What level of medical device failure is acceptable? Brad Abbey argues that the industry needs to arm itself against the threat of litigation – not with lawyers, but with the right kind of evidence.

I was somewhat taken aback by a letter in the British Medical Journal last December, where under the unlikely-sounding title ‘FDA is gold standard of review’, Mark B. Leahy, president and CEO of the US Medical Device Manufacturers Association, while singing the praises of the industry, said that a recent study of FDA-approved medical devices from the past 5 years showed that fewer than 1% had been recalled.

Most recalls, he said, were due to manufacturing and design problems in a post-marketing setting. This was in response to an article that had been highly critical of the safety surveillance of medical devices in the US and the low hurdles that have to be jumped to get a device approved (seemingly true on both sides of the Atlantic).

I am a generalist in the healthcare industry, mainly involved with medicines, but to say I was surprised by that figure is an understatement. I realise that the number of car recalls may be higher – but with a surgically implanted device, the owner cannot check it in at the service centre and pick it up at the end of the day.

I know that MHRA gives daily warnings about medical devices, from wheelchairs to drug-eluting stents; but given that the level of adverse event risk that is acceptable to the public for a medicine is somewhere between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 100,000, the 1% risk seems difficult to accept.

A lead article in the May 2011 BMJ, by Peter Wilmshurst of STARFlex fame, opened with the comment that the regulation of medical devices is (in his opinion) unsatisfactory, unscientific and in need of a major overhaul. Pretty damning stuff.

 

Duty of care

The registration of medicines requires data on the safety, efficacy and quality of products, and the numbers of patients needed to demonstrate an acceptable risk/benefit profile can be dauntingly high. The same level of scrutiny does not happen in Europe for medical devices, where a single approval can trigger cross-community acceptance.

With the increasing complexity of devices and the high levels of patient expectation, it is hardly surprising that when seemingly good devices go wrong the patients want compensation – and, where there is a suitable arena, for punishment to be meted out.

In the US, where many complex medical devices are developed and initially marketed, the ‘learned intermediary’ doctrine has been used by healthcare product manufacturers in recent times to protect themselves in the event of something going wrong. This doctrine, used in the US legal system, states that the manufacturer of a product has fulfilled their duty of care when they provide all the necessary information to a ‘learned intermediary’, who then interacts with the consumer.

This doctrine has been used primarily by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers in defence against tort suits. In a majority of American states, the courts have accepted this as a liability shield for pharmaceutical companies.

However, drug and medical device manufacturers sustained an unexpected blow in August 2008 in Rimbert v Eli Lilly and Company: in a federal court decision, for the first time, there was a rejection of the learned intermediary doctrine in its entirety. The decision rejected the notion that the manufacturers of drugs and medical devices do not have to make the patient fully aware of the risks associated with them and that this can be delegated to the prescriber.

The idea underlying the ‘learned intermediary’ doctrine is that the prescriber, who has expert knowledge and skill, should make the decision about risk. But changes in the consumer environment whereby prescription products can be advertised directly to potential patients have rendered this justification obsolete, and so it was predictable that for medical devices – some of them traditionally never coming ‘into the hands’ of the patient – the risk scenario would be influenced by the lesser amount of risk/benefit information needed before approval for marketing. While the doctrine has not been used in Europe, the risk information relating to devices is lagging behind that for medicines.

In order to be vigilant about the risks of medical devices, companies will be best served by surveillance systems that monitor the risk/benefit profile of products from the moment they are first evaluated (even if that takes place in animal models). This is not always easy.

A letter in the BMJ (in the same issue as Leahy’s letter) from a Welsh group of doctors highlights the problems of post-marketing surveillance for medical instruments, and in particular the use of single-use devices for tonsillectomy from 2001 in the wake of the variant Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease that followed the ‘mad cow’ scare of the 1990s.

Widespread adverse events were associated with these non-reusable instruments despite their CE marking, and they were deemed not fit for purpose. The case for reform of medical device regulation therefore seems a given.

 

Hip or lame?

In the meantime it seems that the visible portion of the iceberg of device regulation-related problems is giving rise to a stream of litigation that could possibly become a tide. Recent Medtech Business news reports have followed the fate of orthopaedic company DePuy and its ASR hip replacement.

Hip replacement is one of the clinical successes of the marriage between orthopaedic surgeons and the medical device industry, and it was estimated (before this year’s NHS rationing) that about 70,000 patients were undergoing total hip replacement each year in the UK.

I remember metal-on-metal hip replacements from the 1970s (I have one in a drawer at home that came to me as a result of its breaking), and they became popular again in the 1990s. However, the most recent generation have not fared so well, with higher than expected rates of failure and concerns about excessive levels of metal ions (cobalt and chromium) in the blood of patients.

According to 2010 data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, the DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System has a revision rate of 12% at 5 years after surgery and the DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System has a revision rate of 13%.

That means that during the first 5 years after a hip replacement with the DePuy ASR hip, at least 1 in 8 patients will experience hip failure requiring painful and expensive revision surgery. With more than 90,000 DePuy ASR hips in patients worldwide, over 11,000 people could require additional surgery due to the defective design of this implant and DePuy’s failure to remove it from the market earlier.

One of the questions that remains unanswered was whether there were potential conflicts of interest between the supplier and the healthcare professionals who developed and were involved in promoting these devices. The key issue in litigants’ minds is that the device did not perform as well as such a device might be expected to, and it seems that the device’s registration in the US was obtained without clinical trials to prove its long-term safety and efficacy. In a litigious society such as the US, where someone must pay for any mistake, the supplier appears to have suffered with the rolling of heads and the decision to remove the offending brand from the market.

Don’t get the idea that this case is a one-off: the recent history of medical devices suggests that arrivals on the market may sometimes be premature, as real risks may not have become apparent. Whether this is related to inappropriate endorsements from the medical profession is difficult to judge, but there are known examples of high-level payments to medical inventors who ‘sell’ their developments to industry and subsequently endorse them.

On the other hand, everyone is aware of what happened to Peter Wilmshurst when he took the opposite stance against a device manufacturer: there was a serious attempt to punish his critical views (which seemed to be well founded) and personally break him through the English court system.

 

Evidence is strength

Litigation against medical device companies is nothing new. However, in an age when people with problems can readily find lawyers willing to take on their problems, and some lawyers (particularly in the US) go looking for people who did not even know they had problems, access to litigation seems to be easier – and it is oiled by the possibility of compensation (which may be deserved when devices turn out to be inadequate or unsafe).

A Google search for the term ‘medical device litigation’ returned 640,000 hits; most of the leading ones were to do with lawyers offering their services in the pursuit of such litigation, or training sessions for lawyers who want to become involved in such cases, or training for companies who want to avoid them. I don’t believe a wake-up call about the risks of being sued is necessary, but what is well worth thinking about is the possible root causes of the current danger, which can ruin a company that believed it had a good product.

The message I am offering is consistent. The products of the healthcare industry must be subject to close and continuous scrutiny for their risk/benefit profile, and this should be done prior to marketing and continue in a structured manner post-marketing. NICE advisory policy on the best devices to use is still in its early stages.

There seems to be a raft of opinion supporting the idea that the regulation of medical devices (in Europe, and probably also in the US) needs to be overhauled to eliminate the placing of devices on the market with inadequate safety and efficacy monitoring.

Rather than finding ways of avoiding expenditure during a product’s development and launch by minimising the collection of such data, companies need to embrace the need for resilient data sets and continual risk/benefit signal monitoring. The competent authorities will wake up to this need, and those with effective systems in place will withstand the culture change best.

Brad Abbey is an industry observer, or the pen-name of an industry observer. The views expressed in this article are those of Brad Abbey, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Medtech Business.

France is Europe’s biggest importer and exporter of medical devices. However, current reforms are driving cost reduction and efficiencies. Medtech Business in association with Espicom takes a look at the French market for medical technologies.

France is one of the top five medical device markets in the world, accounting for around 3.9% of the global market.* Within Europe, the market ranks behind Germany and is a similar size to that of the UK.

The country has a well-developed healthcare system, combining public hospitals with commercial clinics that are the main providers of elective surgical treatment. While the public sector is the largest purchaser of most diagnostic and therapeutic equipment, the private sector is the dominant purchaser of surgical equipment and supplies.

The high level of healthcare expenditure (11.8% of GDP) and the substantial health deficit are major concerns that have prompted various reform programmes aimed at curtailing costs and improving efficiency in the healthcare system. For this reason, the medical market is only likely to see moderate growth, rising from US$8.3 billion in 2011 to US$9.8 billion by 2016.

Despite several high-profile investment programmes, France continues to lag behind its European neighbours in some high-technology fields, most notably imaging and radiotherapy equipment. A second five-year cancer plan has now been launched which aims to increase the numbers of scanners.

With flagging domestic production in several sectors the French medical device market is increasingly reliant upon imports, which now account for around 80% of consumption. However, many imported products are re-exported to other countries.

 

The market in 2011

In 2011, the French medical device market (see Figure 1) is valued at US$8,280 million. Consumables is the largest product category, accounting for 20.9% of the overall market, followed by diagnostic imaging (19.8%).

Espicom estimates that the medical device market will grow at an average annual growth rate of 3.5% between 2011 and 2016 – bringing the total market value to US$9.8 billion by 2016.

Orthopaedic and prosthetic devices are expected to continue to be the most dynamic sector of the market, with growth forecast to be more than double the rate for the overall market. Conversely, diagnostic imaging is forecast to have the lowest growth during the 2011–16 period.

 

Predictions for market segments

Figure 2 shows Espicom’s predictions for the major segments of the medical device market.

1. Consumables. The market for medical consumables is estimated at US$1,729 million. The consumables market grew at an annual rate of 5.1% in US dollar terms between 2006 and 2010. Imports supply the greater part of the market. Espicom estimates the consumables market will continue to grow by an average of 3.5% over the next few years.

The wound care products market is forecast to grow at an average annual rate of 2.9% in US dollar terms during the 2011–16 period. Syringes, needles & catheters has been the fastest growing sector of the consumables market and will continue to be, with a CAGR of 4.1% to 2016.

2. Diagnostic imaging apparatus. The market for diagnostic imaging is estimated at US$1,636 million. The market grew at an annual rate of 2.8% between 2006 and 2010. France lags behind its European neighbours in the diagnostic imaging field, though the second cancer plan aims to increase provision of MRI, CT and PET scanners.

Imports supply the greater part of the market, though their market share is lower for radiation apparatus due to the strength of the domestic manufacturing industry. The USA and Germany are the major sources of supply. Espicom estimates that the imaging market will grow by an average of 2.1% between 2011 and 2016.

3. Dental products. The market for dental products is estimated at US$859 million, equal to 10.4% of the total medical device market. The dental products market grew at an annual rate of 4.2% between 2006 and 2010. It is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 3.5% over the next few years, taking the total to US$1,020 million by 2016.

4. Orthopaedic & prosthetic devices. The market for orthopaedic & prosthetic devices is estimated at US$1,336 million, equal to 16.1% of the total medical device market. The orthopaedic & prosthetic devices market grew at an annual rate of 9.2% between 2006 and 2010.

Imports have seen particularly high growth in recent years, though a corresponding increase in exports in this sector indicates that not all imported products are destined for the domestic market. The majority of orthopaedic imports are supplied by Switzerland and the USA.

The orthopaedic & prosthetic devices market is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 6.1% in US dollars over the next few years, taking the total to US$1,794 million by 2016.

5. Patient aids. The market for patient aids is estimated at US$1,131 million, equal to 13.7% of the total medical device market. The patient aids market grew at an annual rate of 4.5% between 2006 and 2010.

French imports of patient aids far exceed the value of the domestic market due to a high level of re-export activity, particularly for pacemakers. Switzerland and the USA are the leading suppliers of portable aids, whilst the USA and China are the major sources of supply for therapeutic appliances.

The patient aids market is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 3.9% over the next few years, taking the total to US$1,367 million by 2016.

 

Imports

The value of French medical device imports has recorded a steady rise over the past decade, reaching US$10.4 billion in 2008 before falling back to US$10.3 billion in 2009.

Imports of consumable items amounted to US$1,780.6 million in 2009. Imports fell by 1.0% over 2008 in US dollar terms (though they increased in euro terms). Syringes, needles, catheters & cannulae are the largest subcategory.

Diagnostic imaging imports totalled US$1,564.0 million in 2009, equal to 15.2% of the total. This was the weakest performing category in 2009, with a fall of 16.4%.

Imports of orthopaedic & prosthetic devices were worth US$1,549.1 million in 2009, equal to 15.1% of total medical device imports. This was the fastest growing category in 2009, with a rise of 26.6%. All three subcategories – artificial joints, orthopaedic appliances and other artificial body parts – recorded strong growth.

Patient aids are the largest import category, with imports worth US$2,624.1 million in 2009, equal to 25.5% of total medical device imports. Pacemakers accounted for 54.7% of imports in this category in 2009, but also accounted for more than half of patient aid exports.

The leading suppliers of French medical imports in 2009 were the USA, Switzerland and Belgium, with the UK ranking eighth as a supplier with imports worth US$288,964 (2.8% of the total).

 

Exports

In 2009, medical device exports registered a 3.0% fall in value to US$9.2 billion, having recorded steady growth in previous years with a CAGR of 6.8% for the 2005–2009 period.

In 2009, 69.5% of all French medical device exports were sent to the rest of the EU, with the Netherlands taking a 17.6% share, followed by Germany with 14.4%. The UK took 6.6% of French medical device exports.

Outside Europe, the leading destination is the USA, which accounted for 9.1% of exports. The USA is the leading destination for French exports of diagnostic imaging apparatus.

Next month, Medtech Business will look at the medical technologies market in Germany.

This article is based on information from Medical Market Outlook reports published quarterly by Espicom Business Intelligence. *All figures are in US $. For further details of the 66 markets covered, please visit www.espicom.com/outlookm1

The diversity of wounds and the wounded means that the evidence base for wound care therapies is a complex issue. Professor Richard White of the University of Worcester and Wound Care Alliance UK looks at how companies can best establish the case for their products.

The current situation regarding issues of product evidence and product availability in wound care has been discussed in Medtech Business (May and June 2010). Therapies affected by these issues include silver and other modern wound treatments, such as moist wound healing dressings and topical negative pressure (TNP) devices, which have attracted the scrutiny of those who conduct systematic evidence reviews. Following those commentaries, this article offers some proposals for a way forward.

Therapies on trial

The modern age in wound care, dating from around 1970, has seen a variety of new medical devices come to market – many of which have achieved ‘standard of care’ status. For example, elastic and non-elastic compression bandaging; hydrocolloid, alginate, foam and film dressings; honey as a CE Marked product and many others have become established in the clinical armamentarium.

Countless clinicians, many of them acknowledged experts, have come to rely on these products, knowing that when they are correctly used they work well. This steady supply of products has come from an innovative, dynamic industry that works closely with the clinician.

However, the evidence gathered to support these products does not satisfy the various groups who insist on the Cochrane-style analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Recent publications have criticised the evidence for moist wound healing, antiseptic dressings and TNP. This criticism, published in the medical literature and the national press, has led to restrictions on product availability.

The key priority, in my view, should be to maintain a regular flow of safe and effective innovations, supported by sufficient evidence for regulatory purposes and for informing the clinician. The introduction of such products should, of necessity, be followed by the ongoing collection and publication of clinical evidence.

Innovation is vital to wound care, as the steady flow of new and improved products leads directly to better patient care. The discipline is still in its infancy – a stage when developments are frequent. The industry is populated by a broad mix of large, established companies and smaller companies, many of them start-up ventures. This affects the level of investment available for expensive RCTs.

Should trials be left to the wealthy companies alone? Or can other, more economical forms of clinical evidence be gathered instead? That would offer the smaller, less affluent companies greater opportunity to develop products, gather evidence and take their treatments to market – and in the past, that has been a significant feature of wound care in the UK.

There is no doubt that evidence in one form or another is essential for the development of wound care – so open discussion of the issues around what makes for effective evidence is needed. In addition, some proactive action on the part of the wound care sector is also essential: companies must, to my mind, take action before further restrictions in product availability are foisted upon them.

Finding the facts

There is a strong case for looking more carefully at what evidence is already available in the public domain. Cochrane analyses have been justly criticised for not taking all of the available evidence into consideration. A preferable method of analysis, with recommendations, is the GRADE system. This well-known and respected system, in my opinion, should be employed to assess the evidence for a number of existing products.

With regard to the ‘quality’ of different types of evidence, the European Wound Management Association (EWMA) has published guidelines for the conduct of RCTs in the May 2011 issue of the Journal of Wound Care.

If a company decides that an RCT is the most appropriate means of gathering clinical evidence, it is important that they avoid the pitfalls which have blighted many previous trials. The Cochrane reviews list the numerous shortcomings in trials, mainly methodological errors, which form grounds for disqualification. These can be avoided!

• At the planning stage, trials should be configured with purchasers in mind: as well as gathering clinical information, the trial should take account of economic factors and quality of life instruments.
• Once the data are published, these should enhance the chances of product uptake or changes in clinical practice. Quality data will make counter-arguments difficult and merit publication in quality journals, and so garner support from opinion leaders.

Case studies are frequently used to provide support for products. However, it is an unfortunate fact that many, probably most, of these studies are of very little value. This is due to their planning and objectives, as well as the information provided. When case study posters and journal reports make products appear to be panaceas, it is no wonder that the whole exercise becomes devalued.

Cohort studies, when properly conducted, can be valuable in many ways. Their merit has been extolled by many influential figures. The GRADE system of analysis gives reasonable weighting to such studies, whereas Cochrane analyses ignore them completely. Their format is less clear than that of RCTs – but when they are conducted in a multicentre setting, with clear objectives and endpoints such as clinical goals, economic factors and quality of life issues, they provide useful data.

Post-marketing surveillance studies, conducted long-term in the ‘real world’ of routine clinical practice, are under-used and under-estimated in wound care. As far as I am aware, they are mandatory in Germany and some quality data have been published from these studies.

Audit of clinical practice is as ‘real world’ as we can get when it comes to clinical (and hopefully financial) data. Efficient clinical settings can audit their practice for long-term outcomes in treatment of wounds. Such studies can provide the most meaningful evidence.

Value and cost

Cost-effectiveness, or health economics, has been a high priority in healthcare for many years, yet it does not figure in enough wound studies. Rather naively, claims of ‘cost-effective’ based on the unit price of a product still appear.

Health economics is a defined and refined science and must be recognised, and used, as such. In this respect there is vast room for improvement in company-sponsored wound treatment studies.

For the future, it is important that the evidence for wound care therapies is of better quality than it generally has been over recent decades. This is achievable through awareness of the literature and close liaison with experts – it does not necessarily need to incur substantially greater costs!

The whole dynamic of selling has changed over the past twenty years. No longer is it sufficient to demonstrate the product to a nurse or doctor and wait for the orders to flow in. Other key groups are now involved, and liaison with them to facilitate product uptake has become essential.

Everyone involved in wound care in the UK must now be aware of, and recognise the important role of, pharmacists, medicines management, formulary committees etc. Companies must do more to involve these groups.

The transition or evolution of standards for medical devices from the days of the first modern ‘moist wound dressings’ is remarkable. Following the enactment of the Medical Device Directives in the mid-1990s, the system has become more ordered and bureaucratic.

However, this process is far from complete. The recent furore over failing hip implants has shown that the current regulations are not adequate to prevent major clinical catastrophes involving medical devices. In the USA, the FDA is taking a very close look at device regulation.

As the standards for evidence become more sophisticated, better reflecting the realities of clinical practice, the medical device industry – and in particular, the sector supplying wound dressings and associated products – has the opportunity to address the need for change and adapt accordingly.

 

 

Richard White is Professor of Tissue Viability at the University of Worcester.

Boston Scientific has launched its new balloon dilation catheter, Coyote, to treat patients undergoing peripheral angioplasty procedures below the knee.

The Coyote Balloon Catheter is intended to help physicians when treating patients who have challenging obstructive lesions in the lower extremities.

With an ultra-low profile of 0.0174 inches, it promises to be highly deliverable and offer rapid deflation.

Balloon catheters are often used during peripheral angioplasty and stenting procedures to open blocked arteries.

J. A. Mustapha, Director of Endovascular Intervention at Metro Health Hospital in Wyoming, Michigan, said: “Its performance gives me greater confidence in being able to effectively treat patients with difficult anatomy who suffer from peripheral artery disease.”

The device is the latest in a series of balloon catheter products developed by Boston Scientific.  In June, the company launched its Mustang PTA Balloon Catheter, a 0.035 inch percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) catheter designed to be used in a range of peripheral angioplasty procedures.

Jeff Mirviss, President of Boston Scientific's Peripheral Interventions Division, said the new product launch “builds on Boston Scientific's global leadership in low-profile peripheral balloon angioplasty”.

Up to 9 million US patients suffer from peripheral artery disease, which is associated with high rates of morbidity.

Boston Scientific has begun marketing the product in the US, Europe and other international markets.

The world’s first mobile-based system for diabetes management, developed by UK company Cellnovo, has received CE Mark approval for sale in the EU.

The innovative Cellnovo system (pictured) combines an insulin patch pump with a touch-screen mobile handset that wirelessly transmits real-time patient data to a web-based portal, enabling patients to keep track of their blood glucose control without needing to keep a diary.

The integration of medication delivery and monitoring technologies, completing the circle of type 1 diabetes control, is strengthened by Cellnovo’s recent agreement with US diabetes monitoring specialist LifeScan.

The successful OneTouch monitoring technology from LifeScan will be incorporated into the Cellnovo system, enabling that a very rapid fingerprick test can be used to generate readings.

The mobile handset is similar to the iPhone, while the patch pump is the smallest and most accurate on the market.

“Cellnovo has created the first insulin pump that combines form with function, essential qualities in a device that patients have to interact with 24/7,” said Dr. Pratik Choudhary, Clinical Lecturer in Diabetes at King’s College London.

Irl B. Hirsch, Professor of Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, USA, commented: “Cellnovo has combined advanced mobile and medical technology, which may create a paradigm shift in diabetes care.”

William McKeon, CEO of Cellnovo, described the CE Mark approval as “Cellnovo’s first step in a journey to bring this mobile diabetes management system to the world”.

Based in London, Cellnovo is a mobile healthcare company that specialises in diabetes management.

The UK medical device market is one of the biggest in the world, with growth relying predominantly on imports. But it is also a significant exporter of medical technologies. In the second of two articles looking at the domestic market, Medtech Business in association with Espicom takes a look at the UK medtech export market.

The UK is a significant global exporter of medical devices (including medical equipment and medical supplies) and remains among the world’s top 10. But the sector has faltered in recent years. Exports peaked in 2006 at US$7,238.5 million, but have fallen every year since then. In 2009, exports dropped to US$5,394.4 million – roughly the same level seen in 2005. The orthopaedic sector was hit especially hard in 2009. (For more details, see Figures 1–3.)

Consumables

Medical consumables were the largest individual export area in 2009, valued at $1,140.0 million,* or 21.1% of total exports. This was a fall of 3.8% compared with 2008, with a 2005–09 Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of –1.8%.

Consumables are defined as wound care products (medical dressings, sutures, sterile, surgical and dental goods), syringes, needles and catheters. Within this category, catheters and cannulae amounted to $279.7 million, virtually unchanged from 2008, but significantly lower than the 2005 level of $410.6 million. Exports of medical dressings amounted to $503.7 million, a fall of 8.3% compared with 2008.

Diagnostic imaging

Diagnostic imaging is not historically one of the UK’s stronger sectors. In 2009, UK exports of diagnostic imaging apparatus amounted to $1,131.3 million – 21.0% of the country’s total export market. In recent years, the electrodiagnostic sector has been its biggest source of growth. The 2009 total showed a fall of 0.1% compared with 2008, with a CAGR for 2005–09 of 5.4%.

Electrodiagnostic imaging exports amounted to $575.1 million, a rise of 23.4% over 2008 due largely to a big rise in MRI exports. Radiation apparatus exports were far lower at $83.4 million, although this too represented a strong increase of 28.2% on 2008 figures. Exports of imaging parts and accessories fell sharply in 2009, by 21.4% to $472.9 million.

Orthopaedic products

Exports of orthopaedic and prosthetic products saw a sharp fall in 2009. Exports totaled $1,231.5 million in 2008, but fell by 46.7% the following year to reach $656.2 million. Artificial joints fell by 67.1% to $71.5 million, while other orthopaedic/fracture appliances fell by 49.8% to $445.2 million.

As outlined in Medtech Business’s first UK market article (July 2011), imports in this sector also saw a sharp fall in 2009. Espicom suspects that much of the reduction is due to a change or relocation of multinational manufacturing and repackaging activities.

Patient aids

Exports of patient aids amounted to $1,054.5 million in 2009, a fall of 5.2% compared with 2008.

Portable aids fell by 8.0% to $762.1 million, while therapeutic appliances rose by 2.9% to $292.4 million.

Dental products

Exports of dental products reached US$148.2 million in 2009 – 2.7% of the total. This is an increase of 4.1% over 2008; the total fell sharply in 2007, but has since recovered a little.

Dental cements amounted to US$70.2 million in 2009, a rise of 17.7% over 2008.

Leading destinations

In 2009, the single leading destination for UK exports was the US, with $768.1 million (4.2%) of total exports. The largest shipments to the US were diagnostic imaging products, which amounted to $188.8 million, 16.7% of exports in this sector. This was followed by consumables, which amounted to $136.5 million, 12.0% of exports in this product area. The US also received 31.7% of dental product exports, valued at $47.0 million. (See Figures 4 and 5 for more details.)

More than half of UK exports went to the EU-27 countries. Shipments totaling $3,016.7 million (55.9% of total exports) left the UK for the EU-27. The principal recipient within the EU was Germany, accounting for 13.4% of exports, valued at $720.6 million. Almost a quarter (22.3%) of diagnostic imaging apparatus exports went to Germany. Belgium was the single biggest importer of UK consumables (18.6%) and UK orthopaedic and prosthetic products (17.2%) – in both cases outstripping the US. Other leading destinations within the EU were France, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Next month, Medtech Business will look at the medical technologies market in France.

This article is based on information from Medical Market Outlook reports published quarterly by Espicom Business Intelligence.
*All figures are in US $. For further details of the 63 markets covered, please visit www.espicom.com/outlookm1

UK-based corporation GE Healthcare has committed $1 billion over the next five years to developing molecular technologies for cancer diagnosis and imaging.

The investment will affect all regions of GE Healthcare’s global business and reflects the growing importance of molecular diagnostics in supporting targeted and personalised cancer therapies.

In the last seven years, GE Healthcare has strengthened its presence in the oncology field through its acquisition of seven specialist companies, including Clarient in 2010.

John Dineen, GE Healthcare’s President and CEO, said: “As one of the most relevant global cancer diagnostic companies, we are devoting an even greater share of our R&D budget to continue developing new oncology solutions.

“With a disease as complex and multifaceted as cancer, solutions need to be equally multifaceted and even more integrated, combining imaging, molecular diagnostics and healthcare IT.”

“The only way we can help clinicians beat cancer is to give them the tools to find it earlier, stage it better, and quantitatively measure response to therapy,” added Mike Harsh, GE Healthcare’s Chief Technology Officer.

“The integration of GE Healthcare’s expertise in imaging, analytics, diagnostics, cellular analysis, and healthcare IT is helping create technologies and solutions that can be used in a rural developing country or in a modern urban hospital.”

The investment will focus on such new solutions as:

• A new biomarker for molecular diagnostic tests for breast cancer, lung cancer and ovarian cancer, developed by GE’s Clarient business and planned for market launch in 2013.
• A new ‘multiplexing’ technology that could allow pathologists to conduct more than 50 different stains on a single tissue section, enabling more effective personalised treatment recommendations.
• New agents for real-time metabolic imaging based on GE’s C13 technology for tracking tumour growth and response to treatment.
• A new system for connected oncology workflow, MD Connect, which enables access via any networked computer to the complete suite of oncology applications from any location or department. MD Connect integrates with the Eclipse treatment planning platform from Varian Medical Systems.

Based in Chalfont St. Giles, GE Healthcare is a global leader in the development of transformational medical technologies and services focused on reducing costs and increasing patient access.

The first ever national campaign to raise awareness of bowel cancer will be launched by the Department of Health in January 2012.

‘Be Clear on Cancer’ is part of an £8.5 million package to promote and develop bowel cancer screening and treatment services.

The awareness campaign, which follows successful regional trials, aims to encourage the public to be aware of possible early symptoms of bowel cancer and discuss these with their GP.

Other measures aimed at improving bowel cancer survival rates include:

• extending the screening age to 75
• introducing flexible sigmoidoscopy screening at 55
• promoting laparoscopic colorectal surgery
• training for lower rectal surgery.

Regional pilots for the awareness campaign in the South West and East of England led to a 48% increase in the number of people reporting symptoms to their GPs and a 32% increase in urgent referrals to hospitals.

“No-one likes thinking about cancer, or talking about their poo. But the plain fact is no-one dies of embarrassment,” said Health Minister Paul Burstow. “Early diagnosis makes a huge difference to your chance of survival.”

The new campaign is part of the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative, set up by Cancer Research UK and the DH. Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive of Cancer Research UK, commented: “The key reason our cancer survival lags behind the best in the world is that we diagnose the disease late.”

In a joint statement, charities Bowel Cancer UK and Beating Bowel Cancer noted: “We know 90% of people will survive if diagnosed at the earliest stage of the disease. The tragedy however is that only 9% are. Worryingly awareness of symptoms and the disease is still way too low. We hope this campaign will help change that.”

The DH is also launching a new regional campaign in October to raise awareness of the early symptoms of lung cancer across the Midlands.

A new campaign for the introduction of rapid drug testing after road accidents is being supported by a leading UK supplier of devices for rapid testing.

Concateno, formed by the merger of seven UK drug and alcohol testing specialists, is assisting the campaign for a law that would allow roadside drug testing of motorists involved in accidents.

A similar programme introduced in Australia has halved the incidence of driving under the influence of illegal drugs.

The company’s hand-held drug testing device, the DDS, can analyse a sample of oral fluids for six illegal drugs in five minutes. It won a Queen’s Award for Innovation in 2010.

The legislation demanded by the campaign has been named ‘Lillian’s Law’ after teenager Lillian Groves, who was killed by a car whose driver had been smoking cannabis. The driver escaped a conviction for driving under the influence of drugs because he was tested nine hours later.

Roadside drug testing, using rapid diagnostic tests of saliva, has been applied in several countries including Australia, Spain, Germany and Italy. In Victoria, Australia, it has seen the number of people driving under the influence of illegal drugs fall in five years from one in 44 to one in 94.

“In Australia, the use of roadside drug testing technology has proved extremely successful and has certainly helped to make our roads safer,” said Victoria’s Police Inspector, Martin Boorman.

Concateno spokesperson Iain Forcer commented: “Police in the UK are not allowed to use these devices that can quickly test drivers for drug use. Instead, they are required to carry out a lengthy Field Impairment Test which can take up to 30 minutes to complete, and few police officers are qualified to carry out these FIT assessments.”

This autumn, Concateno will attend two major UK conferences on transport security and traffic policing, as well the European DRUID conference on industry and innovation.

Concateno is a subsidiary of US company Alere, a specialist in rapid diagnostics.

The FDA has approved Fujirebio Diagnostics’ combination blood test to detect ovarian cancer in women with ovarian cysts.

The test combines measures of two biomarker proteins, HE4 and CA125, using an algorithm called ROMA, aiming to improve physicians’ ability to identify ovarian cancer in women suffering from an ovarian cyst or mass.

The combined method shows the highest accuracy in determining ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal and postmenopausal women and “will change the way doctors diagnose and treat ovarian cancer”, claims Dr Richard G Moore, lead developer of the test and ROMA, gynaecologic oncologist at the Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island and Director of the Center for Biomarkers and Emerging Technology.

The new equipment enables physicians to be specific in choosing how the patient should be treated.

Dr Moore said: “Having women triaged to the right surgeons is very important. It gives them a survival advantage.”

“Patients who have ovarian cancer have better outcomes when their surgery is performed by a gynaecologic oncologist at centres experienced in the management of this disease,” he added.

Until now, the CA125 test has been the best method for monitoring patients with ovarian cancer. But the test is limited in its sensitivity and accuracy as well as its ability to detect every type of ovarian cancer. The HE4 protein has been shown to be higher in epithelial ovarian cancers, which is the most common type of ovarian cancer.

Combining these techniques with the ROMA algorithm enables the physician to differentiate between benign diseases and ovarian cancer in women who experience a pelvic mass.

Paul Touhey, President and CEO of Fujirebio Diagnostics, commented: “The ROMA test, by improving the sensitivity and specificity of methods to stratify patients with ovarian cancer, is expected to help thousands of women determine their risk for ovarian cancer and enable those who are at risk to be referred to a gynaecologic oncologist – a benefit that may improve treatment outcomes.”

“With this increased ability to improve referral patterns, as well as a price that is comparable to CA125 testing, the health care costs involved with cancer diagnosis and treatment should decrease significantly.”