Tag Archives: medtech

Medtech fundings in August 2015

Medtech fundings for August 2015 stand at $705 million, led by the $115 million IPO of Penumbra.

Below are the top fundings for the month thus far. (Revisit and reload this post during August for new fundings during the month.)

COMPANY, FUNDING PRODUCT/TECHNOLOGY
Penumbra, Inc., has filed for a $115 million initial public offering Micro-catheter based multi-modality device for the revascularization of an occluded vessel in the brain
LDR Holding has raised $86.5 million in a round of funding according to press reports Cervical discs in spine surgery
Mevion Medical Systems, Inc., has raised $58.84 million in a round of funding according to a regulatory filing Proton radiation therapy for cancer
InVivo Therapeutics Corp. has raised $50 million in equity funding from Cowan and Company according to the company Biomaterial scaffold for treatment of spinal cord injury
ReShape Medical, Inc., has raised $38 million in a Series D round of funding according to the company Dual balloons implanted in stomach endoscopically to create satiety in treatment for obesity
Advanced Inhalation Therapies has filed an IPO valued up to $36 million Drug delivery

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

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

Medical technologies at startups July 2015

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

  • Wound drainage devices.
  • Robotic technology.
  • Neuromodulation devices.
  • Device to detect ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke in the pre-hospital environment.
  • RF ablation device for treatment of overactive bladder.
  • Infusion pump and sensing technologies for pain management during labor.
  • Arthroplasty devices.
  • Bone regeneration biomaterial.
  • Pedicle screws and interbody cages for spine surgery.
  • Developing a non-hormonal device to treat vaginal dryness and atrophy, particularly in breast cancer survivors and post-menopausal women.
  • Catheter technology for tissue resection in vascular and gastrointestinal endoluminal application

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

Where will medicine be in 2035?

(This question was originally posed to me on Quora.com. I initially answered this in mid 2014 and am revisiting and updating the answers now, in mid 2015.)

An important determinant of “where medicine will be” in 2035 is the set of dynamics and forces behind healthcare delivery systems, including primarily the payment method, especially regarding reimbursement. It is clear that some form of reform in healthcare will result in a consolidation of the infrastructure paying for and managing patient populations. The infrastructure is bloated and expensive, unnecessarily adding to costs that neither the federal government nor individuals can sustain. This is not to say that I predict movement to a single payer system — that is just one perceived solution to the problem. There are far too many costs in healthcare that offer no benefits in terms of quality; indeed, such costs are a true impediment to quality. Funds that go to infrastructure (insurance companies and other intermediaries) and the demands they put on healthcare delivery work directly against quality of care. So, whether it is Obamacare, a single payer system, state administered healthcare (exchanges) or some other as-yet-unidentified form, there will be change in how healthcare is delivered from a cost/management perspective.

From the clinical practice and technology side, there will be enormous changes to healthcare. Here are examples of what I see from tracking trends in clinical practice and medical technology development:

  • Cancer 5 year survival rates will, for many cancers, be well over 90%. Cancer will largely be transformed in most cases to chronic disease that can be effectively managed by surgery, immunology, chemotherapy and other interventions.
    [View Aug. 2015: Cancer has been a tenacious foe, and remains one we will be fighting for a long time, but the fight will have changed from virtually incapacitating the patient to following protocols that keep cancer in check, if not cure/prevent it.]
  • Diabetes Type 1 (juvenile onset) will be managed in most patients by an “artificial pancreas”, a closed loop glucometer and insulin pump that will self-regulate blood glucose levels. OR, stem cell or other cell therapies may well achieve success in restoring normal insulin production and glucose metabolism in Type 1 patients. The odds are better that a practical, affordable artificial pancreas will developed than stem or other cell therapy, but both technologies are moving aggressively and will gain dramatic successes within 20 years.
    [View Aug. 2015: Developments in the field of the “artificial pancreas” have recently gathered considerable pace, such that, by 2035, type 1 blood glucose management may be no more onerous than a house thermostat due to the sophistication and ease-of-use made possible with the closed loop, biofeedback capabilities of the integrated glucometer, insulin pump and the algorithms that drive it, but that will not be the end of the development of better options for type 1 diabetics. Cell therapy for type 1 diabetes, which may be readily achieved by one or more of a wide variety of cellular approaches and product forms (including cell/device hybrids) may well have progressed by 2035 to become another viable alternative for type 1 diabetics. See pending report.]
  • Diabetes Type 2 (adult onset) will be a significant problem governed by different dynamics than Type 1. A large body of evidence will exist that shows dramatically reduced incidence of Type 2 associated with obesity management (gastric bypass, satiety drugs, etc.) that will mitigate the growing prevalence of Type 2, but research into pharmacologic or other therapies may at best achieve only modest advances. The problem will reside in the complexity of different Type 2 manifestation, the late onset of the condition in patients who are resistant to the necessary changes in lifestyle and the global epidemic that will challenge dissemination of new technologies and clinical practices to third world populations.
    [View Aug. 2015: Despite increasing levels of attention being raised to the burden of type 2 worldwide, including all its sequellae (vascular, retinal, kidney and other diseases), the pace of growth globally in type 2 is still such that it will represent a problem and target for pharma, biotech, medical device, and other disciplines. See pending report.]
  • Cell therapy and tissue engineering will offer an enormous number of solutions for conditions currently treated inadequately, if at all. Below is an illustration of the range of applications currently available or in development, a list that will expand (along with successes in each) over the next 20 years.

    [View Aug. 2015: Cell therapy will have deeply penetrated virtually every medical specialty by 2035. Most advanced will be those that target less complex tissues: bone, muscle, skin, and select internal organ tissues (e.g., bioengineered bladder, others). However, development will have also followed the money. Currently, development and use of conventional technologies in areas like cardiology, vascular, and neurology entails high expenditure that creates enormous investment incentive that will drive steady development of cell therapy and tissue engineering over the next 20 years, with the goal of better, long-term and/or less costly solutions. See Smithers Apex report.]
  • Gene therapy will be an option for a majority of genetically-based diseases (especially inherited diseases) and will offer clinical options for non-inherited conditions. Advances in the analysis of inheritance and expression of genes will also enable advanced interventions to either ameliorate or actually preempt the onset of genetic disease.
    [View Aug. 2015: It’s a double-edged sword with the human genome. As the human blueprint, It is the potential mother lode for the future of medicine, but it remains a complex set of plans to elucidate and exploit for the development of therapies. While genetically-based diseases may readily be addressed by gene therapies in 2035, the host of other diseases that do not have obvious genetic components will resist giving up easy gene therapy solutions. Then again, within 20 years a number of reasonable advances in understanding and intervention could open the gate to widespread “gene therapy” (in some sense) for a breadth of diseases and conditions.]
  • Drug development will be dramatically more sophisticated, reducing the development time and cost while resulting in drugs that are far more clinically effective (and less prone to side effects). This arises from drug candidates being evaluated via distributed processing systems (or quantum computer systems) that can predict efficacy and side effect without need of expensive and exhaustive animal or human testing.
    [View Aug. 2015: The development of effective drugs will have been accelerated by both modeling systems and increases in our understanding of disease and trauma. It may not as readily follow that the costs will be reduced, something that may only happen as a result of policy decisions.]
  • Most surgical procedures will achieve the ability to be virtually non-invasive. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) will enable highly sophisticated surgery without ever making an abdominal or other (external) incision. Technologies like “gamma knife” and similar will have the ability to destroy tumors or ablate pathological tissue via completely external, energy-based systems.
    [View Aug. 2015: By 2035, technologies such as these will have measurably reduced inpatient stays, on a per capita basis, since a significant reason for overnight stays is the trauma requiring recovery, and eliminating trauma is a major goal and advantage of the NOTES technology platform. A wide range of other technologies (e.g., “gamma knife”) across multiple categories (device, biotech, pharma) will also have emerged and succeeded in the market by producing therapeutic benefit without collateral damage.]
  • Information technology will radically improve patient management. Very sophisticated electronic patient records will dramatically improve patient care via reduction of contraindications, predictive systems to proactively manage disease and disease risk, and greatly improve the decision-making of physicians tasked with diagnosing and treating patients.
    [View Aug. 2015: There are few technical hurdles to the advancement of information technology in medicine, but even in 2035, infotech is very likely to still be facing real hurdles in its use as a result of the reluctance in healthcare to give up legacy systems and the inertia against change, despite the benefits.]
  • Systems biology will underlie the biology of most future medical advances in the next 20 years. Systems biology is a discipline focused on an integrated understanding of cell biology, physiology, genetics, chemistry, and a wide range of other individual medical and scientific disciplines. It represents an implicit recognition of an organism as an embodiment of multiple, interdependent organ systems and its processes, such that both pathology and wellness are understood from the perspective of the sum total of both the problem and the impact of possible solutions.
    [View Aug. 2015: This orientation will be intrinsic to the development of medical technologies, and will increasingly be represented by clinical trials that throw a much wider and longer-term net around relevant data, staff expertise encompassing more medical/scientific disciplines, and unforeseen solutions that present themselves as a result of this approach.]

The breadth and depth of advances in medicine over the next 20 years will be extraordinary, since many doors have been recently opened as a result of advances in genetics, cell biology, materials science, systems biology and others — with the collective advances further stimulating both learning and new product development. 

Global Market For Medical Device Technologies in Spine Surgery, 2014-2021

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, 2014-2021:
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 to 2021 by region/country of procedures 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 

CompanyProduct NameDescription/
(Status*)
Asahi Kasei MedicalCryoSeal FS SystemFibrin sealant system comprising an automated device and sterile blood processing disposables that enable autologous fibrin sealant to be prepared from a patient's own blood plasma in about an hour.
BaxterArtissFibrin sealant spray
BaxterTisseelBiodegradable fibrin sealant made of human fibrinogen and human thrombin. For oozing and diffuse bleeding.
BaxterFloSealHemostatic bioresorbable sealant/glue containing human thrombin and bovine-derived, glutaraldehyde-crosslinked proprietary gelatin matrix. For moderate to severe bleeding.
BaxterGelFoam PlusHemostatic sponge comprising Pfizer's Gelfoam hemostatic sponge, made of porcine skin and gelatin, packaged with human plasma-derived thrombin powder.
Behring/NycomedTachoCombFleece-type collagen hemostat coated with fibrin glue components.
Bristol-Myers Squibb/ZymoGenetics (Sold by The Medicines Company in the US and Canada)RecothromFirst recombinant, plasma-free thrombin hemostat.
CSL BehringBeriplast P/Beriplast P Combi-SetFreeze dried fibrin sealant. Comprised of human fibrinogen-factor XIII and thrombin in aprotinin and calcium chloride solution.
CSL BehringHaemocomplettan P, RiaSTAPFreeze-dried human fibrinogen concentrate. Haemocomplettan (US) and RiaSTAP (Europe).
J&J/EthiconEvicelEvicel is a new formulation of the previously available fibrin sealant Quixil (EU)/Crosseal (US). Does not contain the antifibrinolytic agent tranexamic acid, which is potentially neurotoxic, nor does it contain synthetic or bovine aprotinin, which reduces potential for hypersensitivity reactions.
J&J/EthiconEvarrestAbsorbable fibrin sealant patch comprised of flexible matrix of oxidized, regenerated cellulose backing under a layer of polyglactin 910 non-woven fibers and coated on one side with human fibrinogen and thrombin.
J&J/EthiconBIOSEAL Fibrin SealantLow-cost porcine-derived surgical sealant manufactured in China by J&J company Bioseal Biotechnology and targeted to emerging markets.
J&J/EthiconEvithromHuman thrombin for topical use as hemostat. Made of pooled human blood.
Pfizer/King PharmaceuticalsThrombin JMIBovine-derived topical thrombin hemostat.
Stryker/OrthovitaVitagel SurgicalBovine collagen and thrombin hemostat.
Takeda/NycomedTachoSilAbsorbable surgical patch made of collagen sponge matrix combined with human fibrinogen and thrombin.
Teijin Pharma Ltd/Teijin Group (Tokyo, Japan)KTF-374Company is working with Chemo-Sero-Therapeutic Research Institute (KAKETSUKEN) to develop a sheet-type surgical fibrin sealant. Product combines KAKETSUKEN's recombinant thrombin and fibrinogen technology with Teijin's high-performance fiber technology to create the world's first recombinant fibrin sealant on a bioabsorbable, flexible, nonwoven electrospun fiber sheet.
The Medicines Company (TMC)Raplixa (formerly Fibrocaps)Sprayable dry-powder formulation of fibrinogen and thrombin to aid in hemostasis during surgery to control mild or moderate bleeding.
The Medicines Company (TMC)In development: Fibropad patchFDA accepted company's BLA application for Fibrocaps in April 2014 and set an action date (PDUFA) in 2015. In November 2013, the European Medicines Agency agreed to review the firm's EU marketing authorization application. Status update in report #S192.
Vascular SolutionsD-Stat FlowableThick, but flowable, thrombin-based mixture to prevent bleeding in the subcutaneous pectoral pockets created during pacemaker and ICD implantations.

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.

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)