HEALTHCARE

Home HEALTHCARE

Bridging the Gap between MDx Testing and Point-of-care by EOS Intelligence
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Bridging the Gap between MDx Testing and Point-of-care

822views

The COVID-19 pandemic brought innovation and investment to the in vitro diagnostics (IVD) market, opening new pathways to simplify and expand testing. The previously complicated and time-consuming molecular testing gradually started moving towards rapid testing, changing how we manage healthcare. The growing popularity of rapid testing gave way to self-sampling and at-home sampling, which is set to bring molecular testing closer to patients. Another noticeable transformation the industry witnessed post-pandemic was the rise of molecular testing at point-of-care (POC), which is set to disrupt the way clinicians deliver accurate diagnoses in record time.

The latest generation of IVD devices is focused on providing quick diagnosis and being cost-effective. This has led to IVD companies focusing on developing simpler and less invasive sample collection methods, such as self-sampling tests.

IVD innovation is also transforming molecular testing to make healthcare more accessible. To a certain extent, dependence on laboratories is gradually decreasing with molecular testing available at POC. A key development in this area is the use of multiplex assay, which allows to test for multiple pathogens simultaneously, allowing for early diagnosis.

Molecular testing moving near-patient

After using antigen tests during COVID-19, demand for molecular testing for a variety of diseases at POC has risen drastically. In 2023, the industry faced an acute shortage of skilled laboratory staff, further increasing the need for molecular testing to move near-patient. This has resulted in physicians and patients preferring molecular tests at POC (MPOC). Some prominent industry players, such as Cepheid, Abbott, and BioFire, offer CLIA-waived PCR instruments and multiplex assay tests for the POC setting. A CLIA-waived certification allows tests to be performed at a doctor’s office by a non-technician instead of other more complex MDx tests requiring specialized technicians.

Moving these multiplex molecular tests near-patient is revamping the IVD landscape, positively impacting both the patients and payers. Early diagnosis with POC diagnostics empowers physicians with evidence-based decision-making at an early stage. Moreover, with multiplex assays increasingly being used for MPOC and delivering results within 10-25 minutes (in the case of respiratory assays), the wait time for patients to receive the correct diagnosis has reduced substantially. This results in clinicians being able to start with proper treatment on the patient’s first visit, thus reducing the total number of patient visits. Consequently, physicians are also able to accommodate a higher number of patients.

In fact, MPOC could become a critical element of the value-based care model in the USA. The value-based program incentivizes healthcare providers/physicians to provide quality healthcare. With MPOC offering quicker turnaround time and lower testing costs, physicians/payers will likely be better incentivized and motivated to deliver high-quality services.

Growing demand for self-sampling/at-home sampling

The pandemic raised public awareness regarding the use of self-sampling kits and increased demand for them. Further, the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization to multiple assays during the pandemic to quickly onboard self-test kits and penetrate the US households with this novel testing method.

Driven by the convenience, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility offered by self-sampling kits, they are becoming increasingly popular, particularly amongst the aging population that needs tools and technologies to manage health at home. It is also proving to be a sustainable testing method, as it can be used for preventative screening as well as allows for discretion for patients who may not prefer to get tested in a laboratory or by a physician, particularly in case of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Additionally, unlike OTC tests, molecular diagnostic tests allow for better accuracy in results and are recognized by the FDA for clinical diagnosis use. This has given confidence to healthcare providers to advocate self-sampling, as they stand to benefit from bringing care to patients’ homes, eventually reducing healthcare expenses. In a value-based setting, at-home testing proves to particularly benefit physicians who are able to eliminate unnecessary patient visits.

For the prominent industry players, at-home testing represents a key opportunity area to grow in the niche direct-to-consumer testing segment. Companies are also using these tests as an opportunity to target the rural population who do not have easy access to laboratories. Besides infectious and respiratory diseases, companies are now trying to foray into other treatment areas, such as human papillomavirus (HPV). Self-sample collection for HPV has begun in Europe with BD’s Onclarity HPV assay.

EOS Perspective

Establishing a strong foothold in both self-sampling and MPOC segments is seen as a sizeable business opportunity for stakeholders of the IVD market. In the near term, it is likely for the IVD players to continue launching new assays and technologies to expand offerings.

For self-sampling, MDx players have been focusing on infectious diseases, and there still is a vast untapped market for self-sampling at home, specifically when testing for STIs. In November 2023, LetsGetChecked became the first company to secure FDA approval for chlamydia and gonorrhea at-home sample collection. This has opened doors for other players to enter this niche market, and they are likely to jump on the bandwagon by seeking FDA approvals for their STIs self-sampling kits. Major players, such as Hologic, are already gathering data to launch a self-collection device for STIs. Hologic’s Aptima Swab for STIs multi-testing is approved in the EU, and the company is now conducting trials to get approval in the USA.

In the near term, a noticeable trend in the MPOC segment is expected to be the focus of MDx players on developing multiplex assays that follow the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. There is a growing demand from physicians for multiplex assays that allow them to test for multiple viruses and deliver results in under four hours. Companies have already started to take matters into their own hands by focusing their R&D efforts on developing panels and preparing them for FDA approval and CLIA waiver. Becton Dickinson announced the launch of its first molecular diagnostics POC instrument, BD Elience, by 2025. The device is expected to allow panel testing for respiratory and sexually transmitted diseases.

Although the self-sampling and MPOC segments present many opportunities for the IVD stakeholders, some roadblocks may hinder their development and adoption. For instance, multiplex assay reimbursement schemes may hamper their widespread adoption in the POC setting. Per the latest guidelines, reimbursement schemes for multiplex assays are less favorable than those for singleplex assays. Furthermore, at present, there are no reimbursement schemes in place to reimburse for self-sampling at home, so patients are required to pay out-of-pocket.

Several players face a crucial challenge for at-home collection: proving to the FDA that the self-sample collected is not contaminated or poorly taken. FDA requirements for approval of these tests are very stringent and demand that companies prove the adequacy of the sample collected by patients to match that of laboratory collection.

Despite these challenges, self-sampling and MPOC present untapped opportunities for many IVD players seeking to expand their capabilities and offerings to position themselves better in the MDx market.

Genetic Testing Fraud – The Next Big Concern for the US Healthcare Industry by EOS Intelligence
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Genetic Testing Fraud – The Next Big Concern for the US Healthcare?

411views

Over the past few years, lab fraud has become a concern in the USA with the increase in financial gains obtainable through fraudulent billing practices, unnecessary testing, bundling of expensive tests (such as tests for rare respiratory pathogens or genetic tests) with COVID-19 tests, and increase in the number of genetic testing labs. A recent update in the compliance and regulatory requirements and increased focus on analyzing fraud testing schemes are expected to help curb lab fraud in the country.

Genetic testing, due to its increased use in the healthcare industry, is a particularly lucrative fraud target. Despite the presence of various compliance programs and regulations, several laboratories, together with patient brokers, telemedicine companies, and call centers, commit fraud and defraud Medicare. This strains the healthcare system as it increases healthcare costs and influences the patients’ trust in testing, labs, and other stakeholders.

Clinical labs face less scrutiny than full-service health centers. Thus, they are more frequently involved in lab fraud activities. Some of the most commonly noticed lab fraud cases in the USA include kickback schemes, fraudulent billing, and unnecessary testing, among others. Labs team up with parties such as patient brokers to get patients, doctors to refer patients or prescribe unnecessary tests, telemedicine companies to order tests, and call centers to target Medicare beneficiaries and then defraud Medicare by submitting claims.

Lab fraud in genetic testing has emerged in the USA over the past few years due to sprouting genetic testing labs across the country and the increasing use of such tests in health practices to assist disease diagnosis and predict disease risk. Genetic testing enables healthcare providers to offer personalized medicine based on the individual’s genetic makeup and helps identify how the patient will respond to treatments. Genetic testing fraud, mainly targeting cancer screening, pharmacogenetics, and cardiovascular diseases, is on the rise.

One of many such fraud cases was noted in August 2023, when LabSolutions LLC, based in Georgia, USA, submitted over US$463 million worth of unnecessary genetic and other laboratory tests to Medicare, the national health insurance program, of which Medicare paid over US$187 million. These tests were obtained through kickbacks and bribes. The scale of similar fraud is evident from the fact that in July 2022, the Department of Justice announced criminal charges against 36 defendants in 13 federal districts for more than US$1.2 billion in fraudulent telemedicine, cardiovascular and genetic testing, and durable medical equipment purchases.

The COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 further spiked fraud cases, as it gave an opportunity to bundle COVID-19 testing with other forms of expensive testing that patients did not need, including genetic testing for various diseases and tests for rare respiratory pathogens. Financial incentives offered by the federal government to encourage participation in COVID-19 control-related businesses also attracted fraudsters in the laboratory business. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services report, in May 2023, around 378 labs billed Medicare Part B for add-on COVID-19 tests at high volume and payment amounts. Of these, around 276 labs billed for more add-on tests, such as billing Medicaid for COVID-19 tests alongside respiratory pathogen panels (RPPs), individual respiratory tests (IRTs), allergy tests, and genetic testing. An additional 161 of these 378 labs also reported higher costs than usual for add-on testing.

Lab fraud behind money loss, erosion of trust, and increased insurance premiums

Lab fraud causes a significant adverse effect on the integrity and quality of the healthcare system as unnecessary testing and fraudulent billing practices increase healthcare costs, compromise the accuracy and reliability of diagnostic tests, and erode trust in healthcare providers, including doctors and hospitals, among others. Healthcare providers who unknowingly refer patients to fraudulent labs are also likely to face a reputation hit.

Above all, healthcare fraud can cause tens of billions of dollars in yearly losses. According to the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association, taxpayers are losing over US$100 billion annually to Medicare and Medicaid fraud, including billing for unapproved COVID-19 tests, genetic testing fraud, home healthcare billing, and fraud billing for medical equipment.

Companies manufacturing genetic testing kits may face reputational damage if their products are used in the genetic testing fraud scheme. This is expected to negatively impact their market presence as customers/patients will lose confidence and will likely move to reputed competitors. Also, healthcare providers may stop referring the company products to their patients.

Increasing fraud will likely drive the need for more stringent regulations for genetic companies manufacturing genetic testing kits (requiring compliance in conducting in-depth clinical studies, providing extensive data, maintaining necessary documentation, labeling and packaging requirements, etc.). This is expected to increase the operational costs for genetic testing companies and, thus, the price of genetic testing services. Ever-increasing genetic testing fraud is expected to potentially disrupt the market’s growth trajectory as patients become more cautious. Individuals are likely to receive tests that are not appropriate or required and may become skeptical about the necessity and accuracy of the test result.

Read our related Perspective:
Commentary: The Promise of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in the USA

Lab fraud also increases insurance premiums as fraudulent activities increase the cost of claims, which in turn increases insurance companies’ expenses. The insurance companies are bound to raise premiums to cover additional costs. Additionally, individuals receiving genetic testing through fraud schemes will likely be denied future coverage. This is because many genetic tests for inherited diseases are offered as a one-time payment for a lifetime of coverage, and fraud schemes can compromise the individual’s access to this benefit.

Regulatory updates and strategies aimed at combating lab fraud

Preventing lab fraud is crucial to maintaining the integrity of scientific research and the functioning of healthcare systems. Lab fraud can be prevented, or at least significantly diminished, by establishing comprehensive compliance programs, stringent licensing and certification requirements for labs and healthcare providers, encouraging employees and stakeholders in labs and healthcare organizations to report any suspected fraud incidences, education, secured data handling, continuous monitoring, improved medical billing processes, and enforcing penalties and legal consequences.

In January 2023, the US government updated compliance and regulatory requirements for laboratories to prevent lab fraud. As per the updates, the laboratories must submit a medical necessity document supporting the ordered test, progress note, and the treating doctor’s signature to support a claim.

Also, providing incentives to physicians to encourage them to refer patients for lab services will be considered a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and both laboratory and healthcare professionals will face legal consequences.

Laboratories that fail to adhere to lab billing guidelines published through National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) or Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) will face civil liability and triple damages under the False Claims Act.

The government also continued its scrutiny of medically unnecessary genetic testing schemes, audited genetic labs, and tried to recoup funds where the medical necessity requirement was unmet. Also, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a fraud alert warning the public about the proliferation of COVID-19 testing and genetic testing scams.

Moreover, in June 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took a crucial measure to regulate an extensive array of laboratory tests, including prenatal genetic screenings, to ensure test result accuracy and prevent unreliable outcomes. The US FDA ensures that the lab test delivers results as claimed by the lab test developer by analyzing the device’s accuracy, specificity, clinical characteristics, and analytical sensitivity. Regulating these laboratory tests will likely reduce the chances of fraud, as laboratories will not be allowed to run specific tests if they are not cleared or approved by the FDA.

EOS Perspective

Increased awareness about genetic testing and its easy accessibility have made it more vulnerable to lab fraud in the country. Genetic testing scams are evolving significantly wherein the scammers (a lab owner or a genetic testing company’s representative) are offering free screening, cheek swabs, or testing kits for genetic testing to get the individual’s Medicare information and submit claims. An increase in the number of genetic testing companies manufacturing direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits is expected to further contribute to genetic testing fraud as it will become easier for lab owners to get access to genetic testing kits and scam Medicare beneficiaries.

Also, the introduction of new tests creates potential opportunities for lab fraud as the lack of proper oversight and safeguards makes it easier for lab fraudsters to exploit gaps while appropriate regulatory norms for those tests are being developed. Thus, there is an increased need to set the regulatory norms for any new tests being developed before they are put to use.

While various compliance and regulatory measures are in place to prevent lab fraud, ethical practices, education, and training for lab employees will likely play a significant role in preventing lab fraud in the country. Many healthcare professionals are often involved between doctors prescribing the test and the persons administering the test. Thus, it becomes challenging to determine whether the referrals are conducted efficiently.

In addition, strong collaboration among healthcare insurers, healthcare providers, and the government can also help prevent this kind of fraud. The government plays a vital role here, as it has the tools to lay more emphasis on continuous monitoring and auditing of genetic testing labs to keep track of lab activities and prevent fraud cases.

New Directions in Alzheimer’s Diagnostics Will Blood Tests Replace CSF and PET by EOS Intelligence
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

New Directions in Alzheimer’s Diagnostics: Will Blood Tests Replace CSF and PET?

730views

Around three-fourths of dementia cases continue to remain undiagnosed even though the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is rapidly growing across the globe. AD affects about 60-80% of dementia patients worldwide. Early diagnosis of AD is critical in forging beneficial medical care strategies and enhancing patient outcomes. Current AD diagnostic tests, such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and PET scans, are either invasive or associated with side effects and are generally expensive. This calls for developing less invasive, safer, faster, and more accurate AD diagnostics, such as blood tests.

Blood-based tests promise accurate and non-invasive AD diagnosis

Researchers are developing less invasive and less costly blood tests that are likely to be more accurate than contemporary tests. There are currently two types of AD diagnostics blood-based tests: the phosphorylated tau217 (ptau217) test and the amyloid beta (Aβ) 42/40 plasma ratio test.

The ptau217 biomarker has the potential to differentiate AD from other neurodegenerative diseases, as ptau217 levels can be high in AD patients before the onset of clinical symptoms. Studies have proved that ptau217 tests can detect AD early on and monitor disease progression.

The Aβ 42/40 plasma ratio tests detect amyloid beta protein plaques in the brain that cause cognitive impairment. Due to the lack of a certified reference standard for measuring plasma Aβ42 and Aβ40’s absolute values, ptau217 may be better than an amyloid beta ratio test. However, both tests are accurate enough to diagnose AD.

Notably, ptau217 blood tests are believed to give up to 95% accurate results when coupled with CSF tests as against 90% accuracy of CSF when used as a standalone method. At the same time, amyloid beta (Aβ) 42/40 ratio tests are known to give around 80% accuracy in detecting amyloid positivity.

Many laboratories and diagnostic companies have designed or are designing ptau217 assays. C2N Diagnostics, Quanterix, Quest Diagnostics, and Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) offer ptau217 laboratory-developed tests (LDTs).

Low cost of blood-based AD tests can also be a growth-driving factor

A major push towards blood-based AD diagnostics comes from the tests’ lower cost in comparison to PET and CSF. The cost of blood tests typically ranges from US$200 to US$1,500, depending on the test provider.

The cost of PET ranges from US$1,200 to US$18,000, while the average price of CSF tests is around US$4,000 (in both cases, the actual cost depends on the type of facility, location, and the extent of insurance coverage).

As of 2023, Medicare and Medicaid covered PET scans for AD in the USA outside clinical trials. Therefore, AD patients need to pay around 20% of the PET cost, which translates to US$240-US$3,600, even after insurance coverage.

Considering the high share of dementia and AD cases remaining undiagnosed, there is a chance that the lower cost of blood-based tests can help contribute to higher accessibility to testing and ultimately improve the early detection rate.

Large AD diagnostic players partner with smaller ones to develop new tests

In an attempt to develop ptau217 assays, major diagnostics companies tend to recognize the development progress made by smaller players. ALZpath, a novel AD diagnostic solutions provider, is the pioneer of the ptau217 antibody, which helps in the early detection of the disease. Large players such as Roche and Beckman Coulter are enticed by the synergistic opportunities ALZpath offers.

In June 2024, Roche partnered with ALZpath, an early-stage biopharmaceutical company specializing in AD diagnostics, to launch the plasma ptau217 In-Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) test. As per the partnership, Roche will use ALZpath’s ptau217 antibody to design and commercialize an IVD test to detect AD with the help of Roche’s Elecsys platform.

In July 2024, Beckman Coulter also partnered with ALZpath to utilize ALZpath’s proprietary ptau217 antibody to detect AD on Beckman Coulter’s DxI 9000 Immunoassay Analyzer.

AD diagnostics firms receive funding from various sources, including drugmakers

Constantiam Biosciences, a bioinformatic analysis firm, received a US$485,000 Phase 1 SBIR grant (Small Business Innovation Research) from the National Institute on Aging to develop a tool for deciphering risk variants pertaining to AD and related dementias (AD/ADRD) in September 2024.

Biogen and Eli Lilly invested in the Diagnostics Accelerator, a funding initiative started in 2018, at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF) in 2020. The Diagnostics Accelerator has invested over US$60 million across 58 projects, most of which are blood tests. In its Q4 2023 earnings call, Biogen emphasized its support for developing tau biomarker diagnostics and pathways. Its partner, Eisai, has invested around US$15 million in C2N Diagnostics and collaborated with IVD companies such as Sysmex, among others. In September 2024, ADDF invested US$7 million in C2N Diagnostics to further develop blood-based AD detection tests.

Other investors have also identified the opportunities AD diagnostic offers. A 2024 market research report by Market Research Future estimated that the AD diagnostic industry would nearly double, from US$4.5 billion in 2023 to US$8.8 billion in 2032.

FDA stands as an accelerating force for blood-based tests via breakthrough device designation

For a while now, the FDA has been granting breakthrough device designation (BDD) to devices that could address life-threatening diseases with unmet medical needs. BDD facilitates the expedited development, review, and assessment of medical devices, ensuring quicker access for patients and medical professionals. It would not be too ambitious to conclude that strong positive evidence from several uses and studies of ptau217 tests is likely to compel the FDA to approve them for use in the near future. The first sign of this is that the FDA is granting BDD status to multiple ptau217 blood tests.

In March 2024, the FDA granted BDD to Simoa ptau217 by Quanterix. This blood test can detect AD in patients with cognitive ailments even before signs and symptoms start to appear.

In April 2024, the FDA gave BDD to Roche’s Elecsys ptau217 plasma biomarker test to augment early diagnosis of AD. Roche partnered with Eli Lilly to develop this blood test that will widen and accelerate AD patients’ access to diagnosis and suitable medical attention and care.

In early 2019, the FDA gave BDD to C2N Diagnostics’ blood test to detect AD. The BDD status of AD blood tests will likely accelerate the development, review, and assessment processes of these tests, improving patient outcomes.

Some FDA-approved AD drugs have used blood tests in clinical trials. Eli Lilly’s Kisunla and Esai/Biogen’s Leqembi have successfully utilized C₂N Diagnostics’ Precivity-ptau217 blood biomarker in their clinical trials. The FDA approved both drugs to manage AD. This improves the chances of this blood test getting approved by the FDA.

Lumipulse G β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio test by Fujirebio Diagnostics received BDD from the FDA in 2019. The company submitted an FDA filing for the Lumipulse G ptau217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio IVD test in September 2024. If approved, this test will become the first commercially available blood-based IVD test in the USA to detect AD.

EOS Perspective

There has been considerable progress in developing blood-based assays for AD diagnosis by pharma and diagnostics companies. However, a good portion of the liability for their products not reaching market readiness faster lies (and will probably remain to lie) on the approving authorities that are unable to accelerate the administrative steps.

Some blood tests, such as PrecivityAD, are approved for safe use in the EU but are still not in the USA. While such approval is typically a time-consuming process and requires a thorough investigation, the blood tests will enter the market at a larger scale across several geographies only if the authorities fast-track their approvals. This is particularly applicable to blood tests previously successfully used in clinical trials for approved AD drugs and for tests that have already attained BDD status from the FDA.

As an example, PrecivityAD by C2N Diagnostics received BDD status in 2019 from the FDA. However, the FDA has still not approved the blood test for safe use in the USA. This is still despite the fact that PrecivityAD and other C2N Diagnostics’ assays have been utilized in over 150 AD and other research studies across the USA and abroad. FDA’s time-consuming and lengthy review procedures and bureaucratic reasons are some of the factors responsible for the delay in approval. In addition to this, C2N Diagnostics needs to submit some more evidential data pertaining to the accuracy of PrecivityAD, which is likely to take time to produce.

These procedural and administrative impediments, along with the time taken by the device makers to present the data to the FDA, will likely continue to put a brake on the blood-based tests becoming available to patients in the near future.

The situation will remain so, given the FDA’s recent decision to regulate new LDTs involving diagnostic tests that use body fluids such as blood, saliva, CSF, or tissue on similar lines as medical devices (meaning LDTs must comply with the same standards as medical devices). As per this regulation, LDTs need to prove the accuracy of their tests. This decision will have both winners and losers in the AD stakeholder ecosystem.

Researchers and physicians are looking at this regulation with a positive stride as this step will reduce the number of tests with unconfirmed accuracy from the market in the USA. This is undoubtedly a positive change for patients’ safety, reducing the number of misdiagnoses and accelerating correct diagnoses.

On the other hand, smaller start-ups and diagnostic companies are not likely to benefit from this decision as it will restrict the development of new innovative tests vis-à-vis large diagnostic companies. Overall, the decision will likely decelerate the approval of blood-based AD tests or at least will require much more paperwork and proof of accuracy from the device makers. This decision will take effect in multiple phases over four years, starting from July 2024.

On the research and development side of the Alzheimer’s disease diagnostics space, a certain level of symbiosis between drug producers and diagnostic solution providers will continue to impact the market positively. Drugmakers are partnering with or investing in diagnostic companies to leverage the latter’s innovative blood-based biomarkers (BBBM) technologies in the clinical trials of their own drug candidates. This trend is likely to continue.

Not only drugmakers but also more prominent healthcare diagnostics companies, such as Roche and Beckman Coulter, are partnering with early-stage biopharmaceutical companies, such as ALZpath, to develop and commercialize AD ptau217 tests. Collaborations such as these are a testimony to the fact that it is mutually beneficial for AD industry stakeholders to work in tandem to advance AD diagnostics research, a significant growth-driving factor for the market.

Powering Healthcare Diagnostics with AI by EOS Intelligence
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Powering Healthcare Diagnostics with AI: a Pipe Dream or Reality

784views

The growing paucity of radiologists across the globe is alarming. The availability of radiologists is extremely disproportionate globally. To illustrate this, Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, USA, had 126 radiologists, while the entire country of Liberia had two radiologists, and 14 countries in the African continent did not have a single radiologist, as of 2015. This leads to a crucial question – how to address this global unmet demand for radiologists and diagnostic professionals?

Increasing capital investment signals rising interest in AI in healthcare diagnostics

The global market for Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare diagnostics is forecast to grow at a CAGR of 8.3%, from US$513.3 million in 2019 to US$825.9 million in 2025, according to Frost & Sullivan’s report from 2021. This growth in the healthcare diagnostics AI market is attributed to the increased demand for diagnostic tests due to the rising prevalence of novel diseases and fast-track approvals from regulatory authorities to use AI-powered technologies for preliminary diagnosis.

Imaging Diagnostics, also known as Medical Imaging is one of the key areas of healthcare diagnostics that is most interesting in exploring AI implementation. From 2013 to 2018, over 70 firms in the imaging diagnostics AI sector secured equity funding spanning 119 investment deals and have progressed towards commercial beginnings, thanks to quick approvals from respective regulatory bodies.

Between 2015 and 2021, US$3.5 billion was secured by AI-enabled imaging diagnostics firms (specialized in developing AI-powered solutions) globally for 290 investment deals, as per Signify Research. More than 200 firms (specialized in developing AI-powered solutions) globally were building AI-based solutions for imaging diagnostics, between 2015 and 2021.

The value of global investments in imaging diagnostics AI in 2020 was approximately 8.8% of the global investments in healthcare AI. The corresponding figure in 2019 was 10.2%. The sector is seeing considerable investment at a global level, with Asia-based firms (specialized in developing AI-powered solutions) having secured around US$1.5 billion, Americas-based companies raising US$1.2 billion, and EMEA-based firms securing over US$600 million between 2015 and 2021.

As per a survey conducted by the American College of Radiology in 2020 involving 1,427 US-based radiologists, 30% of respondents said that they used AI in some form in their clinical practice. This might seem like a meager adoption rate of AI amongst US radiologists. However, considering that five years earlier, there were hardly any radiologists in the USA using AI in their clinical practice, the figure illustrates a considerable surge in AI adoption here.

However, the adoption of AI in healthcare diagnostics is faced with several challenges such as high implementation costs, lack of high-quality diagnostic data, data privacy issues, patient safety, cybersecurity concerns, fear of job replacement, and trust issues. The question that remains is whether these challenges are considerable enough to hinder the widespread implementation of AI in healthcare diagnostics.

Powering Healthcare Diagnostics with AIPowering Healthcare Diagnostics with AI

AI advantages help answer the needs in healthcare diagnostics

Several advantages such as improved correctness in disease detection and diagnosis, reduced scope of medical and diagnosis errors, improved access to diagnosis in areas where radiologists are unavailable, and increased workflow and efficacy drive the surge in the demand for AI-powered solutions in healthcare diagnostics.

One of the biggest benefits of AI in healthcare diagnostics is improved correctness in disease detection and diagnosis. According to a 2017 study conducted by two radiologists from the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, AI could detect lesions caused by tuberculosis in chest X-rays with an accuracy rate of 96%. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts uses AI to scan images and detect blood diseases with a 95% accuracy rate. There are numerous similar pieces of evidence supporting the AI’s ability to offer improved levels of correctness in disease detection and diagnosis.

A major benefit offered by AI in healthcare diagnostics is the reduced scope of medical and diagnosis errors. Medical and diagnosis errors are among the top 10 causes of death globally, according to WHO. Taking this into consideration, minimizing medical errors with the help of AI is one of the most promising benefits of diagnostics AI. AI is capable of cutting medical and diagnosis errors by 30% to 40% (trimming down the treatment costs by 50%), according to Frost & Sullivan’s report from 2016. With the implementation of AI, diagnostic errors can be reduced by 50% in the next five years starting from 2021, according to Suchi Saria, Founder and CEO, Bayesian Health and Director, Machine Learning and Healthcare Lab, Johns Hopkins University.

Another benefit that has been noticed is improved access to diagnosis in areas where there is a shortage of radiologists and other diagnostic professionals. The paucity of radiologists is a global trend. To cite a few examples, there is one radiologist for: 31,707 people in Mexico (2017), 14,634 people in Japan (2012), 130,000 people in India (2014), 6,827 people in the USA (2021), 15,665 people in the UK (2020).

AI has the ability to modify the way radiologists operate. It could change their active approach toward diagnosis to a proactive approach. To elucidate this, instead of just examining the particular condition for which the patient requested medical intervention, AI is likely to enable radiologists to find other conditions that remain undiagnosed or even conditions the patient is unaware of. In a post-COVID-19 era, AI is likely to reduce the backlogs in low-emergency situations. Thus, the technology can help bridge the gap created due to radiologist shortage and improve the access to diagnosis of patients to a drastic extent.

Further, AI helps in improving the workflow and efficacy of healthcare diagnostic processes. On average at any point in time, more than 300,000 medical images are waiting to be read by a radiologist in the UK for more than 30 days. The use of AI will enable radiologists to focus on identifying dangerous conditions rather than spend more time verifying non-disease conditions. Thus, the use of AI will help minimize such delays in anomaly detection in medical images and improve workflow and efficacy levels. To illustrate this, an AI algorithm named CheXNeXt, developed in a Stanford University study in 2018 could read chest X-rays for 14 distinct pathologies. Not only could the algorithm achieve the same level of precision as the radiologists, but it could also read the images in less than two minutes while the radiologists could read them in an average of four hours.

Black-box AI: A source of challenges to AI implementation in healthcare diagnostics

The black-box nature of AI means that with most AI-powered tools, only the input and output are visible but the innards between them are not visible or knowable. The root cause of many challenges for AI implementation in healthcare diagnostics is AI’s innate character of the black box.

One of the primary impediments is tracking and evaluating the decision-making process of the AI system in case of a negative result or outcome of AI algorithms. That is to say, it is not possible to detect the fundamental cause of the negative outcome within the AI system because of the black-box nature of AI. Therefore, it becomes difficult to avoid such occurrences of negative outcomes in the future.

The second encumbrance caused by the black-box nature of AI is the trust issues of clinicians that are hesitant to use AI applications because they do not completely comprehend the technology. Patients are also expected to not have faith in the AI tools because they are less forgiving of machine errors as opposed to human errors.

Further, several financial, technological, and psychological challenges while implementing AI in healthcare diagnostics are also associated with the black-box nature of the technology.

Financial challenges

High implementation costs

According to a 2020 survey conducted by Definitive Healthcare, a leading player in healthcare commercial intelligence, cost continues to be the most prominent encumbrance in AI implementation in diagnostics. Approximately 55% of the respondents who do not use AI pointed out that cost is the biggest challenge in AI implementation.

The cost of a bespoke AI system can be between US$20,000 to US$1 million, as per Analytics Insights, while the cost of the minimum viable product (a product with sufficient features to lure early adopters and verify a product idea ahead of time in the product development cycle) can be between US$8,000 and US$15,000. Other factors that also decide the total cost of AI are the costs of hiring and training skilled labor. The cost of data scientists and engineers ranges from US$550 to US$1,100 per day depending on their skills and experience levels, while the cost of a software engineer (to develop applications, dashboards, etc.) ranges between US$600 and US$1,500 per day.

It can be gauged from these figures that the total cost of AI implementation is high enough for the stakeholders to ponder upon the decision of whether to adopt the technology, especially if they are not fully aware of the benefits it might bring and if they are working with ongoing budget constraints, not infrequent in healthcare institutions.

Technological challenges

Overall paucity of availability of high-quality diagnostic data

High-quality diagnostic and medical datasets are a prerequisite for the testing of AI models. Because of the highly disintegrated nature of medical and diagnostic data, it becomes extremely difficult for data scientists to procure the data for testing AI algorithms. To put it in simple terms, patient records and diagnostic images are fragmented across myriad electronic health records (EHRs) and software platforms which makes it hard for the AI developer to use the data.

Data privacy concerns

AI developers must be open about the quality of the data used and any limitations of the software being employed, without risking cybersecurity and without breaching intellectual property concerns. Large-scale implementation of AI will lead to higher vulnerability of the existing cloud or on-premise infrastructure to both physical and cyber attacks leading to security breaches of critical healthcare diagnostic information. Targets in this space such as diagnostic tools and medical devices can be compromised by malware or software viruses. Compromised data and algorithms will result in errors in diagnosis and consequently inaccurate recommendations of treatment thereby causing stakeholders to refrain from using AI in healthcare diagnostics.

Patient safety

One of the foremost challenges for AI in healthcare diagnostics is patient safety. To achieve better patient safety, developers of AI algorithms must ensure the credibility, rationality, and transparency of the underlying datasets. Patient safety depends on the performance of AI which in turn depends on the quality of the training data. The better the quality of the data, the better will be the performance of the AI algorithms resulting in higher patient safety.

Mental and psychological challenges

Fear of job substitution

A survey published in March 2021 by European Radiology, the official journal of the European Society of Radiology, involving 1,041 respondents (83% of them were based in European countries) found that 38% of residents and radiologists are worried about their jobs being cut by AI. However, 48% of the respondents were more enterprising and unbiased towards AI. The fear of substitution could be attributed to the fact that those having restricted knowledge of AI are not completely educated about its shortcomings and consider their skillset to be less up-to-date than the technology. Because of this lack of awareness, they fail to realize that radiologists are instrumental in developing, testing, and implementing AI into clinical practice.

Trust issues

Trusting AI systems is crucial for the profitable implementation of AI into diagnostic practice. It is of foremost importance that the patient is made aware of the data processing and open dialogues must be encouraged to foster trust. Openness or transparency that forges confidence and reliability among patients and clinicians is instrumental in the success of AI in clinical practice.

EOS Perspective

With trust in AI amongst clinicians and patients, its adoption in healthcare diagnostics can be achieved at a more rapid pace. Lack of it breeds fear of job replacement by the technology amongst clinicians. Further, scarcity of awareness of AI’s true potential as well as its limitations also threatens diagnostic professionals from getting replaced by the technology. Therefore, to fully understand the capabilities of AI in healthcare diagnostics, clinicians and patients must learn about and trust the technology.

With the multitude and variety of challenges for AI implementation in healthcare diagnostics, its importance in technology becomes all the more critical. The benefits of AI are likely to accelerate the pace of adoption and thereby realize the true potential of AI in terms of saving clinicians’ time by streamlining how they operate, improving diagnosis, minimizing errors, maximizing efficacy, reducing redundancies, and delivering reliable diagnostic results. To power healthcare diagnostics with AI, it is important to view AI as an opportunity rather than a threat. This in turn will set AI in diagnostics on its path from pipe dream to reality.

Recall Aftermath Who is Gaining Share in the Sleep Apnea Devices by EOS Intelligence
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Recall Aftermath: Who is Gaining Share in the Sleep Apnea Devices and Ventilators Market?

In recent years, the number of ventilator recalls has increased considerably, primarily due to product quality issues, software malfunction, and manufacturing defects. This affected manufacturers such as Philips, Medtronic, and Vyaire Medical, leading to brand damage, financial losses, and a shift in the market competition. Existing players and new entrants such as Getinge and Nihon Kohden are stepping in to fill the gap with innovative and non-invasive products. The recalls caused challenges for manufacturers and patients, highlighting the need for strong quality control and regulatory oversight.

Recalls of its sleep apnea devices and ventilators hit Philips the hardest

The medical device industry has recently experienced many product recalls, particularly in the ventilators segment, impacting major market players such as Philips, Medtronic, Baxter, GE Healthcare, Hamilton Medical, and Vyaire Medical.

Philips (Philips Respironics) faced a series of class I respiratory product recalls, including CPAP and BiPAP machines, and ventilators, due to health risks caused by the polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound abatement foam breakdown in the devices. Industry experts consider Philips’ sleep apnea devices and ventilator recalls among the most significant since 2021. As of January 2024, the company experienced a recall of over 15 million sleep apnea devices and ventilators, and reportedly hundreds of deaths. The recall seriously hurt the company’s reputation, weakened its position in the market, and caused significant financial problems.

The recalls led to a decline in the company’s share price by 60-70% in 2021, and it is still about 50% lower than its peak in April 2021 (US$ 53.45). Comparable sales of the connected care segment, including sleep apnea devices and ventilators, declined by about 19% in 2021 in comparison to 2020. This happened primarily due to sleep apnea devices and ventilators recalls, and the normalization of demand for hospital ventilators and monitoring systems following the COVID-19 surge. Recalls continued to drive down ventilator and sleep apnea device sales in 2022 and 2023.

The considerable impact on sleep apnea devices and ventilator sales resulted in a decline in Philip’s share in the sleep apnea device market, dropping to an estimated 20% between 2021-2023 from over 30% before the recall. The company also experienced a notable decline in market share in the ventilators market. Despite the decline in market share, Philips maintained its position as one of the leading players in both the sleep apnea devices and ventilators market.

However, in January 2024, Philips agreed to halt the sales of 19 sleep and respiratory products in the USA as a part of the consent decree with the US Department of Justice (DOJ). These products included hospital ventilation, certain home ventilation, sleep diagnostic devices, and portable and stationary oxygen concentrators. This affected the company’s brand image greatly and resulted in a further loss of market share in both ventilators and sleep apnea devices markets. Since the company will continue to sell consumables and accessories, including masks, it is anticipated to maintain a portion of its market share in both segments.

In April 2024, the company agreed to pay US$1.1 billion in legal settlement to resolve injury-related cases caused by sleep apnea devices and ventilators in the USA. Overall, sleep apnea device recalls cost the company over US$5 billion, likely including charges such as provisions for Philips Respironics-related litigation, consent decree, remediation costs, legal settlements, workforce restructuring, and quality remediation action. In addition, Philips cut 6,600 jobs by 2023 and is likely to reduce its workforce by a total of 10,000 by 2025.

Several companies bore the brunt of their own ventilator recall setbacks

Other prominent manufacturers such as Drägerwerk (Draeger), Medtronic, Vyaire Medical, Hamilton Medical, and Baxter also experienced various ventilator recalls due to manufacturing and quality defects. Although the FDA classified these recalls as serious, these companies did not face the same severe consequences as Philips, as these recalls did not result in major injuries.

All these manufacturers also witnessed a drop in ventilator sales largely due to the stabilization of demand for ventilators following the COVID-19 surge, with product recalls also contributing to the downturn.

In February 2024, Medtronic completely exited the ventilator market due to unprofitability. Similarly, in June 2024, Vyaire Medical filed for bankruptcy and was subsequently acquired in October 2024 by Zoll, an Asahi Kasei company engaged in the manufacturing of medical devices and related software solutions. This caused a profound impact on the ventilators market.

Market players are introducing products with advanced features to gain market share

The ventilator market encountered a radical shift in competition due to numerous product recalls. The suspension of sleep and respiratory product sales cost Philips its leading market position in sleep apnea devices and ventilators (except for certain home ventilators). It remains unclear when or if Philips will be able to resume sales of these devices. However, the company is unlikely to leave its presence in the sleep apnea devices and ventilators market entirely due to its commitment to service and supply of parts of ventilators in use, as well as its decision to continue the sale of consumables and accessories.

Existing market players such as Getinge, Hamilton Medical, Drägerwerk (Draeger), ResMed, and GE Healthcare, and newer entrants such as Nihon Kohden, are likely to fill in the gap left by Philips, Medtronic, and Vyaire Medical in the USA.

Market players such as Getinge, Drägerwerk (Draeger), and Nihon Kohden are focusing on introducing technologically advanced ventilators with features such as enhanced patient comfort, advanced monitoring capabilities, portability, and adaptive ventilation modes, to grab a slice of the pie. They are also increasingly focusing on expanding their portfolio of non-invasive ventilators with different interfaces, including face masks, nasal masks, helmets, and mouthpieces.

For instance, in October 2024, Nihon Kohden introduced a new ventilator system that combines invasive and non-invasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy in one device, offering adaptability and eliminating the need to switch between machines. It also features a customizable, app-based touchscreen interface with advanced monitoring capabilities. Similarly, in January 2024, Getinge introduced ‘Servo-air Lite’, a non-invasive ventilator with high-flow therapy that offers optimal respiratory support, enhanced patient comfort, and ease of use for clinicians.

ResMed, a leading player in both the sleep apnea devices and ventilators market, is estimated to have grabbed over 10% of Philips’ market share in the sleep apnea devices market in the USA. ResMed witnessed a substantial increase in demand for its sleep and respiratory care products, including sleep apnea devices and ventilators, for various reasons, including Philips’ product recalls. The demand for its sleep and respiratory care products in the USA, Canada, and Latin America increased by 16%, 25%, and 10% in 2022, 2023, and 2024, respectively.

Companies engaging in sleep apnea devices and ventilator rentals, sales, and distribution, such as Trace Medical, also started adding brands from different companies to their product mix to meet the demand for these devices.

Patients experience delays in treatment and struggle to switch to other brands

Philips’ foam degradation issue has exposed patients to severe health risks, leading to respiratory complications and even cancer. Recalls of many ventilators and sleep apnea devices have left hospitals struggling to replace them, causing delays in patient treatment.

Patients relying on a specific brand faced reduced treatment options. Many patients found it difficult to switch to other brands due to cost and differences in machine settings or interfaces. With Philips halting sales of various sleep apnea devices and ventilators, patients have no choice but to switch to other brands.

The recall of various products from different companies has created significant demand and supply chain pressures for existing companies. These pressures will likely drive up ventilator and sleep apnea device prices, further burdening patients.

EOS Perspective

Product recalls in the sleep apnea devices and ventilator segment brought quality issues to the limelight. This highlights the need for stronger quality control processes and technologically advanced sleep apnea devices and ventilators incorporating virtual monitoring and AI integration, which can help detect defects earlier.

While the FDA received complaints about Philips’ degradation of the sound abatement foam in the sleep apnea devices and ventilators before the recall initiation, decisive action to force correction was not taken immediately. Also, despite knowing that Philips had been aware of the foam degradation issue for many years, the FDA did not take stronger enforcement measures against the company sooner. This situation highlights the importance of assessing and enhancing the FDA’s oversight process to ensure timely response to medical device complaints.

Philips suffered lasting brand damage due to the recalls. Although the company is trying to regain shareholder and consumer trust after settling US claims for an amount much lower than anticipated (US$2-5 billion) by analysts and the public, it faces a long road ahead.

Regarding market competition, ResMed is estimated to continue to lead and strengthen its dominant position in the sleep apnea devices market. The exit of well-established players from the ventilator market will intensify competition among existing companies and new entrants seeking to capture market share. However, it will be a gradual process as customers slowly transition from existing products to new brand ones. On top of that, the new entrants are likely to face stricter regulatory norms and product approval processes aimed at reducing the number of product recalls and enhancing patients’ safety.

Mind over Matter How Non-invasive Neuromodulation Is Becoming the Future of Pain Management by EOS Intelligence
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Mind over Matter: How Non-invasive Neuromodulation Is Becoming the Future of Pain Management and Beyond

Scientists have been researching the possibility of using electrical impulses to treat many health conditions. The starting point was the introduction of the first TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) device in the 1970s in the USA. Its goal was to test the tolerance of chronic pain patients to electrical stimulation. In recent years, non-invasive neuromodulation has emerged as a promising field for treating various neurological disorders. This field will likely experience significant growth in the coming decade, thanks to technological advancements, such as AI-powered sophisticated wearables.

Non-invasive neuromodulation is emerging as a novel treatment for several diseases

Non-invasive neuromodulation is a technique that uses external devices to apply electromagnetic fields, electrical currents, or other forms of stimulation to the brain to enable targeted modulation of neural activity.

The technique is effective in treating a range of conditions. Currently, several devices are available in the market for treating illnesses, including chronic pain, tinnitus, diabetic neuropathy, and functional disorders such as bladder and bowel control.

The non-invasive neuromodulation market encompasses a diverse array of devices that can modify neural activity without the need for invasive procedures. This includes transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and TENS.

TMS therapy sessions typically require the presence of a physician. An example is MagVenture Pain Therapy, a TMS device developed by a Denmark-based company, MagVenture, for treating chronic pain.

TENS and tDCS devices are portable and, hence, suitable for at-home treatments. The FDA has not yet approved tDCS in the USA for medical use. However, its use falls under the Investigational Device Exception (IDA) regulations. Though it is marketed for non-medical uses in the USA, it is used for medical treatment in regions such as the EU, Singapore, and Israel.

TENS devices are small, battery-powered devices that consist of leads that connect to electrodes, sticky pads placed on the skin in the area that needs stimulation. An example is Cefaly, an FDA-approved TENS device developed by the US-based Cefaly Technology for pain management. This device works by stimulating and desensitizing the primary source of migraine pain, the trigeminal nerve, using a precise electrical impulse.

Mind over Matter How Non-invasive Neuromodulation Is Becoming the Future by EOS Intelligence

Mind over Matter How Non-invasive Neuromodulation Is Becoming the Future by EOS Intelligence

The non-invasive neuromodulation market is showing rapid growth

The global non-invasive neuromodulation devices market for neurological and psychiatric disorders was approximately US$1.2 billion in 2022. According to a 2023 report by Report Prime, an India-based market research firm, the market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 7.2% from 2023 to 2030, reaching US$2.1 billion by 2030.

Several reasons fuel this rapid growth in recent years, including the increasing prevalence of chronic pain and other neurological conditions (especially in older patients), the numerous advantages this technique has over invasive neuromodulation, breakthroughs in non-invasive technology, and a surge in investments.

Increasing incidence of neurological disorders is a major driver

The increasing incidence of debilitating disorders such as chronic pain, Parkinson’s disease, diabetic neuropathy, etc., is creating a pressing need for new and efficient treatments to address these conditions. A 2023 study by the CDC indicated that 20.9% of American adults suffered from chronic pain, and 6.9% experienced chronic pain that significantly limited their daily activities.

Similarly, Parkinson’s disease affects nearly 1 million people in the USA as of 2023, with this number expected to rise to 1.2 million by 2030. These statistics indicate a rising trend of neurological disease burden in the USA.

One major issue that many patients and physicians face is that the current treatments for many of these conditions fall short, leaving a significant gap in the care of patients. Typically, doctors treat people suffering from chronic pain, including that of diabetic neuropathy, using painkillers. Most patients develop medicine tolerance, experience drug-wearing-off effects, or suffer from severe side effects, diminishing the overall treatment effectiveness.

Some patients may even consider drastic and irreversible surgical procedures, such as nerve amputation, due to inadequate treatment results. However, even these may not always provide the desired relief. This indicates the need for a reliable and effective solution for managing the pain, discomfort, and other neurological symptoms associated with the primary disease.

As non-invasive neuromodulation stimulates the brain areas responsible for pain processing, it alters the patient’s perception of pain. With the growing incidence of neurological disorders, this desired neuromodulation effect will continue to be in high demand, contributing to the growth of the non-invasive neuromodulation devices market.

Non-invasive treatments offer advantages over other techniques

Typically, conditions such as chronic pain are treated using a combination of prescription medicines. However, these medications, including NSAIDs, opioids, etc., come with a variety of side effects, such as digestive issues, ulcers, drowsiness, etc. Long-term use of opioids can lead to a range of negative consequences, including the development of tolerance, physical dependence, and opioid use disorder, increasing the risk of overdose and death. Conventional treatment methods also need frequent hospital visits.

Invasive neuromodulation is an effective treatment option for various neurological conditions. However, it also carries significant risks, such as site infections, perioperative and postoperative complications, blood clots, and device malfunctions. Additionally, these techniques often require multiple hospital visits.

In contrast, non-invasive neuromodulation offers several advantages over invasive methods. These wearable devices provide drug-free treatments that do not require surgery or complex installation. As a result, they are easy for patients and physicians to use.

A comprehensive study about the efficacy of various non-invasive devices is not yet available. However, controlled individual studies by companies and developers have shown promising efficiency in treating various diseases.

Moreover, a 2019 report published in BMJ, a peer-reviewed medical journal, indicated that non-invasive neuromodulation offers a potential solution for patients who are sensitive to traditional treatments. This includes patient groups such as pregnant women, adolescents, and those who experience poor tolerability or lack of efficacy from pharmacological treatment therapies.

The need to treat health conditions of these patient groups may drive the use of non-invasive devices to treat health conditions.

Scientific advancements help improve efficacy and expand applications

The non-invasive neuromodulation field has seen several breakthroughs in recent years, showing promise for accelerated R&D and new and improved devices potentially entering the market in the future.

One example is the proprietary magnetic peripheral nerve stimulation (mPNS), marketed as Axon Therapy, developed in 2023 by US-based Neuralace Medical for managing painful diabetic neuropathy.

Another example is vibrotactile stimulation (VTS), currently under development by an interdisciplinary research team from the University of Minnesota as a treatment for spasmodic torticollis or cervical dystonia. This is a painful neurological condition that affects the neck. Though the product is not yet marketable, the clinical trials are showing significant promise.

VTS devices are also being developed for conditions other than pain. An example is the VTS glove, a wearable device developed by researchers at Stanford University and the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2024. The device applies high-frequency vibrations to the hands and fingers to relieve uncontrollable arm and hand spasms. In clinical trials, patients who used the device experienced significant improvements in symptoms, with some even reporting a reduction in their use of oral medications. The team is now working to develop the device further and make it available to patients as a publicly available therapy.

Furthermore, a new treatment for tinnitus, known as bimodal neuromodulation, which involves stimulating two sensory pathways in the brain, has been developed. Ireland-based company Neuromod offers the Lenire device, which combines headphones and a mouthpiece to deliver auditory and tactile stimuli to alleviate symptoms. Patients wear the device for an hour daily, for at least six weeks, to stimulate the tongue with electrical impulses while listening to tones.

These new developments are likely to give momentum to the ongoing R&D in the sector.

Increased investment signals growing market potential

The sector has also seen an uptick in investments. For example, Nalu Medical, a US-based company, secured US$65 million in funding in 2024 to advance its neurostimulation technology for treating chronic pain.

Similarly, Avation Medical, a US-based company focusing on treating bladder issues, raised over US$22 million in 2024 to launch the Vivally System. This wearable device treats patients with urge urinary incontinence (UUI) and overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome.

Massachusetts–based Cognito Therapeutics, a company focused on developing a new therapy for Alzheimer’s disease, raised around US$73 million in 2023.

This increasing trend in R&D investments shows investors’ rising interest in the field of non-invasive neuromodulation, indicating promising market prospects.

Integration with AI is expected to pave the way for future developments

Non-invasive neuromodulation is seeing considerable success in developing closed-loop systems that leverage artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to give customized therapeutic output. This trend is likely to see more growth, especially with the rapid advancements in the field of AI.

An example is Avation Medical’s Vivally System, a wearable neuromodulation device that uses closed-loop, autonomously adjusted electrical stimulation to treat patients with UUI and OAB syndrome. The device uses a smartphone app to calibrate itself for each patient and then delivers a constant current of electrical stimulation through a wearable garment. It also uses an advanced AI-powered closed-loop algorithm and electromyography (a medical test that measures the electrical signals sent by nerves to muscles and received back from them) to enable continuous real-time monitoring and therapy adjustment, ensuring uniformity and safety.

Non-invasive neuromodulation device companies are forming partnerships with research institutes to develop safe ways to treat various disorders using generative AI neuromodulation.

One such collaboration started in June 2024 between US-Swiss generative neuromodulation firm, Dandelion Science and Geneva-based research institute Wyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering. The goal is to develop a generative AI neuromodulation platform for treating neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric disorders.

Similar collaborations are likely to commence in the future, as it is clear that the combination of neuromodulation and AI is set to impact various treatment fields significantly.

Expansion of insurance coverage could boost treatment accessibility

Conventionally, chronic pain treatment involves a combination of drugs and physical therapy. The US patient usually pays 20% of their Medicare-approved amount. People with severe pain spend about US$7,700 on annual healthcare expenditures, and with insurance, they have to spend around US$1,600 annually. For the management of pain conditions such as migraine, the out-of-pocket expense can increase to 30% of their Medicare-approved amount.

Non-invasive neuromodulation treatment has proved to be more cost-effective than conventional treatments. Although many non-invasive pain management devices are not covered by insurance, some are eligible for reimbursement.

For instance, Nerivio, a wearable device for treating migraine, is covered by Medicaid and Highmark Insurance. Moreover, Theranica, Nerivio’s Israel-based parent company, introduced the Nerivio Savings Program in October 2020 to help US patients access the device. It is a reimbursement plan that allows patients to receive their first device for a copay of up to US$49 (for 18 treatments), depending on their insurance coverage. The refill costs US$89 for those without insurance.

Additionally, patients may be able to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) or Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) to pay for specific approved devices. An example is Cefaly, for which, though not covered by insurance in the USA, consumers can use HSA and FSA funds or finance their purchase with Affirm (a US-based financial technology company that offers flexible payment options) for US$36 per month upon qualifying. Without insurance or other financial aid, the upfront cost varies from US$330 to US$430, and an additional US$25 for three reusable electrodes, each usable up to 20 times each.

Non-invasive neuromodulation devices’ high upfront cost remains the key barrier to broader adoption 

Overall, non-invasive neuromodulation devices offer a more cost-effective option than other treatments. The most significant barrier for patients opting for non-invasive neuromodulation is the high upfront cost, especially with no insurance coverage.

For example, Israel-based Zida Therapeutics’ Zida Control Sock, a device to treat urinary incontinence, comes with an upfront cost of US$750. Without insurance, many people may find it challenging to cover this cost. This is particularly true for older adults whom conditions such as chronic pain and urinary incontinence affect the most. According to 2023 data released by the US Census Bureau, 14.1% of Americans aged 65 and older live in poverty, making these devices less accessible to them without insurance coverage.

However, this situation may improve as several companies are now in talks to receive insurance coverage for their devices. With an increase in R&D, companies can also offer robust evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and long-term safety of the devices, prompting insurance companies to provide coverage.

With reimbursement available for companies such as Theranica and Zida, and with several other companies such as Neurovalens planning to enter discussions with insurance providers to achieve reimbursement status, the accessibility has a chance to improve in the near future. This will likely drive adoption in the coming years.

EOS Perspective

Adopting non-invasive devices will likely increase as a standalone treatment and adjunct therapy. While non-invasive treatments currently focus on conditions such as chronic pain, tinnitus, urinary incontinence, etc., experts believe that this will soon expand into other neurological conditions, including ALS, and Parkinson’s disease.

Currently, there are only seven FDA-approved drugs for ALS treatment, all of them with limited effectiveness. The significant unmet need in this field presents a compelling opportunity for non-invasive neuromodulation companies. PathMaker Neurosystems is among the few companies conducting feasibility studies and developing non-invasive neuromodulation treatment options for ALS patients.

Research is also underway to develop a non-invasive treatment for Parkinson’s disease, which was previously treated using invasive techniques. Czech Republic-based STIMVIA has reported promising results from its initial pilot study of a new treatment for patients with Parkinson’s disease as an add-on therapy.

Several new non-invasive devices are also in the development pipeline, and their clinical trials are promising. An example that has shown positive results in a pivotal trial is a treatment for improving upper limb function by Netherlands-based ONWARD Medicals.

Non-invasive neuromodulation has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of chronic pain and other neurological disorders. As the field continues to evolve, with advancements in AI-powered wearables and increased investment in R&D, we can expect to see even more innovative solutions emerge in the coming years.

Phase 3 Drug Candidates - A Ray of Hope in Alzheimer’s Disease Bleak Treatment Landscape by EOS Intelligence
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Phase 3 Drug Candidates – A Ray of Hope in Alzheimer’s Disease Bleak Treatment Landscape?

Many biopharmaceutical companies, such as AriBio, Annovis Bio, Athira Pharma, Cassava Sciences, and Alzheon, specializing in treating neurodegenerative diseases, are developing drugs for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) that are currently in phase 3 of clinical trials. If approved, these drugs can ameliorate the AD treatment approaches to a considerable extent. A major prerequisite to this is for concerned authorities to take concrete steps to fast-track clinical trials and increase AD research investment.

With only a 1% success rate of clinical trials in drug development until 2019, the AD treatment gap is alarming. A 99% failure rate means there is a very limited influx of new, more effective, and more advanced AD drugs into the market, and the gap between available treatment options and the rising number of AD cases is increasing.

The disease burden of Alzheimer’s will rise from US$1.3 trillion in 2020 to US$2.8 trillion by 2030 globally. With the rise in the aging population across the globe, the estimated number of AD patients will increase from 55 million in 2020 to 78 million in 2030.

However, recent drug approvals, such as Elli Lilly’s Kisunla (Donanemab) in July 2024 and Biogen/Eisai’s Leqembi (Lecanemab) in January 2023, bring a ray of hope for a new approach to AD treatment.

Initial hopes for new drugs can be premature

New drugs do enter the market from time to time. However, their impact on AD treatment in the long term is not always significant. An example of this is Biogen’s Aduhelm. Based on its ability to reduce amyloid protein in the brain, the FDA approved Aduhelm (Aducanumab) in 2021 in an accelerated approval route for AD treatment.

However, in 2024, Biogen discontinued the drug in the alleged desire to reprioritize its resources in AD treatment. Experts cite weak clinical evidence for efficacy, serious side effect risks, a high price point, and poor sales among the many reasons for Aduhelm’s withdrawal from the market.

AD drug candidates succumb to clinical failures

Eisai and Biogen have been working together since 2014 to develop and commercialize AD drugs. However, they have faced clinical drug failures, similarly to many other pharmaceutical companies during that time. For instance, they had to terminate Elenbecestat, one of their AD drugs, in phase 2 clinical trial in 2019 following an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio finding by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB).

Eisai launched its first AD drug, Aricept, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, in the USA in 1997 in collaboration with Pfizer. The annual peak sales of Aricept were US$2.74 billion before its patent expiry in 2010. However, Pfizer exited neuroscience drug research and development in 2018 after the failure of its AD drug candidates, such as Dimebon and Bapineuzumab.

Clinical challenges in Alzheimer’s research and reallocation of resources were among the other reasons for Pfizer’s exit from neuroscience R&D and drug development. Nevertheless, Pfizer did not desert the neuroscience space completely, rather forged a spin-off company called Cerevel Therapeutics in partnership with Bain Capital.

Phase 3 Drug Candidates - A Ray of Hope in Alzheimer’s Disease Bleak Treatment Landscape by EOS Intelligence

Phase 3 Drug Candidates – A Ray of Hope in Alzheimer’s Disease Bleak Treatment Landscape by EOS Intelligence

Recent drug launches focus on amyloid beta targeting mechanism

In January 2023, the FDA approved Leqembi (Lecanemab), a drug by Biogen and Eisai, for AD treatment. It is a monoclonal antibody that clears away the amyloid beta plaques known to cause cognitive impairment in AD patients. With MHRA’s (Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency) approval of Leqembi, Great Britain becomes the first European country to authorize the drug for the treatment of early-stage AD as of August 2024.

In July 2024, the FDA approved Kisunla (Donanemab) by Eli Lilly to treat early-stage AD. The drug’s mechanism of action is the same principle as that of Leqembi, an amyloid beta protein plaque targeting mechanism. Kisunla becomes the third anti-amyloid drug approved for AD treatment, following Aduhelm (now discontinued) and Leqembi. Both Kisunla and Leqembi drugs carry the risks of the formation of temporary lumps in the brain that can be fatal. Therefore, physicians advise regular brain MRIs to alleviate this risk. Neurologists and researchers are in disagreement over whether the benefits offered by these drugs are clinically meaningful.

Researchers are still studying the side effects of these two drugs. Prescribing them requires confirmation of the presence of amyloid protein in the brain. Therefore, PET scans and CSF tests are required before such a prescription.

The FDA has approved both drugs in the USA for intravenous infusions (IV) in the early stages of AD. Kisunla is administered every four weeks instead of every two for Leqembi. Therefore, Kisunla offers greater convenience compared to Leqembi.

Experts from Bloomberg Intelligence suggest that Eli Lilly will likely surpass Biogen and Eisai’s reign at the top of the AD drug market by capturing around 50% of the US$13 billion market globally by 2030. This is partly because of Kisunla’s convenient dosing and the fact that AD patients can stop taking the drug after the amyloid levels touch the clearance threshold.

Newer therapeutic approach-based drugs are in phase 3 clinical trials

Apart from the amyloid beta therapeutic approach, AD researchers are exploring the role of other mechanisms in AD treatment, such as anti-tau antibodies, neurotransmitter receptors, and synaptic plasticity or neuroprotection. Drugs based on these mechanisms are currently in phase 3 of clinical trials.

The Washington University School of Medicine’s DIAN-TU (Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trials Unit) trial is testing Lecanemab plus Eisai’s investigational anti-tau antibody E2814 in patients with early-onset AD caused by a genetic mutation. E2814 prevents the spreading of tau seeds in the brains of AD patients. This drug is in phase 3 clinical trial. The clinical study commenced in June 2024 and will complete by November 2029.

ACP-204 by Acadia Pharmaceuticals is also in phase 3 clinical trial for AD. The agent acts as an inverse agonist at the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor. FDA has approved Acadia’s previous 5-HT2A inverse agonist, Nuplazid, for Parkinson’s disease psychosis. ACP-204 will be the first drug for AD treatment in Acadia’s product portfolio if approved.

Another drug in phase 3 trial is AriBio’s AR1001, a phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitor. Apart from AR1001, two more AD drugs are in AriBio’s pipeline, AR1002 and AR1003 that are currently under the investigational new drug-enabling stage of clinical trials.

For better patient outcomes, researchers are attempting to develop AD drugs with non-invasive modes of administration that are likely to be less expensive and equally effective compared to AD drugs administered intravenously.

The safety and effectiveness of oral therapy candidate Buntanetap, developed by Annovis Bio, are comparable in people with early onset AD regardless of whether they do or do not carry a genetic risk factor APOE4. That is according to new data from a phase 2/3 clinical trial that tested three doses of Buntanetap against a placebo in more than 300 patients with the neurodegenerative disease. Buntanetap modulates protein production to reduce clumping. The competitive advantage of Annovis Bio over its peers is the fact that Buntanetap targets multiple proteins in the brain, such as amyloid beta, tau, alpha-synuclein, and TDP43, making it more effective than AD drugs that target a single protein.

Apart from Buntanetap, Annovis Bio has another oral drug to treat advanced AD and dementia in its pipeline, ANVS301, which is in phase 1 of clinical trial. In July 2024, Annovis Bio received FDA approval to transition to a new solid form of Buntanetap in future clinical trials allowing the company to refine its drug formulation, potentially improving its efficacy and safety profiles.

Another promising AD drug candidate, Fosgonimeton by Athira Pharma, is a small-molecule positive modulator of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) system, previously showing neuroprotective, neurotrophic, and anti-inflammatory effects in preclinical models of dementia. This drug is in phase 3 clinical trial. Athira Pharma ended 2023 with a strong balance sheet, signaling its better financial position to augment its ongoing pipeline development.

Eli Lilly’s new drug Remternetug works as pyroglutamyl (3)-amyloid beta-protein (3-42) inhibitors, positioning it as a promising AD drug. Remternetug will join Eli Lilly’s portfolio as a second AD drug if approved.

Simufilam by Cassava Sciences is a proprietary, small-molecule oral drug that restores the normal shape and function of altered filamin A (FLNA), a scaffolding protein, in the brain. It is now in phase 3 clinical study to test this new and promising scientific approach to treating and diagnosing AD. The mechanism of action of this drug involves stabilizing a critical protein in the brain instead of removing it. This novel approach distinguishes Cassava Sciences’ drug from other treatments that predominantly focus on amyloid-beta or tau proteins. In May 2024, Cassava Sciences raised US$125 million by selling its stock to shareholders. The funds will be utilized for the continued development of Simufilam.

Valiltramiprosate by Alzheon is potentially the first oral disease-modifying treatment for AD. Valiltramiprosate is well differentiated from plaque-clearing antibodies in development for AD due to its novel mechanism of action, oral mode of administration, and potential efficacy in a genetically targeted population. In October 2017, Valiltramiprosate/ALZ-801 received FDA Fast Track designation for AD investigation. Due to Alzheon’s significant progress in AD drug development, the company has attracted a lot of investors since 2022. Alzheon received US$100 million in June 2024 in Series E venture capital funding which will be utilized to further develop and commercialize Valiltramiprosate. This is in addition to US$50 million received in series D round of funding in 2022.

Big names dominate the competition, with clinical trials in progress by smaller biopharma players

On the competitive landscape front, the AD drug market is highly competitive, with many pharmaceutical companies financing R&D to engineer new drugs that could potentially delay the progression of AD and/or restore neuronal health. The global AD therapeutics market size was US$4.8 billion in 2023 and will surpass US$7.5 billion by 2031, as per Towards Healthcare, a healthcare consulting firm.

A couple of large players still dominate the global AD therapeutics market. Interestingly, they are not the only ones active in the AD treatment development, as several smaller biopharmaceutical companies that specialize in neurodegenerative disease treatment are working on AD drugs (many currently in phase 3 of clinical trials).

High R&D costs are a considerable factor in slowing the progress down

Between 1995 and 2021, the cumulative private spend (total R&D expenditure by pharmaceutical companies, does not include federal funding) on clinical stage R&D for AD was US$42.5 billion, with the largest share of 57% (US$24.1 billion) incurred during phase 3. During the same period, the FDA approved 878 drugs across all therapeutic areas; only six of these drugs were for AD treatment (four cholinesterase inhibitors [ChEIs], memantine, and aducanumab). These statistics speak volumes of the complex, expensive, time-consuming, and predominantly unsuccessful nature of AD clinical trials. This ultimately leads to exorbitant prices of AD drugs.

A range of factors drive the R&D costs and, in turn, the price of AD drugs. A significant component here is patient screening, which contributes to 50-70% of the cost. Patient recruitment and retention are also challenging, given the considerable length of such trials.

Moreover, patient recruitment challenges stunt the progress of AD clinical trials. The recruitment rate for AD clinical trials is as low as one patient per site per month. In terms of eligibility, 99% of AD patients who are eligible for participation in a clinical trial never consider taking part. This further increases the time taken to conduct AD clinical trials.

EOS Perspective

After decades of failure in clinical trials, two anti-amyloid AD drugs, Kisunla and Leqembi, are available in the market, forming a duopoly in the USA. There are several promising drugs in phase 3 clinical trials with a new mechanism of action apart from amyloid beta protein inhibitors. However, the disease management landscape is prone to unforeseen changes, such as the withdrawal of drugs owing to safety, efficacy, and pricing issues.

The AD treatment landscape faces challenges such as drug inefficacy, complex pathophysiology of AD, expensive and time-consuming clinical trials, delays in diagnosis by physicians, behavioral changes and deteriorating mental health of AD patients, and severe side effects of medications. These challenges will continue to impede the development of new disease management approaches.

An issue that is very likely to continue to challenge progress in developing better treatment options for AD is the severe lack of funding. Dementia research is extremely underfunded compared to HIV/AIDS, cancer, and COVID-19 in the USA. Irrespective of the fact that the deaths attributed to AD are on par with cancer, the difference between the annual US federal government funding for AD vis-à-vis cancer is strikingly huge.

AD drug development is a tough market to operate in. The ongoing issue with AD research funding persists, and there do not seem to be changes in federal funding soon. On top of that, the slow progress in successful R&D and many failed clinical research trials will likely make private-sector investors hesitate or withdraw.

In addition to this, AD drug manufacturers will also continue to face the challenge of low to modest drug sales due to poor adoption rates stemming from issues like restricted coverage.

As of June 2023, Medicare was covering AD drugs that slow down the progress of the disease provided a physician agrees to the collection of real-world evidence of these AD drugs, as per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). However, there is a significant underlying problem with drugs for AD treatment. When the drug finally enters the market, patients cannot afford the treatment, and the coverage is restricted and sometimes withdrawn. There is no foreseeable change to this impasse, and hence, the AD treatment development is likely to be slow.

If reimbursement of AD drugs is removed, patients are likely to stop administering AD drugs altogether and adopt alternative healthcare resources such as antidepressants, as found in a 2021 study by researchers from Paris-Saclay University and Memory Center of Sainte Périne Hospital in France.

The reluctance of payers to cover the treatment cost for AD is influenced by several factors beyond just the high cost of the drug. Factors include cost-effectiveness of treatments, uncertain long-term safety and efficacy benefits of treatments, clinical guidelines and recommendations, availability of alternative treatments including generics (from drug makers such as Cadila, Cipla, Dr. Reddy’s, among others), and regulatory and reimbursement policies.

The future of AD treatment approaches will continue to remain bleak, and patients will be left with only a few available drug options unless the right authorities set out a plan for fast-track clinical trial processes, increase AD research investment, and support broader insurance coverage.

Pharma Companies Navigate Their Way through Ac-225 amidst Supply Constraints by EOS Intelligence
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Pharma Companies Navigate Their Way through Ac-225 amidst Supply Constraints

759views

Pharma companies have been increasingly investing in developing targeted alpha therapies for cancer treatment, using alpha-emitting isotopes such as Ac-225. However, the current supply for Ac-225 is limited, and thus, companies are working towards securing their supply chain. The recent investment by Eli Lilly in isotope manufacturer Ionetix brings to light the increasing interest of large pharmaceutical companies in Ac-225 and its uninterrupted supply for their pipelines. Similar to Eli Lilly, several other companies have strategically invested in or partnered with manufacturers to ensure a guaranteed supply.

Ac-225 is pegged as a promising isotope for next-generation cancer treatment

Among the recent advances in cancer therapies, only a few have shown as much promise as targeted alpha therapies have. Targeted alpha therapies (TAT) involve using alpha-emitting isotopes to selectively target and destroy cancerous tissue without causing significant damage to surrounding healthy tissue. This is facilitated by the short range of alpha radiation in human tissue (less than 0.1 mm), which corresponds to less than 10 cell diameters. Moreover, they are characterized by high energy levels (5-9 MeV), which results in the selective destruction of malignant cells.

Several alpha-emitting isotopes are currently being explored for TAT, the most common among them being Ac-225, At-211, Pb-212, and Bi-213. Of these, Ac-225 (actinium-225) is considered the most potent medical-grade radioisotope as it has a high decay energy of 5.9 MeV and a half-life of 10 days. It is the isotope of choice in several clinical trials, with about 15 Ac-225-based ongoing clinical trials currently in the USA. However, despite having substantial potential for developing next-generation treatments in the cancer space, their adoption has been slow, given the short supply of the isotope.

Ac-225 is not naturally available and is derived from Th-229 (thorium-229), a byproduct of uranium-233 (U-233), which is a leftover from the production of atomic weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. The initial batch of Ac-225 has been supplied by the US Department of Energy (DOE). However, the supply cannot keep up with the growing demand for trials.

Isotope producers invest to accelerate Ac-225 supply in the future

Currently, there are two commercialized routes to produce Ac-225. As mentioned above, the first and traditional route involves separating Ac-225 from Th-229, derived from the US government’s legacy reserves of U-233. The US government holds about 453kg of U-233, of which only about 256kg is of high quality and will produce about 24g of medical-grade thorium.

The government had previously started a program that extracted a small amount (150mCi) of Th-229, which produced about 1.2 Ci of Ac-225 per annum, enough to treat 1,200 patients. However, in 2019, the US DOE entered into a public-private partnership with Terra Power and Isotek to downblend its stock of U-233 to extract Th-229, which can further be used to develop Ac-225. In 2021, TerraPower entered into an agreement with Cardinal Health, a US-based commercial alpha contract manufacturing organization (CMO), to develop and produce Ac-225 for drug development commercial sales. This will likely significantly improve the supply of Ac-225 in the long run.

The other route to produce Ac-225 is through cyclotron production, which involves irradiating a Ra-226 (Radium-226) target with a proton and knocking off two neutrons. Several isotope manufacturers are adopting this technology and are working on increasing their manufacturing capacity.

Niowave, a US-based supplier of medical and industrial radioisotopes, uses a closed-loop cycle to produce high-purity Ac-225 and other alpha emitters from Ra-226 using a superconducting electron linear accelerator. Similarly, Ionetix, a leading cyclotron technology innovator and isotope manufacturer, uses the same technology to produce Ac-225 and managed to produce its first batch of Ac-225 in June 2024. The company commissioned its first cyclotron at its current facility in 2023, while it aims to install and commission a second cyclotron there in early 2025. By 2025, it is expected that the company will be able to produce about 1Ci per week. The company also aims to establish another site in the USA for Ac-225 production in 2026.

While isotope manufacturers are strategically working to enhance the production of Ac-225 in the long run, the current supply, which is required to fuel the ongoing clinical trials using Ac-225, is quite limited. In 2024, the worldwide supply of Ac-225 is estimated to be about 2Ci per annum, which is merely enough to treat 2,000 patients.

Pharma companies invest in securing their Ac-225 supply chain

Given its currently limited availability and immense potential, leading pharmaceutical players are adopting various strategies to secure their Ac-225 supply to support their targeted alpha therapies drug pipelines. Several leading players, such as Fusion Pharmaceuticals, Telix Pharmaceuticals, and Bayer, are actively working on partnering with companies producing Ac-225 to overcome supply-related challenges for their trials. Recently, a leading pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly, also joined the bandwagon and secured its supply of the actinium isotope.

Fusion, which has three Ac-225-based drugs currently under trial, was one of the first movers in this regard and has inked several partner agreements to ensure a smooth supply.

In December 2020, Fusion entered into a partnership with TRIUMF, Canada’s national particle accelerator center. In this partnership, Fusion would provide the latter with up to US$18.5 million (CA$25 million) to upgrade its production facilities and scale up production of Ac-225. In return, Fusion would receive preferred access and pricing to the resulting isotope.

In June 2022, Fusion collaborated with Niowave, a US radioisotope manufacturer. Under the agreement, Fusion would invest up to US$5 million in Niowave to further develop their technology to increase their production capacity of Ac-225. In return, Fusion will be guaranteed access to a pre-determined percentage of Niowave’s capacity of the resulting Ac-225, as well as preferred access to any excess stock produced.

In November 2023, Fusion entered into an agreement with BWXT Medical, a US-based supplier of nuclear components and a subsidiary of BWX Technologies. Under the agreement, the latter agreed to provide Fusion with a preferential supply of Ra-225 (parent isotope of Ac-225) and access to high-specific activity generator technology. This would enable Fusion to produce Ac-225 at its own manufacturing facility for use in clinical trials. In addition, BMXT Medical provides Fusion with predetermined amounts of its actinium supply needs under a preferred partner agreement.

Another leading radiopharmaceutical player, Telix Pharmaceuticals, entered into an agreement with Cardinal Health in May 2024 to supply Ac-225 globally.

Similarly, in February 2024, Bayer signed an agreement with PanTera (a Belgian radioisotope production JV created by Ion Beam Applications and SCK CEN) to secure large-scale production of Ac-225. PanTera uses both the Ra-226 and Th-229 production mechanisms to produce Ac-225. It is collaborating with TerraPower to supply Th-229.

Eli Lilly, the largest pharmaceutical company globally, has also recently invested in a nuclear isotope manufacturing company, Ionetix, in August 2024. Eli Lilly has made a US$10 million convertible loan investment in the company to secure its supply of Ac-225. Moreover, PointBiopharma, which was acquired by Eli Lilly in 2023, also had a previous US$10 million investment in Ionetix, resulting in Eli Lilly holding a total of US$20 million debt facility with Ionetix. The pharma giant has the option to convert this debt into equity when Ionetix’s valuation exceeds US$300 million.

These investments by Eli Lilly and Fusion Pharmaceuticals are rare cases where major pharmaceutical companies are investing up the supply chain to secure actinium availability for their cutting-edge drug pipelines.

EOS Perspective

While targeted alpha therapies are emerging as high-potential next-generation cancer drugs, they are plagued by supply constraints of alpha-emitting isotopes, especially Ac-225. Thus, companies seeing great promise in these therapies must work towards securing their supply of these isotopes to ensure the smooth running of their clinical trials.

In the past, large pharmaceutical companies such as BMS have had to halt enrolment in their clinical trials due to the non-availability of Ac-225. Such interruptions not only delay the entire clinical trial but also have significant cost implications and could jeopardize its overall success.

Considering these limitations, it is imperative that pharmaceutical companies with ongoing or planned Ac-225-based trials invest in ensuring a guaranteed supply of the isotope for the entirety of their trial and future production of the drug once approved. While several companies are merely entering into supply agreements with isotope manufacturers, others are taking it one step ahead and investing in their upstream suppliers. Moreover, some companies, such as Fusion and now BMS, are advancing towards building on-site production of Ac-225.

That being said, establishing a secure supply chain of Ac-225 comes with its own set of costs and risks. Most pharmaceutical companies are undertaking significant investments (ranging between US$5-25 million) to guarantee their supply of Ac-225.

However, as a cancer therapy, TAT is in the nascent stages of development, and most trials utilizing Ac-225 are still in either phase 1 or phase 1/2, far from FDA approval. Moreover, the only Ac-225-based trial in phase 3 is being conducted by BMS for neuroendocrine cancer and is currently halted due to supply issues. Given the nascency and early stages of development of this treatment, it is too soon to predict if these heavy investments into Ac-225 would result in the development of FDA-approved drugs and bring sufficient returns. This risk can have particularly dire consequences for small players.

Thus, while companies looking to develop targeted alpha therapies using Ac-225 must work to secure their supply, their level of investment must remain in sober relation to their size, pipeline, and financial position.

Top