Diverse technologies have a surprising number of common threads, whether in the technologies themselves or in the clinical applications. For this reason, manufacturers need to consider that:
1. A technology platform can be the launchpad for products in clinically diverse areas. Case in point, cell therapy, which as a fundamental scientific discipline can have uses as far afield as wound management, bone repair, treatment of myocardial ischemia and others.
2. A disease state can sometimes be targeted by many very different technologies. Examples include that wound management can be accomplished by tissue engineering, sutures, fibrin-based surgical glues, cyanoacrylate-based surgical glues, dressings and others.
The driver behind technologies having multiple clinical applications is, of course, that companies wish to maximize their ROI.
The driver behind single disease states being the target of multiple alternative technologies is cost — healthcare systems (in principle, anyway) seek the most competitive options for treating specific patient populations, and this driver has been gaining momentum over the past ten years due to “managed care” efforts as well as aggressive, cost-focus innovators creating technologies that displace market share with convincingly better patient outcomes compared to alternative technologies.
MedMarket Diligence publishes medical technology market reports on a wide range of clinical and technology subjects (of course, sometimes overlapping). See list.
(This post was done via the Palm Pre WebOS app Po’ster by Gabriele Nizzoli.)
See the newest global wound management market report (published December 2012), Report #S249, “Wound Management, Worldwide Market and Forecast to 2020: Established and Emerging Products, Technologies and Markets in the Americas, Europe, Asia/Pacific and Rest of World.”
In results presented in a poster session at the 24th Annual Clinical Symposium on Advances in Skin and Wound Care (San Antonio, TX), the Advanced Wound Management Division of Smith & Nephew highlighted that gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) can achieve the same treatment goals as foam-based NPWT, which are a reduction in wound dimension, exudate, and improvement in granulation tissue.
One of the most dramatic, and perhaps surprising, recent developments in the advanced wound management sector has been the meteoric rise of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) technology, spearheaded by the V.A.C. approach developed by Kinetic Concepts Inc. (KCI). This has driven growth in the “physical treatment” market segment to exceed $1.2 billion. In 1989, Mark Chariker and Katherine Jeter developed a technique utilizing standard surgical dressings and wall suction to create a “vacuum” that aided in wound healing. In 1997, Dr. Michael Morykwas and Dr. Lewis Argenta studied the use of suction applied to polyurethane foam in wounds. Shortly after, KCI launched its product, the V.A.C.® and later received Medicare B approval. In early September 2009, Kinetic Concepts received Japanese regulatory approval to begin selling the V.A.C. device in that country. The company expects sales to commence in the first half of 2010.
Further innovations into the use of closed wound suction were made by BlueSky Medical with the Versatile One® System. Then in 2007, Smith & Nephew acquired BlueSky Medical and brought all that company’s products under the Smith & Nephew umbrella. Since the purchase of BlueSky, S&N has devoted considerable resources to contest KCI’s hold on the lion’s share of the market for NPWT devices.
More details on the study and its results from Smith & Nephew are given here. The trial was a prospective, multi-center clinical evaluation assessed 131 non-grafted patients at 21 centers in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.