MEDICAL DEVICES Archives

11/04/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Commentary: PFA – A Potential Paradigm Shift in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Landscape

Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA) is an emerging technology for treating atrial fibrillation (AFib), a form of irregular heartbeat affecting 40 million heart patients worldwide as of 2023. As the prevalence of AFib is increasing, all eyes are on this novel, minimally invasive technology that offers improved effectiveness, safety, and shorter procedure and recovery time compared to the existing thermal ablation procedures.

PFA applies short, high-voltage pulses of energy to cardiac tissue and is proven to be more precise and safe than the thermal ablation methods, which come with the risk of damaging collateral tissues.

A clinical trial conducted by Medtronic across North America, Europe, Australia, and Japan during 2022-2023 revealed that the efficacy performance of its PFA system PulseSelect stood at 66% in paroxysmal and 55% in persistent AFib patients against the pre-specified performance goals of >50% (paroxysmal) and >40% (persistent). Performance goals were set based on multiple studies conducted on thermal ablation procedures that evaluated efficacy based on the freedom from acute procedural failure and arrhythmia recurrence in one year.

Despite promising results, the first-generation PFA technology still needs improvement in targeting the tissue of interest, and players in the field are developing supportive systems such as mapping systems to improve performance.

PFA emerges as a better alternative to conventional ablation methods

PFA is viewed as the best evolution within the electrophysiology (EP) space (comprises ablation catheters, diagnostic catheters, laboratory devices, and access systems used to treat arrhythmia). The tissue-targeting approach of PFA overcomes the drawbacks of thermal ablation methods, such as extensive scarring and the risks of injuring nearby organs. Along with improving clinical outcomes, this transformative technology will significantly improve patient experience and reduce the cost of care by lowering procedure and recovery time.

Being safer than other ablation methods, PFA is set to become the preferred modality

Only about 2% of the eligible patients with AFib globally and 15% of the eligible patients in the USA were treated with ablation as of February 2023, according to a MedTech analyst at Bank of America. This is because thermal ablation comes with the risk of damaging nearby issues, which can lead to damage to the esophagus, phrenic nerve, and pulmonary veins.

A study published by the European Heart Rhythm Association in January 2024 comparing the outcomes of PFA and thermal ablations stated that the risk of injury from PFA was 3.4% compared to 5.5% in thermal ablation. PFA, being safer than thermal ablation, can be expected to reach many more eligible patients. After the launch of Boston Scientific’s Farapulse in Europe in January 2021, 38,000 AFib patients were treated there with the Farapulse PFA system during 2022-2023, compared to 2,000 patients Farapulse treated in 2021. Moreover, Boston Scientific predicts the global AFib ablation market will grow from US$5 billion in 2023 to US$11 billion in 2028, driven by the increase in the number of PFA procedures.

The growing adoption indicates that PFA has the potential to become the preferred method for treating AFib over the existing treatments, such as thermal catheter ablation and surgical ablation procedures.

Initial clinical trials indicate PFA results in better patient outcomes

With this new technology, patients will experience an improved quality of life with a significantly lower risk of complications and post-procedural discomfort.

This finds evidence in some of the studies performed by the industry. In January 2024, the European Heart Rhythm Association published a study comparing the performance of Boston Scientific’s Farapulse PFA system against thermal ablation systems in 1,572 patients across Europe. The study showed that 85% of patients who underwent PFA experienced overall freedom from AFib after one year, compared to 77% of patients who underwent thermal ablation procedures.

Reduced time of post-procedure care is PFA’s major advantage

With a duration of about 2 hours, the PFA procedure is shorter than thermal ablation, which takes 3-4 hours. More importantly, PFA requires a few hours of hospitalization post the procedure, while thermal ablation is typically associated with one day of hospitalization after the procedure.

Shorter hospital stays improve patient experience by minimizing stress and discomfort from longer hospitalization hours. They also enable faster scheduling, as hospitals can perform more procedures and minimize scheduling delays.

As PFA does not require in-patient admissions, PFA procedures will not be disrupted by hospital bed shortages. This is a considerable advantage, as many developed countries such as the USA and the UK lack adequate hospital bed capacity. As of 2021, there were 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000 population in the USA and 2.4 in the UK, below the WHO’s recommendation of 3.4 beds per 1,000 population.

Moreover, reducing the length of hospital stays yields significant cost savings for patients as well as the payers. Reducing a hospital stay by a day or several hours translates to savings that cannot be ignored. For instance, in the USA, the average cost of per-hour hospital observation is US$600 in 2024, as per the healthcare pricing transparency platform Turquoise Health. The average cost of per-day hospitalization was US$2,883 in 2021, as per a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation (Medicare patients are eligible for $1,632 reimbursement). In the UK, the average cost of per-hour hospital observation is US$100, and the cost of per-day hospitalization is US$442 as of 2022, according to the National Health Service.

Short learning curve and procedure time facilitate performing more procedures

A short learning curve equips more cardiologists and trainees with the skills required to perform and support the procedure faster. Cardiologists typically get comfortable with PFA procedures after 5-10 cases, which allows to expand the pool of specialists performing this treatment relatively quickly and easily. This, in turn, can significantly improve PFA accessibility.

As the shortage of physicians continues to worsen globally, particularly in the USA, which represented 50% of the ablation market in 2023, PFA can play a crucial role in facilitating an increase in the number of procedures performed at a hospital within the same timeframe. With an expected shortage of 120,000 cardiologists in the USA by 2030, according to a 2021 report by the Association of American Medical Colleges, performing quicker procedures can help to partially offset the lack of specialists. Since PFA takes 30-50% less time than conventional ablation methods, it has the potential to significantly increase the number of procedures performed.

MedTech companies grow their ablation market share by offering PFA devices

With increased health screening efforts that detect more patients with arrhythmias, the number of cardiac ablation procedures performed globally doubled between 2013 and 2023 to reach about 650,000 procedures in 2023.

Boston Scientific expects the global AFib ablation market to more than double to US$11 billion during 2023-2028, with PFA predicted to grow to more than 80% of procedures (from under 5% in 2023). PFA technology is expected to be adopted quickly. As seen in Europe, PFA devices were launched in 2021, and already about 12% of the ablation procedures in the region in 2023 were done using PFA technology.

J&J, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific take the lead in the PFA field

Eyeing the potential of this emerging market, MedTech giants such as Johnson&Johnson (J&J), Medtronic, and Boston Scientific (accounting for 55%, 10%, and 5% share of the global thermal ablation market in 2023, respectively) have entered the market with their newly developed PFA devices. Being early entrants, these companies have the potential to expand their market shares in the cardiac ablation market by grabbing shares from thermal ablation procedures.

Boston Scientific was the first company to commercialize PFA devices with the launch of the Farapulse PFA system in Europe in January 2021. Boston Scientific enjoyed a two-year monopoly in the European market until Medtronic launched an integrated mapping and PFA system called Affera in March 2023. Later, the company launched another PFA system, PulseSelect, in December 2023. In February 2024, J&J’s Varipulse PFA system also received approval in Europe.

In the USA, Medtronic was the first company to receive FDA approval for its PFA system PulseSelect in December 2023, followed by Boston Scientific in January 2024. Medtronic also received FDA approval for Affera in March 2024.

J&J is the only company with a presence in Asia, as the company received approval for its PFA system in Japan in January 2024. Abbott is currently conducting clinical trials for its PFA system Volt in Australia and expects to start clinical trials in the USA this year.

The companies work to enhance and improve their systems. For instance, Medtronic’s integrated mapping and PFA system Affera offers enhanced procedure performance supported by real-time mapping. The integrated system includes an ablation catheter Sphere-9 and mapping software to facilitate real-time mapping. Sphere-9 catheter can perform high-density mapping and ablation simultaneously to allow cardiologists to deliver wide-area focal ablation lesions quickly. Affera can also work with the PulseSelect PFA system to provide real-time mapping. Similarly, J&J has a 3D mapping system called Carto 3 (in the market since 2009), which integrates well with its PFA system and generates real-time 3D mapping that aids in better cell targeting. Boston Scientific has not developed an exclusive mapping system for its PFA system, however, the company claims that any catheter mapping system will work well with Farapulse.

Comparing the PFA systems’ performance in the clinical trials, all systems, including Boston Scientific’s Farapulse, Medtronic’s PulseSelect, Medtronic’s Affera, and J&J’s Varipulse proved to be effective in over 70% of patients in terms of freedom from arrhythmia recurrence in one year.

Currently, PFA devices are only available in the USA, Europe, and Japan, with Boston Scientific dominating in Europe. Boston Scientific has witnessed high adoption rates in Europe so far, and the company has been able to serve 40,000 patients in three years since its entry into the European market in 2021. The company expects an overall organic sales growth of 8-10% during 2024-2026, driven by its PFA devices. Medtronic and J&J have just launched their PFA systems in the USA and Europe, and how these companies perform has yet to be seen. Analysts from BTIG financial services firm predict that Medtronic’s PulseSelect will secure 9% and Boston Scientific’s Farapulse will secure 14% of the cardiac ablation market (which comprises PFA and two other forms of thermal ablation procedures – radiofrequency and cryoablation) in the USA by 2025.

With competent technologies, the market is expected to witness stiff competition from these companies. Analysts from BTIG financial services firm predict that by 2027, PFA will grab 48% of the US cardiac ablation market, while the radiofrequency ablation market will have a 42% share and cryoablation a 10% share. The expected PFA’s 48% market share is likely to be split amongst the leading PFA systems – Boston Scientific’s Farapulse, J&J’s Varipulse, Medtronic’s PulseSelect, and Medtronic’s Affera, at 16%, 13%, 10%,7%, respectively, followed by others with 2% share.

While these companies have already entered the PFA space, Abbott’s wait-and-see approach to PFA may backfire on its performance in the EP market. The company aims to commercialize its PFA system Volt in the USA by 2027 or 2028. However, PFA’s fast adoption threatens Abbott’s US$1.9 billion EP business and its 15% global thermal ablation market share (as of 2023). Growing PFA adoption could also threaten Abbott’s diagnostic catheter and mapping systems, as healthcare providers using PFA systems would prefer buying mapping systems linked to PFA.

New entrants to drive innovation and further improve PFA technology

Apart from the large players, there are a few smaller players, such as Canada-based Kardium, US-based Adagio Medical, and US-based Pulse Biosciences, that are developing PFA systems. These companies are investing in improving the PFA using nanotechnology and supportive systems such as 3D mapping systems. For instance, Pulse Biosciences developed Nanosecond PFA (nsPFA) technology that uses superfast nanosecond pulses of electrical energy that can regulate cell death, which spares adjacent noncellular tissue. The company expects FDA approval for this system in 2024.

EOS Perspective

Over the years, MedTech companies have been actively pursuing the development of minimally invasive procedures that have shorter recovery periods, offer improved patient outcomes and reduced post-procedure discomfort. As the limitations of the existing ablation methods became apparent, PFA poses a vast growth potential, as it is a safer, more convenient, and more effective alternative.

On the other hand, the pulsed-field waveform is significantly more complex than the energy modalities that preceded it, with numerous variables determining the dose targeted at the tissues and the quality of the resulting lesion. While a variety of PFA systems have demonstrated effective ablation procedures, these systems have yet to advance in overcoming all limitations of targeting the tissue of interest and rare but potentially serious complications.

In the coming years, we can expect companies to develop multiple catheter configurations that allow cardiologists to configure the energy delivery to achieve the desired energy dose and lesions. This includes the development of multi-configurable ablation catheters that can shift shapes to create circular, linear, or focal ablation lesions without performing catheter exchanges.

As the technology advances, we can expect PFA to dominate the AFib ablation market and democratize AFib ablation procedures by improving accessibility to all eligible patients.

21/03/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Digital Therapeutics: The Future of Healthcare?

Although the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be done with its rampage, many people still opt to access all kinds of services, including healthcare, from the comfort of their homes. As this trend is expected to continue, the global digital therapeutics market, with its projected growth at a 20% CAGR from 2022 to 2035, is one important sector healthcare firms should focus on right now.

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are digital health interventions or software applications that are clinically validated and designed to treat or manage medical conditions. They can be used alone or in conjunction with traditional medical treatments.

The Digital Therapeutics Alliance categorizes DTx products into three types: disease treatment, disease management, and health improvement.

Examples of DTx include a solution to manage chronic musculoskeletal pain developed by Kaia Health, a biotechnology company in New York. This motion analysis tool assesses and guides patients’ progress during physical therapy and tailors treatment to individual requirements.

Similarly, Clickotine from Click Therapeutics, a company also based in New York, uses AI to help people with nicotine addiction. This solution offers a personalized plan fully integrated with eight weeks of nicotine replacement therapy, including options such as gum, patches, or lozenges. It tracks critical aspects such as daily cigarette counts, craving triggers, craving times, etc. A trial study conducted by the company in 2016 claimed that 45% of Clickotine users were able to quit smoking.

Adoption of DTx is taking off amid increased investments

The commercial development of DTx started around 2015 and, since then, has grown into a global market of considerable size. The total value of global DTx start-ups was estimated at a whopping US$31 billion in 2022, according to a 2022 report published by Dealroom, an Amsterdam-based firm offering data and insights about start-ups and tech ecosystems, in partnership with MTIP (a Swiss-based private equity firm), Inkef (an Amsterdam-based early-stage venture investment firm), and Speedinvest (an Austrian early-stage investor).

The number of people using DTx solutions is expected to increase over the next few years, according to a 2022 report by Juniper Research, a UK-based research firm. The study found that there were 7 million DTx users in the USA in 2020, a number expected to rise to around 40 million in 2026.

This increase can be attributed to the fact that DTx solutions are highly accessible and distributable due to an increase in the use of smartphones. A 2021 report published by Pew Research Center, a US-based think tank, found that 87% of Americans owned a smartphone in 2021, compared to 35% in 2011. With this, more people will be able to access medical care without having to spend more on hospital visits.

DTx applications have also been attracting numerous investors owing to the applications’ cost-effectiveness, ease of distribution, and better accessibility. According to the same 2022 report published by Dealroom, global venture capital funding in DTx witnessed a fourfold increase in 2022 compared to 2017.

All these studies reveal that, despite certain challenges, the DTx applications hold the promise of developing into a practical and affordable means of treating illnesses and conditions that impact large numbers of people.

Regulatory pitfalls present a major roadblock to DTx adoption

One main challenge DTx companies face is the regulatory environment. All DTx products must comply with the regulations of regional agencies such as the FDA, HIPAA, HITECH, etc.

Many US firms initially faced regulatory obstacles and payer resistance around product reimbursement. Before 2017, the US FDA classified DTx solutions as a SaMD (Software as a Medical Device) and, therefore, made them subject to risk assessment (low, medium, or high). Due to this, DTx solutions needed premarket approval and rigorous clinical trial results to get approval.

This has improved with the introduction of the Digital Health Innovation Action Plan by the FDA in 2017. According to the new plan, the FDA will first consider the company producing the solution. If the producer has demonstrated quality and excellence, it can market lower-risk devices with a streamlined premarket review. Post-market surveillance and data collection are also done to evaluate product efficiency.

Similarly, in the EU, DTx is controlled by national competent authorities and governed by the European Regulation on Medical Devices 2017/745 (MDR). However, no specific framework indicates the evidence required for assessing the performance or quality of DTx solutions or their production standards. This means that the member states may interpret the dossier requirements differently, leading to a fractured regulatory environment.

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided companies with some regulatory flexibility, leading to an increase in venture capital funding. In 2020, the federal government in the USA issued a new rule allowing healthcare practitioners to treat patients across state lines, including the use of digital medicine. This can increase access to healthcare, especially in rural areas, and physicians will be able to offer timely care to their patients traveling in a different state.

The FDA has also loosened regulations during COVID-19, particularly for mental health products, with the Digital Health Innovation Action Plan. This was to ensure that patients received timely care even from their homes while reducing the burden on hospitals. It waived certain regulatory obligations, such as the need to file a 510(k) premarket notification during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 510(k) is a submission indicating that a new medical device is similar to something already approved by the FDA (a predicate device) to ensure safety and efficiency. However, finding suitable comparables can be highly challenging in the case of DTx, which is dynamically evolving. This can result in misunderstandings or overlooking of critical aspects of these solutions, leading to uncertainty and delays in the approval process. The waiver of this regulation offers DTx companies some relief in the future.

Digital Therapeutics – The Future of Healthcare by EOS Intelligence

Patient health literacy is a hurdle in the adoption of DTx solutions

A survey by the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) in 2003 has shown that only 12% of Americans possess proficient health literacy skills, making them able to find and understand information related to their health. This lack of awareness among patients can also impede the ease of applying DTx products.

Patient experience is also crucial for the acceleration of DTx adoption. Older patients unfamiliar with using technological gadgets can find it difficult to adopt DTx solutions. However, a 2022 AMA survey has shown that 90% of people over the age of 50 in the USA recognize some benefit from digital health tools.

Similarly, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2021 indicated an increase in the use of smartphones and the internet among older people in the USA, driven by the pandemic. Older adults are using technological applications for activities such as entertainment, banking, shopping, etc., even after the pandemic, a 2021 survey by AARP Research, a US-based NPO, shows. This indicates that there is scope for an increase in adoption.

Many companies are now trying to increase patient involvement by using gamification, aiming at patient groups for whom DTx use is likely to be more challenging (e.g., older population, children). DTx developers include game-like elements or mechanics into a DTx solution, such as tasks, rewards, badges, points, and leaderboards. An example is US-based Akili Interactive’s EndeavorRx, a prescription DTx aimed at enhancing attention function in children with ADHD aged 8 to 12. It uses an interactive mobile video game to assist children in improving their attention skills and adjusting to their performance levels. The game’s sensory stimuli and motor challenges also help kids multitask and tune out distractions.

Payer reluctance affects many DTx products

Although the number of DTX products on the market increases, payers’ reluctance to cover their costs to the patient can also slow down adoption. The coverage of DTx solutions is limited, even when they are FDA-approved. Only 25% of payers are currently willing to cover prescription DTx solutions, according to a 2022 survey by MMIT, a Pennsylvania-based market data provider, which involved 16 payers.

Akili Interactive’s EndeavorRx is one such solution facing insurance coverage issues. Elevance Health (previously Anthem) denied coverage for EndeavorRx, deeming it medically unnecessary, while Aetna, another insurance provider, considers it experimental and investigational.

A study released by Health Affairs, a health policy research journal, in November 2023 has shown that only two of the twenty FDA-approved prescription DTx solutions on the market have undergone rigorous evidence-based evaluation. This means that no authoritative results indicating the benefits of these solutions for various population demographics are available, making many payers skeptical of their medical claims.

DTx offers solutions for managing multiple conditions

Over the past few years, several prominent players have emerged in the DTx landscape. Around 59% of the DTx market is concentrated in the North American region and 28% in Europe.

Top players, such as Akili Interactive and Big Health, both US-based firms, focus on offering products for managing mental health illnesses, mostly management of anxiety, depression, and stress, according to a report published in 2023 (based on data until September 2022) by Roots Analysis, an India-based pharma/biotech market research firm. With about 970 million people suffering from mental health conditions globally (according to the WHO), the potential user pool is enormous, offering growth opportunities for DTx solutions developed to address mental illnesses and, over time, driving the growth of the DTx market as a whole.

Many top companies also focus on solutions offering pain management and treatment for chronic conditions such as diabetes, obstructive pulmonary disease, and musculoskeletal disorders. An example is US-based Omada’s pain management solution, Omada MSK. This application guides patients through various customized exercises and records their movements, which are then assessed by a licensed physical therapist (PT), who can make recommendations for improvement. It also has a tool that utilizes computer vision technology to help PTs virtually assess a patient’s movement and range of motion, allowing them to make necessary changes in the therapy.

Similarly, several DTx solutions on the market now focus specifically on diabetes, which affects around 537 million adults globally. Some top companies focus on the previously unmet needs of conventional methods, such as weight management or preventing prediabetes, to help with overall diabetes treatment. US-based Omada’s solution, Omada Prediabetes, comes with a weight scale pre-connected to the app, and the weight is added to the app as soon as the patient steps on the scale. A dedicated health coach assesses the patient’s weight, creates a customized plan, and monitors the patient’s progress. In other similar DTx solutions for diabetes, an app can also give insulin dose recommendations based on the patient’s blood glucose levels.

DTx can serve in a range of other conditions, including major depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and multiple sclerosis, to name a few.

The DTx landscape is rife with development

The DTx business landscape has recently seen many developments, from acquisitions to product launches. One of them was Big Health’s acquisition of Limbix, a California-based DTx firm, in July 2023 to bolster its portfolio, including SparkRx, a treatment for adolescents dealing with depression and anxiety. Similarly, in June 2023, Kaia Health launched Angela, a HIPAA-compliant, AI-powered voice-based digital care assistant, to serve as a companion and guide, enhancing the physical therapy experience for patients.

In another development, BehaVR, a DTx company headquartered in Kentucky, and Fern Health, a digital chronic pain management program, merged their companies in November 2023 to create a novel pain management DTx solution that addresses both pain and fear caused by chronic diseases. With this merger, they launched RealizedCare, an app designed to offer a comprehensive solution that collaborates with health plans, employers, and value-based providers to treat a range of behavioral and mental health conditions. This solution provides clinicians with immersive programs specifically designed for in-clinic use. It is initially focusing on chronic pain.

Bankruptcy of Pear and lessons for the industry

However, the most shocking development in the DTx market was the bankruptcy of Pear Therapeutics in 2023. The remains of this once-prominent company were purchased by four other companies for a total of US$6.05 million at an auction. Pear was a big name in the industry since its inception in 2013. It introduced numerous products such as reSET, reSET-O, and Somryst for treating substance use disorder, opioid use disorder, and chronic insomnia, respectively. It was also the first company to receive FDA approval for a mobile app aimed at treating substance use disorders.

Though the company announced layoffs of nearly 20% of its workforce in November 2022, its management expressed optimism about the company’s growth and reduced operating expenses in the third quarter. But in April 2023, the company filed for bankruptcy.

The demise of Pear has opened the eyes of industry experts to the challenges faced by DTx players. Certain issues were unique to Pear itself, such as the comparatively higher prices of its products and the focus on treating challenging conditions such as substance use disorders. However, the bankruptcy of Pear also brings attention to the obstacles that can be faced by any other DTx company. One crucial roadblock is that physicians and payers still approach these products with caution. Additionally, achieving profitability for DTx might be challenging for all types of players, particularly for small start-ups lacking substantial market influence. The bankruptcy of Pear and the challenges it faced can be used by budding DTx companies as a road map as they navigate this complex sector.

EOS Perspective

DTx is all set to revolutionize the medical industry, with a 2020 McKinsey report suggesting it could potentially alleviate the global disease burden by up to 10% by 2040. Given the impact of emerging treatments on stakeholders, pharmaceutical and healthcare companies should consider expanding their portfolio to include DTx solutions.

With telehealth companies seeing good growth in the pandemic and post-pandemic years, an increase in investment can be expected as they are uniquely placed to support prescription DTx. With the growth of the digital health industry, prominent telehealth providers may also choose to acquire DTx businesses or create their own in-house DTx solutions.

Read our related Perspective:
 COVID-19 Outbreak Boosts the Use of Telehealth Services

An increase in industry M&A activities can be expected in the next few years, with growing incidences of chronic illnesses, improved technology penetration across all age groups, and a maturing market. Big names such as Bayer, Novartis, and Sanofi are also entering into partnerships with DTx companies, indicating a bright future for the sector.

Mental health and behavioral therapy are great fields to branch out for companies starting in the DTx landscape, especially in this post-pandemic era. Demand for such services is likely to be sustained, considering the National Institute of Mental Health Disorders estimates that one in four adults in the USA suffers from a diagnosable mental illness, with many suffering from multiple conditions.

Similarly, diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart, and respiratory ailments are on the rise. Healthcare companies can effectively address these medical areas through the use of DTx applications, providing personalized care for patients. This approach has the potential to manage not only chronic conditions such as diabetes but also terminal illnesses such as cancer.

Many DTx players will likely focus on areas with unmet needs, including pediatrics and metabolic disorders. With seven DTx-based diabetic management solutions already receiving 510(k) clearance as of December 2022, it can be expected that more products addressing the treatment gaps might flood the market.

The DTx industry is gradually maturing and has been receiving significant investments in recent years (US$8 billion in 2022). While experts view it as a profitable market, hesitation remains, particularly following the bankruptcy of Pear Therapeutics.

Nevertheless, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown measures, technology adoption among older adults has increased significantly. Hence, strategic investments in DTx by pharmaceutical and healthcare companies, taking into account market conditions, can expect to establish a stronger presence in this industry in the future.

Bridging the Gap between MDx Testing and Point-of-care by EOS Intelligence

27/02/2024by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

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

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.

07/09/2022by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Powering Healthcare Diagnostics with AI: a Pipe Dream or Reality

532views

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.

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.

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

Diagnostics Gain Spotlight amid Coronavirus Outbreak

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

Industry was quick to respond to the rise in demand

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pandemic encouraged the shift towards decentralizing diagnostics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coronavirus crisis accelerated innovation in the field of diagnostics

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

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

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

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

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

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

EOS Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

19/03/2020by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Indian Medical Device Rules: Prospects among Ordeals for Manufacturers

India’s recent notification on regulating medical devices is another step on the government’s behalf to raise healthcare standards in the country. These regulations have implications for all stakeholders in the medical device industry, including medical device manufacturers and importers. The actual impact of these regulations will only be felt in next four to five years, once the regulatory regime comes into effect. However, based on some of the specific regulatory requirements, it is not difficult to ascertain what lies ahead for manufacturers and importers.

In 2019, Indian medical device industry was worth US$9 billion and is expected to reach US$14 billion by 2025. India imports nearly 70% of its medical devices, particularly high-end medical equipment including cancer diagnostics, medical imaging, ultrasonic scans, and PCR technologies, among others, the demand for which is met by multinational companies. The key medical devices that India imports include electronics and equipment – 53%, consumables – 14%, surgical instruments – 10%, IVD reagents – 9%, implants – 7%, and disposables – 7%. Domestic medical device market comprises mainly of small and medium medical device manufacturers with a large portion with turnover of less than US$ 1.3 million.

For many years, Indian medical device industry has dealt with a lot of challenges owing to lack of regulations. However, with the new medical device regulatory system, the scenario is expected to improve and reduce concerns among the device manufacturers around the lack of standardization and best practices. We discussed the new regulations of medical devices and their impact on various stakeholders in the healthcare sector in our article Indian Medical Device Rules: a Step towards a Better Future in February 2020.

Impact of new regulations on device manufacturers

Once the new regulations come into play, all manufacturers will have to maintain quality standards to avoid any punitive action by the regulator, as compromise on quality could result in suspension or cancellation of their license disabling them for doing business in the Indian market.

In order to assure quality, manufacturers will have to focus on quality management best practices to meet the quality objectives. This would mean creation of quality manual, documentation and execution of the quality-related procedures, and maintenance of quality-related records. Establishment of a quality assurance unit and installation of IT system to support quality-related processes will be the two key steps towards achieving quality objectives.

However, all this will not be easy to achieve from a financial viewpoint for manufacturers, considering majority of players are small and medium-sized. As an indicator, the average cost per year of having a five member quality assurance team in place can be anything between US$ 27,000 to US$ 34,000, which would account for about 2% of the annual turnover for a medical device company reporting US$ 1.3 million in sales (65% of the Indian medical device companies earn less than that). This would be a significantly high expense and, if incurred, is likely to be passed on to consumers.

The amount of expenditure on IT-related infrastructure for implementation on QA would depend primarily on two things. Firstly – the kind of medical device being manufactured (while some medical devices work on the principle of embedded software others do not require software-related quality checks, such as syringes, masks, head covers, etc.). Secondly – the extent to which a manufacturer wants to invest in IT (based on global standards, it would come to around 15-20% of annual IT budget).

Spending on IT infrastructure should be considered as a long-term investment, considering this would be required not only to ensure compliance on quality assurance but also to be done if the company wants to compete in export markets. In any case, the manufacturer would spend less than 1% of its annual revenue on IT for achieving quality objectives.

The government also wants all the device manufacturers to be compliant with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), laid down under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940, and currently introduced as a self-audit or self-assessment activity.

Getting a GMP certification (that confirms a firm uses quality assurance approach to ensure that products are consistently produced and controlled to the quality standards appropriate to their intended use and as required by the marketing authorization) for a single device is likely to cost less than US$ 135 for the manufacturer. Considering a manufacturer produces a range of devices, most of the small device manufacturing units do not follow the voluntary practice of attaining a GMP certificate citing certification costs (for the entire range of devices manufactured) and renewal fees (for each device after a certain number of years) to be adding to their overall expenses, but not significant enough to be passed on to customers. However, on the positive side, if companies were to get GMP certification, it would make their products compliant as per international standards making them more competent in the export market.

Road ahead for importers

Imports constitute a sizeable part of the medical device market in India. It is easier for importers now to place their products in the Indian market considering that there is a streamlined regulatory standard in place highlighting regulatory approval procedures to be followed in India, as against only the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) or CE (Conformity Europé) approved products that were allowed to enter the market earlier. This will limit the importers’ cost required for approvals to market in India, rather than requiring marketing approval from international agencies.

Registration fees, license fees, and all duties levied for importing devices in India have been explained paving a clearer pathway for importers to operate in the market. Additionally, a list of forms specific for import purposes, required to apply for medical device approval has also been revealed.

All these practices and clarifications from the regulatory bodies have made it more convenient for manufacturers to import products. Clarity on import-related regulations is expected to make it easier for the importers to bring products to India thereby creating more challenges for the domestic players; however, it is too early to say how the market will evolve and which product segments will witness intensified competition in the next four to five years.

EOS Perspective

From the healthcare industry’s standpoint, governments’ step to ensure that medical devices available in the market meet quality standards in the future is positive and welcomed as it brings assurance of superior quality products for the people using them.

It is the small and medium sized enterprises that make up the low priced, high volume market segment of the medical device industry in India, that will need to make major operational changes and keep a close watch on the cost of compliance on quality aspect. The added cost aspect, if encountered, for developing high-quality products is most likely to hit them the hardest (especially the micro units and small-scale manufacturers) leaving them with no option but to pass on the increased cost onto the consumers. Larger players (5% manufacturers) are likely to remain practically unaffected. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to watch how these regulations shape the operations of device manufacturing companies functioning in India.

Indian Medical Device Rules: a Step towards Better Future

25/02/2020by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Indian Medical Device Rules: a Step towards a Better Future

1kviews

Healthcare sector in India is witnessing a churn as a result of the government’s attempt to make healthcare more affordable and to promote domestic healthcare industry. Recent medical devices-related notification is also part of the government’s vision for a better managed healthcare market, though it has ignited a debate about the future of medical device industry. There is hope as well as an apprehension among the stakeholders, as they wait for the notification to become fully effective in next three years.

The Notification

In the second week of February 2020, India’s Ministry of Health & Family Welfare announced that all medical devices sold in the country would be treated as drugs from April 1, 2020 onward and would be regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940. To understand the context of this announcement, we will have to turn the clock back by about three years.

In 2017, Indian government announced Medical Device Rules-2017 (MDR-17) – a set of rules, which included:

Classification of medical devices into four classes (A, B, C, and D), based on the associated risks, i.e. low, low moderate, moderate high, and high risk devices
Procedures, including the required documents, for registration and regulatory approval of devices
Details regarding manufacturing, quality audit, import/export, and labelling-related requirements

There was no risk-based classification of medical devices prior to 2017 and it was also difficult to introduce new products, as the approval procedures were undefined. In case of imports, only the products approved by Conformité Européene (CE) and the US Food and Drug Administration were allowed. MDR-17 were expected to unlock the potential of Indian medical device market by introducing a well-defined regulatory regime, while assuring quality products to consumers.

Under the rules, a medical device had to be notified as ‘drug’ under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to be regulated by Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO):

Initially, 15 categories of medical devices (syringes, stents, catheters, orthopedic implants, valves, etc.) were notified as drugs
In 2019, the government notified (effective April 2020) another eight categories – MRI equipment, PET, bone marrow separators, dialysis machines, CT scan and defibrillators, etc., thereby placing a total of 23 categories of medical devices under drugs

The February 2020 notification, called Medical Devices (Amendment) Rules, 2020, has made the entire range of medical devices available in India (about 5,000 different types) under the ambit of drugs, as opposed to 23 categories before the announcement. The compliance requirements are to be enforced in a phased manner, with 30 months given to low and low moderate risk devices and 42 months for moderate high risk and high risk devices.

The Concerns

The February notification has drawn reactions, most of them positive, regarding the future from those associated with the industry. There are some concerns as well, such as:

What if the device rules accord unrestrained power to drug inspectors due to medical devices being regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act?
Would the cost of quality compliance be substantial for device manufacturers?
Would the government resort to price control of medical devices, as it does in case of drugs?

Though the concerns are valid, they are unlikely to cause immediate disruption, as there would be at least 30 months (time given for enforcement of compliance for class A and B devices) after the notification date for the rules to start impacting the industry. An increased cost of compliance is a possibility, however, it would be found across the industry and should not impact only specific companies or a specific product segment.

At present, for price control purpose, four medical devices – cardiac stents, drug-eluting stents, condoms, and intrauterine devices – are in the national list of essential medicines that can be further expanded. However, the expansion cannot be directly linked with the medical device rules, which were primarily framed to ensure a better operating environment for industry players. For instance, from the initial list of 15 categories (i.e. about 350 devices) under MDR-17, only cardiac stents and knee implants were brought under price control (condoms and intrauterine devices were already under the price control regime when MDR-17 were introduced).

Impact on stakeholders

Indian medical device industry is expected to evolve under medical device rules (including the February 2020 notification). Even if the impact of the rules is speculative at present, it is interesting to take a look at their potential effect on key stakeholders in the coming years. While the patients appear to be the greatest beneficiaries due to improvement in quality of treatment, wholesalers and retailers of medical devices may have to prepare for a more demanding operating environment.

Read more on the implications for all stakeholders in the medical device industry in India in our article: Indian Medical Device Rules: Prospects among Ordeals for Manufacturers

EOS Perspective

Decision to notify all medical devices as drugs for regulatory purpose was a result of a long consultative process, which involved various stakeholders and experts, including Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB). The industry was expecting such an announcement, as the government had previously shown its intent to do so. Hence, the February 2020 notification was only part of the process that was initiated in 2017 with the introduction of medical device rules. The notification is a show of intent by the government of India towards building a better regulated industry offering more quality products, thereby raising the standards of healthcare in the country. The phased implementation of rules is likely to provide enough time for the industry to adapt according to new regulatory requirement.

Any comment on the future of Indian medical device industry on account of probable price control measures would be purely speculative, as it is difficult to predict the outcome of such steps at present. The case in point is of stents, which were brought under price control regime in 2017. There were fears that the move might kill the sector; however, the stent-related procedures have not witnessed decline despite the multinational companies taking their high end products off the shelf, indicating that the domestic manufacturers have been able to cater to demand.

While the end-users can view the medical device rules as a means to provide better care to them, the device manufacturers can also look for positives, especially when the rules are seen along with the government’s other efforts, such as Make in India initiative, to boost domestic manufacturing. Device classification and the associated regulatory requirements have removed ambiguity for the manufacturers of medical devices in India. This clarity might also fast track investments in the sector, as the potential investors now know what to expect while operating in India. Under Make In India, up to 100% foreign direct investment is permitted in medical devices through automatic route.

14/08/2019by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

EU New Medical Device Regulations: Cause of Ache for Medical Device Players

929views

Circling around patient care and improving overall healthcare services, the European Parliament has set new requirements for medical device and in vitro diagnostic manufacturers that distribute products in the EU. However, medical device manufacturers have realized that they are bound to face many challenges in order to make their products market-ready, not to forget the gigantic task of implementing new protocols in a timely manner, which will not be easy.

Need for a comprehensive updated medical device regulatory system

EU’s Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR) were made official in May 2017, with transition period of three years (fully applicable from May 26, 2020) for the former and five years (fully applicable from May 26, 2022) for the latter. These regulations will replace EU’s previous directives: Medical Device Directive (MDD), Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive (AIMDD), and In Vitro Diagnostic Directive (IVDD).

The need for new regulations of medical devices in EU arose from the growing demand for technologically advanced medical products which necessitated more stringent monitoring of these devices to ensure a high level of efficacy and safety among patients.

Unlike earlier version of the regulations where the main focus revolved around the pre-approval stage of medical device manufacturing, the new regulatory guidelines promote an overall product-life cycle approach, focusing on both device safety and performance.

Enhanced supervision, easy documentation of devices, more stringent clinical evidence requirement, and increased supervision on part of authorities providing medical device certifications are some of the key changes in MDR as compared to the EU’s previous directives.

Bumpy road ahead for medical device manufacturers

Reclassifying existing product line-up

Based on the risk factor, changes have been made to the way medical devices are classified. Under MDR, the number of classiﬁcation rules has expanded from 18 to 22 intensifying the task of product re-classiﬁcations by the manufacturer.

For instance, products using software for monitoring purposes being implanted in the body has been reclassified to higher-risk class (from Class I to Class III) which would now require conformity assessment by a notified body (NB – an organization that assess the conformity of medical devices before they are placed on the market), unlike earlier, when Class I products did not require assessment via a NB. This is going to burden players with increased operational costs; thus, it is imperative that the manufacturers familiarize themselves with the classification changes and study the impact on their product portfolio.

New products are also being added to the list of medical devices that earlier were not part of the medical device regulatory framework. For instance, products manufactured utilizing human tissues or cells and devices incorporating nanomaterial, under new regulations, will be considered medical devices. Manufacturers of such products have work cut out for them – from conducting clinical investigations, preparing technical documentation and evaluation processes, to product certification. Though such products could only form a very small percentage of the company’s product range, the task to make them available in the market is great, especially under current circumstances.

Manufacturers who do not comply with the new regulations will no longer be able to market their products in Europe. Thus, a robust strategy in terms of resource allocation, time management, and budget is an absolute must for manufacturers to make this transition possible.

Distress over notified bodies

Strict parameters are also being applied on NBs. Since all devices will require new certification from a NB, only designated NBs will be able to certify a device. The designation process is a complex procedure as it involves audits and corrective actions (once a NB expresses interest). However, while the medical device manufacturers have been in the process of switching to newer protocols since mid-2017, the first designated NB (BSI United Kingdom, the national standards body of the UK) was announced in January, 2019, almost 18 months after the regulations were announced and 14 months into the formally started designation process.

Such time-consuming process raises concern among medical device companies about the ability to complete the necessary conformity assessments within the allotted time. The huge task of recertifying medical devices with only a handful of designated NBs is a cause of worry for companies, as it could potentially result in significant backlogs as the last date approaches. However, there is only so much companies can do – even though they are proactive to comply with the new regulations much ahead of the deadline, poor process planning and lack of supporting bodies (notified bodies in this case) results in a long halt for these players.

The companies are heavily dependent on NBs for auditing and product certification, and the insufficient number of designated bodies adds to the risk of many devices being non-compliant according to new regulations. As of May 2019, less than 40 NBs have filed application for designation procedure (out of 58 designated NBs under the directives); only two have actually received a designated status – BSI UK and Germany based TÜV SÜD Product Service GmbH Zertifizierstellen (certification received in May 2019). With very little time at hand to reassess and rectify issues (if any), this could jeopardize the product availability in the market, resulting in not only risking the patients’ life (due to non-availability) but also in huge financial losses for the players.

Detailed clinical evaluation of medical devices

Owing to reclassification of product categories, many devices will require changes to their existing clinical evaluation reports, another challenge for medical device manufacturers. Manufacturers that have not previously been required to perform clinical testing will have to do so now. For instance, mechanical heart valve sizers will be moved up from Class I to Class III, and unlike in MDD where clinical evaluation was based on literature analysis, new evaluation of valve sizers will require clinical investigation. This will require a huge deal of additional time, money, and expertise, further burdening the device manufacturers.

Medical devices already in the market that remain untouched by the reclassification criteria will still require reassessment of clinical data. If the data do not meet the new requirements, devices will need to undergo additional testing to be recertified, increasing the expense for manufacturers.

MDR also calls for inclusion of risk management within the clinical evaluation expecting clinical risks to be addressed in clinical investigations and evaluation studies – adding another task to the long list of activities to be accomplished before MDR fully rolls out.

Explore our other Perspectives on medical devices markets

Comprehensive demonstration of equivalence data

Unlike MDD, where device manufacturers were able to use clinical data of an equivalent device for their own product registration, under MDR, equivalence is going to be less accepted, particularly for higher risk devices.

There are two ways out – manufacturers can either conduct their own trials not having to deal with the equivalence commotion or they can demonstrate that they have access to the equivalent device (with respect to technical and clinical properties) data. The latter is highly unlikely to happen considering equivalent device would typically belong to a competitor unwilling to grant such access. Thus, with stern requirements for comparative evaluations, more effort, planning, money, and resources will be needed for device manufacturers to demonstrate product safety and performance.

As new medical devices are developed, multiple small incremental improvements (minor changes in design, addition or subtraction of small hardware parts such as bolts or screws) happen over time. Once the device is already in the market, it is practically impossible to conduct a re-trial to gain approval for such small changes. An expected solution to this would be a provision to accept such minor changes through pre-clinical evidence or prior trial results. However, with equivalence testing being reduced drastically under MDR, unless a solution for such cases is offered, manufacturers will have to conduct re-trial and re-document everything, which would result in significantly increased cost. Another issue that could arise from such situations is the reduction in R&D activities inclined towards product improvement.

Trouble galore for SME’s

While making amendments and prioritizing to comply with new regulations seems to be the top most priority for medical and diagnostic device manufacturers, it seems SMEs will be dramatically more impacted than large players – in Europe, a small-sized company employs less than 50 people and has a turnover of less than or equal to €10 million while a medium-sized company employs less than 250 people and has a turnover of less than or equal to €50 million. Owing to the increase in cost, time, and resources associated with the process, the new regulations may put smaller companies under pressure, possibly resulting in altering (such as merging with or being acquired by larger companies) the European medical device market structure, currently dominated by SMEs – there are nearly 27,000 medical technology companies in EU, 95% of which are SMEs.

SMEs also need to be more vigilant when it comes to being associated with a designated NB as not all currently functioning NBs are expected to get a designated status. With their already dwindling numbers married with an increased demand for their services, once the new regulations roll out, it is quite possible that small manufacturers are orphaned since NBs could be partial towards larger players and prioritize them over other small and medium players.

Smaller players will not only have to hire additional personnel for dealing with regulatory issues but also employ clinical trials specialists (for documenting insights to be presented and approved by the NB) for launching products in the market which means higher costs. Adjusting budgets to keep costs under control would hamper other critical business operations, e.g. reduce R&D activities or cut the number of products being launched in the market.

As a step to overcome these issues, players with limited financial resources should strategically study their product portfolio to determine which products are worth investing in for MDR compliance. For doing this, they should lay out a detailed plan for each product and decide whether to remediate, transition, or divest.

It is also advised that SMEs should devise a clear step-by-step approach plan to ensure compliance. As an alternative to hiring transition specialists, they could engage employees from various functions within the organization to take responsibility for specific processes thus keeping costs in check.

EOS Perspective

The changes and revisions required to be carried out under MDR are company-wide and require significant investment to plan and execute. This will lead to players devising a business strategy based on assessing risk associated with product portfolio (whether some products need to be pulled out from the market and what effect it would have on future revenue) or looking for acquisition partners. Based on these decisions, the medical device market topography in EU is expected to see some major changes in the coming years – small companies looking for partners to get acquired or for new partnership with a service provider (specializing in regulations compliance). This will also result in organizational restructuring, revamping design processes, and systems implementation.

Companies have to make crucial decisions around the product portfolio. For some of the already existing products, if reclassified, the cost of compliance could be much higher than actual market returns. In such cases, manufacturers may be compelled to pull away such products from the market resulting in high healthcare costs and ultimately burdening the patients, who (theoretically) form the center point of the MDR. Though this is unlikely to happen at a large scale, since there are always alternative products available, it cannot be denied that this may be a major loophole in MDR requiring immediate attention.

Since SMEs drive the EU medical device market, as an immediate consequence, MDR is not likely to have any positive effect on these players other than distorting their business operations. However, it can only be anticipated that, with time, MDR may adapt and amend to offer some relaxation in provisions especially for small and medium-sized players. Nonetheless, MDR also brings an opportunity for such players to audit their current offerings and come out with an enhanced product portfolio, which could be an opportunity to be capitalized on in the distant future.

Modifications being made in the functioning of NBs are also likely to have an impact on the device manufacturers. For high risk devices, manufacturers may expect deeper scrutiny of design records and data files leading to providing more credentials, in case any query arises. This, along with long wait time for product review (due to reduction in the number of designated NBs) and limited availability of resources (again on account of NBs), could lead to unknown delays for obtaining product re-certification. Thus, companies need to chalk out their market strategies very effectively and be prepared to address any concern that rises during product reviews.

The aim of implementing new regulations is to bring a transparent and robust regulatory framework for medical devices. However, there is no assurance that the new regulations are completely accurate and will apply seamlessly to live case scenarios. Therefore, once implemented, there is a possibility that MDR may see revisions in the initial months of coming into action.

These changes, though certainly positive from a healthcare point of view, are enormous. Transitioning to meet the new standards within the stipulated time frame is challenging for manufacturers. Not adapting to the changes is not a choice for manufacturers as non-compliance could result in losing license to operate in the EU market. And for players fearing stringent scrutiny in the future, operating in the European healthcare market will not be easy once the new regulations come into force.

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS

PFA emerges as a better alternative to conventional ablation methods

MedTech companies grow their ablation market share by offering PFA devices

EOS Perspective

Adoption of DTx is taking off amid increased investments

Regulatory pitfalls present a major roadblock to DTx adoption

Patient health literacy is a hurdle in the adoption of DTx solutions

Payer reluctance affects many DTx products

DTx offers solutions for managing multiple conditions

The DTx landscape is rife with development

Bankruptcy of Pear and lessons for the industry

EOS Perspective

Molecular testing moving near-patient

Growing demand for self-sampling/at-home sampling

EOS Perspective

Increasing capital investment signals rising interest in AI in healthcare diagnostics

AI advantages help answer the needs in healthcare diagnostics

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

Financial challenges

Technological challenges

Mental and psychological challenges

EOS Perspective

Industry was quick to respond to the rise in demand

The pandemic encouraged the shift towards decentralizing diagnostics

Coronavirus crisis accelerated innovation in the field of diagnostics

EOS Perspective

Impact of new regulations on device manufacturers

Road ahead for importers

EOS Perspective

The Notification

The Concerns

Impact on stakeholders

EOS Perspective

Need for a comprehensive updated medical device regulatory system

Bumpy road ahead for medical device manufacturers

Reclassifying existing product line-up

Distress over notified bodies

Detailed clinical evaluation of medical devices

Explore our other Perspectives on medical devices markets

Comprehensive demonstration of equivalence data

Trouble galore for SME’s

EOS Perspective