passing $3.28 billion by the end of June 2015, compared to $3.26 billion for the first six months of 2014.

Below are the fundings per month for the first six months of 2015.

Month Total Medtech Funding ($Million)
June $777
May $757
April $615
March $542
February $227
January $361

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC

See also a month-by-month list of the individual medtech fundings since 2009.

 

Medtech Fundings, July 2015

Medtech fundings in July stand at $372 million, led by the $105.1 million funding of ReNeuron. (Revisit this page and refresh your browser during the month to see the latest fundings.)

Company, funding Product/technology
ReNeuron, Inc., has raised $105.1 million in a round of funding according to press reports Therapeutic stem cell technologies in stroke, critical limb ischemia, and retinitis pigmentosa
ViewRay, Inc., has secured $50 million in debt funding according to press reports MRI-guided radiotherapy
Gynesonics, Inc., has raised $43 million in an equity round of funding according to the company Minimally invasive treatments for uterine fibroids
Procep BioRobotics Corporation has raised $42 million in a round of funding according to the company Image-guided waterjet tissue ablation and resection
EnteroMedics, Inc., has raised $16 million in a round of funding according to a regulatory filing Vagal nerve blocking for the treatment of obesity

For the complete list of medtech fundings in July 2015, see link.

For a historical list of the individual fundings in medtech, by month, since 2009, see link.

Medical technologies at startups, June 2015

Below is a list of the technologies under development at medical technology startups identified in June 2015 and added to the Medtech Startup Database.

  • Ophthalmic surgical products
  • Devices for graft and other tissue implant delivery.
  • Biosynthetic scaffold for the management of chronic and acute wounds.
  • Ultrasound-based treatment of stroke to dissolve clots.
  • Intraocular drug delivery implant for treatment of intraocular pressure.
  • Cellulose film that prevents fibrosis forming at implant sites (e.g., breast implant)
  • Spinal implant and robot-assisted training to restore functional motor control in spinal cord injury patients.
  • Contact-lens blood glucose monitoring in diabetes.
  • Medical adhesives and delivery systems.
  • Implant for the treatment of glaucoma.
  • Stem cell technology for use in bone, cartilage, skin, muscle, vasculature and the central nervous system.
  • Low-intensity ultrasound treatment of melanoma and other cancers.

For a historical listing of medical technologies at startups since 2008, see link.

Wound Sealant and Securement Procedure Volumes by Clinical Area and End-Point

Sealants, glues, hemostats, and other products in wound closure and securement offer benefits that vary by clinical area, but the nature of that benefit also varies by the type of end-point (benefit) the product achieves — does it provide a life-saving benefit? A time-saving? Cost-savings? A cosmetic or aesthetic benefit?

Accordingly, by examining the volume of procedures for which closure and securement products provide which kind of benefit is crucial to understanding demand, especially between competitive products.

Below is a categorization of benefits ranging from the critical (I) to the aesthetic (IV).

Criteria for Adjunctive Use of Hemostats, Sealants, Glues and Adhesion Prevention Products in Surgery

Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 7.24.29 AM

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC (Report #S192)

Considering these different categories, below are the volumes of procedures distributed by category across each of the major clinical disciplines.

Surgical Procedures with Potential for the Use of Hemostats, Sealants, Glues and Wound Closure Products, Worldwide (Millions), 2014

 

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 7.28.36 AM

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC (Report #S192)