In 2008, Tengion was an emerging biotechnology company with great potential in the field of regenerative medicine. This field of medicine focused on developing an alternative way to repair or replace tissue and organs by extracting patients’ own cells, growing the new tissue in a lab, and translpanting it back into the patient. This new way of treatment offered many benefits, including reduced post operative complications, yet, it also brought forward unforseen challenges to overcome. With products at various stages of development, Tengion had a robust pipeline and a promising future. However, as time progressed and the stock market dwindled, the company was caught in a financial crisis and needed to manage cash burn by prioritizing its R&D
…show more content…
Each product would benefit a unique patient population that differ dramtically in both size and composition. On one side, the Neo-Bladder Augment is meant to benefit patients with impaired bladder control caused by Spina bifida (SB) or a spinal cord injury (SCI). In 2008, there were 259,000 people living in the US with a SCI, with 12,000 new cases arising every year. Additionally, 2,000 babies with SB were born every year adding to the already existing patients. In contrast, the Neo-Urinary Conduit has a larger patient population because it targets the fifth most common cancer, bladder cancer. In 2008, there was an estimated 500,000 US patients who survived bladder cancer and 71,000 new cases every year. Taking only these numbers into account, Tengion’s best chance of revenue would be conduit. However, Tengion performed a survey to help predict the implementation by physicians to each new product. According to Exhibit 9 of the Tengion Case Study, 72% of physcians were satisfied with the current urinary conduit in the market. Moreover, only 37% of physicans were likely to use the Tengion Conduit over the traditional. Unlike the above stats, 69% of physicians were likely to use the Tengion Augment product in place of the traditional. Nonetheless, after taking into account these percentages, the market size of the urinary conduit remains larger and thus more attractive to pursue (See …show more content…
The main concern of traditional treatment approaches are the the post operative complications associated with the use of bowel tissue such as, Urinary Tract Infections (UTI), Bowel Obstruction, Renal Insufficiency, Bladder and Kidney Stones, the possibility of developing cancer and more. For Tengion, both products offer an alternative method to using bowel tissue, thus both offer a reduced risk of developing such complictions to the patient. Nonetheless, there are still dramatic differences in each. For example, the Augment is intended to cure a disability while the Conduit serves as a chronic treatment to the disabiltiy. Additionally, many doctors are concerned that patients will still develop complications with Tengion’s conduits because they are regenerated through the use of fat cells instead of the real tissue cells. However, Tengion already performed a preclincal study using dogs (which are more likely to predict human product response) that demonstrated substantial success when using fat cells. Last but not least, when comparing the two procedures used to develop each construct, the conduit offers a simpler and faster way to regenerate patient tissue. Instead of performing two invasive surgeries, the conduit requires an initial needle extraction followed by the transplant of the tissue and a shorter operating procedure. For a more outlined
Each product would benefit a unique patient population that differ dramtically in both size and composition. On one side, the Neo-Bladder Augment is meant to benefit patients with impaired bladder control caused by Spina bifida (SB) or a spinal cord injury (SCI). In 2008, there were 259,000 people living in the US with a SCI, with 12,000 new cases arising every year. Additionally, 2,000 babies with SB were born every year adding to the already existing patients. In contrast, the Neo-Urinary Conduit has a larger patient population because it targets the fifth most common cancer, bladder cancer. In 2008, there was an estimated 500,000 US patients who survived bladder cancer and 71,000 new cases every year. Taking only these numbers into account, Tengion’s best chance of revenue would be conduit. However, Tengion performed a survey to help predict the implementation by physicians to each new product. According to Exhibit 9 of the Tengion Case Study, 72% of physcians were satisfied with the current urinary conduit in the market. Moreover, only 37% of physicans were likely to use the Tengion Conduit over the traditional. Unlike the above stats, 69% of physicians were likely to use the Tengion Augment product in place of the traditional. Nonetheless, after taking into account these percentages, the market size of the urinary conduit remains larger and thus more attractive to pursue (See …show more content…
The main concern of traditional treatment approaches are the the post operative complications associated with the use of bowel tissue such as, Urinary Tract Infections (UTI), Bowel Obstruction, Renal Insufficiency, Bladder and Kidney Stones, the possibility of developing cancer and more. For Tengion, both products offer an alternative method to using bowel tissue, thus both offer a reduced risk of developing such complictions to the patient. Nonetheless, there are still dramatic differences in each. For example, the Augment is intended to cure a disability while the Conduit serves as a chronic treatment to the disabiltiy. Additionally, many doctors are concerned that patients will still develop complications with Tengion’s conduits because they are regenerated through the use of fat cells instead of the real tissue cells. However, Tengion already performed a preclincal study using dogs (which are more likely to predict human product response) that demonstrated substantial success when using fat cells. Last but not least, when comparing the two procedures used to develop each construct, the conduit offers a simpler and faster way to regenerate patient tissue. Instead of performing two invasive surgeries, the conduit requires an initial needle extraction followed by the transplant of the tissue and a shorter operating procedure. For a more outlined