Market distribution changing in wound management products

The global wound management market is comprised of very diverse products spanning many different wound dressing types, growth factors, tissue engineering and a growing portfolio of physical therapies.

Growth in wound management product revenues varies considerably, and will result in different market distribution.  

Product Category
2008
% total wound market
2017
% total wound market
Film
                   4.8%
                   2.4%
Hydrocolloid
                   19.0%
                   9.4%
Foam
                   19.0%
                   17.5%
Alginate
                   8.9%
                   7.3%
Hydrogel
                   3.9%
                   2.0%
Non-adherent
                   5.5%
                   2.3%
Anitmicrobial
                   4.3%
                   2.1%
Tissue Engineering
                   2.6%
                   2.6%
Growth Factors
                   4.6%
                   11.8%
Physical Therapies
                   27.4%
                   42.7%
Total
                   100.0%
                   100.0%

 

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S247, "Worldwide Wound Management, 2008-2017."

Market distribution changing in wound management products

Big Business in Cell Therapy & Tissue Engineering

The global market for products in cell therapy and tissue engineering has ballooned from a nascent market only a few years ago to big business, currently pushing almost $7 billion annually.

Source: Report #S520

There are many well established medtech market competitors active in cell therapy and tissue engineering, including Medtronic, Baxter, Zimmer, Stryker, and Genzyme, but there are also a slew of of other participants with products on the market and in clinical trials.  As is evident from the above, the predominant applications are in orthopedics, skin, cardiology and cancer, but aggressive growth is taking place in the other, emerging applications.

The market is developing through the progressive adoption of cell therapy and tissue engineering approaches to disease management in clinical applications globally.  A predominance of the market is in the U.S. and Europe, but as the market evolves, the share of revenues from other markets is increasing.

See Report #S520 (publishing February 2010), "Worldwide Cell Therapy & Tissue Engineering Markets, 20098-2018."

Big Business in Cell Therapy & Tissue Engineering

Geographic concentrations of medtech manufacturers

While reviewing some country-specific data for a research project, I conjectured that there must be a way to conveniently map addresses and display them on a global map.  Without the slightest difficulty, I set up and mapped the company appendix (200+ companies) in our coronary stents market report #C245.  The mapping data was readily imported using Google spreadsheet and mapped via the site http://www.mapalist.com.

As one would expect, the highest concentrations of coronary stent manufacturers are in the U.S. and Europe. Of course, this map would well be replicated if similarly mapping the locations of companies in most any medtech industry.

Geographic concentrations of medtech manufacturers

Technologies at new medtech startups

New medical technologies represented in specific companies recently added (January 2010) to the Medtech Startups Database:

  • Incubator company from shifamed.com
  • Developing minimally invasive therapies for end stage renal disease.
  • Electrical stimulation technology to restore temporary continence control for patients with colostomies.
  • Sonolysis for treatment of vascular thromobus disorders.
  • Undisclosed nanotech medical product development.
  • Medical robotics
  • Undisclosed medical technology
  • Tissue welding via cold plasma and albumin.
  • Intravascular medical device coatings containing resveratrol and quercetin.
  • Collagen-based implants for soft tissue defects.
  • Drug-device combinations in cardiovascular, renal and GI
  • Endometrial ablation for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding.

For details on the Medtech Startups Database, see link.

Technologies at new medtech startups

Stent Manufacturers Proliferate, Create Market Pressure

As a follow-up to the Feb. 2 post regarding the settlement of patent disputes between J&J and Boston Scientific, a big driver of that settlement is indeed the level of competitiveness that has come to characterize the coronary stent market.  The situation in 2010 is a far cry from the situation in 2003/2004, when the patent dispute erupted and when J&J and Boston Scientific were really the only drug-eluting stent (DES) competitors in town.  A raft of other DES manufacturers, big and small, have emerged who now pose a real challenge (like Abbott's Xience stent) to TAXUS and CYPHER dominance.  Moreover, bare metal stents, while holding a lesser position due to differences in clinical performance compared to DES (some real, some just perceived), are still garnering caseload from interventional cardiologists and others concerned about late stage thrombosis, device cost, or other limitations of DES.  Add to this the prospect of bioabsorbable stents, which may not be as disruptive to the market status quo as DES were when they entered the fray, but which will nonetheless cause a definite shift in caseload.

The number of competitors spanning all stent and other anti-restenosis options is evidence enough of the pressure Boston Scientific had to reach a settlement so that they could focus on the market. 

For evidence, see the list of companies profiled in our Worldwide Market for Coronary Stents report #C245:

Aachen Resonance GmbH; Abbott Vascular; AdvanSource Biomaterials Corporation; Aeon Bioscience; Allvivo Vascular, Inc.; Amaranth Medical, Inc.; amg International GmbH; Arterial Remodeling Technologies (ART); Arterius Ltd.; Atrium Medical; Avantec Vascular; B. Braun Melsungen; Balton Ltd.; Bioabsorbable Therapeutics, Inc.; Bioring SA; Biosensors International; Biotronik; Blue Medical Devices B.V.; Boston Scientific; Caliber Therapeutics; Cappella Inc.; CardioMind, Inc.; CeloNova BioSciences, Inc.; CID S.r.l. (Formerly Sorin Vascular Therapy); Cinvention AG (Formerly Blue Membranes); CorNova; CV Therapeutics/Gilead Inc.; Devax; DISA Vascular; Elixir Medical Corp.; Estracure Inc.; eucatech AG; Genesis Technologies, LLC; Global Therapeutics (Cook Medical); Hexacath; ICON Interventional (Formerly ICON Medical Corp.); InspireMD; InTek Technology; Invatec s.r.l.; ITGI Medical Ltd.; Johnson & Johnson (Cordis, Conor Medsystems); JW Medical Systems / Biosensors International; Kaneka Corporation; Kyoto Medical Planning Co., Ltd.; Lepu Medical; Lutonix, Inc.; Medinol/ARIAD Pharmaceuticals; Medlogics Device Corporation (MDC); Medtronic Vascular; Miami Cardiovascular Innovations; Micell Technologies; MicroPort Scientific Corporation; Minvasys; MIV Therapeutics; mNEMOSCIENCE GmbH; MoBeta, Inc.; NanoInterventions, LLC; Neovasc, Inc.; Nexeon MedSystems, Inc.; Opto Circuits (India) Ltd.; 4.60.1 EuroCor GmbH; OrbusNeich; Palmaz Scientific, Inc.; Picarus NV; Possis Medical (Bayer); Prescient Medical; Relisys Medical Devices; REVA Medical; Sahajanand Medical Technologies; Stentys SAS; Sterling Vascular; Terumo; Translumina; TriReme Medical; Tryton Medical; Vascular Concepts; VasoTech, Inc.; X-Cell Medical

Stent Manufacturers Proliferate, Create Market Pressure

Boston Scientific Settles

With Boston Scientific agreeing to settle three outstanding patent suits with Johnson & Johnson’s Cordis division regarding coronary stents for $1.725 billion, the two companies put behind a seven-year fight over the high value market. 

Both companies hope to take advantage of the opportunity to move on, with Boston Scientific looking to minimize risk in the increasingly competitive stent market and J&J likely to consider more acquisitions.  The move by BSCI is decidedly defensive and is seen by some as reflecting a weakened position (despite the company’s ability to afford the settlement, since it preempts the company from similarly looking at possible acquisitions.

————-

See the MedMarket Diligence Report #C245, “Worldwide Coronary Stents Market, 2008-2017.”

Boston Scientific Settles

Bridge-to-transplant gets permanent approval

FDA Approves For Permanent Treatment Of Advanced Heart Failure Assist Device Pioneered By Texas Heart Institute At St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital.  See Link 

Although designed as a bridge-to-transplant device, the HeartMate II has proven itself sufficiently in trials to warrant its approval as a permanent device.  Designed by the Texas Heart Institute, the continuous flow left ventricular assist device will have a significant impact for the shortage of donor hearts.

“The approval of the pump device, the HeartMate II, follows several years of clinical trials and is seen as a major milestone for patients in the United States. In any given year there are some 250,000 people who suffer from advanced heart failure, while only about 2,000 heart transplants are performed annually in the U.S.”
HeartMate II

This remarkable technology, unlike other technologies that might claim reduced cost, improving clinical outcomes, or both, can claim that a considerable number of lives may be saved, PLUS reducing costs and improving outcomes.

Bridge-to-transplant gets permanent approval

Wound Care Markets: Country-Specific Patterns, Drivers, Opportunities

Clinical protocols for the treatment of specific wounds can vary considerably from country to country. Venous stasis ulcers, which account for approximately 4% of wounds and 75% of leg ulcers, are treated with short stretch compression bandages in Germany, elastic adhesive bandages in Italy, high compression bandages in France and multi-layer compression systems in the UK. As in the US, the routine use of strong antiseptics is discouraged in the UK and Germany but still prevalent in East European countries as well as the Netherlands and Italy.

The quest for standardized modern approaches to wound healing is aided by groups such as the European Wound Management Association and European Tissue Repair Society, which encourage pan-European dialogue on issues pertaining to wound care. Such organizations have had significant effect on the development of US wound care policy and practices. 

The proliferation of different wound care products and strategies leads to confusion and uncertainty over the best practice options. Clinical comparisons between treatment modalities have been minimal, with reliance on small, product-focused studies that often omit the wider context under which wounds are treated. Users of wound care products rely on manufacturers for performance data and increasingly turn to the larger manufacturers for staff education and wound care treatment protocols that will naturally include the use of the large number of products in the manufacturer’s line. In many countries in Europe, testing procedures have been developed by government-supported cross-company working panels that meet regularly to define specific protocols for testing products. These tests gradually become adopted by manufacturers as first lines of evaluation for new technologies.

The emerging use of electronic devices for wound documentation and assessment is expected to allow the comparison of large numbers of wounds undergoing different integrated approaches to wound care and begin to differentiate those activities that provide the most benefit to wound healing. As in the rest of the world, studies need to become larger, more standardized and complete to allow scientific comparison of products and practices that include multiple product classes and the management of the underlying conditions that create chronic wounds.

In addition, electronic devices for recording individual patient data are becoming available. These devices are important to ensure continuity of treatment, particularly in the home environment where several visiting nurses may see a single patient over a period of weeks. Without a good monitoring tool a complex and inconsistent mix of products and strategies could be applied.


From MedMarket Diligence Report #S247,  "Worldwide Wound Management, 2008-2017: Established and Emerging Products, Technologies and Markets in the U.S., Europe, Japan and Rest of World."

Wound Care Markets: Country-Specific Patterns, Drivers, Opportunities

Venture Capital Financing of Medtech for January 2010 Crosses $500 million

In a distinctly upward trend, total venture capital financings in medical technology for the month of January 2010 hit $514 million. This eclipses the high month total of $440 in July 2009.

Key financings for the month include:

  • $64.00 million, Intuity Medical, Inc., has raised $64 million in Series D financing (integrated blood glucose monitor)
  • $32.50 million,  CircuLite, Inc., has closed a Series C funding of $32.5 million (micro-pump for circulatory support in congestive heart failure)
  • $31.20 million, Cellular Dynamics International, Inc., has raised $31.3 million in funding according to a regulatory filing (pluripotent stem cells, such as cardiomyocytes, used for drug discovery)
  • $31.00 million, Tandem Diabetes has raised $31 million in funding, bringing its current round to $52.3 million (insulin pumps)
  • $30.00 million, CeQur SA has raised $30 million in a Series A funding (subcutaneous insulin patch for Type 2 diabetes)
  • $30.00 million, NeoMend, Inc., has received $30 million in funding (products used in sealing of surgical wounds)
  • $25.45 million, Proteus Biomedical, Inc., has raised $25.45 million in a new funding round according to a regulatory filing (management of congestive heart failure)
  • $22.50 million, Microfabrica, Inc., has raised $22.5 million in Series B funding (minimally invasive medical devices)
  • $22.00 million, ValenTx Inc. has raised $22 million in a Series B funding ( less-invasive, implantable medical device to address morbid obesity)

For the complete list of financings for January 2010, see link.

Venture Capital Financing of Medtech for January 2010 Crosses $500 million

Revenues in Cell Therapy and Tissue Engineering Exceeding Expectations

The number of companies with approved products and measurable revenues in the field of cell therapy and tissue engineering has exceeded the expectation of many (though not all) in the industry.

Markets such as cell/tissue are often characterized by overestimated evaluations of commercial potential and underestimated consideration of the actual challenges. Indeed many technology challenges remain to be overcome if any significant portion of the purported potential of tissue engineering or cell therapy (in particular) is to be realized. Nonetheless, our estimate of only a few years ago (which were considered optimistic by some and conservative by others) has been eclipsed by the reality of substantial market growth, with 2009 revenues in cell therapy and tissue engineering at nearly $7 billion.

Source:  In process (draft) projections by MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S520.

Revenues in Cell Therapy and Tissue Engineering Exceeding Expectations