Allergan to purchase Neotract

Discussion in 'Neotract' started by Anonymous, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:52 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Sweet.
     

  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    HOw about Neotract promoting Botox for Bladders?
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Is anyone else hearing this may be true?
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Haven't heard anything on this. Allergan is in a big deal right now, so likely putting any purchase of Neotract on hold.
     
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    How's it going over there, you chumps!

    Biggest joke of a product
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    "joke of a product" ???!!!!! .....That's completely ignorant!

    It's actually a revolutionary and effective treatment for BPH. Something over 70+% of all men will eventually suffer from. It seems also to be the only treatment with zero sexual side-effects. I'm betting this is big.... when folks realize they can avoid all the complications from TURP or meds.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Its going great over here. Just look at the milestones this company has been able to accomplish in the last 12 months. We are the hottest thing in Urology and the procedure is phenomenal! Zero retrograde ejaculation and it can performed in the office with its own CPT codes. All other new BPH technologies being studied have been scratched, wonder why...keep in mind this does not compete with TURP or greenlight, plus that's only 1% of the market...its the drug market that's going to take the hit. Stay tuned!
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Data looks horrible! No side effects BECAUSE you aren't doing anything. Run a scope thru the urethra and you have bps symptoms relief.....sorry boys, get out while you can.
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Problems I see are what the poster above sees. The data does not look very good. AN unease of 4.5 in flow rate. I would expect to see flow rate increases of 6-8.

    Also

    1) From my understanding reimbursement is based on 4 implants. What if patient needs ore than 4. One of two things is going to happen. Patient will only get 4 or patient will have to outlay a lot more money thus a green light or TURP might have been a lot ore cost effective.

    2) How do you treat any form of a median lobe?

    3) You think busy doctors are going to perform this in office. Thats what killed TUNA. No doctor wants to sit and perform procedures in his office the whole day. It kills his day of being able to see patients which sets the next wave of procedures up

    4) What is the flow rate improvement after 3-5 years?

    5) What happens when reimbursement gets cut year after year after year? Yes year 1 is great, but lets see what reimbursement is year 4

    6) They overestimate how much doctors care about the sexual side effects of the other procedures available. While I agree I would care and patients do care, the reality is the doctors don't care that much. The rates are somewhat low and most don't consider retrograde that negative of a side effect.

    7) The reps knowledge of BPH in general lacks. You can see most of their reps did not come from the BPH market. They came from other places. There are so few BPH companies that many relationships are already in place with the largest of the physician practices.


    Neotract has done a commendable job going after the light treating BPH doctors so far. What I mean by that is that they haven't converted the doctor who does the 10 a day or so in office procedures or the largest green light, button, or turp docs.
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Nobody will ever buy this pos. getting ready to lose their biggest users
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Some slightly valid concerns regarding difficulty getting acceptance by practitioners often reluctant to adopt new approaches, but as an alternative to drugs or more radical surgery( with almost guaranteed complications) Urolift looks like a good option. Some Dr's may not be concerned about sexual side effects but you can bet most patients are and they can drive demand.

    Data looks really good to me unless previous posters are challenging the validity of the same measures used for every other BPH treatment. We should see 3 year results soon.

    Sounds like some posters have personal axe to grind rather than looking at Urolift objectively.
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    You simply don't have a lot of experience in this market. I have no doubt patients will go in and possibly want a Urolift done. A physician will be able to talk them into a different procedure. I am not challenging the validity of the data, but many other BPH procedures have far better flow rate improvement and that includes some of the other in office procedures. This, and any procedure will always be driven by doctor demand, not patient demand. I just don't see the big hitters doing this instead of some other in office procedures and/or a surgical procedure which has a much higher improvement rate in both symptom score and flow rate.
     
  13. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    ...and, in your omniscience you seem to be not understanding the market position for this device. The better flow rates of more invasive procedures come at the much higher risk of unpleasant side effects. Meds often have time limited effectiveness and also very unpleasant side effects. Urolift, with virtually no sexual side effects, rapid recovery, and simple implementation, covers the space in between nicely and there's no reason a more invasive surgical or energy based procedure couldn't be done later. If Urolift durability turns out to be very long, again, who wouldn't want to forestall the need for those procedures and their possible nasty complications. Of course physicians and insurers will have to be convinced of the medical/economic value of this procedure, but if patient demand wasn't a significant driver, then big pharma companies wouldn't be dumping billions into patient directed ad campaigns. Neotract definitely has a challenge to get past the barriers to adoption, but imho/experience, men tend to be extremely motivated to preserve sexual function at any age. I guess time will tell.
     
  14. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I'll try this again. Prior to Neotract there were 6 different types of less invasive procedures that were done in office. 4 microwaves, 1 RF, and 1 laser fiber (forgot what it was called, but they went under). Those offerings provided minimal side effects, rapid recovery, and simple implementation. Furthermore the data on them was far better than Urolift. I won't argue the validity of studies because we could be here for years doing that, but as far was what was presented to doctors the data was better. Also, reimbursement for those procedures was 2-3x more profitable for the doctor (years ago of course). On top of that the only other choice for treatment was a TURP. Now you have a TURP, button TURP, and multiple lasers which have gotten better and better.

    To break it down you state meds 1st, something else 2nd , surgery third. Something else had been offered prior that was better clinically, probably slightly more side effects (but much much less than surgical), and much much more profitable. Why do you think physicians will somehow on a mass scale change now? If they didn't when the clinical data was even better, the profitability was better, and (in their eyes which is what matters) the side effects were minimal then why would they change now?

    As I said you don't know the market. I have no doubt that patients will walk in and want a Urolift. I also have no doubt that of 10 that do walk in and want a Urolift 8 out of those 10 will walk out with something else recommended. They will be told they are a)better candidates for this other procedure, or b) this other procedure will work better. Whether that is the case is irrelevant. This is a doctor demand driven ailment.
     
  15. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I'd be interested to know what that "something else" is that you refer to and how it compares in side effect profile to the Urolift and see if that's a valid analogy. Everything else you mention is energy based.

    I don't profess to KNOW if Neotract can penetrate this market or not but you seem to be CERTAIN it can't, which leaves me suspicious. And again, you underestimate the power of behind men's desire to preserve sexual function. Your "Dr demand driven" claim is too much of a generalization. Times are changing but Neotract does have to be effective in getting the word out.

    You may be right, but your claims of demise are premature. Like I said, time will tell.
     
  16. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Something else would be 1 of the 4 microwaves a Urolift, or a RF treatment. Side effect wise it is presented similar to a Urolift meaning minimal side effects. One can argue all day long, but if a physician tells a patient instead of Urolift I have a procedure that has similar side effects and better clinical data the patients are going to go with that. Physicians will also make more money doing that, but they won't say that. Mot to mention if a patient needs more than 4 implants or has a median lobe they will be walked into something else.

    As for Urolift's demise no I don't think that. I think they will be a niche product. The reason I say it is a Dr demand driven ailment is because I know the market. They are simply another player in the minimally invasive market, except they have little to no experience in men's health, their reps have less relationships than all the other players do, and their procedure pays physician's less. They have an uphill battle and I agree that it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Remember 4-5 products started out in the same place (or better) than they were. I simply wonder how and why someone thinks this time it will be different.
     
  17. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Why it's different? Good question and someone from Neotract should chime in and respond. My understanding is no tissue destruction, no retrograde ejaculation, only mechanical technique with this proven safety and durability... although we need to see longer term results.
    I'm just an interested observer but I wouldn't mind a niche piece of a massive market like that!
     
  18. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    That is right. No tissue destruction, no retrograde, only mechanical technique

    A few things

    1) Not one modality listed above has ever been profitable in the niche space. All 6 have never been profitable or done enough revenue for it to matter

    2) You think of the market as the whole market: Meds, Min-Invasive, and Surgical. the reality is it is only the min invasive space. It is about a $20M-$25M market. For them to be likely profitable they would have to have 80% of that $25M market. Isn't going to happen. What they have to do is capture the meds and surgical market. All of those companies prior to Urolift tried to do that with much much more $ behind them. They failed, but you think this time it will be different?

    3) Finally, lets look at no tissue destruction. The reason most of these niche products have failed is due to physicians using them and basically saying....wait for it....not enough tissue destruction. So you think no tissue destruction will somehow change their outlook.
     
  19. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    You're going in circles and looking at each point in isolation.
    Agreed, why not go for best outcome with a more invasive technique if you are going to likely have retrograde or other side effects. Of course physician would push for that. However what other min invasive technique besides Urolift could guarantee no retrograde etc. What specifically had safety, durability, reversability, no sexual side effects in that space before? Nothing you mention so far.
     
  20. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I can't explain it anymore than I have and it is obvious you have no experience in this space.

    What a physician will tell them is that they will have no sexual side effects with the Uroloft, but that improvement will be minimal. An increase of 4.5 in flow rate is minimal. They will tell them that all procedures have risks and if you re looking for a flow rate increase similar to that we can put you on Avodart. Will Urolift still be the right call for some? Absolutely, but Neotract needs more than a few that qualify for it to be successful.. They need to capture 80% of the current Min-Invasive market and capture some of either the meds market and/or the surgical market. With the data they have they have little to no shot of capturing the surgical market. If you think that they can capture the meds market more power to you. The facts say that no one has been able to do that yet and BTW many of these Min-Invasive treatments when they came out were marketed the same way Urolofit was which was safety, durability, and no sexual side effects, yet non were able to turn a profit.....ever.

    I don't expect you to know this or understand this because it is obvious you have little to no experience in this space. Not g wrong with that, but everything you have typed and I mean everything physicians have heard before. Somehow you think it is different this time. Sure it will be.

    THIS IS A DOCTOR DRIVEN AILMENT. Period. You don't have to believe that.