Few people realize that the arteries in their legs can clog much like those leading to the heart -- and often with the same fatal consequences as a heart attack or stroke.
Researchers found in a recent study involving the University of Minnesota that treatment of a "heart attack below the belt" -- the condition known as peripheral artery disease, or PAD -- is downright expensive, too. Each year, the U.S. spends roughly $21 billion on PAD-related hospitalizations. Not surprisingly, the costs escalate as the condition grows worse.
The study, funded by drugmakers Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb, was published recently in the medical journal Circulation.
More than 8 million Americans suffer from PAD -- a number that's expected to rise as baby boomers age. Although treatments range from drugs to surgery to stents that prop open clogged arteries, as well as lasers and drills that bust up hardened plaque, there's no real "gold-standard" as fixes go, according to Venkat Rajan, a medical technology industry analyst with Frost & Sullivan.
Rajan estimates the current market for all peripheral vascular products at $3.4 billion.
Others agree that the PAD market is one of the most-promising in medical technology. "PAD is an under-penetrated market with lots of medical devices that can treat the disease and get people back on their feet," said Thomas Gunderson, an analyst with Piper Jaffray Cos. "From a stock market standpoint, the market is growing 10 percent. When compared to zero to 2 percent growth in the coronary stent market, that looks pretty good."
This presents an alluring challenge for medical technology firms. Many med-tech companies based locally or with local operations, including Boston Scientific Corp., Medtronic Inc., Covidien (which recently bought Plymouth-based EV3), Cardiovascular Systems Inc., Väsamed Inc., Vascular Solutions Inc. and Lutonix Inc., have developed or are working on PAD products.
Most companies are trying to prove their product is the best treatment in the wake of escalating health care costs and the advent of health care reform, which calls for more comparative-effectiveness research.