Diagnostic Kits/Give an overall picture of the Kits' sector
Many of these questions can be answered from data in the The Value of Diagnostics report (caution: sponsored by AdvaMed), starting with the Profile of the Diagnostics Industry section.
background: To quantify the Diagnostic Kit Market, we must start with a working definition. When we say Diagnostic Kit, we mean the In-Vitro Diagnostics (IVD), and so we are actually interested in the IVD Market, which encompasses products that produce clinical data from a sample of tissue taken out of a patient (note that other diagnostic products such as medical imagers and in-vivo diagnostics are not included).
IVDs can be categorized based on the location of testing. The vast majority of routine tests are performed in-house hospital labs or in reference labs. These tests may be supplied as a complete kit to the testing laboratory or may be developed in-house with Analyte Specific Reagents (ASRs). ASR-based diagnostics are interesting because the ASRs are sold alone, without specific testing procedures, instructions, or supporting materials. Instead of purchasing a complete kit, labs (which must be CLIA high-complexity certified) purchase just the ASR and develop their own tests around it. Lastly, some kits are available directly to consumers over-the-counter. Of these, some can be operated in the home, such as pregnancy tests and blood glucose tests, while others require the user to ship a sample to a remote reference lab. DNA Direct is a company that operates in this space, providing gene-based OTC diagnostic kits that are evaluated in a remote lab.
- Priorities for Personalized Medicine, prepared by your Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Available at: http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/PCAST/pcast_report_v2.pdf
- "PCAST hopes that this report in its entirety helps lay a foundation for realizing important health care benefits from genomics-based molecular diagnostics, while providing a balanced assessment of the promise and current limitations of personalized medicine more broadly."
- Intellectual Property Section page 21
- "The ability to obtain strong intellectual property protection through patents has been, and will continue to be, essential for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to make the large, high-risk R&D investments required to develop novel medical products, including genomics-based molecular diagnostics."
How was this field born and how is it evolving?
What are the main business models?
Regulation
What are the innovation dynamics in this field? (inputs/outputs, timing of innovation/ disruptive or incremental innovation?)
How does knowledge flow in this field?
- Access to Bio-Knowledge: From Gene Patents to Biomedical Materials
- "Recent empirical studies, however, indicate that access to materials is a much more serious problem than patents are for basic biomedical researchers, and access to materials is also a critical problem for producers of biomedical end products like biopharmaceuticals." (quoting the abstract)
- Specific Legislative Efforts
- Genomic Research and Diagnostic Accessibility Act of 2002 (proposed)
- The Genomic Research and Accessibility Act of 2007 (proposed)
- Definition of Biological Knowledge
- Yochai Benkler’s framework for knowledge classification (page 26)
- information
- human knowledge,
- information-embedded tools
- information-embedded goods
- Patent information protects: usually "sequence and function of a given gene" which does not prevent an access problem to basic research (page 28)
- The access problem is in "information-embedded tools"
- See Zhen Lei, Rakhi Juneja & Brian D. Wright, Patents Versus Patenting: Implications of Intellectual Property Protection for Biological Research, 27 NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY 36, 37 (2009) (a survey of ninety-three US agricultural biology faculty)
- barriers found:
- not patents
- material transfer agreements (MTAs)
- use has increased
- delay has increased: "Thirty-four faculty (42%) experienced a total of ninety-seven delays in research, with an average delay of 8.7 months" (page 28 of [1])
- barriers found:
- John P. Walsh, Wesley M. Cohen & Charlene Cho, Where Excludability Matters: Material Versus Intellectual Property in Academic Biomedical Research, 36 RES. POL’Y 1184, 1191 (2007)
- Of the academics surveyed, "about 75% had made at least one request for materials or data in the past two years, but 18% of requests to academics and 33% of requests to industry went unfulfilled (page 29 of [2]
- non-compliance with MTA requests is an important barrier
- This access problem is governed by social norms
- Adhering to this norm increases the transaction cost of sharing
- How can this cost be reduced? "This cost may be reduced both through initiatives to streamline the contracts covering transfers and through increased use of material depositories." (page 34 of [3])
- Possible Solution: Science Commons Biological Materials Transfer Project
- See Zhen Lei, Rakhi Juneja & Brian D. Wright, Patents Versus Patenting: Implications of Intellectual Property Protection for Biological Research, 27 NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY 36, 37 (2009) (a survey of ninety-three US agricultural biology faculty)
- Yochai Benkler’s framework for knowledge classification (page 26)
Notes on Research Commercialization Pipeline
It looks something like this, where Dx represents the targets of genetic diagnostics:
Samples(MTAs?), Narratives -> Basic Research -> Dx genes & biomarkers, Narratives -> TTOs (patents) -> Commercialization (licenses) -> Trials / Peer Review -> Marketing
Questions / notes:
- How are human tissue samples controlled during the basic research stage?
- Are putative Dx genes and biomarkers always patented by the TTO before publication? Or are some described in literature before IP?
- The value of a research output a TTO protects is often unclear, hence the TTO is willing to negotiate for an exclusive license to make the protected technology as desirable from a commercialization perspective as possible
- Often small start-ups obtain exclusive licenses from the TTOs. Are they often then acquired by large corporations? Is it easier for large companies to purchase small ones w/ exclusive licenses rather than negotiating w/ TTOs to begin with?
Image of Pipeline diagram provided in: Priorities for Personalized Medicine, prepared by your Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Available at: http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/PCAST/pcast_report_v2.pdf
Is this field replicating models from other fields?
How many companies?
Diagnostic Kit Manufacturers
Diagnostic laboratories
Hospital Labs
References labs
"The major national reference labs including Quest, LabCorp, Specialty/Ameripath, Mayo and others account for at least 60% of the market for esoteric test services. The remaining 40% is shared by a group of some 3000 small, local market laboratories. The major reference labs have built a comprehensive menu of specialized test services and continue to expand their offerings via collaborations with leading medical research centers. They offer a huge presence in the market and manage distribution networks that touch just about every medical specialty. Thus many CLIA-registered company sponsored test services avail themselves of the marketing resources offered by the national reference labs."
- CLIA labs offering ASR-based diagnostics:
"In 2002, nine companies accounted for 78% of the US diagnostics market" - The Value of Diagnostics pg. 53, referencing Quirk WR. The in-vitro diagnostics industry: overview and emerging opportunities. Toronto, Canada: RBC Capital Markets, 2003. (ref kalorama)
- Roche: 22%
- Abbott Labs: 11%
- J&J: 9%
- Gen-Probe: 8%
- Beckman C: 6%
- Becton D: 6%
- Dade Behring: 6%
- Bayer: 5%
- BioMerieux: 5%
- other: 22%