DIAGNOSTICS Archives

28/05/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

FemTech: A Game-Changer in Women’s Healthcare

304views

Women’s healthcare is one of the most neglected and understudied fields in the healthcare sector. Despite substantial advances in medical sciences in recent years, there still exists a huge gap in the treatment of diseases that are specific to women. FemTech focuses on addressing some of these gaps and offers the potential to help tackle the longstanding issues of women’s health.

FemTech developed as an answer to inadequate healthcare for women

According to a 2018 article published in Our World in Data, a UK-based online scientific publication, human life expectancy has increased tremendously from 30 to 73 years during the last two centuries (1800–2018). But this leap has not been reflected in women’s life quality. A 2024 report published by the World Economic Forum and the McKinsey Health Institute indicated that women live 25% longer in poor health than men, although they typically outlive males.

FemTech, a group of technology-enabled solutions such as diagnostic tools, wearables, products, software, and services, aims to tackle women’s health issues, such as maternal, reproductive, menstrual, and sexual health, as well as menopause. An example is the UK-based Flo Health app that tracks ovulation and the menstrual cycle, offers customized health insights and tips, and a closed community for sharing concerns and queries. US-based Natural Cycles is another example. This application provides personalized insights based on each user’s menstrual cycle patterns. This novel approach to improving women’s health and well-being has been gaining more importance in recent years.

Several challenges slow down progress and widespread acceptance

While FemTech offers promising solutions to help diagnose and manage many health issues affecting women that were previously overlooked, several challenges are awaiting interested players.

One major bottleneck players face is the scarcity of investments. Many investors still consider FemTech a niche sector and shy away from investing compared to other healthcare fields. This situation is slightly improving, as the industry has seen an increase in investment in recent years. Data from Dealroom, an Amsterdam-based provider of data and insights on start-ups and tech ecosystems, indicated that the venture capital (VC) funding into FemTech startups reached US$2.1 billion in 2021, an all-time high.

Despite this increase in investment in FemTech, the total funding for this sector still trails other sectors, especially if it is female-led. The CEO of a leading US-based fertility tracker Mira, said in an interview with Forbes that though 70% of FemTech startups are female-founded, male-owned businesses tend to raise more capital.

Investors and lenders often have unconscious biases against female entrepreneurs, affecting their willingness to invest in female-led businesses, according to a 2020 study published in the Journal of Financial Economics, a peer-reviewed financial journal. Also, women might only have restricted access to male-dominated fundraising sources, including crowdfunding websites, angel investors, and VC firms. Similarly, the traditional male dominance in some areas, such as technology and finance, can also lead to power imbalances in fundraising and limit the options available to women.

Insufficient R&D support is another major challenge faced by players in the FemTech sector. This can be seen from the fact that a significant proportion of the funding allocated to healthcare R&D is not focused on issues that directly impact women’s health and well-being, with a meager 4% dedicated to this area according to a 2018 article published in Forbes. This insufficient funding can cause innovation stagnation, set back product development, and reduce market opportunities.

The inadequate representation of women in clinical trials is another difficulty faced by FemTech companies. This lack of representation has created a knowledge gap in understanding important facets of women’s health, such as female anatomy, physiology, health issues, etc. A 2022 study published in Contemporary Clinical Trials, a peer-reviewed journal, showed that though women constitute 50.8% of the US population, just 41.2% of those involved in clinical trials were female. This creates a certain lack of awareness of how women’s bodies work, making it challenging for FemTech businesses to develop effective solutions.

Cybersecurity issues are also creating challenges in the development of FemTech. A joint study by Newcastle University, Royal Holloway, University of London, and ETH Zurich found serious privacy, security, and safety concerns that could put users at risk. The research indicated the danger of leaking sensitive information, such as fertility, medical data, etc., to third parties.

Cultural and social taboos are another bottleneck faced by FemTech companies. Female-specific issues such as postpartum depression and premenstrual syndrome are rarely openly discussed. This makes bringing societal focus to FemTech products a difficult task.

FemTech A Game-Changer in Women’s Healthcare by EOS Intelligence

FemTech industry is seeing significant development in some segments

Though confronting numerous challenges, FemTech remains a promising industry for interested players with its projected market growth. The FemTech market, estimated at US$40.2 billion in 2020, is expected to reach US$75.1 billion in 2025, according to a 2021 report by the US-based market research agency Arizton Advisory & Intelligence.

General health and wellness is the fastest-growing segment

FemTech offers several solutions for improving women’s health across various segments, with general health and wellness companies attracting the most VC investment, followed by reproductive health and contraception.

The general health and wellness segment combines digital health clinics, mental health services, and direct-to-consumer products. Since companies in this segment focus on broad-ranging solutions that address multiple issues, demand for them is expected to rise.

An example is Maven, a New York-based company offering a holistic solution encompassing pre- and post-pregnancy care. This virtual clinic provides 24/7 access to healthcare professionals, including mental health therapists, relationship consultants, and sleep coaches. In 2022, Maven attracted US$300 million in funding from prominent investors and individual strategic partners.

Another example is Stockholm-based Grace Health, acquired by Penda Health, a Kenyan medical care chain in 2023. It uses an automated health assistant called Grace to monitor and understand women’s sexual and reproductive well-being and receive timely reminders and notifications. The company is also expanding its local footprint in key African markets, including Nigeria, Kenya, and Ghana, to solidify its position as a market leader in these regions.

Reproductive health segment is also seeing strong demand

The reproductive health segment and menstruation care are also expected to continue holding the interest of investors and customers alike. According to the NIH, in the USA, 20% of women are now having their first child after turning 35, owing to a greater emphasis on education and career. With increasing age, some women may experience difficulty before, during, or after pregnancy. Women will also need to effectively and accurately track their fertility to make informed reproductive choices. This is likely to greatly contribute to in increased demand for FemTech reproductive health solutions.

An example is the Clue App, a Germany-based fertility tracker that leverages user data to compute and predict individuals’ periods and PMS. In 2023, the company raised US$7.6 million in funding and partnered with global universities such as the University of Exeter to bridge the diagnosis gap for women’s health conditions. This collaboration is expected to create new trends in managing female health issues.

Oncology products are now aimed at individuals and medical professionals

Development is also underway in the oncology segment. An example is Nevada-based Cyrcadia Health developing a breast monitor that tracks changes in breast tissue temperature over time to aid in the detection and risk management of breast cancer. The monitor consists of two patches that track temperature changes and send the data anonymously to the Cyrcadia Health core lab. This data is analyzed using machine learning (ML) algorithms and predictive analytics software to identify and categorize abnormal circadian patterns in healthy breast tissue. The results are then delivered to healthcare providers. This solution, when it becomes available in the market, is expected to enable women to take more proactive control of their breast health.

Cancer continues to be a leading cause of women’s death both in middle-income and high-income countries, according to a 2017 article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, the focus on FemTech oriented at breast cancer and cancer in general is expected to gain momentum in the future.

Stigmatized conditions and marginalized subpopulations are increasingly addressed

Many FemTech companies are now exploring areas beyond menstrual and reproductive care and addressing stigmatized and unmet conditions such as preterm birth, endometriosis, pelvic care, and sexual health.

An example is London-based Elvie, a company that addresses pelvic floor dysfunction, a common and often overlooked health issue affecting many women. According to the NIH, 27% of women aged 40-59 and 37% of women aged 60-79 experience some form of pelvic floor dysfunction. Elvie has developed a Kegel trainer that uses biofeedback technology to improve pelvic and sexual health through five-minute workouts. The development of these solutions is expected to persuade more women to seek treatment and improve the diagnosis of these health conditions.

Similarly, apps are also being introduced for different sections of the population such as LGBTQ+, black women, and women from low and middle-income societies. US-based InovCares, an app designed to address the crisis of maternal mortality affecting Black women, is an example. This virtual OB-GYN platform connects users with culturally sensitive healthcare professionals who cater to various health needs, including fertility, childbirth, and breastfeeding.

Solutions are being developed in various geographies

While FemTech solutions development is concentrated in the USA and Europe, it is also visible in developing geographies such as Africa and Southeast Asia. An example is Indonesia’s BukuBumil which provides information on various aspects of pregnancy, including fertility, maternal health, baby immunizations, family planning, and post-pregnancy care in the Indonesian language. The platform also allows users to track a baby’s development and milestones.

Another one is Ethiopia-based YeneHealth, a multilingual and culturally responsive platform with AI-powered trackers for menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and medication management.

AI and ML are expected to shape the future of FemTech

Technological advancements are creating waves in the FemTech industry. Many companies are developing smart wearables and AI-powered solutions. Zurich-based Ava Women has developed a wearable, the Ava bracelet (available without prescription), to track hormonal changes. It allows users to monitor their ovulation and detect potential health issues. Ava’s technology uses big data and AI to provide accurate and personalized insights.

Similarly, Ovum, an Australia-based health management app, currently in its pilot phase, offers an AI health assistant designed for women to generate a dataset to improve treatments and diagnostics of various conditions. The app integrates and stores medical records, allowing users to track their health and receive personalized recommendations. This comprehensive data repository is crucial for complex or chronic conditions such as endometriosis, where a diagnosis can take years.

Experts believe the widespread use of AI and ML in FemTech apps will help players provide more accurate and data-driven solutions to users. AI can also analyze large datasets and use predictive analytics to anticipate health risks, such as gestational diabetes or pre-eclampsia.

EOS Perspective

The FemTech landscape, though still developing, is expected to expand more and grow quickly, especially with the increasing discussion around female health, Amazon CTO Werner Vogels commented at the 2023 AWS re:Invent conference, the largest conference in the cloud computing community. He has highlighted the significant potential of FemTech to transform the female healthcare system, specifically considering that women make up 50% of the population and account for 80% of consumer healthcare decisions.

FemTech has also the potential to significantly impact the healthcare sector and the global economy as a whole in the coming years. A 2024 report by the McKinsey Health Institute indicated that improving women’s health could boost the world economy by at least US$1 trillion annually.

The market is expected to see FemTech players widen their business scope, offer multiple services, and address a broader set of health issues. An example of this trend is UK-based Peppy, which initially helped organizations better support their women staff members after they had a baby, but now also deals with menopausal issues. This shift demonstrates a broader approach to women’s health under a single solution and reflects a development towards more comprehensive and inclusive offerings within FemTech.

Since FemTech is still developing, extensive R&D can be expected in the coming years. Experts believe health issues affecting older women also offer interested parties a research investment opportunity. Even now, in discussions and debates regarding FemTech, the diseases suffered by older women get overlooked. This makes it a promising area for future developments.

As the FemTech market expands, it is likely to attract collaborations from players operating outside the healthcare sector. One of the first examples of this was seen in August 2021, when the French cosmetic giant L’Oréal partnered with Clue to research the connection between the menstrual cycle and skin health to improve its skincare products. Such collaborations, whether just publicity stunts for cosmetic companies or not, can help put FemTech solutions on the map of legitimate tools close to women’s health. Considering that FemTech is still considered a niche sector, this can draw attention to the relevance of this market and its players and, consequently, stimulate investment.

Over the long term, women-led companies are expected to create more effective FemTech solutions that identify and cater to women’s unique healthcare requirements. The key factor behind it is that women are better placed to understand the health issues affecting women. A 2022 study published in Harvard Business School’s digital research publication Working Knowledge has also indicated that female-led research teams are more likely to study conditions that impact both genders than male-led ones. With more women stepping into STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) roles and female-led FemTech start-ups emerging, there is a promise of a more comprehensive scope of FemTech solutions.

A 2023 article published in Harvard Business Review noted an important trend that may positively affect the FemTech market: female investors are more likely to invest in and support female entrepreneurs. This suggests the potential for more capital flowing into women-led businesses, including in FemTech. As more women take on senior leadership roles in both FemTech startups and VC firms, this could substantially propel the industry growth.

14/05/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Gut Matter: Will FMT Change How We Look at Disease Treatments?

Converting poop to pills was something unimaginable a few years ago, but now Fecal Microbiota Transplant (FMT) is taking the medical world by storm. This revolutionary technique, which promises to treat a wide range of diseases, from GI disorders to mental health issues, is becoming popular due to its success in treating recurrent clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), a serious infection that can damage the colon. FMT offers tremendous opportunities but also has challenges that players should consider if they want to thrive in this industry.

FMT is a procedure in which feces from a screened, healthy donor are transplanted into a recipient to balance the gut microbiota. This procedure can help treat certain infections and lessen the severity of some gut health issues.

Gut infections are usually treated using antibiotics, which can occasionally destroy beneficial bacteria. A 2000 study published in the Journal of Microbiology, a delayed open-access journal of the American Society for Microbiology, indicated that CDI recurring in around 15% to 35% of people is caused by antibiotics disrupting the gut microbiota and its balance (gut dysbiosis). Dysbiosis has been linked to several chronic illnesses, such as cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), diabetes, and colorectal cancer (CRC).

FMT is highly efficient in treating recurrent CDI, with a cure rate of 90%, according to a 2015 study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology. Numerous trials to understand the efficacy of FMT in treating conditions such as obesity, liver disease, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease (PD), and IBS are underway. There are also some pre-clinical studies in progress to understand the potential of FMT in treating illnesses such as diabetes, skin issues, lung diseases, and autism.

This article is the second in EOS Perspectives' coverage 
of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in animals and humans.

Read our related Perspective:
 Poop to Pills: Is FMT the Future of Veterinary Medicine?

FMT is showing promising growth

The human FMT sector is expected to grow at a CAGR of 5.1% and reach US$3.15 billion by 2031, according to a 2023 report published by India-based market research company The Brainy Insights.

The key factor influencing this growth is the rising incidence of GI disorders. According to the GI Alliance, a US-based network of gastroenterology providers, around 20 million Americans have chronic digestive disorders. Similarly, the CDC estimates that there are around 500,000 cases of CDI reported annually in the USA, and about 9% of elderly patients die within a month of contracting healthcare-associated CDI. All these have influenced the growth of FMT, which offers a promising solution to several conditions.

Other factors influencing the FMT sector growth are the rising patient awareness and interest in preventive healthcare and the emergence of effective probiotic strains.

There are several biotechnology companies currently involved in R&D and product development. Australia-based BiomeBank became the first company to get approval from a competent authority to market its FMT-based CDI solution called Biomictra Faecal Microbiota (colonoscopic, enema, and upper GI delivery) in November 2022. This was followed by the FDA approval of US-based Rebiotix-Ferring Pharmaceuticals’ REBYOTA (rectally administered) in the same month. Seres Therapeutics, a US-based company, has also received FDA approval for its orally delivered product Vowst (SER-109) for treating CDI in April 2023. Following Seres’ footsteps, Rebiotix-Ferring is now conducting trials to develop an oral alternative, RVX7455.

US-based Finch Therapeutics is another major company developing solutions presently undergoing phase-3 studies for diseases such as chronic hepatitis B and autism. Its solution, CP101, for treating CDI, has been discontinued.

Gut Matter Will FMT Change How We Look at Disease Treatments by EOS Intelligence

The FMT sector is grappling with a multitude of pressing challenges

The FMT sector has the potential to treat numerous GI and other related disorders effectively. However, the business landscape is still marred by several challenges that players must consider.

Lack of consensus about policies is making development challenging

Regulatory hurdles are one major roadblock players face. The FDA currently regulates FMT as an unapproved biologic medicine. There is a lack of uniform guidelines for FMT, causing variations in processes, such as donor screening and processing.

The FDA took its first step toward FMT regulation in 2013. It released a set of guidelines removing the need for investigational new drug (IND) applications when FMT is used for treating CDI unresponsive to standard treatments if medical practitioners secure informed consent. However, this application is needed when FMT is used for other reasons, including safety studies.

The FDA drafted new guidance in 2016, which was finalized in November 2022. In this guidance, the FMTs acquired from stool banks are exempt from regulatory discretion. Also, the IND requirements will be waived if some conditions are fulfilled, such as getting informed consent from patients or authorized representatives and screening and testing stool under the supervision of competent healthcare professionals. There should also be no known potentially serious safety concerns, such as issues with improper handling or storage, or issues with administering product collection without the proper testing or screening. All these increase the procedural burden for healthcare practitioners. However, the FDA has indicated no regulatory policies for stool banks to reduce the administrative burden of private practice settings without the support of research staff.

Due to the significant variation in gut microbial composition among samples, FMT fails to satisfy EU drug classification requirements. Also, since human cells are not an active component of fecal matter, FMT is not covered by EU Directive 2004/23, which deals with the safety and quality of human tissues and cells. Therefore, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has authorized the member states to regulate FMT however they see fit.

This lack of consensus has led to diverging regulatory policies, causing uncertainties for interested players and making developmental activities challenging, particularly in Europe. But despite this, many companies, such as Rebiotix-Ferring Pharmaceuticals, are making leaps in R&D.

Donor selection has social, ethical, and financial challenges

Another bottleneck that needs to be addressed is the availability and selection of suitable donors. There is a debate regarding whether the patient should know the donor or not. Also, the ideal donor should be free from chronic illnesses or infections and willing to donate. The donor is screened for obesity, antibiotic resistance, microbiome diversity, oncogenic potential, a history of antibiotic use, and risky behaviors such as drug abuse.

Stool banks require donors to follow several restrictions, such as maintaining BMI, abstaining from unhealthy eating habits such as spicy foods or saturated fatty acids, and avoiding travel to infection-prone tropical regions for an extended period. With that, donor dropout is high due to the considerable commitment needed, according to a 2019 study published in Gastroenterology, the official journal of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

FMT implementation is also facing several social and ethical challenges with questions such as donor compensation, gender of the donor, donor and patient vulnerability, and commercial use of fecal matter.

Companies can launch educational drives targeted at patients and ideal donors to raise their awareness about FMT, tackle social resistance towards the procedure, and build trust with prospective donor candidates and patients. This can help reduce people’s reluctance to participate in FMT procedures.

The procedure remains risky, especially for vulnerable population

FMT is associated with an increased risk of transmitting infections such as Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) and enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC) from the donor to the receiver. Immunocompromised patients are at a higher risk of developing side effects, according to a 2020 study published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences, a peer-reviewed journal. Similarly, a 2019 case study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a journal of the Massachusetts Medical Society, showed a fatal infection contracted by an elderly immunocompromised individual following an FMT procedure.

Another challenge is the very few pediatric clinical trials, which makes it difficult for physicians to make the best judgments for when to initiate FMT therapy in children.

To tackle safety-related challenges, the FDA released safety advice in 2019 and 2020 regarding the possible risk of severe, potentially fatal infections associated with the procedure. Companies such as Boston-based OpenBiome have promptly modified their sample screening methodology to identify such infections.

Lack of studies on long-term effects

The lack of understanding of the long-term changes FMT can cause in a patient’s microbiota is another challenge. Several studies reveal that liver diseases, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, etc., can develop due to microbiota dysbiosis. Investment in R&D by interested and capable players can help medical professionals understand the long-term implications and complications of FMT and identify feasible solutions, which can pave the way for widespread treatment acceptance.

The sector’s future appears bright, underpinned by extensive development

FMT is a highly effective treatment for recurrent CDI. New developments have been taking place in many areas, such as administration modes, stool collection, and storage, and interested players can find opportunities in these areas. The FDA is also becoming more accepting of FMT-based treatments that show good results. This is shown by the approval of Rebyota and Vowst, both of which were more effective in reducing recurrent CDI compared to placebo in randomized controlled trials.

Stool banking and processing is another area ripe with opportunities for interested players. Conventionally, fresh stool is used for FMT, but this can increase the cost of the procedure. Stool banks are being developed to facilitate cost-effective and safe treatment. An example is OpenBiome, the USA’s first and biggest public stool bank. Stool banks can also make the standardization of stool processing and donor selection easier, according to a 2019 report published by the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group.

Players can also form collaborations with healthcare professionals and research institutions to offer FMT treatments and support microbiome research. Many government organizations are also showing interest in the development of FMT therapies. The GBP500,000 grant awarded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), a part of UK Research and Innovation, in 2022 to Norwich-based Quadram Institute (QI) to build and equip a new FMT research facility is an indication of this.

Investing in the development of FMT treatments can revolutionize the treatment of several diseases, and companies that can invest in research can gain a head start in the competition. Rigorous R&D is going on to develop FMT solutions for conditions such as obesity, depression, cancer, pediatric diseases, and autoimmune disorders such as Crohn’s disease.

A 2023 trial conducted by the US-based Emory University School of Medicine also showed that FMT can reduce the colonization of multidrug-resistant organisms in kidney transplant patients. Investigators believe more research in this field can help improve transplant success rates and decrease the chances of infection. Individual case studies have shown great improvement in cure rates for certain diseases, including mental health conditions, but more research is needed to present a solid case for product development.

EOS Perspective

FMT is gradually establishing itself as a promising solution for recurrent CDI and is expected to create waves in the treatment of numerous physical and mental health conditions despite facing several challenges.

Improvements in donor selection, early identification of certain conditions with better risk assessment, and increased treatment efficiency can be expected with ongoing research expanding the knowledge base of the medical community.

Experts are also looking into FMT’s potential as an adjunct therapy in treating diseases such as tuberculosis, and it is expected to open the door to interested players to create personalized and targeted FMT-based treatments for various diseases.

Studies are also being done to understand and substantiate the potential of gut microbiota to anticipate diseases such as IBD and CRC using AI (Artificial Intelligence) and ML (Machine Learning). ML can be used to identify biomarkers in the gut microbiota to aid in the early detection of CRC. These studies, when extended to FMT, are expected to help medical professionals identify ideal donors and improve treatment efficiency.

The Brainy Insights, in its 2023 report, predicts a growth in the probiotic infusion segment owing to the increasing studies on diabetes management. Therefore, competitive players interested in FMT can also diversify their portfolios by including consortia (multi-population systems with a broad spectrum of microbial species) and probiotic products that have the potential to offer regulated, standardized treatments. This can help them get an edge over their competitors.

Several oral FMT solutions are currently in phase-1 and phase-2 clinical trials, and many are geared toward treating conditions other than recurrent CDI. For example, US-based Vedanta Biosciences is developing FMT therapeutics for IBD, food allergies, solid tumors, etc. As research continues, it is expected that investigators will be able to identify the bacterial strains that can treat different diseases and isolate and mass-produce them, leading to a decrease in stool collection and processing and a reduction in stool transplant-related infections, but this development is expected to occur very far in the future.

Although marred by several challenges, FMT is well-positioned in the microbiome industry to obtain FDA approval and (with time) widespread acceptance. Right now, interested players can expect good returns by investing in oral FMT development, stool banking, and R&D.

09/05/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence 1 Comment

Poop to Pills: Is FMT the Future of Veterinary Medicine?

Fecal Microbiota Transplant (FMT), the transfer of healthy gut bacteria from a donor to a recipient to treat a myriad of conditions, has been gaining traction rapidly in recent years. Though the human FMT market has stolen the spotlight, the animal segment is also quietly blooming as a niche area, presenting a unique business opportunity for enterprising players.

The global human FMT market, estimated at US$2.11 billion in 2023, is projected to reach US$3.15 billion by 2031 with a CAGR of 5.1% between 2023 and 2031, according to a 2023 report published by India-based market research company The Brainy Insights. The animal FMT market is undoubtedly smaller, but it is difficult to determine its exact size due to a lack of consistent data on exact use. Also, while the human segment has many players, such as UK-based Microbiotica, US-based Finch Therapeutics, and US-based Rebiotix, Inc., the animal segment has a few competitors, such as Amend Pet and AnimalBiome, both US-based companies.

This article is the first in EOS Perspectives' coverage 
of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in animals and humans. 

Read our related Perspective: 
Gut Matter: Will FMT Change How We Look at Disease Treatments?

Veterinary FMT is slowly but steadily growing

Increasing pet ownership is one of the most important factors influencing the growth seen in the veterinarian FMT sector. The American Pet Products Association (APPA), a Connecticut-based NPO, conducted a 2021–2022 National Pet Owners Survey, which found that 70% of US households own a pet, an increase from 56% in 1988 and 67% in 2019. A 2022 report published by HealthforAnimals, a Belgium-based global animal health association, indicated that owners are becoming more aware of their pets’ health needs. Similarly, a 2012 State of Pet Health Report released by Banfield Pet Hospital, a US-based veterinary hospital chain, has shown an increase in chronic diseases in cats and dogs.

The high incidence of diarrhea in pets also affects the FMT adoption rate. A 2008 report published in The Veterinary Record, a UK-based peer-reviewed journal, states that one of the most frequent causes of pet owners seeking veterinary care is acute diarrhea (AD).

Antibiotics are frequently used in the treatment of AD in dogs, 45% to 70%. The use of antibiotics in dogs can cause imbalances in the gut microbiota, leading to other diseases. This makes it essential to have a more holistic approach to managing pet diseases without disrupting their gut health.

The FMT sector is marred with several challenges

Though the FMT procedure offers many benefits, large-scale adoption still faces numerous challenges.

Empirical and scientific evidence is still lacking

A 2021 article published in Gut Microbes, a journal from the UK-based publishing company Taylor & Francis, indicated that the experimental information provided in preclinical FMT protocols is extremely uneven and/or lacking. The study suggested the reason for this is the lack of reliable guidelines for reporting requirements that would support efforts to replicate the study and, eventually, yield reproducible research. Many papers considered in the study lacked information on core aspects; for example, 92% had no reliable data about anaerobic conditions needed for FMT prep, and 49% had no information on efficient fecal material storage.

There is also currently minimal scientific information available in the field of veterinary FMT. Moreover, there is very little information on the therapeutic effectiveness of FMT in small animals such as dogs and cats, according to a 2016 article published in Veterinary Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), a peer-reviewed journal. The article suggests that though adverse effects are limited in human patients, assessing whether the procedure is safe in animals is difficult.

Regulatory framework is in its infancy

Regulation is a bit complex in veterinary FMT. While there are not many specific regulations for veterinary FMT, the FDA considers FMT treatments used to prevent or treat diseases in animals as a new drug. Marketing new veterinary drugs in the USA without an approved or abbreviated new drug application is illegal. These require the manufacturer to submit information proving that a proposed generic medication is equivalent to an approved reference-listed drug (RLD) in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. The lack of detailed clinical studies in the veterinary segment can slow down regulatory clearance. The Center of Veterinary Medicine, the US department approving drugs for pet animals, does not have any specific regulatory policy regarding the use of FMT either.

Veterinarians lack experience

Lack of technical expertise and procedural experience can also hinder FMT adoption. A 2022 study published in Topics in Companion Animal Medicine indicated that 71% of veterinarians had never performed FMT. These results were based on 155 responses from 13 different countries.

Risk of transmitting disease phenotypes is high

FMT can transmit disease phenotypes, including obesity and metabolic disorders such as diabetes, according to a 2020 study published in Medicine in Microecology, a peer-reviewed journal. Similarly, changes to the gut microbiota, such as exposure to antibiotics or the transfer of cecal material (fecal material from the bottom right quadrant of the cecum, a part of the large intestine), can affect disease phenotypes, such as an elevated risk of colitis.

Donor selection is difficult and pricey

The selection of an ideal donor is another challenge. The donor animal should be free from all kinds of parasites and pathogens and without any history of gastrointestinal diseases. Similarly, the donor should have no history of behavioral issues and should be of ideal weight. There should also be no history of antibiotic use within six months before the sample collection. Stool banks must thoroughly test the samples used for FMT, increasing procedural costs and hindering widespread acceptance and adoption of the technique among pet owners and veterinarians.

Poop to Pills Is FMT the Future of Veterinary Medicine by EOS Intelligence

Numerous investment opportunities are available for interested players

Though veterinary FMT is still in its infancy, businesses still have several investment opportunities in this sector.

Focusing on extensive R&D

Veterinary FMT is a promising sector, but more research is needed to support product and service development. Since the current competition is concentrated on rigorous R&D, interested players capable of making risky research investments will likely gain an upper hand over their competitors.

The research so far has been promising, and the extensive R&D helps drive the market and build the necessary base for FMT to be recognized as a separate category for approvals. A 2022 study published in Frontiers in Immunology, a journal of the International Union of Immunological Societies, has indicated that several studies were conducted in the field of FMT from 2001 to 2021. This study analyzed key aspects such as donor selection, efficacy, and adverse effects. The incidence of minor and serious adverse effects after an FMT procedure was found to be 11.63% and 1.59%, respectively, while the overall efficacy was 76.88%.

The results from this study are promising, but they also indicate that more research is needed to understand and confirm the efficacy, safety, and quality of FMT treatments in animals. The FDA is more likely to approve these therapies with more robust evidence from newer studies, giving market players more opportunities.

Even though there is currently a lack of consensus or evidence-based standards regarding FMT dosage or donor screening for animals, a recently established international expert organization, the Companion Animal Fecal Bank Consortium, is developing guidelines in these domains. This can also be considered as a first step towards prompting FDA approval.

Developing the oral delivery route

Market players can find opportunities in developing FMT treatments administered through oral rather than nasoesophageal or rectal routes. Currently, the FMT delivery route is one of the critical bottlenecks in the more widespread adoption of the therapy.

Both nasoesophageal and rectal delivery routes are considered more efficacious but are associated with considerable risks. Nasoesophageal treatments use endoscopes that cause discomfort and aspiration and make it difficult to assess the colon mucosa or get mucosa tissue samples. In rectal FMTs, colonoscopes and anesthesia are involved, the latter often being a significant risk to the pet patient, deterring pet owners from choosing FMT. Both rectal and nasoesophageal routes are also associated with a risk of perforation, bleeding, infection, etc.

Conversely, the oral delivery route is generally preferred due to non-invasiveness and ease of use. However, oral FMT takes longer to reach the large intestine and has been perceived as less effective.

Market players can attempt to meet the preference for the oral route by building on a few research studies showing the good efficacy of oral FMT in pets. While research on animals is still limited, research in humans can be extended to identify approaches to improved efficacy of oral FMTs in treating animal GI infections. One such research was a 2017 study published in JAMA Network Open, an open-access journal by the American Medical Association, which indicated that in humans, oral FMT had efficacy in the treatment of C. difficile infection similar to that of rectal FMT.

One of the pioneers in this area is AnimalBiome, which developed an oral Gut Restore Supplement in an enteric-coated capsule (a coating that protects the medicine from the stomach’s acidic environment before it reaches the intestine and reduces side effects). The company conducted a pilot study in 2019 to observe the impact of the capsule on 40 dogs and 72 cats suffering from IBD. The study found that symptoms improved in 83% of the cats and 80% of the dogs. As the availability of such FMT solutions is still meager, there is plenty of room in the market for businesses to follow AnimalBiome’s footsteps and invest in creating oral FMT solutions.

Driving adoption through at-home administration kits

Another growth area for players is the development of user-friendly oral at-home administration kits for more straightforward treatment requirements. There is a demand for such easy-to-administer at-home solutions in the animal FMT space, as getting the pet to a vet is typically stressful for both the animal and the owner.

A 2011 survey published in the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) journal indicated that out of 2,188 dog and cat owners polled, 38% of dog owners and 58% of cat owners said their pet “hates” visiting the vet. If FMT has to be repeated or spread over multiple visits, the treatment process is also time-consuming, further decreasing the likelihood of completing the therapy.

At-home application solutions can help make significant inroads into FMT acceptance, as pet owners are more likely to opt for such treatments rather than in-hospital procedures whenever possible.

Increasing specialization and targeted treatments

Developing more target FMT treatments (specific to animal breeds or conditions) appears to be a good area of opportunity. Currently, studies are being carried out to develop farm-specific FMT to treat various conditions in cattle.

A 2022 article published in PLOS One, a peer-reviewed journal, investigated the effects of farm-specific FMT on pre-weaned calves. The study indicated that FMT-treated calves’ alpha-diversity (indicating microbiota richness) had increased. It also suggested that the success of FMT will improve with proper criteria for donor selection. This offers scope for further investigation for market players to develop such targeted therapies.

Expanding through complementary products

Players can grow their FMT business by building a range of products to complement FMT therapies, such as specialized probiotics or microbiome health supplements.

A 2015 study published in BMJ Open, an open-access medical journal, has indicated that the gut microbiome can be strengthened and balanced in humans with the help of proper diet, probiotics, prebiotics, and FMT. Researchers are now looking into the positive impact of probiotics on animal health, such as improvement in digestion, lowered risk of gastrointestinal diseases, etc. With support from such research studies, players can work to offer comprehensive treatment and maintenance product lines.

Working on awareness through educational initiatives

Apart from immediate business opportunities, players might also have to get involved in activities that inform, educate, and help build the FMT market. Though it is a promising emerging therapy, very little information is available on veterinary FMT. In order to reap long-term rewards, businesses should spotlight and promote FMT and its positive effects on animal health to the vet community and the public by launching educational drives, conferences, and other similar initiatives. Existing players already recognize this need. For instance, Amend Pet, a major company in the veterinary FMT segment, has free educational courses in the form of RACE (Registry of Approved Continuing Education)-approved videos for veterinarians.

Increasing adoption through collaborations

Further, players in the FMT space should collaborate with veterinary hospitals and other organizations dealing with animal health to work with them and increase FMT adoption.

An example of this is the strategic collaboration between Amend Pet and the Association of Shelter Veterinarians (ASV) that started in May 2023. With this partnership, Amend Pet plans to offer easy-to-use and affordable FMT treatments to shelter dogs. The ASV has over 2000 veterinary professionals and 23 student chapters worldwide. Partnerships such as this can be expected to raise awareness about FMT among the public and veterinary sector, leading to improved adoption rates.

EOS Perspective

While veterinary FMT still has a long way to go before becoming a mainstream therapy, it is already an exciting field with many expected developments.

The spectrum of animal health conditions that can be treated or managed with FMT will continue to expand to include immune system disorders, metabolic conditions, and behavioral issues. Progress in the animal FMT space will likely be linked to research done in human FMT, as these studies can be extended to animal healthcare or at least be a starting point for animal FMT-specific research, revolutionizing veterinary treatments.

Improvements in donor selection processes, such as more stringent and advanced inspection of the donor’s gut microbial diversity and behavior evaluation, can be expected as many studies are now being done to understand the connection between behavior and gut microbes.

Rapid technological development, especially in AI, is expected to influence veterinary FMT as well. AI-powered equipment might be used for guided rectal FMT treatments to improve the procedures’ accuracy. This is likely to be safer for the animal and can prompt pet owners to choose FMT to treat their pet’s gastrointestinal issues. Companies investing in research can expect growth in this field.

All these developments, if accompanied by simultaneous partnerships between industry players and veterinary clinics, offer a promising future for the animal health FMT. The return on investment in this sector might not be immediate. For now, the industry needs to prioritize driving adoption, educating and disseminating knowledge, and gathering scientific data and empirical evidence to build a sound understanding of FMT in veterinarians, pet owners, and regulatory bodies. Nonetheless, the industry prospects are promising, and the players can expect the long-term benefits to be substantial.

02/05/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

The Promise of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in the USA

Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) is a diagnostic tool that sequences a patient’s tumor DNA to identify genetic mutations that drive cancer growth. Insurance coverage for CGP varies widely depending on the type of cancer, the patient’s stage of disease, and the specific test being used. Despite CGP’s tremendous potential to transform cancer care and diagnosis, its implementation is hindered by inconsistent insurance coverage policies.

Comprehensive genomic profiling is a cutting-edge technology that is revolutionizing cancer diagnosis and treatment. Unlike standard gene testing, which looks at a small number of genes, CGP analyzes thousands of genes across the entire genome. This provides a much more comprehensive picture of genetic mutations that may be driving a patient’s cancer, thereby leading to more personalized and effective treatment options. Despite the benefits of CGP, access to this technology remains limited due to a variety of factors, which include high costs, limited insurance coverage, and regulatory hurdles.

One of the biggest challenges for CGP has been payer acceptability. Payers tend to be cautious about covering CGP because it is a relatively new technology, and there is still some debate about its clinical value and cost-effectiveness.

Private payers in the USA are more likely to cover CGP for patients with rare or complex cancers or for patients who have failed standard therapies, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

In contrast, public payers, such as Medicare, may have more restrictive criteria for coverage and only cover CGP for certain types of cancer or for patients who meet specific clinical criteria. These criteria could include a requirement that CGP tests be performed in Medicare-accredited labs. Other major public payers in the USA, such as Medicaid and Veterans Affairs (VA) health plans, also cover CGP, but each payer has different criteria for coverage. Generally, they require that the test is ordered by a physician and is deemed medically necessary for the patient’s treatment plan.

The lack of coverage makes it financially inaccessible for many patients, which limits the ability of healthcare providers to consistently offer CGP testing. This presents a significant obstacle to the widespread adoption of this promising diagnostic tool. Some payers are hesitant to reimburse CGP due to concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the test and the lack of long-term data on clinical outcomes. However, major public and private payers such as Medicare, UnitedHealth (UHC), Aetna, and Cigna, among others, have included CGP tests in their health policies in recent years, nonetheless, the coverage remains uneven.

Cost and regulatory hurdles are stifling the growth of CGP

Payers have historically covered traditional testing, such as immunohistochemistry (IHC), fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and single gene tests, but have been hesitant to provide coverage for CGP. This is mainly because these tests have been around for longer than CGP, so payers are more familiar with them and are more comfortable covering them.

Another reason is that CGP is more expensive than traditional tests. While the exact cost varies depending on the specific test and lab performing it, the cost of CGP tests can range from a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars, while traditional tests are typically in the range of a few hundred dollars. This is due to the fact that CGP tests are more complex as they analyze a large number of genes, whereas traditional tests focus on analyzing one specific gene at a time, making them less expensive.

According to a study published in 2021 by the Journal of Clinical Oncology, CGP could improve overall survival by about 6% (0.06 years, a relatively small but meaningful amount of time for cancer patients and their families) for US$9,000 per patient, compared with traditional testing strategies. On the other hand, as per a 2022 article by the American Journal of Managed Care, although the cost of CGP tests is high, these tests can help identify the most effective treatment options for each patient, which can lead to better outcomes and fewer unnecessary treatments, which in turn can lower overall healthcare costs.

Read our related Perspective:
 Commentary: Genetic Testing Fraud – The Next Big Concern for the US Healthcare?

To further educate the industry about the benefits associated with CGP, Illumina, a California-based biotechnology company, established Access to Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (ACGP) in 2020, which is an alliance of seven members, including leading molecular diagnostics companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and laboratories. ACGP aims to educate about CGP for advanced cancer patients by engaging directly with the US payers.

Additionally, a few strategies are being adopted by the healthcare industry, such as bundling CGP tests with other diagnostic tests to reduce the overall cost per test. This way, instead of running a CGP test and a separate test for a specific genetic mutation, both tests could be combined into one-panel tests. This could reduce the overall cost per test by eliminating the need to run two separate tests, as well as reducing the need for multiple lab visits and samples. However, it’s important to note that the savings may vary depending on the specific tests and the laboratory.

The ambiguity surrounding reimbursement for CGP tests among the insurers also stems from the FDA’s ongoing debate over proper classification and regulatory framework for these tests. While the FDA recognizes the potential benefits of CGP, concerns linger about its quality, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness. To address these concerns, the FDA has been working with stakeholders to establish reimbursement policies that make CGP tests accessible to patients. These stakeholders range from academic institutions (such as Mayo Clinic and Memorial Sloan Kettering) to health insurance companies (such as UnitedHealthcare and Aetna) to CGP test developers (such as Guardant Health and Foundation Medicine).

Payers’ coverage for CGP is expanding but is highly uneven

Payers, such as Aetna and Cigna, have included CGP tests in their health plans but do not cover all types of cancers. While an increasing number of payers is expanding coverage for CGP, there is a lot of variation in terms of what is covered and for which types or stages of cancer.

For instance, Aetna announced in 2020 that it would cover CGP testing for certain types of breast and colorectal cancer. However, the coverage for each type of cancer gene mutation is different.

While Aetna’s policies for CGP coverage are very nuanced, Cigna’s are complicated. Cigna‘s coverage varies depending on the type of CGP test being ordered, whether the test is considered medically necessary for the patient’s condition, and the patient’s location. Sometimes, the patient needs to meet certain criteria to be eligible for coverage (e.g., only the advanced stage of cancer is considered under coverage).

Similarly, UHC, one of the leading private health plan providers in the USA, also limited its CGP coverage to patients with advanced cancers, such as lung, breast, or colorectal cancer. However, in early 2023, UHC issued a new policy expanding coverage for CGP tests from Foundation Medicine and Guardant Health. The new policy covers CGP tests for a wider range of cancers, including early-stage cancers and other types of tumors. The goal of this policy change is to increase access to CGP testing and to help catch cancer earlier when it is more treatable.

Aetna and Cigna are not far behind in expanding their coverage for CGP tests. In 2023, both companies included additional benefits for members receiving CGP testing, such as on-site care in some facilities and counseling services.

There’s an increasing recognition that CGP can help identify patients who may benefit from targeted therapies. Overall, payers are becoming more open to covering CGP, but there is still variability in their policies and coverage levels.

EOS Perspective

The adoption of CGP is creating a ripple effect throughout the healthcare industry. Payers are increasingly recognizing the value of CGP tests and expanding their coverage. By providing broader coverage for CGP tests, payers can position themselves as offering more cutting-edge care options. This can give them a competitive edge over other insurers who may not provide coverage for these tests. In addition, by broadening the coverage of tests for early-stage cancer, payers can help to identify and treat cancers earlier, which can lead to better outcomes for patients and potentially lower costs in the long run.

Further, the growing adoption of CGP has an impact on healthcare industry stakeholders beyond payers. It is likely to fuel a shift towards precision medicine, where treatments are tailored to the individual patient based on genetic information.

Diagnostic companies are likely to invest in CGP technology to stay competitive and offer more comprehensive tests. For healthcare providers, offering CGP tests allows them to differentiate themselves, improve patient outcomes, and attract more patients. However, it can also add complexity to the treatment process and increase costs if not managed correctly (e.g., wrong interpretation of genetic information due to the large amount of data for individual patients).

For test kit producers and labs, CGP is creating new opportunities for growth and market share but also increased competition and pressure to lower costs and improve accuracy.

Overall, while still not fully embraced by the industry, CGP is shaking up the healthcare landscape, creating both great opportunities and new challenges for all stakeholders.

06/03/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Soaring Healthcare Costs in the USA: Is Greed Winning Over Welfare?

404views

Americans have been struggling with access to affordable healthcare for years, with thousands of stories of an unexpected illness driving a patient to bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the USA spends much more than European nations on healthcare but covers the smallest percentage of the healthcare costs. Wasteful spending, excessive administrative costs, no limit to medicines prices, lack of a single unified interface system, and passive attitude by the government are all building blocks of a wall separating Americans from the quality and affordable healthcare system expected from any developed country.

According to a 2020 article published by Harvard, the annual cost of healthcare in the USA was around US$3.5 trillion, of which around 33% is believed to have been squandered. Simultaneously, healthcare costs are soaring, contributing significantly to several issues around the delivery and affordability of healthcare in the USA. The same Harvard article revealed that about 40-44% of Americans decided to omit or postpone medical treatment, tests, or care owing to their high costs. Although the USA has the highest national healthcare expenditure, the country registers one of the lowest life expectancies among the developed economies. Additionally, around 10% of the population does not have health insurance.

This problem is so deep-rooted and widespread that the issue of healthcare costs was referred to as the “tapeworm of American economic competitiveness” by investor Warren Buffet. Almost 67% of the US population wishes the federal government to regulate healthcare prices in the country. Yet, despite it being such a grave problem, the US government does not seem to be taking any (visibly) constructive measures to resolve it. While significant political aspects are certainly at play, a deep dive into the cost drivers of the US healthcare system might shed some light on the complexity of this issue.

Soaring Healthcare Costs in the USA – Is Greed Winning Over Welfare by EOS Intelligence

Healthcare administrative costs hold the lion’s share of total healthcare expenditure

One of the major components of healthcare costs in the USA is the annual cost of healthcare administration at US$1,055 per capita, according to a 2021 estimation by the Peterson Foundation. The US spending on healthcare administrative purposes is by far the highest globally. Compared with Germany, the second-highest spender on healthcare administration at US$306 per capita, the stark difference of US$749 per capita speaks volumes about the current situation in the USA. The country also registers the world’s highest share of administrative costs in total healthcare costs, at around 15-30% annually. Wasteful administrative spending is estimated to contribute about half of that share (7.5% to 15% of the country’s total healthcare spending), translating to anywhere from US$285 billion to US$570 billion in 2019.

The USA spent around US$950 billion in 2019 on healthcare administration, which translates to 25% of the national healthcare expenditure (NHE) that year. A significant part of the excessive administrative expenditure is billing and insurance-related costs (BIR), including overhead costs for medical billing and services such as claim submission, claim reconciliation, and payment processing. Profits made by the insurance companies account for the highest share of BIR costs. Healthcare providers also get part of these administrative costs for note-taking and record-keeping during the medical billing process. According to an article published by Harvard in 2020, there are occupations in US healthcare that do not exist elsewhere, such as medical-record coding to claim-submission specialists. Further, the article claims that in other countries, such as Germany and Switzerland, where multiple payers and private providers exist, healthcare administration costs less than 50% of the USA equivalent.

As per 2019 McKinsey research, the USA could decrease healthcare administrative expenditure by 30% through automation and streamlining of the BIR processes. Claims processing software enables automation of BIR processes, however, only 15% of US hospitals employ such software, as per Definitive Healthcare tech data.

Healthcare services costs, including physicians’ salaries, empty patients’ pockets

A 2018 JAMA study revealed that physician salaries in the USA were higher than in other developed countries. A survey by Medscape in 2021 revealed that physicians earned the most in the USA compared to other developed countries. On average, the annual income of physicians in the USA was US$316,000, followed by Germany (US$183,000) and the UK (US$138,000).

As per 2019 Commonwealth Fund research, Americans are much less likely to consult a doctor in case of a health issue, at half the rate compared to other developed countries. This can be attributed to the fact that the cost of healthcare services is considerably higher in the USA vis-à-vis other developed nations. According to a 2017 report, the average cost of a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in the USA was US$78,100, whereas the same procedure cost only US$11,700 in the Netherlands. While the procedure cost is already far lower, in the Netherlands, patients will likely have the procedure cost fully covered by insurance without any co-payment. The USA also reported higher costs for outpatient procedures such as MRI scans and colonoscopies compared with other developed countries.

Skyrocketing prescription drug prices further inflate healthcare costs

As per OECD, in 2019, the average spending on prescription drugs by an American was about US$1,126 per capita, which was over double that in other developed nations. As per CMS, prescription drug spending in the USA by the federal government is expected to grow by 6.1% through 2027.

The growth in prescription drug spending could be attributed to increased focus on specialty pharmaceuticals and precision medicine. Specialty medicines are experimental therapies for treating cancers, autoimmune diseases, or chronic conditions. Some specialty medicines employ genetic data to provide highly targeted, personalized therapy. Owing to the complex nature of these drugs, they are generally expensive to develop and distribute.

For instance, a novel specialty drug called Hemgenix to treat hemophilia B is the most expensive drug ever approved by the FDA. The price of a single infusion of this gene therapy is around US$3.5 million. No healthcare providers have submitted a claim for Hemgenix so far in 2023.

Apart from specialty medicines, pricing strategies for drugs in general play a significant role in soaring healthcare costs in the USA. Drug producers set a list price based on their product’s estimated value, and the price list can be increased by the producers as they see fit. In the USA, there are few regulations to curb producers from increasing drug prices in this way.

Chronic diseases add fuel to the fire of escalating healthcare costs

As per the CDC, six out of ten adults in the USA have a chronic disease or condition. The most common chronic diseases or conditions in the USA include heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Furthermore, according to 2022 research published in the National Library of Medicine, of the population 50 years and older, the number with at least one chronic disease is estimated to increase by 99.5% from 71.522 million in 2020 to 142.66 million by 2050.

There is a robust correlation between the prevalence of chronic diseases and rising healthcare costs. As per a report from the American Action Forum, the USA spends about US$3.7 trillion annually for the treatment of chronic health diseases and the consequent loss of economic productivity. Routine office visits, prescriptions, outpatient treatments, or emergency care account for most of this healthcare spending in the USA.

Expanding geriatric population contributes to rising healthcare costs

According to the US Census Bureau, 21% of the US population is expected to be 65 years or older by 2030. The growing aging population is expected to drive healthcare costs in the USA in two ways: through Medicare enrollment growth and the increase in the prevalence of more complex and chronic conditions. Medicare had over 65 million beneficiaries as of March 2023, a number that is expected to increase by 2030 dramatically. This enrollment growth will impact NHE since Medicare is a publicly funded program. As per the CMS, in 2020, the USA spent US$900.8 billion on Medicare, and the CMS expects that Medicare spending will surge by 7.6% annually through 2028.

The elderly population is vulnerable to chronic conditions such as hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, coronary heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease, among others. According to the National Council on Aging, 80% of older Americans have a chronic condition, and 77% of older adults have two or more chronic conditions. These chronic conditions will require ongoing treatment or long-term care at a nursing home or assisted living facility. These outcomes will account for increasing healthcare costs and overall national healthcare expenditure in the USA.

Greed over welfare

Corporate avarice is another factor said to be responsible for the rising healthcare costs in the USA. Insulin list price in the USA is 10 times higher than that in Canada. Not only pharma companies but also renowned hospitals charge more for the same service compared with less renowned hospitals. This applies to various services, from complex surgeries to simple X-rays.

Price regulation is the only solution to this problem that could be implemented with enough political will. The US state of Maryland has introduced this regulation for hospital services, while most European countries have regulated the prices of pharmaceuticals. However, implementing price regulation would mean that the compensation of the top management executives or the CXOs would decline, or the budget for R&D would reduce. This causes much resistance among top management executives to arrive at a constructive decision of choosing between self or service. However, the fact that patients delay treatment because of rising prices speaks strongly in favor of introducing at least some level of price regulation.

EOS Perspective

Standardization is one of the key ways to decrease administrative costs. Just for comparison purposes, checking out of a grocery store is easy because all products possess bar codes, and all credit card machines are the same or uniform. Similarly, mobile banking and inter-banking are straightforward since the Federal Reserve has set standards for how banks should interface with each other.

However, the American healthcare system has been immune to such a standardization. Every health insurer needs a different bar-code-equivalent and payment-systems submission. In addition, it is tough to send electronic medical records (EMRs) from one hospital to another because there is no mandate by the federal government for them to be in compatible formats. Additionally, this lack of standardization benefits many healthcare providers, as they strive to avoid the interchange of EMRs to prevent patients from switching doctors.

Standardization is possible only when prominent stakeholders are involved in it, agree to it, and decide they need it. The largest stakeholder in the US healthcare system is the federal government. Buying capacity and administrative control to compel payers and providers to adopt billing and interface rules to standardize the process lies within the federal government’s responsibilities.

Similarly, a price cap regulation needs to be brought about in the pharmaceutical sector. Price regulation is the only way to lower the prices of prescription drugs. Apart from this, the federal government needs to implement price cap regulation in healthcare services such as X-rays, MRIs, CT scans, etc.

It is the government that should introduce regulations that put caps on drugs and services prices, at least in certain product and service groups. It is the government that should establish the infrastructure to materialize standardization and introduce a deadline by which all interactions must be standardized.

However, to date, the federal government only considers providing insurance – particularly Medicare and Medicaid – to people as its role rather than looking out for the entire healthcare system as a unit. This mentality needs to change if healthcare costs are to be brought down.

Inflated COVID-19 Tests Prices in Africa Why and What Now by EOS Intelligence

13/10/2023by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Inflated COVID-19 Test Prices in Africa: Why and What Now?

440views

With the subsidence of COVID-19 and the announcement of the ending of the Global Health Emergency by WHO in May 2023, the world has started to move on and embark on its path back to pre-COVID normalcy. However, some of the lessons the pandemic has brought are hard to forget. One such lesson, and more importantly, an issue that demands attention and action, is the prevalent price disparity of COVID-19 tests in low-income regions of the world, such as Africa, compared to some more affluent countries, such as the USA.

High test prices across Africa, in comparison with prices in more developed parts of the world, such as the USA, have become evident after the onslaught of COVID-19 on the African continent. To illustrate this with an example, the average selling price of SD Biosensor’s STANDARD M nCoV Real-Time Detection kit comprising 96 tests per kit in the USA is US$576 compared to US$950 in African countries. This translates to a unit price of US$6 in the USA compared to US$9.9 in African countries, amounting to a 65% difference between the price points in the two regions. The price disparity in Africa vis-à-vis the USA ranges from +30% to over +60% in the case of PCR-based COVID-19 tests in our sample when compared to the prices of the same products that are being sold in the USA. This leads to the crucial question of why these tests are so costly in a place where they should be sold at a lower price, if not donated, owing to the continent’s less fortunate economic standing.

The Why: Reasons for inflated price in Africa

Several factors, such as Africa’s heavy dependence on medical goods imports, a limited number of source countries exporting medical goods to the continent, paucity of local pharma producers, higher bargaining power of foreign producers enabling them to set extortionate prices, shipping and storage costs, and bureaucratic factors drive the inflated prices of COVID-19 test kits in African countries.

Africa is heavily dependent on imports for its diagnostic, medicinal, and pharma products. To elucidate this, all African countries are net importers of pharma products. Additionally, the imports of medicines and medical goods, such as medical equipment, increased by around 19% average annual growth rate during the span of 20 years, from US$4.2 billion in 1998 to US$20 billion in 2018.

In 2019, medical goods accounted for 6.8% of total imports in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), whereas they accounted for only 1.1% of exports. The SSA region experiences a varied dependence on the imports of medical goods. This is evident from the fact that Togo and Liberia’s share of imports of medical goods was around 2%, while that of Burundi was about 18% in 2019.

The 2020 UNECA (United Nations Economic Commission of Africa) estimates suggest that around 94% of the continent’s pharma supplies are imported from outside of Africa, and the annual cost is around US$16 billion, with EU-27 accounting for around 51% of the imports, followed by India (19%), and Switzerland (8%). This means that only 6% of the medicinal and pharma products are produced locally in the African continent, creating a situation where foreign producers and suppliers have drastically higher bargaining power.

This became particularly evident during the 2020-2022 COVID-19 pandemic, when the demand for COVID-19 tests was extremely high compared to the supply of these tests, making it easier for foreign suppliers to set an exploitative price for their products in the African continent.

The lack of competition and differentiation in the region aggravated the situation further. There are only a handful of suppliers and producers in the continent that provide COVID-19 tests. To elucidate this further, there were only 375 pharmaceutical producers in the continent as of 2019 for a population of over 1.4 billion people. When compared with countries with similar populations, such as India and China, which have around 10,500 and 5,000 pharmaceutical companies, respectively, the scarcity in the African continent starts to manifest itself more conspicuously. To illustrate this further, only 37 countries in Africa were capable of producing medicines as of 2017, with only South Africa among these 37 nations able to produce active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) to some extent, whereas the rest of the countries had to depend on API imports.

Furthermore, the SSA region gets medical goods supplies from a small number of regions, such as the EU, China, India, the USA, and the UK. As of 2019, over 85% of the medical goods that were exported to SSA were sourced from these five regions. It is interesting to note that the source countries slightly differ for the SSA region and the African continent as a whole, with the EU and India being the common source regions for both. With a 36% share in all medical goods imports to the African continent in 2019, the EU is the top exporting region of medical goods to SSA, albeit with a declining share over the last few years. India and China share the second spot with a 17-18% share each in all medical goods imports supplied to SSA in 2019. Considerable concentration is observed in the import of COVID-19 test kits to SSA, with a 55% share in all medical goods imports supplied by the EU and a 10% share by the USA in 2019.

To provide a gist of how the above-mentioned factors attributed to the inflated prices of COVID-19 tests in the region, Africa’s medical goods industry, being import-driven, is heavily dependent on five regions that supply the majority of the medical goods needs of SSA. In addition to this, the scarcity of local pharma producers across the continent aggravated the situation further. This, in turn, gave an opportunity for foreign producers to charge a higher price for these COVID-19 tests in Africa.

Additionally, storage and shipping costs of COVID-19 tests also play a significant role in the pricing of these tests. The actual share of shipping and storage costs is difficult to gauge owing to the fact that there is not enough transparency in disclosing such pieces of information by test producers and suppliers.

Another aspect contributing to the inflated prices of these tests in African countries is bureaucratic factors. According to Folakunmi Pinheiro, a competition law writer based in Cambridge, UK, some African state governments (such as in Lagos) take exorbitantly high cuts on the sale of COVID-19 tests, allowing labs to keep no more than 19-20% of the profits per test after covering their overhead costs such as electricity, IT, logistics, internet, salary, and consumables costs including PPE, gloves, face masks, etc.

Since labs in Africa must purchase these tests from foreign producers, they have limited room for maneuvering with their profit margin, given the high test price and the cuts imposed by the local governments. Pinheiro further simplifies the profits in absolute terms. The cost of a PCR-based COVID-19 test, analyzed in laboratories (not at-home tests), in Lagos in February 2022 was around NGN45,250 (~US$57.38), and the labs selling and performing these tests on patients would make a profit of around NGN9000 (~US$11.41) per test which translates to 19.89% of the total cost of the single test. It is believed that this profit is after the overhead costs are covered, implying that the majority of the profits go to the state government of Lagos.

Inflated COVID-19 Tests Prices in Africa Why and What Now by EOS Intelligence

The What Now: Reactions

To combat the inflated prices of COVID-19 tests developed by foreign producers, many African price and competition regulatory organizations undertook efforts to reduce the prices of these tests to a significantly lower level in their respective countries. While R&D was ongoing for the making of groundbreaking low-priced alternative testing technologies that were ideal for African climate and economic conditions, many academic institutes tied up with foreign companies to launch these tests in the African markets. Additionally, the African Union (AU) and Africa CDC had set new goals to meet 60% of the vaccine needs of the continent domestically by fostering local production by 2040. Lastly, many African countries were able to eliminate or reduce import tariffs on medical goods during the pandemic for a considerable amount of time.

From price or competition regulatory bodies

As a response to the high PCR-based COVID-19 test prices in South Africa, the country’s Competition Commission (CCSA) was successful in reducing the prices for COVID-19 testing in three private laboratories, namely Pathcare, Ampath, and Lancet by around 41%, from R850 (~US$54.43) to R500 (~US$31.97) in January 2022. The CCSA asked these private clinical laboratory companies for financial statements and costs of COVID-19 testing as part of the investigation that started in October 2021. CCSA further insisted on removing the potential cost padding (an additional cost included in an estimated cost due to lack of sufficient information) and unrelated costs and thus arrived at the R500 (~US$31.97) price. Furthermore, the CCSA could significantly reduce the price of rapid antigen tests by around 57% from R350 (~US$18.96) to R150 (~US$8.12). However, it is believed that there was still room for further reduction in rapid antigen test price because the cost of rapid antigen tests in South Africa was around R50 (US$2.71). Although the magnitude to which this price reduction was possible is hard to analyze owing to the fact that there was not enough transparency in revealing the cost elements by these test producers.

From local producers, labs, and academia-corporate consortia

The fact that Africa is a low-income region with lower disposable income compared with affluent countries, in addition to its unfavorable climate, has driven local scientists to develop alternative, low-cost testing solutions with faster TAT and minimal storage needs.

African scientists were believed to have the potential to develop such cheaper COVID-19 tests, having had the necessary know-how gained through the development of tests for diseases such as Ebola and Marburg before. The high prices of COVID-19 tests in the African markets have compelled local universities to tie up with some foreign in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) producers to develop new, innovative, low-cost, alternative technologies.

To cite an example, the Senegal-based Pasteur Institute developed a US$1 finger-prick at-home antigen test for COVID-19 in partnership with Mologic, a UK-based biotech company. This test does not require laboratory analysis or electricity and produces results in around 10 minutes. This test was launched in Senegal as per a December 2022 publication in the Journal of Global Health. Although this test’s accuracy cannot match the high-throughput tests developed by foreign producers, the low-cost COVID-19 tests proved to be useful in African conditions where large-scale testing was the need of the hour and high-temperature climate was not conducive to cold storage of other types of tests.

Countries such as Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda tried to increase their testing capacity with their homegrown low-cost alternatives as the prices of the tests developed by foreign manufacturers were exorbitantly high. Senegal and Uganda stepped up to produce their own rapid tests, while in remote areas of Nigeria, field labs with home-grown tests were set up to address the need for COVID testing that remained unaddressed because of the high prices of the foreign tests.

Dr. Misaki Wayengera, the pioneer behind the revolutionary, low-cost paper strip test for rapid detection of filoviruses including Ebola and Marburg with a TAT of five minutes, believes that a low-cost, easy-to-use, point-of-care (POC) diagnostic test for detecting COVID-19 is ideal for equatorial settings in Africa providing test results within a shorter time span while the patient waits. He spearheaded the development of a low-cost COVID-19 testing kit with a TAT of one to two minutes, along with other Ugandan researchers and scientists.

From the African Union and CDC Africa

As an aftermath of the adversities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the African Union (AU) and African Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC Africa) put forth a goal of producing 60% of Africa’s vaccine needs locally by 2040. A US$ 45 million worth of investment was approved in June 2023 for the development of vaccines in Africa under the partnership of Dakar, Senegal-based Pasteur Institute (IPD), and Mastercard Foundation. The goal of MADIBA (Manufacturing in Africa for Disease Immunization and Building Autonomy) includes improving biomanufacturing in the continent by training a dedicated staff for MADIBA and other vaccine producers from Africa, partnering with African universities, and fostering science education amongst students in Africa.

Additionally, the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), in partnership with the World Bank Group, Germany, and France, announced in June 2021 a joint investment to scale up vaccine production capacity in Africa. The investment was expected to empower an undisclosed South African vaccine producer to ramp up production of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to over 500 million doses (planned by the end of 2022).

From FTAs such as the Africa Continental Free Trade Agreement

Intra-regional trade within Africa (as opposed to overseas trade) from 2015 to 2017 was only 15.2% of total trade, compared to 67% within Europe, 61% within Asia, and 47% within the Americas. While supply chain disruptions hampered the availability of COVID-19 testing kits, many African nations could develop home-grown solutions locally to address the issue. Africa Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) was set up on January 1, 2021, with the intention of improving intra-regional trade of goods, including medical supplies. AfCFTA, the largest FTA after WTO, impacts 55 countries constituting a 1.3 billion population in an economy of US$3.4 trillion. Inadequate intercontinental collaboration is one of the primary restraints for medical supply chains. In order for health systems to fully capitalize on AfCFTA, partnerships with the African Union’s (AU) five Regional Collaborating Centers and current global healthcare organizations need to be increased.

From state governments

Sub-Saharan African countries have the highest MFN (most favored nation) tariff rate (9.2%) on medical goods, compared to developed nations’ tariffs (1.9%) as well as emerging economies’ tariffs (6.6%). However, out of 45 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, only eight countries could remove or decrease import tariffs and value-added taxes on medical goods on a temporary basis to aid the public health situation during the pandemic in 2020, as per Global Trade Alert. These eight countries include Angola, Chad, Malawi, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, South Africa, and Zambia. In three of these eight countries, these measures had already expired as of April 2021. Furthermore, to promote intra-regional trade, 33 Sub-Saharan African countries provide preferential tariff rates of around 0.2% on average on some medical products. At the same time, the average MFN tariff rate for the same medical goods is around 15% for these Sub-Saharan African countries.

EOS Perspective

Since the demand for COVID-19 test kits was significantly higher compared to their supply, producers and suppliers had a higher bargaining power, because of which they set an extortionate price. However, that being said, African competition authorities did their best to curb the prices, although there was still room for more.

Secondly, policy changes need to be brought about at the state level to allow increased competition in the African markets, which in turn would lower the price of the tests. African governments need to consider a more patient-centric and consumer-protective approach wherein competition is likely to facilitate the launch and consequent market uptake of better-quality products available at lower prices.

Additionally, prices and costs of COVID-19 tests should be monitored on a regular basis. The underlying problem of inflated COVID-19 test prices is likely to cease only when competition in the PCR testing sector is encouraged, and government policies of pricing the tests are more patient-oriented.

Moreover, robust intra-regional trade coupled with strong local manufacturing and lower trade barriers is expected to help build Africa’s more sustainable health system.

22/02/2022by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Diagnostics Gain Spotlight amid Coronavirus Outbreak

381views

It took 60 days for global COVID-19 infections to reach 100,000, but this figure doubled in the following 12-14 days, and the addition of next 100,000 cases took only 3 more days. Because of highly contagious nature of the novel coronavirus, testing became essential to keep the epidemic under control. As a result, there was a spike in global demand for coronavirus testing kits. As per McKinsey’s estimates, in May 2020, global demand for coronavirus testing was 14 million to 16 million per week, but less than 10 million tests were being conducted.

Industry was quick to respond to the rise in demand

The widespread outbreak of coronavirus required the manufacturers to develop and launch new testing kits in large volumes in a short duration of time. Diagnostics kit suppliers responded promptly to this spike in demand by developing new coronavirus testing kits. Roche Diagnostics, for instance, developed coronavirus test in about six weeks – such diagnostic tests generally take 18 months or more to reach regulatory review stage. In 2020, Roche developed a total of 15 solutions for coronavirus diagnosis.

Governments across the world eased up regulatory procedures for manufacturers in order to allow rapid development and commercialization of the coronavirus testing kits. This paved way for many companies to quickly launch new products to the market. For instance, a Korean firm, Seegene, developed coronavirus testing kit in two weeks and got approval from Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) in another two weeks’ time. Such approvals generally take more than six months in Korea.

Furthermore, standard regulatory process for approval of diagnostic kits in the USA typically take several months, but considering the public health emergency in the event of pandemic, the FDA issued emergency use authorizations to expedite the process of bringing coronavirus test kits to the market. Emergency use authorizations are like interim approvals provided on the basis of sufficient evidence to suggest a diagnostics test is effective and the benefits outweighs potential risks.

By the end of 2020, the FDA granted emergency use authorization to 225 diagnostic tests for coronavirus detection, including test kits developed by Abbott Laboratories, Roche, Cepheid, Clinomics, Princeton BioMeditech, UPenn, Inno Diagnostics, Ipsum Diagnostics, Co-Diagnostics, QIAGEN, DiaSorin, BioMérieux, and Humanigen.

Leading companies with adequate resources quickly ramped up their production capacity by multifold in line with the rising demand. For instance, a US-based firm, Thermo Fisher Scientific, increased the global production of coronavirus test kits from 50,000 per week in January 2020 to 10 million per week by June 2020. In 2020, Roche spent CHF 137 million (~US$149 million) to ramp up production capacity and supply chain for all COVID-19-related testing products.

Some companies also received government grants and private investment to scale up their production capacity. For instance, in July 2020, BD (Becton, Dickinson and Company) received a US$24 million investment from the US government to scale up production of coronavirus test kits by 50%, thereby, enabling the company to produce 12 million test kits per month by the end of February 2021.

The pandemic encouraged the shift towards decentralizing diagnostics

While the test kit manufacturers were trying to achieve round the clock production to meet the demand, they struggled with global supply chain disruptions which were also induced by the pandemic.

Coronavirus testing requires several components including specialized chemicals and laboratory testing equipment. Roche, for example, manufactures coronavirus tests in the USA but procures components of the test kit from different countries. One of the important components of test kits is reagent, a specialized liquid used for the identification of coronavirus. Roche produces these reagents mainly in Germany and few other production sites located across the world.

Further, the test kits are often compatible only with company’s own testing equipment and systems. For instance, the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 test kit runs on the cobas 6800 or 8800 systems. The cobas 8800 system includes approximately 23,000 components which are procured from different parts of the world. In addition to this, the production involves 101 sub-assemblies and accumulated assembly time of about 450 hours each. Final production of these instruments from Roche takes place in Switzerland.

Manufacturing of a coronavirus testing kit involves complex supply chain. Spread of coronavirus forced countries to implement extreme measures including lockdowns and trade restrictions which impacted the supply chain of test kit manufacturers. Producing all the testing components and equipment at one place is near to impossible. For instance, the production of reagents involves highly sophisticated and sensitive processes, and thus, setting up a new production site to manufacture reagents on a large scale would take several months. Setting up a new production site and streamlining the procurement for such testing equipment and systems would take several years. Hence, the diagnostics firms upped their R&D activities in an effort to develop tests that could be conducted without sophisticated laboratory systems and equipment.

Moreover, the high demand for testing compelled the diagnostics practices to evolve far beyond the traditional laboratory-based business model. The need for community testing during the pandemic that challenged the operational capabilities of hospitals and diagnostics labs dictated the importance of decentralizing diagnostics for improved patient care. This gave rise to increased demand for point-of-care testing.

The two most widely used diagnostic tests for coronavirus detection are Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) and Antigen tests. RT-PCR test detect viral RNA in samples from the upper and lower respiratory tract, while antigen test is used to detect viral proteins in samples.

RT-PCR test is considered gold standard for coronavirus detection since the accuracy and reliability is high compared to Antigen test. However, RT-PCR test needs to be processed in a laboratory-setting and had turnaround time of several hours. Hence, there was a need for development of RT-PCR tests that could give faster results without the support of laboratory equipment.

On March 18, 2020, Abbott announced the launch of their first coronavirus test kit that was compatible with their system ‘m2000 RealTime’ which processed 470 tests in 24 hours and another ‘Alinity m’ system with capacity to run 1,080 tests in a 24-hour period. Since there was demand for more portable and fast testing solution, on March 30, 2020, Abbott launched a RT-PCR point-of-care test that ran on ID NOW system, which is the size of a small toaster. The test delivers results in 13 minutes or less. The test price is in the range of ~US$100.

Further, despite the limitations of accuracy and reliability, in some cases antigen test is preferred because there is no requirement of a lab specialist to conduct this test, thus making it less expensive, and the result is available in a few minutes. The industry saw an opportunity here and quickly developed rapid antigen tests that can be conducted at home without any assistance. For instance, in December 2020, the US FDA granted emergency use authorization to an Australia-based firm Ellume’s antigen test (priced at ~US$30) as first over-the-counter at-home diagnostic test for coronavirus detection. Soon after, Abbott also received emergency use authorization from FDA for its at-home rapid antigen test (priced at US$25) giving results in 15 minutes.

Other countries around the world also followed the suit by extending official authorization to the home-based tests for coronavirus detection. For instance, in February 2021, Germany’s Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) granted special approval for the first time to antigen home-test kits developed by US-based Healgen Scientific as well as China-based firms Xiamen Boson Biotech and Hangzhou Laihe Biotech.

Coronavirus crisis accelerated innovation in the field of diagnostics

In a united fight against the pandemic, governments, private sector, as well as NGOs and philanthropists across the world stepped forward to raise funds to bolster R&D efforts in coronavirus diagnostics. As per data compiled by Policy Cures Research (an Australian firm engaged in global health R&D data collection and analysis), from January 2020 to September 2020, funds worth over US$800 million were committed for coronavirus diagnostics R&D. The firm also indicated that 450+ coronavirus diagnostics products were in R&D pipeline since January 2020 to December 2020.

With firms looking to capitalize on exponentially rising demand for coronavirus testing, the development of new diagnostics technologies beyond conventionally used tests (i.e., RT-PCR and antigen tests) picked up significantly.

For instance, in May 2020, the FDA granted an emergency use authorization to first ever CRISPR-based rapid test kit developed by Sherlock Biosciences. CRISPR, an acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a gene editing technology which allows to alter the DNA. Sherlock’s rapid test is a paper-strip test (like a pregnancy test) which can be conducted at point-of-care and does not require any additional equipment for processing of the test. The test works by programming a CRISPR enzyme to release a detectable signal in presence of genetic signature for coronavirus.

In March 2020, US-based Surgisphere launched a smartphone app using Artificial Intelligence algorithms to detect coronavirus infection. This app confirms diagnosis by integrating the findings of chest CT scan and laboratory tests with clinical symptoms and exposure history. Preliminary studies found that the tool can detect coronavirus infection with 95.5% accuracy.

Further, application of nanotechnology for diagnosis of coronavirus infection is also underway. Canada-based Sona Nanotech developed a rapid antigen test using gold nanoparticles. This is a strip test that can be conducted at point-of-care and gives result in 15 minutes. Research is in progress to develop wearable sensors using nanoparticles for detection of coronavirus. In January 2021, University of California San Diego received US$1.3 million from the National Institutes of Health to develop a test strip containing nanoparticle that change color in presence of coronavirus. This test strip can be attached on a mask and used to detect coronavirus in a user’s breath or saliva.

Innovation wave was not limited to development of different types of tests but also expanded to consumables. For instance, in March 2020, HP (a company manufacturing 3D printers) teamed up with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School) to develop 3D printed nasopharyngeal swab (typically used to collect sample for coronavirus testing) and within 35 days the clinically validated swab was ready for use. By May 2020, these swabs were commercially available for the US market following the FDA approval. In June 2020, a Belgium-based 3D printing service provider, ZiggZagg, began to plan large-scale production of swabs on their fleet of HP 3D printers. By October 2020, the company had 3D-printed over 700,000 swabs for the Belgian market.

EOS Perspective

A market research firm, The Business Research Company, estimated that the global COVID-19 rapid test kits market was expected to reach a value of US$14.94 billion in 2020. Due to worldwide vaccination drive, the market is expected to decline at a rate of -54.9%, to reach US$1.37 billion in 2023.

Though the demand for coronavirus tests is expected to diminish eventually, it has supported rapid development of diagnostics infrastructure which will remain. In India, for example, only one laboratory was performing molecular assays for COVID-19 in January 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic has shifted that balance. By May 2020, some 600 Indian RT-PCR laboratories had been set up in an effort to help manage the pandemic, thousand-fold increasing testing capacity. The additional capacity will likely remain in place as the pandemic subsides, leaving the RT-PCR assay as the dominant method for diagnosing most viral infections in India in the future.

Furthermore, with surge in demand for the coronavirus testing, the provision of diagnostic services expanded beyond the purview of hospitals and laboratories. Mobile testing facilities and drive-through testing sites propped up with development of point-of-care diagnostics. For instance, Walgreens, one of the largest pharmacy chains in the USA, offer coronavirus drive-thru testing at 6,000+ locations across the country. Further, there is high-demand for home-based testing.

Diagnostics firms riding high on the COVID-19 gains have been actively scouting opportunities to strengthen their positioning in the market and prepare for the post-pandemic world. High demand for COVID-19 test kits boosted the revenues of diagnostic companies, with Roche, Thermo Fisher, PerkinElmer, Hologic, and DiaSorin among the companies benefiting. With strong balance sheet, these companies went on with M&A flurry to advance their diagnostic portfolio and other core business verticals.

As the virus originated in China, the country was better prepared and first to develop relevant detection mechanisms. By the time the virus spread to the other parts of the world, Chinese companies were ready to export detection kits globally. Coronavirus outbreak helped China to penetrate major markets such as EU and the USA in which the indigenous diagnostics companies traditionally had a stronger hold. China was a net importer of diagnostic reagents and test kits in 2019. But in 2020, after the outbreak of coronavirus, China ramped up its production capacity of diagnostic reagents and test kits, and as a result its export growth increased by more than 500% and the country became a net exporter of diagnostic reagents and test kits by the end of 2020.

This indicates that the outbreak of the pandemic has shifted the market dynamics on many fronts. As the pandemic slowly subsides, some of these shifts might partially revert, however, the way testing is performed is likely to remain.

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS

FemTech developed as an answer to inadequate healthcare for women

Several challenges slow down progress and widespread acceptance

FemTech industry is seeing significant development in some segments

General health and wellness is the fastest-growing segment

Reproductive health segment is also seeing strong demand

Oncology products are now aimed at individuals and medical professionals

Stigmatized conditions and marginalized subpopulations are increasingly addressed

Solutions are being developed in various geographies

AI and ML are expected to shape the future of FemTech

EOS Perspective

FMT is showing promising growth

The FMT sector is grappling with a multitude of pressing challenges

The sector’s future appears bright, underpinned by extensive development

EOS Perspective

Veterinary FMT is slowly but steadily growing

The FMT sector is marred with several challenges

Numerous investment opportunities are available for interested players

EOS Perspective

Cost and regulatory hurdles are stifling the growth of CGP

Payers’ coverage for CGP is expanding but is highly uneven

EOS Perspective

Healthcare administrative costs hold the lion’s share of total healthcare expenditure

Healthcare services costs, including physicians’ salaries, empty patients’ pockets

Skyrocketing prescription drug prices further inflate healthcare costs

Chronic diseases add fuel to the fire of escalating healthcare costs

Expanding geriatric population contributes to rising healthcare costs

Greed over welfare

EOS Perspective

The Why: Reasons for inflated price in Africa

The What Now: Reactions

EOS Perspective

Industry was quick to respond to the rise in demand

The pandemic encouraged the shift towards decentralizing diagnostics

Coronavirus crisis accelerated innovation in the field of diagnostics

EOS Perspective