Developers of Cardiovascular Drug-Eluting Stents
|Abbott Vascular Devices||ZoMaxx||Zotarolimus||In clinicals; ZOMAXX II trial approved 6/05|
|Avantec Vascular (Goodman)||Duraflex||Pimecrolimus ||In development|
|Biosensors International||BioMatrix||Biolimus A9||In trials; Expects CE Mark in 2006|
| Boston Scientific||Taxus Express2||Paclitaxel||CE Mark 1/03; FDA approval 3/04|
| Boston Scientific||Taxus LibertÃ©||Paclitaxel||CE Mark 9/05 (launched 1/05); FDA approval expected mid-2006 |
|Conor Medsystems||CoStar||Paclitaxel||CE Marked 2/06|
|Conor Medsystems||(Next-generation CoStar) ||Pimecrolimus||Pimecrolimus licensed from Novartis in 3/06; Testing two devices: one loaded with pimecrolimus and another with both pimecrolimus and paclitaxel |
|Cordis (J&J)||Cypher||Sirolimus||CE Mark; FDA approved, U.S. launch 4/03|
|Cordis||Cypher Select||Sirolimus||CE Mark in 2003|
|Cordis||Cypher Neo||Sirolimus ||In development|
|Devax||Axxess Plus (bifurcated)||Biolimus A9||In clinicals (positive first-in-man data reported 11/05)|
|DISA Vascular||Stellium||Paclitaxel||In development|
|Guidant||Xience V||Everolimus||CE Mark 1/06; European launch pending|
|Medtronic||Endeavor||Zotarolimus||CE Mark 7/05; U.S. launch planned in 2007. RESOLUTE trial began 12/05|
|Occam International (subsidiary of Biosensors International)||Axxion||Paclitaxel||CE Mark 7/05|
|Relisys Medical Devices||(Undisclosed)||Paclitaxel||In clinicals|
|Sahajanand Medical Technologies (SMT)||Infinnium||Paclitaxel||CE Mark 12/05|
|Sorin Biomedica Cardio||Janus Flex||Tacrolimus||CE Mark; launched in Europe 2/06|
|Terumo||Nobori||Biolimus A9||Clinical trial launched 6/05|
|X-Cell Medical||Ethos||17-(beta)-Estradiol||In clinicals|
|Xtent||Xtent||Biolimus A9||In clinicals; European launch planned in 2007, U.S. in 2009|
Note: CV Therapeutics and MIV Therapeutics (among others) are developing coatings for coronary drug stents.Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLCRelated Tags: Medtech, Medical, Medcial-technology
In our April issue of MedMarkets, we cover the current and forecasted market for drug-eluting stents, considering the pending introductions of a number of competitors to established players J&J and Boston Scientific. We also look at the hard successes of biotech in bringing products to market and the growing success the industry is having in once again attracting invesment. Below is our outline of coverage:
- Biomedtech, Combo Technologies Bolster Growth in Device Markets
- Flurry of Cardiovascular Drug-Eluting Stents Nearing Market
- MedMarket Outlook: Opportunities in Common Technology Threads
- Early Stage Companies:
- Intraoperative Determination of Tumor Margin
- All -Polymer Hip Implant European Trial
- Ultrasound-Assisted, Transdermal Insulin Delivery
- Early Stage Company Financings: Active Implants, AngioScore, Aptus Endosystems, BlueBelt Technologies, CryoFluor Therapeutics, Ultradian Diagnostics
- Recent Medtech Startups
- Biotech Update: Carbon Nanotube Scaffolding Fosters Proliferation of Bone Cells
- Drivers: California Judge OKs Stem Cell Research Agency
- Leading Clinical Edge:
- Measuring EPCs: A new Test for Heart Disease?
- Artificial Nuscle Stronger Than Natural Muscle
- “Neuro-chip” Leads to Improved Communication
- U.K. Researchers to Produce Wound Monitor
- Online (HTML) Only:
- Articular Cartilage Paste Grafting Shows Promise
- New Knee Repair Technique Introduced
- Stent-Graft Improves Aneurysm Repair
- Better Outcomes with Less-Invasive AAA Repair
- CRT Devices Linked to Better Outcomes
- Esophageal Stenting Found Effective
- ISSYS Awarded Patent for Wireless Sensors
- WorldHeart’s LVAS Enters Key Phase in Animal Testing
- Sorin to Launch Cobalt Chrome Carbostent
- ATS Announces First Implant of Annuloplasty Ring
- Medtronic’s AAA Stent Receives FDA Approval
- FDA OKs DexCom’s Glucose Monitoring System
- FDA Clears Bone Graft Product
- Regeneration Technologies Launches New Implant
- Online (HTML) Only:
- MicroCHIPS Develops Wireless Drug-Delivery System
- Cordis to Develop Cardiac and Vascular Institute
- Nanogen Receives Clearance for CHF Test
- Crestor Reverses Heart Disease
- Biomet for Sale?
- Orthopedic Companies Promote Knee Implants for Women
- Pioneer Surgical, Encelle to Work on Spinal Fusions
- FDA Approves St. Jude Closure Device
- Protege by ev3 Receives FDA Approval
Related Tags: Medtech, Medical, Medical-technology
The April 2006 issue of MedMarkets updates the market for drug-eluting stents. We also review the status of the biotech industry, considering a report from Ernst & Young (Beyond Borders: The Global Biotechnology Report) and other data on this ever-optimistic industry. (BTW, I found it particularly curious that the E&Y report referred to this year as the 30th anniversary of the biotech industry — having once worked for one of the first biotechnology companies, Collaborative Research, which was founded in 1961, later named Genome Therapeutics and now known as Oscient Pharmaceutials, I guess biotech just measures time differently.)Coverage in the April MedMarkets is outlined (and will be updated) on our archives page.
Lastly, thank you for those comments received on our all-too-brief, but apparently well received, “High Growth Medical Technologies” white paper. We are considering updating and expanding it in the near future.
Related Tags: Medical, Advanced Medical, Medtech, Medical Technology
In a final move that seemed (at least in the eyes of some industry analysts) as likely to be designed to increase J&J‘s price tag for the acquisition of Guidant as it was an actual competitive bid, Boston Scientific had this month upped its bid to $27 billion ($80 per share), and when the midnight (January 24) deadline passed without J&J responding with another offer, it now appears likely that the winner in this bidding war will be Boston Scientific. Guidant has accepted Boston Scientific’s offer and terminated the agreement to be acquired by J&J. For its part, J&J issued a statement saying, “it had determed not to increase its last offer for Guidant Corp., because to do so would not have been in the best interest of its shareholders.”Confidence is high in the likelihood of BSX making a success of this, given the related deal with Abbott (to acquire Guidant’s vascular business), the fit with Boston Scientific and, at least in general, the relative value of the acquisition price tag and the Guidant revenue streams and balance sheets. But one has to give pause to this and consider several points:
- J&J is as experienced in acquisitions as any monolith out there and it viewed the $27B price tag as too high. Do they know something that BSX doesn’t?
- BSX and J&J have been bitter rivals in the DES market and one can’t help but wonder if the rivalry hasn’t clouded BSX’s judgment, making this little more than a pyrrhic victory for BSX. A loss for J&J does not equate with a win for BSX.
- The combined BSX/GDT business now has $12 billion in debt, a hefty burden that can only be lightened by market performance (oh yes, see “Guidant Defibrillator Recalls”).
It’s very hard not to think back to the Time/Warner acquistion of AOL, and in that case Time/Warner did not have a competitor who balked at the value of the deal, and we all know how well the AOL acquisition worked for T/W.
In the latest turn in the burgeoning bidding war over Guidant between J&J and Boston Scientific, Guidant on Wednesday accepted J&J’s $23.2 billion acquisition offer, but Boston Scientific has indicated it is not yet walking away from the deal. Moreover, Guidant has expressed to Boston Scientific that it is willing to consider additional talks and a better offer, and it is entirely likely that Boston Scientific will, given the $14 billion in funding available to them from banks who have agreed to help finance the deal.Both sides appear prepared to really go to the mat on the deal, which further supports the likely significance of “winner’s curse”, in which the ultimate acquirer ends up paying more for the deal than they should. Already, J&J has offered to pay $1.9 billion more than it offered in November, when it had then dropped the price to $21.9 billion as a result of the recalls that, in J&J’s views, had effectively reduced the value of Guidant. Of course, the $1.9 billion premium does not reflect any added Guidant value, but instead represents the price J&J is attempting to pay to take Boston Scientific out of the game.
One has to wonder, in this high stakes poker game, if one or both players recognizes that the goal is not to acquire Guidant but to make the other pay more than necessary while improving the likely terms to acquire the alternative ICD player, St. Jude.
St. Jude Medical is number 3 in the rhythm management market, behind Guidant (#2) and Medtronic (#1), so when either J&J or Boston Scientific lose out in the grab for Guidant as their new rhythm management acquisition, where are they going to look next? Itâ€™s not likely to be Medtronic, with a $70 billion market valuation.
What is St. Judeâ€™s stock price likely to do?
Following the surprising (but not shocking) offer yesterday by Boston Scientific to buy Guidant for $25B, upping the deal by $3.4B over J&Jâ€™s renegotiated deal, Guidant is agreeing to cooperate with Boston Scientificâ€™s review of Guidant as a precursor to finalizing the $25B offer. This could be viewed as Guidant simply going through the motions, but since J&J has indicated that it still sees $21.5B as â€œfull and fair valueâ€ for the deal (see NYT today) and J&J Chairman William J. Weldonâ€™s statement as such did not mention Guidant shareholders, itâ€™s a fair bet that in short order there will be a sweetener added to the deal, lest Guidant shareholders demand more.Even though the burden on Boston Scientific would be extreme, quadrupling its debt burden, the opportunity to jump into the $10 billion pacing/defib market would give it a boost it needs. Although Taxus has doubled the companyâ€™s earnings in each the last four quarters, the companyâ€™s stock price has slipped by 42% as investors have been itching for the company to come up with the next big thing after Taxus.Even without Guidant in the picture, I have every reason to believe Boston Scientific and J&J are both developing and looking for just such a thing.
Boston Scientificâ€™s offer of a $3.4B premium to buy Guidant over J&Jâ€™s offer was initially rebuffed today by Guidant, who signalled that it was opting to stick with the newly reworked $21B+ deal with J&J. Boston Scientific clearly recognized the market value of picking up Guidant (at J&Jâ€™s expense), even with the stent divestitures that would have been mandated. Guidant shareholders will vote on the deal in 1Q 2006.(It appears likely, however, that Guidant may well consider the Boston Scientific offer. An additional $3.4 billion should more than cover the legal costs of getting out of the J&J deal (!).)
Boston Scientific and J&J remain in a pitched battle over share in the drug eluting stents sector, which will be joined in the next 1-2 years by not only Guidant, but Medtronic, Abbott and a healthy list of others.
We report in the November issue of MedMarkets on trials, products and competitor activity at this year’s TCT meeting. A great deal of the drug-eluting stent data from the trials demonstrates no appreciable difference between J&J’s Cypher and Boston Scientific’s TAXUS stents. There are differences in efficacy, some very supportable in the trial data, but there are also differneces essentially in marketing. Boston Scientific has taken the aggressive share-protection step of coming up with its “Taxus Stent Assurance Program” (from our November issue):
In an unusual moveâ€”and after a recent decline in market share due to a perception that Cypher has a safer profileâ€”Boston Scientific offered a guarantee in the form of its â€œTAXUS Stent Assurance Program.â€ If any patient receiving a TAXUS Express2 stent requires reintervention due to in-stent restenosis during calendar year 2006, the company will provide a replacement stent at no charge.
We also cover embolic protection, a big market that has been developing for some time, and may soon be growing at a much faster clip.
Johnson & Johnson has already demonstrated an incredible propensity to acquire and aborb companies, managing them at arms length and making them succeed. That J&J and Guidant renegotiated their deal, at $4B less than originally negotiated last year, speaks volumes about J&J’s ability to “absorb”. I was frankly surprised to have to wait until Tuesday (Nov. 15) to learn that a new deal had been struck following the Friday announcement that the original deal was not going to fly. Guidant’s recall woes can be dealt with (if you’re J&J). The underlying asset base and technology portfolio is sound. J&J will certainly come out of this with a new foothold in pacemakers plus $4 billion extra cash. We give an update on the latest developments in our November MedMarkets.