SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
|☒||ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934|
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 .
|☐||TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934|
For the transition period from to
Commission File Number: 001-38847
SILK ROAD MEDICAL, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
|(Primary Standard Industrial|
Classification Code Number)
1213 Innsbruck Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94089, (408) 720-9002
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|Title of each class||Trading Symbol(s)||Name of each exchange on which registered|
|Common Stock||SILK||Nasdaq Global Market|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Yes ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
Yes ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company”, and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|Large accelerated filer||☐||Accelerated filer||☐|
|Non-accelerated filer||☒||Smaller reporting company||☒|
|Emerging growth company||☒|
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act. ☒
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☒
The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $818.0 million as of February 28, 2020 based on the closing sale price of the registrant’s common stock on
the NASDAQ Global Market on such date. Shares held by persons who may be deemed affiliates have been excluded. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.
As of February 28, 2020, the number of outstanding shares of the registrant's common stock, par value $0.001 per share, was 31,353,906.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CAUTIONARY NOTES REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements concerning our business, operations and financial performance and condition, as well as our plans, objectives and expectations for our business, operations and financial performance and condition. Any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical facts may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “anticipate,” “assume,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “due,” “estimate,” “expect,” “goal,” “intend,” “may,” “objective,” “plan,” “predict,” “potential,” “positioned,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would” and other similar expressions that are predictions of or indicate future events and future trends, or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology.
These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:
•our plans to conduct further clinical trials;
•our plans and expected timeline related to our products, or developing new products, to address additional indications or to obtain regulatory approvals or clearances or otherwise;
•the expected use of our products by physicians;
•our expectations regarding the number of procedures that will be performed with our products, the number of physicians we expect to train, and the number of our sales territories;
•our ability to obtain, maintain and expand regulatory clearances for our current products and any new products we create;
•the expected growth of our business and our organization;
•our expected uses of the net proceeds from our initial public offering;
•our expectations regarding government and third-party payer coverage and reimbursement;
•our ability to retain and recruit key personnel, including the continued development of a sales and marketing infrastructure;
•our ability to obtain an adequate supply of materials and components for our products from our third-party suppliers, most of whom are single-source suppliers;
•our ability to manufacture sufficient quantities of our products with sufficient quality;
•our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our products;
•our ability to expand our business into new geographic markets;
•our compliance with extensive Nasdaq requirements and government laws, rules and regulations both in the United States and internationally;
•our estimates of our expenses, ongoing losses, future revenue, capital requirements and our need for, or ability to obtain, additional financing;
•our expectations regarding the time during which we will be an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act;
•our ability to identify and develop new and planned products and/or acquire new products; and
•developments and projections relating to our competitors or our industry.
We believe that it is important to communicate our future expectations to our investors. However, there may be events in the future that we are not able to accurately predict or control and that may cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations we describe in our forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about our business and the industry in which we operate and management’s beliefs and assumptions and are not guarantees of future performance or development and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that are in some cases beyond our control. As a result, any or all of our forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may turn out to be inaccurate. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed under “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future. You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that the future results, levels of activity, performance or events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur. We undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to conform these statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations.
You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and have filed with the SEC as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect.
Item 1. Business
We are a medical device company focused on reducing the risk of stroke and its devastating impact. We believe a key to stroke prevention is minimally-invasive and technologically advanced intervention to safely and effectively treat carotid artery disease, one of the leading causes of stroke. We have pioneered a new approach for the treatment of carotid artery disease called transcarotid artery revascularization, or TCAR, which we seek to establish as the standard of care.
TCAR relies on two novel concepts - minimally-invasive direct carotid access in the neck and high-rate blood flow reversal during the procedure to protect the brain - and combines the benefits of innovative endovascular techniques with fundamental surgical principles. TCAR using our portfolio of products has been clinically demonstrated to reduce the upfront morbidity and mortality risks commonly associated with surgical procedures for carotid endarterectomy while maintaining a reduction in long-term stroke risk. We are the first and only company to obtain FDA approvals, secure specific Medicare reimbursement coverage, and commercialize products engineered and indicated for use in patients who require carotid revascularization, but are at high risk for adverse events from carotid endarterectomy and who meet certain treatment criteria. As of December 31, 2019, more than 16,000 TCAR procedures have been performed globally, including more than 8,400 in the United States in 2019.
Carotid artery disease is the progressive buildup of plaque causing narrowing of the arteries in the front of the neck, which supply blood flow to the brain. Plaque can embolize, or break away from the arterial wall, and travel toward the brain and interrupt critical blood supply, leading to an ischemic stroke. Carotid artery disease is one of the leading causes of stroke, and stroke is one of the most catastrophic, debilitating, and costly conditions worldwide. We believe the best way to mitigate the mortality, morbidity and cost burden of stroke is to prevent strokes in the first place. Clinical evidence has demonstrated that with proper diagnosis and treatment, stroke due to carotid artery disease is mostly preventable. We believe there were approximately 4.3 million people with carotid artery disease in the United States in 2018, with an estimated 427,000 new diagnoses in 2018, and existing treatment options have substantial safety and effectiveness limitations.
The main goal of treating carotid artery disease is to prevent a future stroke. Unfortunately, one of the main complications of existing treatments for carotid artery disease is causing a stroke, along with other procedure-related adverse events. When intervention beyond medical management is warranted, the current standard of care for reduction in stroke risk is an invasive carotid revascularization procedure called carotid endarterectomy, or CEA. To perform a CEA, a physician makes a large incision in the neck, cuts the carotid artery open, and then removes the plaque from inside the vessel. CEA was first performed in 1953, and while generally effective at reducing stroke risk in the long term, large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that CEA is associated with a significant risk of adverse events, including cranial nerve injury, heart attack, wound complications, and, in some cases, even stroke and death. These risks are elevated in certain patient populations.
To address the invasiveness of CEA, transfemoral carotid artery stenting, or CAS, was developed in the 1990s. The CAS procedure uses minimally-invasive catheters traveling from a puncture site in the groin to place a stent in the carotid artery in the neck to restrain the plaque and prevent embolization that could cause a stroke. While both CEA and CAS have been clinically demonstrated to reduce long-term stroke risk, randomized clinical trials and other studies have shown that CAS, relative to CEA, often results in an almost two-fold increase in stroke within 30 days following treatment, which we believe is due to inadequate protection of the brain. We believe this represents an unacceptable trade-off relative to the current standard of care of CEA. As such, after almost 30 years of development, CAS has achieved limited adoption and narrow reimbursement coverage in the United States. CEA remains the standard of care and represented approximately 83% of the approximately 168,000 carotid revascularization
procedures performed in the United States in 2018. Therefore, we believe reducing the rate of morbidity and mortality of CEA is an unmet clinical need that continues to persist.
TCAR is a minimally-invasive procedure that addresses the morbidity of CEA and the 30-day stroke risk of CAS while maintaining a reduction in long-term stroke risk beyond the first 30 days. TCAR starts with a small incision in the neck slightly above the collarbone, otherwise known as transcarotid access, through which our ENROUTE Transcarotid Stent System, or ENROUTE stent, is placed during a period of temporary high-rate blood flow reversal that is enabled by our ENROUTE Transcarotid Neuroprotection System, or ENROUTE NPS. Blood flow reversal directs embolic debris that could cause a stroke away from the brain, while the stent braces the plaque and prevents embolization to afford a reduction in long-term stoke risk. We believe that by meeting the standard of brain protection and reduction in 30-day and long-term stroke risk afforded by CEA, while providing benefits commensurate with an endovascular, minimally-invasive approach, TCAR could become the preferred alternative for carotid revascularization. Additionally, we believe that as our technology becomes more widely adopted, TCAR may become a compelling alternative for patients who are treated with medical management alone each year.
Based on the estimated 427,000 new carotid artery disease diagnoses that occurred in the United States in 2018, we believe a total annual U.S. market opportunity of approximately $2.6 billion exists for our portfolio of TCAR products. There were approximately 168,000 carotid revascularization procedures performed in 2018, which we estimate to represent a market conversion opportunity greater than $1.0 billion. More than 8,400 TCAR procedures were performed in 2019 in the United States using our products, representing less than 2% of annual diagnoses of carotid artery disease in the United States.
The safety, effectiveness and clinical advantages of TCAR have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, post-market studies and registries that have evaluated outcomes in more than 11,900 patients or patient pairs in propensity matched scoring analysis in the United States and Europe to date. The results of our U.S. pivotal trial, ROADSTER, reflect the lowest reported 30-day stroke rate for any prospective, multicenter clinical trial of carotid stenting of which we are aware. Our ROADSTER 2 post-approval study was completed in 2019 and showed a thirty-day stroke rate of 0.6%. Additionally, data on real-world outcomes of TCAR relative to CEA and CAS have continued to accrue through the ongoing TCAR Surveillance Project, which is an ongoing open-ended registry sponsored by the Society for Vascular Surgery through the Vascular Quality Initiative, or VQI. In June 2019, updated outcomes from the TCAR Surveillance Project were presented at the 2019 Vascular Annual Meeting, or VAM. In a propensity matched analysis of TCAR and CEA with 5,160 patients in each cohort, TCAR provided similar in-hospital stroke rates as compared to CEA but had significantly lower odds of in-hospital myocardial infarction and 30-day death and composite stroke and death, and TCAR patients were less likely to suffer a cranial nerve injury and remain in the hospital longer than one day. In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 2019, a propensity matched analysis of 3,286 patients in each cohort showed in-hospital stroke or death was 1.6% for TCAR versus 3.1% for CAS. The differences favoring TCAR persisted through 30 days and 1 year.
We manufacture the ENROUTE NPS and distribute our portfolio of TCAR products from our facility in Sunnyvale, California. We market and sell our products in the United States through a direct sales organization consisting of 35 sales representatives and 61 clinical support specialists as of December 31, 2019, that are focused on driving adoption of TCAR among the approximately 2,750 physicians and 750 hospitals in the United States that we believe are responsible for over 80% of carotid revascularization procedures each year. While our current commercial focus is on the U.S. market, our ENROUTE NPS and ENROUTE stent have obtained CE Mark approval, allowing us to commercialize in Europe in the future. We are also pursuing regulatory clearances in China and Japan.
TCAR is reimbursed based on established current procedural technology, or CPT, codes and International Classification of Diseases, or ICD-10, codes related to carotid stenting that track to Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group, or MS‐DRG classifications. In September 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, made coverage available for TCAR in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients at high risk for adverse events from CEA, or high surgical risk, treated at facilities
participating in the Society for Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project using FDA-cleared and approved transcarotid devices. Our ENROUTE NPS and stent are currently the only FDA-cleared and approved transcarotid devices. Carotid artery disease is most often a disease of the elderly and, as such, CMS is the primary payer for carotid revascularization procedures, and we estimate that the high surgical risk patient population represents approximately two-thirds of the treated patient population. We plan to pursue expansion of FDA labeling for the ENROUTE stent, currently indicated for use in certain patients at high risk for adverse events from CEA, and, upon FDA approval of broader indication(s), pursue CMS coverage for our products in the remaining one-third of treated patients who qualify under such broader indication(s), including patients who are deemed standard surgical risk.
We have experienced considerable growth since we began commercializing our products in the United States in late 2015. Our revenue increased to $63.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to $34.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2018, representing growth of 83%, and our net losses were $52.4 million and $37.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, our accumulated deficit was $191.5 million and $139.1 million, respectively.
Our Competitive Strengths
We believe the continued growth of our company will be driven by the following competitive strengths:
•Paradigm-shifting transcarotid access and flow reversal technologies. TCAR, as pioneered by our FDA-approved products, presents an entirely new, minimally-invasive procedure in a disease state where conventional surgical treatment options have not advanced significantly for over 60 years. TCAR combines two key concepts: minimally-invasive direct carotid access in the neck, and high-rate blood flow reversal to protect the brain. Our technology combines the benefits of innovative endovascular techniques with fundamental surgical principles. Our goal is to leverage our disruptive technology and growing body of clinical evidence to establish our products as the part of an improved standard of care for treating qualifying patients who require carotid revascularization.
•Compelling body of clinical and economic evidence. The benefits of TCAR are supported by data from over 11,900 patients enrolled across several multi-center clinical trials, post market studies and real-world registries that support favorable patient outcomes and value-based care. In November 2015, the Journal of Vascular Surgery reported that TCAR demonstrated the lowest 30-day stroke rate of any prospective, multicenter carotid stent trial. Data from the Society for Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project show that TCAR compares favorably to CEA and CAS with a low in-hospital and 30-day stroke and death risk and low procedure-related adverse events. TCAR has demonstrated shorter procedure times, a shorter length of hospital stay and reduced adverse event rates compared to the standard of care, CEA. For hospitals seeking to improve quality metrics, drive throughput and increase profitability, we believe TCAR results in higher efficiency and increased cost savings. In addition, by reducing the overall burden of stroke, we believe TCAR is beneficial to payers. We believe our growing body of clinical evidence and favorable value proposition will continue to support increased adoption of TCAR.
•Established reimbursement linked to our unique regulatory label. TCAR is reimbursed under established codes and payment levels. CMS coverage for TCAR in certain high surgical risk patients treated at facilities participating in the Society for Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project mandates the use of FDA-cleared transcarotid flow reversal neuroprotection devices and FDA-approved transcarotid stents. We are currently the only company to have obtained transcarotid FDA labeling, thereby offering the only transcarotid devices currently eligible for CMS reimbursement coverage through the Society for Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project.
•Procedure-focused approach to product innovation and service. Our product portfolio was developed to support the technical aspects of TCAR and is currently the only suite of devices specifically designed for carotid access through the neck, or the transcarotid approach. Our research and development strategy strives to optimize safety, effectiveness and ease-of-use through a family of integrated products designed to minimize the learning curve and drive adoption by physicians. In addition, our commercial organization is clinically consultative and trained in many aspects of carotid artery disease treatment, from patient selection and pre-operative planning to procedural support and post-operative care. As a result, our commercial organization provides a level of service and support that we believe is valued by our physician customers and drives customer loyalty.
•Strong relationships and engagement with key medical societies and governmental agencies. We have developed strong working relationships with key groups including the FDA, CMS, and the Society for Vascular Surgery. By listening and responding to the needs of key stakeholders, we believe we have been able to achieve efficient regulatory approval timelines, coverage and alignment with key medical societies in the vascular field regarding the benefits of TCAR. We believe our approach to engaging these key stakeholders will continue to help drive our business success.
•Broad intellectual property portfolio. As of December 31, 2019 , we held 76 patents globally that include device, apparatus and method claims surrounding TCAR and our suite of current and potential future products, as well as for treating other vascular diseases and enabling other transcarotid procedures, primarily directed at acute ischemic stroke, other neurovascular procedures, repair of the aorta and transcatheter aortic valve repair, or TAVR. In addition, we believe that our trade secrets, including manufacturing know-how, provide additional barriers to entry.
•Industry-experienced senior management team. Our senior management team consists of seasoned medical device professionals with deep industry experience. Our team has successfully lead and managed dynamic growth phases in organizations and commercialized products in markets driven by converting open surgical procedures to endovascular alternatives and expanding access to new procedures for patients. Members of our team have worked with well-regarded medical technology companies such as Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Stryker, Cardinal Health and Roche.
Our Market Opportunity
The Burden of Stroke
Stroke is a disease that affects the arteries leading to and within the brain. There are two key types of stroke: an ischemic stroke, which occurs when a blood vessel that carries oxygen and nutrients to the brain is blocked by a clot, and a hemorrhagic stroke, which occurs when one of these same blood vessels ruptures. If blood flow is stopped for more than a few seconds, the brain is deprived of oxygenated blood and brain cells can die. Depending on where in the brain the stroke occurs, the consequences of stroke can include difficulty talking, memory loss, cognitive issues, paralysis or loss of muscle movement, inability to attend to bodily needs or care, pain, emotional problems, and death.
Although stroke is often considered preventable, it remains one of the most catastrophic and common conditions worldwide. The American Heart Association, or AHA, estimated that the global prevalence of stroke was 42.4 million in 2015, with ischemic strokes representing approximately 87% of the total number of strokes in the U.S. and approximately two thirds of all strokes worldwide. According to a 2013 study published in the Neuroepidemiology Journal, there are an estimated 6.9 million new or recurrent ischemic strokes globally each year. The AHA expects the incidence of stroke to more than double between 2010 and 2050 as demographic trends contribute to an increase in the prevalence of disease states that are commonly associated with strokes.
In the United States, stroke is a major contributor to long-term disability and mortality and disproportionately affects women, the elderly and certain ethnic populations. According to the AHA, stroke was the fifth leading cause of death in the United States in 2014, and results in the death of approximately 140,000 people each year. Stroke ranked in the top 10 most expensive conditions for Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers in 2013, and according to the AHA, direct medical stroke-related costs will more than double in the United States, from $36.7 billion in 2015 to $94.3 billion in 2035.
We believe the best way to mitigate the mortality, morbidity and cost burden of stroke is to prevent strokes in the first place. While strokes can be caused by a wide variety of conditions, the Society for Vascular Surgery estimates that carotid artery disease is the primary cause of up to one-third of strokes. Based on AHA’s estimated 690,000 ischemic strokes in the United States every year, carotid artery disease is the cause of up to 230,000 ischemic strokes annually. Clinical evidence has demonstrated that with proper diagnosis and treatment, stroke due to carotid artery disease is mostly preventable.
Overview of Carotid Artery Disease
Carotid artery disease, also known as carotid artery stenosis, is the narrowing of the carotid arteries that reside in the neck, one on each side, which are two of the four main blood vessels that supply oxygen to the brain. The narrowing of the carotid arteries is usually caused by atherosclerosis, which is the buildup of cholesterol, fat, calcium and other substances on the walls of arteries. Over time and as people age, an area of atherosclerotic plaque, also called a lesion, is formed. Plaque buildup can lead to narrowing or blockage in the carotid artery, often at the bifurcation of the common carotid and internal carotid arteries.
Carotid plaques in particular are often unstable or crumbly, and a piece of plaque or a blood clot, known as emboli, can break away from the wall of the carotid artery, travel through the bloodstream and get stuck in one of the brain’s smaller arteries. When these arteries experience an interrupted or seriously reduced blood supply, the surrounding cells and tissue are deprived of oxygen leading to an ischemic stroke.
Diagnosis and Referral Pathways for Carotid Artery Disease
Based on data from Modus Health Group, carotid artery disease was prevalent in approximately 4.3 million people in the United States in 2018, which represented approximately 1.7% of the adult population in 2018, and reflects an increase in prevalence from approximately 4.1 million people in the
United States in 2017. Prevalence generally increases with age. Unfortunately for many patients, carotid artery disease is frequently asymptomatic, or silent, and the first symptom is often a stroke. In 2018, an estimated 427,000 patients in the United States were diagnosed with carotid artery disease severe enough to warrant treatment, reflecting an increase from an estimated 403,000 patients in 2017. Patients are diagnosed with carotid artery disease either because they have been non-invasively screened for the disease or they have experienced symptoms ranging from a major or minor stroke to a transient ischemic attack, or TIA, in which neurologic symptoms resolve within 24 hours.
For asymptomatic patients, a primary care physician or a specialist such as a vascular surgeon or cardiologist may screen for carotid artery disease based on the presence of risk factors, including age, family history, history of smoking, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes or atherosclerosis in other areas like the heart and legs. When a potential carotid stenosis is detected, the physician will typically refer the patient to a vascular laboratory for a non-invasive ultrasound to definitively diagnose the presence and degree of stenosis, or narrowing of the artery. The degree of stenosis is reported as a percentage of the vessel diameter. There is a correlation between higher degrees of stenosis and increased risk of stroke.
Symptomatic patients who have survived a stroke or experienced a TIA are typically referred to a neurologist for care and physiological assessment. If the patient is found to have underlying carotid artery stenosis, the neurologist will typically refer the patient to a vascular surgeon for urgent treatment to prevent a recurrent stroke. The majority of patients in the United States who are referred for a carotid revascularization procedure receive care from a vascular surgeon.
Once a patient is diagnosed with carotid artery disease, the treatment paradigm is influenced by the patient’s symptom status, disease progression and degree of stenosis, as well as factors that may place them at higher risk of adverse events, including their age, anatomic characteristics, and co-morbidities such as cardiovascular and respiratory disease. Patients diagnosed with carotid artery disease are recommended for treatment with medical management, which includes pharmaceutical treatments and lifestyle modifications such as smoking cessation and control of diabetes, hypertension and lipid, or fatty acid, abnormalities. As the degree of stenosis increases, carotid revascularization procedures may also be prescribed.
For example, published guidelines by the Society for Vascular Surgery recommend that symptomatic patients be treated with CEA if they present with carotid artery stenosis greater than or equal to 50%. For asymptomatic patients, the guidelines recommend CEA for stenosis greater than or equal to 60%, provided that the risk of stroke and death within 30 days of the procedure is below 3% and life expectancy is greater than three years. The risk of stroke and death within 30 days is subjective and typically depends on the patient’s surgical risk factors as well as the skill and experience of the treating physician. The guidelines for CAS procedures are more limiting than those for CEA procedures due primarily to the increased stroke risk associated with CAS.
In 2018, of the estimated 4.3 million individuals in the United States with carotid artery disease, and of the approximately 427,000 patients that were newly diagnosed, approximately 168,000 patients were treated with a revascularization procedure, representing an increase of approximately 6% in newly diagnosed patients relative to 403,000 patients in 2017, and an increase of approximately 10% in revascularization procedures relative to approximately 152,000 procedures in 2017. The remaining patients are managed medically and monitored to assess the progression of stenosis and any new or recurrent neurologic symptoms.
Existing Alternatives for Carotid Revascularization and Their Limitations
Existing treatment options for carotid revascularization procedures include CEA and CAS. Both surgical removal of plaque with CEA and stenting of plaque with CAS have demonstrated clinical effectiveness in reducing long-term stroke risk, which is stroke occurring more than 30 days after the procedure. This has been shown in multiple randomized trials across different surgical techniques and
stent designs, including trials with multi-year follow up that, in some cases, extend out to 10 years. However, CEA and CAS have been associated with adverse events within 30 days.
Carotid Endarterectomy, or CEA
CEA, which was first performed in 1953, is an invasive surgical procedure, typically performed under general anesthesia. The procedure involves a ten- to fifteen-centimeter incision extending from the base of the neck towards the earlobe, followed by the meticulous dissection of multiple tissue and muscle layers to open and expose the internal, external and common carotid arteries, collectively known as the carotid bifurcation. During the surgical exposure of the carotid bifurcation, great care is required to avoid damaging the cranial nerves that travel in and around the carotid arteries and related veins. Damage to these nerves, which control functions like speaking, swallowing, facial sensation, taste and saliva production, is a potential side-effect of CEA and can result in transient and permanent quality of life issues and stroke-like symptoms.
Once the bifurcation is exposed, the carotid arteries are then clamped above and below the disease, temporarily halting blood flow to the brain from that artery, so that the artery can be cut open to remove the plaque. Due to the length of the surgery, a shunt is sometimes placed to allow blood flow to bypass the clamped arteries and reach the brain. After the plaque is removed, the artery is closed, and the vessels are unclamped to restore blood flow. The long incisional wound is then sutured closed, though the resulting scar presents a cosmetic disadvantage.
Data from large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that CEA in addition to medical management is more effective at reducing long-term stroke risk than medical management alone, which has established CEA as the standard of care. Importantly, many of these trials primarily included standard surgical risk patients who were relatively young, free of co-morbidities and deemed reasonably able to withstand the stress of an invasive surgery.
Data from these trials and other studies, including real world registries, have indicated that the surgical impact from a large incision combined with factors such as procedure time, general anesthesia and patient-specific risk factors can result in known adverse events, including nerve injury, heart attack and even stroke and death. CEA also presents a risk of wound complications, including bleeding and infection, and leaves behind a significant scar. These adverse events can also lead to longer hospital stays that are costly to providers and payers. Further, patient recovery times can be significant after a major vascular surgery like CEA.
Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting, or CAS
To address the invasiveness of CEA, in the 1990s physicians and medical device companies developed CAS, which uses minimally-invasive techniques to place a stent in the carotid artery. The first carotid stents were approved by the FDA in 2004 for high surgical risk patients, marking the beginning of the CAS market in the United States.
In a CAS procedure, a small puncture is made in the groin and a sheath is inserted through which a physician can navigate catheters. The physician navigates the catheters inside the body through approximately three feet of vessels and arteries of the leg, abdomen, chest and neck, up to and often beyond the lesion itself, in order to place a stent to brace the plaque and prevent it from embolizing. Significant technical skill is required to maneuver catheters through these vessels and their twists and turns. Patients may also have significant atherosclerotic disease along the navigation pathway, and the catheters can scrape the inner lining of the arteries and dislodge plaque and embolic debris, which can travel to the brain and cause neurologic injury or stroke during or after the procedure. While embolic protection devices, which are designed to capture debris dislodged during the procedure, may be used to reduce these risks, the brain is not protected while they are maneuvered into place, and they do not always safely capture all debris once in position.
While CAS is less invasive than CEA, multiple randomized clinical studies and real-world registries have consistently shown an almost two-fold increase in the risk of stroke within 30 days relative to CEA. CAS has also been clinically demonstrated to result in showers of microemboli to the brain, which can cause neurologic injuries including memory loss as well as cognitive decline and dementia while increasing the risk of future stroke. The procedure-related stroke risks are further elevated in elderly, female, symptomatic and other at-risk patients who tend to have smaller or more distended and diseased vessels. As a result, CAS is performed in a minority of carotid revascularization procedures, representing only 14% of the estimated 168,000 carotid procedures performed in the United States in 2018. By contrast, after multiple decades of technology innovation and clinical development, minimally-invasive endovascular procedures targeted at arterial diseases in the legs, abdomen, heart and brain have become the standard of care and represented approximately 70% to 85% of procedures in other areas of the vasculature in 2012 as compared to open surgical alternatives.
Major Trials Comparing CEA and CAS
The principal clinical trial evaluating CEA and CAS is the Stenting versus Endarterectomy for Treatment of Carotid-Artery Stenosis trial, known as CREST. CREST was a multi-center randomized controlled trial in the United States that compared CEA to CAS in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients deemed to be at standard risk for adverse events from CEA, or standard surgical risk. This trial, which by protocol excluded high surgical risk patients, was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and is considered by many physicians to be the landmark trial comparing CEA and CAS. A number of other randomized controlled trials have further established the basis of comparison between CEA and CAS. In addition, post-market registries sponsored by the Society for Vascular Surgery have assessed CEA and CAS in real world practice. Results comparing CEA and CAS from the CREST trial and the Society for Vascular Surgery registry are shown in tables below. In our presentation of the results of the CREST trial, we have indicated incidence rates in percentage terms, regardless of sample size. Statistically significant differences are demonstrated by p-values of less than 0.05, which is the commonly accepted threshold for statistical significance. This follows the convention of standard clinical practice.
CREST Trial Results
|30-day Stroke||30-day Stroke/Death||4 Year Ipsilateral Stroke|
|All Patients||CEA||n=1,240||2.3% || ||0.01 || ||2.3% || ||0.005 || ||1.7% || ||NR|
|CAS||n=1,262||4.1% || ||4.4% || ||1.6% || |
|Asymptomatic||CEA||n=587||1.4% || ||0.15 || ||1.4% || ||0.15 || ||0.9% || ||NR|
|CAS||n=594||2.5% || ||2.5% || ||1.5% || |
|Symptomatic||CEA||n=653||3.2% || ||0.043 || ||3.2% || ||0.019 || ||2.5% || ||NR|
|CAS||n=668||5.5% || ||6.0% || ||1.7% || |
|Male||CEA||n=823||2.4% || ||0.26 || ||2.4% || ||0.13 || ||1.3% || ||NR|
|CAS||n=807||3.3% || ||3.7% || ||1.6% || |
|Female||CEA||n=417||2.2% || ||0.013 || ||2.2% || ||0.013 || ||2.4% || ||NR|
|CAS||n=455||5.5% || ||5.5% || ||1.5% || |
Age >75 years
|CEA||n=353||3.1% || ||0.035 || ||3.7% || ||NR||1.4% || ||NR|
|CAS||n=333||6.9% || ||8.1% || ||3.0% || |
|Age <75 years||CEA||n=887||2.0% || ||NR||2.1% || ||NR||1.8% || ||NR|
|CAS||n=929||3.1% || ||3.6% || ||1.1% || |
NR - p-values not reported; rates are manually calculated from data presented in the respective publications.
While there was a statistically significant difference in 30-day stroke and 30-day stroke/death favoring CEA, CAS had a significantly lower rate of myocardial infarction of 1.1% compared to CEA at 2.3%, with a p-value equal to 0.03. We believe that this can be largely attributed to the more invasive nature of CEA.
In the FDA analysis of CREST which led to FDA approval of a carotid stent for use in standard surgical risk patients, the rate of acute cranial nerve injury was a secondary endpoint. Patients with an acute cranial nerve injury were evaluated again at the 6-month follow-up visit to determine if the injury persisted. As shown in the table below, patients randomized to the CEA arm had a statistically significant higher rate of acute cranial nerve injury, many of which persisted at the 6-month evaluation. Eighty percent of the cranial nerve injuries involved a motor deficit, such as difficulty swallowing.
|Cranial Nerve Injury||CEA||CAS||p-value|
Cranial Nerve Injury (Acute)
|5.3% || ||0.0% || ||<0.0001 || |
Cranial Nerve Injury (Persisting at 6 months)
|2.1% || ||0.0% || ||<0.0001 || |
In an analysis of patients who received their randomized treatment assignment without crossover, CEA procedure time was more than twice that of CAS. Additionally, CEA patients had a hospital length of stay of 3.0 days compared to 2.6 days for CAS patients. The difference in hospital length of stay was statistically significant.
Mean procedure time (mins)
Length of stay (days)
|3.0 || ||2.6||0.011|
In a publication of the primary long-term endpoint of post-procedural ipsilateral stroke, or a stroke on the same side as the original carotid revascularization procedure, over the 10-year follow-up period, ipsilateral stroke occurred in 6.9% of CAS patients and 5.6% of CEA patients. The difference was not statistically significant. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference when outcomes were analyzed separately for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. There was also no statistical difference between CAS and CEA at any other year of follow-up from year one through year nine. These data demonstrate that both CAS and CEA provide the same durable reduction of long-term stroke risk.
Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry
In 2013, members of the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry, the precursor to the VQI, published outcomes for CEA and CAS in high surgical risk patients using CMS high risk criteria per the National Coverage Determination. The objective of the analysis was to determine objectively if the CMS high risk criteria demonstrated differential and biased outcomes in CEA and CAS due to the over-representation of high risk patients for CAS. The authors also sought to determine if the rate of adverse events in high risk patients is lower in CAS than CEA as the surgical high risk criteria would suggest. The primary endpoint was a composite of stroke, death and myocardial infarction at 30 days. In a risk adjusted analysis, CAS had a significantly higher rate of stroke, death and myocardial infarction compared to CEA. For the high risk cohort, the rates of stroke for CEA and CAS were 3.6% and 4.9%, respectively; the rates of stroke and death for CEA and CAS were 4.8% and 6.2%, respectively.
|CEA High Risk||CAS High Risk|
With our portfolio of TCAR products, we have pioneered a new approach for the treatment of patients who are at high risk for adverse events from CEA and qualify for a TCAR procedure, and we are seeking to expand the indication for our TCAR products in an effort to improve the standard of care for treating carotid artery diseases or conditions that require carotid revascularization. TCAR is a minimally-invasive solution that addresses the risk of morbidity of CEA and the 30-day stroke risk of CAS, while providing the equivalent clinical benefit of these conventional surgical procedures and a reduction in long-term stroke risk. We believe that by meeting the standard of brain protection and reduction in 30-day and long-term stroke risks associated with CEA in a minimally-invasive manner, TCAR offers an attractive alternative for patients, providers and payers and has the potential to successfully penetrate the entire carotid revascularization market. We plan to seek FDA approval for expanded indication(s) to make our TCAR products and related procedures available to more patients who may benefit from such surgical procedures.
Transcarotid Artery Revascularization, or TCAR
TCAR relies on two novel concepts: minimally-invasive direct carotid access in the neck, and high-rate blood flow reversal during the procedure to protect the brain.
The TCAR procedure begins with a two- to three-centimeter incision slightly above the collarbone, thereby obviating the need to maneuver catheters from the groin. The incision is made just above the collarbone to expose a small section of the carotid artery well below the carotid stenosis and most of the cranial nerves. A puncture is made into the carotid artery using our transcarotid access kit, and our
proprietary sheath is placed inside the carotid artery. This sheath is connected to the rest of our flow reversal system, which lies outside the body, and ends in a connection to our venous sheath in the patient’s groin. After the carotid artery is clamped just below the sheath, the pressure gradient between the high-pressure arterial system in the neck and the low-pressure venous system in the groin creates the blood flow reversal, which redirects dislodged plaque and debris away from the brain where it is captured in an external filter in our system.
While the brain is protected by flow reversal, our guidewire is navigated across the lesion and our transcarotid stent is delivered and placed in the carotid artery to stabilize the plaque against the wall of the artery, trapping the lesion and reducing the risk of a future stroke. The short distance enabled by our transcarotid access allows for accurate stent placement. Balloon catheters can also be used to pre-dilate the lesion or further expand the stent when appropriate. Any debris released during these steps of the procedure is directed safely away from the brain by the flow reversal. Clinical studies have shown that patients can tolerate this temporary redirection of blood flow, which usually lasts for approximately ten minutes, due to the redundant network of arteries in the brain that enable it to receive blood flow and oxygen through multiple pathways. After our transcarotid stent is implanted, the blood flow is returned to normal, the system is removed, and the artery and small wound are sutured closed.
The following diagram depicts our portfolio of TCAR products:
Key Clinical Advantages of TCAR
We believe the key advantages of TCAR relative to CEA and CAS include:
•Reduction in stroke risk. In our pivotal ROADSTER clinical trial, TCAR demonstrated a 30-day stroke rate of 1.4% in 141 high surgical risk patients. In the study publication from the Journal of Vascular Surgery in November 2015, the authors reported that the 30-day stroke rate of 1.4% was the lowest reported for any prospective, multicenter trial of carotid artery stenting. Our ROADSTER 2 post approval study was completed in 2019 and showed a 30-day stroke rate of 0.6% in 632 patients. In separate propensity matched analyses from the TCAR Surveillance Project, TCAR showed similarly low in-hospital strokes rates compared to CEA (odds ratio 0.80; 95%CI 0.58-1.11; p=0.19) and statistically significant lower in-hospital stroke rates compared to CAS (1.3% for TCAR versus 2.4% for CAS; Relative Risk 0.54 95%CI 0.38 to 0.79; p=0.001).
•Low surgical morbidity. The minimally-invasive nature of TCAR offers inherent advantages that can mitigate adverse events typically associated with CEA, including cranial nerve injury and myocardial infarction. Propensity matched data from the Society for Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project in 5,160 patients in each cohort showed TCAR provided a statistically significant reduction in the rate of in-hospital cranial nerve injury, myocardial infarction and composite stroke, death and myocardial infarction as compared to CEA patients. Similarly, data from our ROADSTER study indicated that TCAR had a heart attack rate of 0.7% in high surgical risk patients within 30 days of the procedure. CREST data regarding standard surgical risk patients showed a 30-day heart attack rate of 2.3% and 1.1% for CEA and CAS, respectively.
•Minimal patient discomfort and rapid recovery. While the typical incision required for CEA is ten to fifteen centimeters long, the TCAR incision is generally two to three centimeters long, leaving behind a much smaller wound and scar that often only requires non-opioid pain medications and little more than a steri-strip to cover the operative wound. In our ROADSTER clinical study, 53% of TCAR procedures were performed under local anesthesia. In addition, multiple analyses of real-world data from the Society for Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project showed a statistically significant reduction in the likelihood that a TCAR patient would require a hospital stay in excess of one day as compared to a CEA patient.
•Reduction in the risk of microembolic debris. While large emboli have dominated clinical focus and discussion due to the ability to cause clinically diagnosed stroke or TIAs, there is a growing body of evidence that indicates that showers of micro emboli to the brain, which, for example, may be caused by the CAS procedure, can cause neurologic injuries including memory loss, cognitive decline and dementia, while increasing the risk of future stroke. Data from our PROOF clinical trial indicated that only 18% of studied TCAR patients presented with new white lesions occurring on the same side of the brain, or ipsilateral, as the treated carotid artery, as shown on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging studies. This rate of new white lesions, which indicate brain injury, was comparable to published data for CEA procedures and significantly lower than published data for CAS procedures, which show a range of 45% to 87% of patients with new white ipsilateral lesions.
•Short adoption curve for physicians new to TCAR. In a publication from the TCAR Surveillance Project in January 2020, the authors reviewed 3,456 TCAR procedures performed by 417 unique practitioners at 178 centers. Patients were grouped into four levels based upon the physicians’ experience with TCAR at the time of procedure: novice (1-5 cases), intermediate (6-20 cases), advanced (20-30 cases) and expert (>30 cases). Of the patients analyzed, 41% of patients were treated by novice physicians, 40% of patients were treated by intermediate physicians, 9% of patients were treated by advanced physicians and 10% of patients were treated by expert physicians. The authors noted that TCAR novices can achieve the same clinical outcomes as expert practitioners, while in comparison CAS requires more than 50 cases to
achieve proficiency. The incidence of stroke and death was not statistically significantly different for novice practitioners (1.5%) compared to expert practitioners (1.4%; p=0.90).
We believe the results of our clinical studies provide evidence that TCAR may offer significantly better reduction in stroke risk than CAS and similar reduction in stroke risk compared to CEA, the current standard of care for carotid revascularization, allowing physicians to present the minimally-invasive alternative of TCAR to patients without compromising the reduction in stroke risk they would expect in a CEA procedure. We believe the growing clinical evidence base from our ongoing and future studies and the Society for Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project will continue to drive confidence in the procedure and support continued adoption.
Benefits to Other Key Stakeholders
In addition to offering clinical benefits to patients, we believe that TCAR also offers valuable non-clinical benefits for providers and payers relative to CEA and CAS.
We believe TCAR allows for improved hospital workflow given the simplicity, predictability, and efficiency of the procedure as compared to CEA and CAS. By allowing direct access to the carotid artery rather than requiring the physician to navigate the vasculature as in CAS, and allowing the physician to place a stent to trap plaque rather than requiring the time-consuming and physically burdensome surgical removal of carotid plaque as in CEA, we believe TCAR is a more efficient and predictable procedure. Data from the Society of Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project has shown that the average TCAR procedure time has been statistically significantly shorter and that there has been a statistically significant reduction in the percent of hospital stays longer than one day, relative to CEA. These benefits can help hospitals to better utilize their operating room capacity and fixed overhead and reduce the number of procedures associated with hospital stays longer than one day, which could result in financial losses for hospitals. We believe the economic benefits are further aided by the reduction in expensive adverse events that are borne by capitated providers or absorbed within 90-day global periods related to hospital reimbursement. Through third-party consultants, we have performed economic analyses of TCAR using our own clinical data from the ROADSTER study and published data for CEA surrounding cost inputs for both procedures and national weighted average reimbursement rates. We believe the results of these analyses show that TCAR compares favorably to CEA in terms of hospital margins and economic value proposition for the procedure itself as well as the full length of hospital stay.
Stroke is one of the costliest conditions for the healthcare system and ranked in the top ten most expensive conditions for Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers in 2013. By reducing the 30-day stroke risk from the procedure and the long-term stroke risk from the disease after 30 days, we believe that TCAR mitigates the significant cost burden associated with the morbidity of stroke victims. In addition to reducing costs associated with stroke, we believe TCAR also helps to reduce downstream costs associated with cranial nerve injuries, myocardial infarction, microembolization and other adverse events.
Our Product Portfolio
TCAR is enabled by our proprietary portfolio of TCAR products designed to provide direct access to the carotid artery, effective reduction in stroke risk throughout the procedure, and long-term restraint of carotid plaque. In addition to enabling the safety and effectiveness of TCAR, our proprietary products are specifically designed to enable a short learning curve, consistent ease of use and physician comfort. Our products are also currently the only devices cleared and approved by the FDA specifically for transcarotid use.
Today, our product portfolio consists of the following four single use components. Based on our experience, the full product portfolio is used in the majority of TCAR procedures. In the future we plan to
continue to expand our product portfolio to include additional tools and devices to support the TCAR procedure.
ENROUTE Transcarotid Neuroprotection System
•Used to directly access the common carotid artery and initiate temporary blood flow reversal
•Allows for flow modulation enabling lesion imaging and patient tolerability
•Only FDA-cleared transcarotid neuroprotection system
|ENROUTE Transcarotid Stent System|
•Self-expanding, self-tapering stent with clinical data regarding lasting safety outcomes
•Transcarotid delivery system improves the accuracy and the overall ergonomics of the TCAR procedure
•Only FDA approved transcarotid stent system
|ENHANCE Transcarotid Peripheral Access Kit|
•Used to gain initial access to the common carotid artery
•Only access kit specifically designed for use in the common carotid artery
|ENROUTE 0.014” Guidewire|
•Main conduit for navigating and crossing the target lesion for delivery of interventional devices
•Short working length and proprietary tip designed for TCAR
Our ENROUTE NPS and ENROUTE stent are FDA cleared and approved, respectively. The ENROUTE NPS is cleared for transcarotid vascular access, introduction of diagnostic agents and therapeutic devices, and embolic protection during carotid artery angioplasty and stenting procedures for patients diagnosed with carotid artery stenosis and who have appropriate anatomy, and the ENROUTE stent (PMA P140026) is approved for use in conjunction with the ENROUTE NPS for the treatment of patients at high risk for adverse events from CEA who require carotid revascularization and meet certain criteria.
Our Target Market
We are working to establish TCAR as the preferred alternative to both CEA and CAS for the treatment of patients with carotid artery disease. Because TCAR offers clinically proven, minimally-invasive reduction in stroke risk, we believe that TCAR can offer a better solution for the approximately 168,000 patients treated in the United States in 2018, most of whom were treated with either CEA or CAS, which we estimate to be a near-term market conversion opportunity greater than $1.0 billion. Additionally, we believe that as our technology becomes more widely adopted, TCAR may become a compelling alternative for patients that are treated with medical management alone each year. As a result, we believe the potential addressable opportunity for TCAR includes the approximately 427,000 individuals in the United States who were diagnosed with carotid artery disease in 2018, representing a total U.S. target market opportunity of approximately $2.6 billion in 2018.
Currently, our ENROUTE stent is indicated for use in patients who are considered high surgical risk, and either are symptomatic with greater than or equal to 50% stenosis or are asymptomatic with greater than or equal to 80% stenosis. The labeled indications for use for our other products, including the ENROUTE NPS, are agnostic to surgical risk status. Based on the FDA label of high surgical risk for our stent, CMS provides reimbursement coverage for TCAR in patients who are considered a high surgical risk but not standard surgical risk. According to published studies and primary research, we believe the high surgical risk population represents approximately two-thirds, or over 111,000, of the approximately 168,000 patients treated for carotid artery disease in the United States in 2018, most of whom were treated with either CEA or CAS. We are currently focused on clinical development activities to support
label expansion for our ENROUTE stent to standard surgical risk patients. We would then seek an associated expansion in CMS reimbursement coverage.
While our current commercial focus is on the U.S. market, our ENROUTE NPS and ENROUTE stent have obtained CE Mark approval, allowing us to commercialize in Europe in the future. We intend to pursue regulatory clearances or approvals in China, Japan, and other select international markets. Carotid artery disease and stroke are prevalent, devastating and costly conditions worldwide, and we estimate that a significant opportunity exists for TCAR outside the United States, since the United States represents only 10% of the estimated global incidence of ischemic stroke.
Our Growth Strategy
Our mission is to be the global leader in the treatment of carotid artery disease. We seek to improve the standard of care for carotid revascularization by targeting the market for CEA and CAS procedures and expanding the application and regulatory authorization for our TCAR products to include patients treated with medical management alone. Our growth strategies include:
•Strategically expanding our U.S. sales force and marketing activities. As of December 31, 2019, we have approximately 640 hospital accounts across 33 active sales territories. To date, we have taken a measured approach to account targeting and physician training. Over time, we plan to selectively add highly qualified personnel to our commercial organization with a strategic mix of selling professionals and clinical specialists to cover the concentrated group of approximately 2,750 physicians and 750 hospitals that we believe perform 80% of carotid revascularization procedures. As we grow the size of our U.S. sales organization, we plan to remain focused on educating hospitals and physicians regarding the benefits of TCAR and the expanding clinical evidence base, which we believe will increase the adoption of TCAR in existing hospital accounts while expanding our new account and trained physician base.
•Scaling professional education to drive physician use. As of December 31, 2019, we have trained approximately 1,440 physicians in the United States. Our education and training courses are led by a highly regarded faculty of key opinion leaders in vascular surgery, allowing for significant peer-to-peer interaction and influence from experienced TCAR practitioners. These courses have been fully subscribed since inception. We believe these professional education initiatives are a key differentiator in driving successful outcomes during the learning curve of TCAR and establishing the confidence physicians need to adopt TCAR. We plan to continue conducting these courses while regionalizing the course locations, continuously improving the program, and expanding our physician faculty.
•Increasing TCAR adoption. In our existing account and trained physician base, we have shown an ability to drive adoption in high surgical risk patients where CEA might otherwise be riskier or technically challenging, as well as in patients with anatomy or risk factors unfavorable for CAS. Our strategy is to continue educating physicians in the approved indications for our TCAR products, and to expand the approved uses of our products across broader patient subgroups, as physicians’ experience and confidence with the procedure accrues and our clinical evidence base expands through the Society for Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project and our ongoing and future studies. We also plan to continue converting CEA or CAS procedures to TCAR in current hospital accounts by training additional physicians in these accounts.
•Building our clinical evidence base. Vascular surgeons typically rely on clinical evidence to drive changes in their practice. Primary care physicians and specialist referrers like neurologists and cardiologists also scrutinize clinical evidence. We completed the ROADSTER 2 study in 2019 and the results were subsequently presented in June 2019 at the VAM in National Harbor, Maryland, and we expect the data to be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal in the future. We plan to continue to build our clinical evidence base by commencing new clinical studies intended to support marketing efforts and regulatory initiatives. We also expect the
Society for Vascular Surgery’s ongoing TCAR Surveillance Project registry to continue to grow and produce valuable presentations and published papers with comparative data and sub-group analyses that will further define the role of TCAR across patient populations.
•Broadening the indication for the ENROUTE stent and expanding reimbursement. We plan to continue to work to expand FDA labeling for the ENROUTE stent to address the approximately one-third of treated patients who present standard surgical risk. If we obtain approval of a label expansion, we intend to pursue Medicare coverage for TCAR in standard surgical risk patients.
•Pursuing international markets. Carotid artery disease and stroke are prevalent, devastating and costly conditions worldwide, and we estimate that a significant opportunity exists for TCAR outside the United States. We currently have CE Mark for the ENROUTE NPS and ENROUTE stent, which would allow us to commercialize in Europe in the future. We are also actively working towards regulatory clearances for our products in China and Japan.
•Continuing our history of innovation in and beyond TCAR. We are currently developing additional and next generation products to support and improve TCAR to meet the evolving needs of physicians and their patients. We also have a broad intellectual property platform and, in the future, we intend to leverage our expertise and the physiologic and engineering advantages made possible by our transcarotid approach to develop new products targeting procedures and vascular disease states in the heart, aortic arch and brain.
The safety, effectiveness and clinical advantages of TCAR have been observed in multiple clinical trials and post-market studies that have collectively evaluated more than 11,900 patients in the United States and Europe to date. Our first-in-human trial, the PROOF Study, was initiated as a feasibility study to assess the safety and performance of the ENROUTE NPS and later was expanded to support CE marking of the ENROUTE NPS. Data from the PROOF Study were also used to support FDA approval of the investigational device exemption, or IDE, for the ROADSTER Study. Data from the pivotal cohort of the ROADSTER Study supported FDA 510(k) clearance of the ENROUTE NPS, and a subset of the data supported pre-market, or PMA, approval of the ENROUTE stent. The results of the pivotal phase of the ROADSTER study were published in November 2015 in the Journal of Vascular Surgery. We have completed a post market approval study, ROADSTER 2, which was designed to evaluate the outcomes in TCAR procedures using the ENROUTE stent used in conjunction with the ENROUTE NPS in broader, “real‑world” use in 692 patients. Data on TCAR outcomes also continues to accrue through the Society for Vascular Surgery-sponsored TCAR Surveillance Project, an ongoing real‑world, open-ended registry which includes over 8,100 patients treated with TCAR as of December 31, 2019.
Summary of Key Clinical Trials
|PROOF||ROADSTER||ROADSTER 2||TCAR Surveillance Project|
|Study Type||First in Human|
|U.S. Pivotal IDE Study||U.S. Post-Approval Study||Real world observation |
56 DW-MRI Sub-
52 Stent Sub-
|Profile||High Surgical Risk and Standard Surgical Risk||High Surgical Risk||High Surgical Risk||High Surgical Risk|
J Endovasc Ther. 2017 Apr;24(2):265-270
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Nov;62(5):1227-34
(pivotal cohort only)
|Complete||Enrolling >8,100 patients as of December 31, 2019|
|Carotid Stent Systems Used||CE Marked Carotid Stents, including the Cordis Precise Stent||FDA Approved Carotid Stents, including the Cordis Precise Stent||ENROUTE Transcarotid Stent System||ENROUTE Transcarotid Stent System|
Summary of TCAR Clinical Trial Outcomes
|PROOF||ROADSTER - pivotal phase||ROADSTER - continued access||Pooled ROADSTER|
|ITT population||ITT population||Per-protocol||ITT population||Per-protocol||ITT population||Per-protocol|
|Stroke at 30 days|
|1.3 ||%||1.4 ||%||0.7 ||%||1.3 ||%||0.0 ||%||1.4 ||%||0.5 ||%|
|All stroke and death||1.3 ||%||2.8 ||%||2.2 ||%||1.3 ||%||0.0 ||%||2.3 ||%||1.5 ||%|
|Other adverse events at 30 days|
|Myocardial infarction||0.0 ||%||0.7 ||%||0.7 ||%||2.6 ||%||1.5 ||%||1.4 ||%||1.0 ||%|
Cranial Nerve Injury
|2.7 ||%||0.7 ||%||NR || ||0.0 ||%||NR || ||0.5 ||%||NR || |
Cranial Nerve Injury
(persisting at 6 months)
|2.7 ||%||0.0 ||%||NR || ||0.0 ||%||NR || ||0.0 ||%||NR || |
|Procedural information || |
|Mean procedure time (mins)||NR || ||73.6 || ||NR || ||72.4 || ||NR || ||73.2 || ||NR || |
Mean length of stay (days)
|NR || ||1.9 || ||NR || ||1.4 || ||NR || ||1.7 || ||NR || |
(1)All strokes observed have been minor strokes; No major strokes have been observed.
PROOF First-in-human Clinical Trial
Our first-in-human trial, the PROOF Study, was a single-arm trial conducted at one trial site in Europe from 2009 to 2012. The PROOF Study was initiated as a feasibility study to assess the safety and performance of the ENROUTE NPS in a limited number of patients, initially enrolling 10 patients. The PROOF Study was later expanded to 75 patients to collect the clinical data necessary to support CE marking of the ENROUTE NPS. Data from the PROOF Study were also used to support FDA approval of the IDE for the ROADSTER Study.
The PROOF Study enrolled patients that were classified as high surgical risk, as well as patients classified as standard surgical risk. The results from the PROOF Study demonstrated that TCAR was technically feasible and resulted in a stroke incidence of 1.3% within 30 days, which was significantly lower than that reported for CAS in prior clinical trials.
Additionally, a sub-study of 56 patients underwent pre- and post-procedure diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance image scanning, or DW-MRI, to detect new white lesions on the ipsilateral side of the brain as a sensitive surrogate marker of microemboli and brain injury. The analysis resulted in only 18% of the treatment population presenting with ipsilateral new white lesions, which was also comparable to that reported for CEA in prior clinical trials and significantly less than that reported in prior CAS trials.
Pivotal ROADSTER Clinical Trial
Our pivotal trial, the ROADSTER Study, was a single-arm trial conducted at 17 sites across the United States and one site in Europe from 2012 to 2014. The design of the ROADSTER Study, which was used to support FDA 510(k) clearance of the ENROUTE NPS, was largely based upon predicate embolic prevention studies and followed the relevant FDA guidance published in 2008. In the pivotal phase, the ROADSTER study enrolled 141 patients that were classified as being at high surgical risk.
The primary endpoint of the ROADSTER Study was a hierarchical composite of stroke, death or myocardial infarction within 30 days. Key secondary endpoints included acute device, technical and procedural success at 30 days, as well as cranial nerve injury at six months. The results of the ROADSTER Study were analyzed on an “intention to treat,” or ITT basis, as well as a “per protocol,” or PP basis. The ITT results accounted for all patients enrolled in the clinical trial, including patients treated despite major protocol deviations. The PP results included only patients that met all of the inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria and who were compliant with the protocol-mandated study medication regimen. There were no patients lost to follow-up in either the ITT or PP cohorts.
On an ITT basis, the primary endpoint event rate in the pivotal phase of the ROADSTER Study was a 3.5% hierarchical composite rate of stroke, death or myocardial infarction at 30 days, comprised of two strokes, or a 1.4% incidence, two deaths, or a 1.4% incidence, and one myocardial infarction, or a 0.7% incidence. Both deaths were respiratory in nature and were independently adjudicated as not related to the device. There were no site-reported cardiovascular or neurologic deaths, although our independent clinical events committee adjudicated one death as cardiovascular. There were no major strokes. There was one report of an acute cranial nerve injury, representing a 0.7% incidence, which resolved within six months. These data supported FDA 510(k) clearance of the ENROUTE NPS.
In the PP analysis, the primary endpoint event rate was 2.9%, comprised of one stroke, or a 0.7% incidence, two deaths, or a 1.5% incidence, and one myocardial infarction, or a 0.7% incidence.
A continued access phase of the ROADSTER Study was conducted during the time that the 510(k) premarket notification for the ENROUTE NPS was under review by FDA. This phase enrolled an additional 78 patients with the same primary and secondary endpoints as the pivotal phase of the ROADSTER Study. The results of the continued access phase were similar to those reported in the pivotal phase of the ROADSTER study. The ENROUTE NPS was 510(k) cleared by the FDA in February 2015.
Following a pre-submission interaction with the FDA, the FDA permitted data from a sub-analysis of 52 patients in the ROADSTER Study who were treated with the Cordis Precise Pro RX Carotid Stent System to be used, in conjunction with existing data from Cordis on CAS clinical trials performed with the Cordis Precise Pro RX, to support our pre-market approval application for the ENROUTE stent. The ENROUTE and Precise stent systems share the same design for the stent implant itself, and differ only in the design of the delivery system. Based on this data, the PMA for the ENROUTE stent was approved in May 2015.
We also initiated a separate sub-study of patients treated PP in the ROADSTER pivotal and continued access cohorts to assess the longer-term rate of ipsilateral stroke beyond 30 days. This sub-analysis, which consisted of 164 patients including 112 from the pivotal phase and 52 from the continued access phase, provided insight into the ability of TCAR to limit stroke incidence in longer-term follow-up. At one-year follow-up, the ipsilateral stroke rate was 0.6% and the mortality rate was 3.7% past 30 days in patients with a life expectancy of 1 year.
ROADSTER 2 U.S. Post Market Approval Study
The ROADSTER 2 Post Approval Study was a condition of PMA approval for the ENROUTE stent. The study evaluated the outcomes in TCAR using the ENROUTE stent in conjunction with the ENROUTE NPS in broader, “real world” use. Like the sub-analysis from the ROADSTER Study that led to PMA approval of the ENROUTE stent, the primary endpoint, which was assessed on a PP basis, is the rate of procedural success at 30 days in high surgical risk patients with a three year minimum life expectancy.
The ROADSTER 2 post approval study enrolled 692 patients at 42 sites. 61.8% of the participating patients were treated by physicians that did not participate in the ROADSTER Study. The FDA mandated that at least 70% of the sites be new sites. Enrollment commenced in 2015. Enrollment and final 30-day follow-up assessments were completed in 2019.
In the ROADSTER 2 final report submitted to the FDA in October 2019, data on 632 patients treated PP were presented. The procedural success rate in ROADSTER 2 was 97.9%. The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% exact binomial confidence intervals of the observed procedural success rate significantly exceeds the a priori threshold of 85% (p<0.0001). The primary endpoint of ROADSTER 2 was met and, as a result the rate of procedural success in ROADSTER 2 compares favorably to the rate of procedural success in the combined pivotal and continued access cohorts of the initial ROADSTER study. Other key clinical endpoints include the rates of hierarchical ipsilateral stroke, death and myocardial infarction, cardiac death, neurologic death and cranial nerve injury. These key clinical endpoints in ROADSTER 2 are summarized in the following table:
|ROADSTER 2: key clinical endpoints at 30 days|
|Stroke and death at 30 days|
|All stroke||0.6 ||%|
|All stroke and death||0.8 ||%|
|Other adverse events at 30 days|
|Ipsilateral Stroke||0.5 ||%|
|Rate of Death - Cardiac||0.0 ||%|
|Rate of Death - neurologic||0.0 ||%|
|Rate of Death - Other||0.2 ||%|
|Rate of Acute Cranial Nerve Injuries (ITT)||1.4 ||%|
|Myocardial infarction||0.9 ||%|
|Mean procedure time (mins)||74.6 || |
|Mean length of stay (days)||1.6 || |
Data from a subset of ROADSTER 2 subjects (n=155) is being analyzed to assess the incidence of ipsilateral stroke from day 31 through day 365 post-procedure. These data are expected to be published in the future.
The Society for Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project
The TCAR Surveillance Project was implemented in September 2016 as an initiative of the Society for Vascular Surgery Patient Safety Organization. The TCAR Surveillance Project is an ongoing, open-ended registry that was designed to monitor the safety and effectiveness of transcarotid stents placed directly into the carotid artery while reversing blood flow within the carotid artery. It is intended to compare TCAR with CEA in centers that participate in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative, or VQI. The TCAR Surveillance Project was reviewed by the FDA and deemed to be a scientifically valid extension study of TCAR, thereby allowing CMS to provide coverage within the parameters of the existing National Coverage Determination. The Society for Vascular Surgery VQI is designed to improve the quality, safety, effectiveness and cost of vascular health care by collecting and exchanging information, and it is available to all providers of vascular health care and their respective institutions. Because data from CAS procedures are also collected in the Society for Vascular Surgery VQI, comparisons of TCAR to CAS can also be made.
Eligible patients must meet the inclusion criteria specified for the TCAR Surveillance Project. Generally, patients must be at high surgical risk and must have had their TCAR procedure performed using any FDA-cleared transcarotid proximal embolic protection device utilizing flow reversal, such as our ENROUTE NPS, and any FDA-approved transcarotid stent, such as our ENROUTE stent. To date, the ENROUTE stent and the ENROUTE NPS are the only such devices cleared and approved by the FDA. TCAR procedures entered into the Society for Vascular Surgery VQI carotid artery stenting registry for the TCAR Surveillance Project are eligible for reimbursement by Medicare if the patients meet the requirements set forth above. We believe the TCAR Surveillance Project represents a unique collaboration between a physician specialty society, the FDA and CMS. We believe it also marks the first time that CMS has granted broader reimbursement for a stent-based treatment paradigm for carotid artery disease in a registry not managed by industry.
The TCAR Surveillance Project is intended to be a repository for TCAR procedures and outcomes data to broaden the clinical evidence base for TCAR. TCAR is one of many surgical and endovascular procedures that is tracked by the Society for Vascular Surgery VQI. Over time, it is expected that physicians and academic researchers will query the database and produce publications in peer review journals, and present data at medical conferences, regarding the safety and effectiveness of TCAR in real world use.
The primary outcome measure of the TCAR Surveillance Project is one-year ipsilateral stroke or death. The TCAR Surveillance Project also tracks in-hospital stroke, death and myocardial infarction. Other secondary outcomes, such as cranial nerve injury and re-intervention, are also being reported. For the secondary outcome measures, any stroke will be counted and in-hospital stroke events are not limited to the ipsilateral side.
In the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative 2019 Annual Report, it was reported that 292 centers have contributed more than 8,100 TCAR cases to the CAS VQI registry. In an article for Endovascular Today, in August 2019, Marc Schermerhorn, M.D. reported that TCAR accounted for more than 50% of the procedures entered into the CAS registry of the SVS VQI in the first four months of 2019. In an email from the TCAR steering committee, they further projected that TCAR would account for more than 4,000 procedures during 2019 while CAS would account for just over 3,000 procedures.
TCAR Surveillance Project: TCAR vs. CEA
Contemporaneous comparative outcomes from January 2016 to September 2018 were presented in November 2018 in both unadjusted analyses as well as analyses adjusted for the baseline characteristics of the patient populations. In general, patients treated with TCAR were older than patients treated with
CEA, and were more likely to have coronary co-morbidities, renal dysfunction and a prior carotid intervention. Below is a summary of the outcomes presented and the patient demographics in which there was a statistically significant difference between the populations.
|TCAR vs. CEA Unadjusted Outcomes (in hospital)|
|Stroke and other adverse events||TCAR|
|Major adverse events at 30 days|
|Stroke/Death||1.8 || ||1.4 || ||0.09 || |
|Stroke/Death/Myocardial infarction||2.1 || ||1.8 || ||0.17 || |
|Stroke||1.4 || ||1.2 || ||0.27 || |
|Death||0.5 || ||0.3 || ||0.04 || |
|30-day Death||0.9 || ||0.6 || ||0.08 || |
|Other adverse events at 30 days|
|Myocardial infarction||0.4 || ||0.4 || ||0.71 || |
|Cranial nerve injury||0.2 || ||2.7 || ||<.001 || |
|Bleeding||1.4 || ||1.0 || ||0.05 || |
|Other procedural information|
|Mean procedure time (mins)||75.0 || ||116.0 || ||<0.001 || |
|Length of stay >1 day||29 ||%||32 ||%||<0.01 || |
|TCAR vs. CEA Baseline Demographics (% of patients)|
|Age||73.1 + 9.4||70.6 + 9.6||<.001|
|Female||36.2 ||%||39.4 ||%||<.01|
|Coronary artery disease||51.3 ||%||26.9 ||%||<.001|
|Prior congestive heart failure||18.8 ||%||11.2 ||%||<.001|
|Prior coronary artery bypass grafting||23.7 ||%||19.8 ||%||<.001|
|Prior percutaneous coronary intervention||28.2 ||%||22.1 ||%||<.001|
|Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease||29.2 ||%||23.2 ||%||<.001|
|Glomerular filtration rate<60||40.6 ||%||34.3 ||%||<.001|
|Current smoker||23.5 ||%||25.3 ||%||0.05|
|Prior carotid revascularization||30.7 ||%||15.0 ||%||<.001|
|Aspirin||89.8 ||%||83.9 ||%||<.001|
|Antiplatelet||84.7 ||%||34.5 ||%||<.001|
|Statin||88.3 ||%||83.4 ||%||<.001|
|Beta-blockers||55.1 ||%||51.0 ||%||<.001|
|Anticoagulants||13.4 ||%||10.4 ||%||<.001|
|Anesthesia||82.7 ||%||92.3 ||%||<.001|
The unadjusted results to date from the TCAR Surveillance Project show that TCAR has provided similar in-hospital reduction in stroke risk as compared to CEA, despite treating sicker, older patients with TCAR, and TCAR showed significantly lower risk of cranial nerve injury. The incidence of in-hospital
death in the unadjusted outcomes was slightly higher for TCAR due to the co-morbidities in the TCAR patients. Patients treated with TCAR were generally older and had more co-morbidities than the cohort of patients treated with CEA. As such, the odds ratio of in-hospital death between TCAR and CEA is the same when adjusting for patient risk factors.
In the unadjusted analysis, cranial nerve injury and bleeding were significantly different between TCAR and CEA. TCAR patients had a ten-fold reduction in risk of cranial nerve injury when compared to CEA, and TCAR had a significantly higher rate of bleeding. When adjusting for risk and in a propensity matched analysis, the rate of bleeding was not significantly different between TCAR and CEA; however, the significantly lower risk of cranial nerve injury with TCAR remained.
Average TCAR procedure time was significantly shorter and there was a significant reduction in the percentage of hospital stays longer than one day, relative to CEA. These benefits can help hospitals to better utilize their operating room capacity and fixed overhead and reduce the number of procedures associated with hospital stays longer than one day, which have been shown to result in financial losses for the hospital facilities.
TCAR Surveillance Project: TCAR vs. CAS
In a similar analysis comparing TCAR to CAS, TCAR showed significantly lower rates of stroke and death; stroke, death and myocardial infarction; in hospital death; and death within 30 days in both the adjusted and unadjusted analysis. When adjusted for baseline risk characteristics associated with the patient population, the difference in bleeding events was no longer significant. Below is a summary of the outcomes presented and patient demographics for patient characteristics with a statistically significant difference between the populations.
|TCAR vs. CAS Unadjusted Outcomes (in hospital)|
|Stroke and other adverse events||TCAR|
|Stroke/Death||1.8 || ||3.3 || ||<.001|
|Stroke/Death/Myocardial infarction||2.1 || ||3.5 || ||<.001|
|Stroke||1.4 || ||2.2 || ||0.02|
|In-hospital Death||0.5 || ||1.4 || ||<.001|
|30-day Death||0.9 || ||2.0 || ||<.001|
|Myocardial infarction||0.4 || ||0.3 || ||0.62|
|Bleeding||1.4 || ||0.6 || ||<.001|
|TCAR vs CAS Baseline Demographics (% of patients)|
|Age||73.1 + 9.4||69.6 + 3.7||<.001|
|Black||4.5 ||%||6.1 ||%||<.01|
|Asymptomatic||52.3 ||%||38.1 ||%||<.001|
|Coronary artery disease||51.3 ||%||38.9 ||%||<.001|
|Prior congestive heart failure||18.8 ||%||16.6 ||%||<.01|
|Prior coronary artery bypass grafting||23.7 ||%||20.8 ||%||<.01|
|Prior percutaneous coronary intervention||28.2 ||%||25.7 ||%||0.01|
|Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease||29.2 ||%||27.0 ||%||0.03|
|Glomerular filtration rate<60||40.6 ||%||34.5 ||%||<.001|
|Current Smoker||23.5 ||%||28.5 ||%||<.001|
|Prior CEA||25.1 ||%||28.2 ||%||<.01|
|Prior CAS||8.0 ||%||19.3 ||%||<.001|
|Aspirin||89.8 ||%||85.1 ||%||<.001|
|Antiplatelet (other than aspirin)||84.7 ||%||74.7 ||%||<.001|
|Statin||88.3 ||%||81.6 ||%||<.001|
|Beta-blockers||55.1 ||%||52.6 ||%||0.03|
|Anticoagulants||13.4 ||%||11.7 ||%||0.02|
|Medical high risk||59.4 ||%||36.0 ||%||<.001|
|Anatomic high risk||50.6 ||%||43.8 ||%||<.001|
|General Anesthesia||82.7 ||%||20.0 ||%||<.001|
Since November 2018, the TCAR Surveillance Project Steering Committee has presented and published updated comparisons of TCAR to both CEA and CAS. In June 2019, updated outcomes from the TCAR Surveillance Project were presented at VAM. The outcomes featured data from 5,716 patients treated with TCAR and 44,442 patients treated with CEA. In a propensity matched analysis of TCAR and CEA with 5,160 patients in each cohort, TCAR provided similar in-hospital stroke rates as compared to CEA, but had significantly lower odds of in-hospital myocardial infarction and composite stroke, death and myocardial infarction. TCAR patients were also significantly less likely to suffer a cranial nerve injury and to remain in the hospital longer than one day. TCAR had lower odds of 30-day death (34% lower), 30-day myocardial infarction (64% lower), 30-day stroke and death (46% lower), and composite stroke, death and myocardial infarction (53% lower).
|Propensity Score Matching (N=5,160 in each cohort)|
|OR (95% CI)||P-value|
|Ipsilateral Stroke||0.92 (0.64-1.32)||0.64|
|Cranial Nerve Injury||0.13 (0.07-0.22)||<0.001|
|Post-procedural Hypotension||1.66 (1.47-1.87)||<0.001|
|Post-procedural Hypertension||0.64 (0.57-0.71)||<0.001|
|Bleeding with intervention||1.17 (0.83-1.65)||0.38|
|Non-Home discharge||0.75 (0.64-0.87)||<0.001|
|Hospital Stay for more than 1 day||0.74 (0.68-0.80)||<0.001|
|Mortality||308 (0.70)||40 (0.70)||0.95||Ref.||0.66 (0.46-0.95)||0.03|
|Stroke||241 (1.4)||16 (1.1)||0.46||Ref.||0.68 (0.39-1.20)||0.18|
|MI||140 (0.80)||9 (0.6)||0.52||Ref.||0.36 (0.16-0.83)||0.02|
|Stroke/Death||323 (1.8)||19 (1.4)||0.19||Ref.||0.54 (0.33-0.89)||0.02|
|Stroke/Death/MI||453 (2.6)||27 (1.9)||0.13||Ref.||0.47 (0.30-0.74)||<0.01|
In December 2019, the steering committee of the TCAR Surveillance Project published a comparison of outcomes for TCAR and CAS in the Journal of the American Medical Association. During the study period (September 2016 through May 2019), 5,251 patients underwent TCAR and 6,640 patients underwent CAS. After propensity score matching, there were 3,286 pairs of patients available for analysis. As was the case in the VAM presentation comparing TCAR and CEA, TCAR patients were older and had more medical co-morbidities. In-hospital stroke or death was 1.6% for TCAR versus 3.1% for CAS. TCAR was associated with significantly lower risks of in-hospital stroke alone (1.3% for TCAR versus 2.4% for CAS) and in-hospital death alone (0.4% for TCAR versus 1.0% for CAS). The differences favoring TCAR persisted through 30 days and 1 year. Key clinical and procedural outcomes are summarized in the following table:
|Stroke or death (in hospital)||1.6%||3.1%||0.51 (0.37 to 0.72)||<.001|
|Stroke or death (30 days)||1.9%||3.7%||0.54 (0.38 to 0.79)||<.001|
|Stroke or death (1 year)||5.1%||9.6%||0.52 (0.41 to 0.66)||<.001|
|Stroke (in hospital)||1.3%||2.4%||0.54 (0.38 to 0.79)||0.001|
|Stroke (30 days)||1.3%||2.5%||0.53 (0.37 to 0.76)||<.001|
|Death (in hospital)||0.4%||1.0%||0.44 (0.23 to 0.82)||0.008|
|Death (30 days)||0.8%||1.5%||0.52 (0.32 to 0.84)||0.007|
|Myocardial Infarction||0.2%||0.3%||0.70 (0.27 to 1.84)||0.47|
|Access site bleeding complication||3.5%||3.8%||0.93 (0.72 to 1.19)||0.55|
|1.3%||0.8%||1.63 (1.02 to 2.61)||0.04|
|1.8%||2.2%||0.85 (0.60 to 1.19)||0.33|
|Technical Failure||0.5%||1.2%||0.37 (0.20 to 0.66)||<.001|
In another publication from the SVS VQI published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons in January 2020, Kashyap, et al, examined the learning curve of TCAR performed by surgeons participating in the TCAR Surveillance Project. The authors reviewed 3,456 TCAR procedures performed by 417 unique practitioners at 178 centers. Patients were grouped into four levels based upon the physicians’ experience with TCAR at the time of procedure: novice (1-5 cases), intermediate (6-20 cases), advanced (20-30 cases) and expert (>30 cases). Of the patients analyzed, 41% of patients were treated by novice physicians, 40% of patients were treated by intermediate physicians, 9% of patients were treated by advanced physicians and 10% of patients were treated by expert physicians. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics by surgeon case experience with three exceptions; expert physicians were more likely to treat patients with moderate or severe congestive heart failure, novice and intermediate physicians were more likely to treat patients with prior CEA or CAS, and advanced and expert physicians were more likely to treat patients with CMS medical high-risk criteria. There was a statistically significant reduction in operative time (novice 81.7 mins, expert 59.6 mins; p<.001) and flow reversal time (novice 12.2 mins, expert 9.7 mins; p<.001) over the four levels. There was a decrease in fluoroscopy time and contrast usage up to the advanced level. Bleeding complications were significantly less frequent in the advanced and expert groups of physicians. There was no difference in the incidence of cranial nerve injury across the groups of physicians. Expert physicians were more likely to use local anesthesia compared to the other three categories of physicians. There was no difference in the technical failure rate across the four categories of physicians. The rate of composite stroke, stroke alone and death did not differ between the categories. The authors noted that TCAR novices can achieve the same clinical outcomes as expert practitioners, while in comparison CAS requires more than 50 cases to achieve proficiency. The following table summarizes unadjusted outcomes by surgeon case experience:
|Cranial nerve injury||0.2%||0.4%||0.0%||0.0%||0.51|
In January 2020, the SVS VQI published data on the impact of age on in-hospital outcomes after TCAR, CAS and CEA in the Journal of Vascular Surgery. Patients entered in the SVS VQI CAS and CEA registries between 2015 and November 2018 were included in the analysis. The study cohort included 3,152 TCAR patients, 10,381 CAS patients and 61,650 CEA patients. Patients were divided into three age groups (≤70 years, 71-79 years and ≥80 years). As was the case in previous analyses from the SVS VQI, TCAR patients were older and more likely to have major co-morbidities such as coronary artery disease, congestive heart disease, chronic kidney disease and a higher ASA classification. Over 25% of the TCAR patients were 80 years of age or older compared to 15.8% of CAS patients and 17.6% of CEA patients.
The rates of in-hospital stroke/death after TCAR were 1.4% in patients ≤70 years, 1.9% in patients 71-79 years and 1.5% in patients ≥80 years. The differences between age groups were not significant (p=0.55). The comparison of TCAR to CEA across different age groups showed no differences in outcomes and no interaction between treatment and age in predicting in-hospital stroke/death (p=0.80). As with prior analyses, TCAR had significantly lower odds of cranial nerve injury compared to CEA across the three age groups (84%, 79% and 95% respectively).
Conversely, in patients age >/+80, TCAR was associated with a 72% reduction in stroke risk (1.0% vs 4.7%; OR 0.28; 95%CI, 0.12-0.65; p<0.01), a 65% reduction in the risk of stroke/death (1.5% vs 4.6%; OR 0.35; 95%CI 0.20-0.62; p<0.001) and a 76% reduction in stroke/death/myocardial infarction (2.5% vs 5.3%; OR 0.24; 95%CI 0.12-0.47; p<0.001) when compared to CAS. The stroke risk for CAS doubled at age 85 compared to TCAR; the stroke/death risk for CAS doubled at age 77 compared to TCAR. No significant differences were noted between TCAR and CEA with age.
Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of in-hospital stroke (left) and stroke/death (right) after TCAR vs CAS for age-by-treatment interaction. In each graph, the first dotted vertical line represents the age at which the odds of the outcomes in CAS compared with TCAR become significant. The second dotted vertical line represents the age at which the odds in CAS become double that of TCAR.
Adjusted odds ratios of in-hospital stroke (left) and stroke/death (right) for age-by-treatment (CEA vs TCAR) interaction.
The authors attributed the significant increase in odds of adverse outcomes after CAS compared with TCAR in patients ≥80 years of age to the increased prevalence of severe aortic arch disease and target lesion calcification and ulceration in the elderly. The authors concluded that TCAR is relatively safe regardless of patient age independent of symptomatic status and other medical comorbidities.
Ongoing and Planned TCAR Studies
In addition to the Society for Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project, we have one ongoing study in the European Union enrolling up to 50 patients and evaluating the rate of sub-clinical embolization, or new white lesions, as detected on DW-MRI in recently symptomatic patients. The primary endpoint is the rate of ipsilateral new white lesions as seen on DW-MRI at 30 days compared to pre-procedure baseline white lesions. The evaluation of the presence of new white lesions is conducted in a blinded fashion by an independent neuroradiologist.
We are conducting a similar study at four hospitals in the United States and one in the European Union. We have obtained Institutional review board and ethics committee approvals and enrollment began in the third quarter of 2019. The primary endpoint is the rate of ipsilateral new white lesions at 30 days. Enrollment of up to 75 patients is planned in this study.
Our Commercial Strategy
We designed our commercial strategy and built our direct sales force to target primarily vascular surgeons across the United States, who we believe represent the specialty most frequently responsible for managing the care of and receiving referrals for patients with carotid artery disease. We believe there are approximately 2,750 physicians that perform an estimated 80% of annual carotid revascularization procedures in the United States. Vascular surgeons are skilled in endovascular procedures and our sales, marketing, professional education and medical affairs efforts are focused on driving adoption and supporting their practice development by offering them an innovative, safe, effective and minimally-invasive alternative for treating carotid artery disease.
In the United States, we market and sell our portfolio of TCAR products for TCAR through a direct sales organization consisting of 35 sales representatives, known as area managers, or AMs, and
61 clinical support specialists, known as therapy development specialists, or TDSs, as of December 31, 2019. Our sales professionals have substantial experience launching and establishing new disruptive therapies and converting open surgical procedures to minimally-invasive alternatives. We primarily market our products directly to vascular surgeons, their staffs, operating room managers and hospital administrators. We also market to other specialists with experience in CEA and/or CAS with the appropriate skill set for TCAR, including neurosurgeons, cardiothoracic surgeons and non-surgical interventionalists in radiology, neuroradiology and cardiology. We do not currently sell our products in markets outside the United States.
Our AMs are responsible for developing territory business plans, targeting and opening new accounts, promoting the benefits of TCAR and our products, and driving adoption and penetration of TCAR. In addition, they help physicians and their staff to build TCAR programs, drive certain referral initiatives, and provide resources to help with practice development, reimbursement and patient education. Together with the TDSs, they also support the training and proper use of our TCAR portfolio of products and provide clinically consultative support for patient selection, pre-procedure planning, procedure support, and post-procedure care. As we continue to grow the size of our U.S. sales organization, with a focus on increasing adoption of TCAR by existing customers and expanding our current customer base, we expect to focus on adding a strategic mix of area managers and therapy development specialists.
Additionally, we support our sales organization with marketing and market and practice development initiatives. We plan to continue to expand and enhance our marketing and analytics capabilities to support our growing commercial organization and customer base.
Professional Education and Sales Training
We are focused on developing strong relationships with our customers and devote significant resources to training and educating physicians in the use of TCAR and our associated products. Our Office of Medical Affairs leads our physician education and training programs in addition to disseminating the scientific information and clinical data supporting TCAR. The Office of Medical Affairs also leads compliance activities.
Our practice is to require physicians to complete a training program before performing TCAR, which is also a regulatory requirement derived from the PMA approval of the ENROUTE stent. To facilitate training, we have developed a robust training course including clinical and procedural details as well as hands-on workshops designed to provide the highest potential for successful outcomes. We also selectively provide training through physician proctors on an as needed basis. As of December 31, 2019, we have trained and certified over 1,440 physicians in the United States.
Through the Office of Medical Affairs, our highly specialized area managers and therapy development specialists, along with other key employees, receive in-depth training and develop a thorough understanding of carotid artery disease, patient selection, imaging interpretation, procedure planning, reimbursement and regulatory policies to meaningfully support our customers and maintain compliance. Our extensive training and continuous education program consists of in-person foundational training, procedure observation, and sales skills development. Our personnel are selected based on their focus on patient outcomes and the entire customer experience in addition to their technical aptitude.
Coverage and Reimbursement
Since achieving regulatory clearances and approvals for our portfolio of TCAR products, we have successfully launched our products, driven adoption of TCAR and made significant progress securing reimbursement codes and payer coverage.
During the ROADSTER trial, the Society for Vascular Surgery helped to guide modifications of existing reimbursement coding descriptions to ensure their applicability to TCAR. In 2015, we also confirmed with CMS that TCAR, like CAS, was considered under the purview of the National Coverage Determination 20.7, or NCD, for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty.
According to the Healthcare Utilization Project, Medicare is the primary payer for carotid revascularization procedures, representing approximately 78% of the payer mix for CEA and CAS procedures in 2014. TCAR is currently covered by CMS in high surgical risk patients who are symptomatic with greater than or equal to 70% stenosis. As of September 2016, TCAR is also covered by CMS in the TCAR Surveillance Project for high surgical risk patients who are either symptomatic with greater than or equal to 50% stenosis or asymptomatic with greater than or equal to 80% stenosis. We intend to seek FDA label expansion for our ENROUTE stent and CMS coverage for TCAR in standard surgical risk patients, as well as seek new and expanded coverage for TCAR in commercial payer coverage policies.
TCAR, like CAS, is only reimbursed by Medicare as an inpatient procedure and therefore reimbursed to hospitals under the DRG system.
There are three key aspects of reimbursement in the United States: coding, coverage and payment.
•Coding refers to distinct numeric and alphanumeric billing codes that are used by healthcare providers to report the provision of medical procedures and the use of supplies for specific patients to payers. CPT codes are published by the American Medical Association and are used to report medical services and procedures performed by or under the direction of physicians. Medicare pays physicians for services based on submission of a claim using one or more specific CPT codes. Physician payment for procedures may vary according to site of service. Hospitals are reimbursed for inpatient procedures based on Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group, or MS-DRG classifications derived from ICD-10-CM diagnosis and ICD-10-PCS codes that describe the patient’s diagnoses and procedure(s) performed during the hospital stay. MS-DRGs closely calibrate payment for groups of services based on the severity of a patient’s illness. One single MS-DRG payment is intended to cover all hospital costs associated with treating an individual during his or her hospital stay, with the exception of physician charges associated with performing medical procedures, which are reimbursed through CPT codes and payments.
•Payment refers to the amount paid to providers for specific procedures and supplies. Payment is generally determined by the specific CPT and billing code. In addition, there may be separate numeric codes, under which the billing code is classified, to establish a payment amount.
•Coverage refers to decisions made by individual payers as to whether or not to pay for a specific procedure and related supplies and if so, under what conditions, including specific diagnoses and clinical indications.
Coding for Physicians
In 2014, the Society for Vascular Surgery helped to guide an editorial change by the American Medical Association to CPT 37215 to be inclusive of TCAR. The Category I CPT code for TCAR, effective January 1, 2015, is CPT 37215: Transcatheter placement of intravascular stent(s), cervical carotid artery, open or percutaneous, including angioplasty, when performed, and radiological supervision and interpretation; with distal embolic protection. Published CMS guidance confirms that reverse flow embolic protection systems, such as our ENROUTE NPS, qualify as distal embolic protection under this code. This code has a 90-day global period. Coverage and payment for CPT code 37215 is only available from CMS in the inpatient setting, subject to the terms of the National Coverage Determination Manual Section 20.7, and only available in facilities certified to have met CMS’s minimum facility standards for performing carotid artery stenting, which include local credentialing requirements. Hospitals participating in the VQI are considered to meet CMS’s minimum facility standards.
Coding for Hospitals
There are a number of appropriate ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes that describe occlusions and stenosis of carotid arteries for asymptomatic patients as well as cerebral infarction due to embolus and thrombus of carotid arteries for symptomatic patients, which establish medical necessity. The proper ICD-10-PCS
procedure codes for TCAR are 037H3DZ, 037J3DZ, 037K3DZ and 037L3DZ, and the appropriate MS-DRGs for TCAR are 034 when the patient presents with major complications or co-morbidities, 035 when the patient presents with a complication or co-morbidity, and 036 for patients without complications or co-morbidities.
Payment for Physicians
The 2020 national average physician professional fee payment for CPT code 37215 is approximately $1,050. We believe physicians feel this level of payment represents a reasonable amount for TCAR. CEA procedures are reimbursed under CPT code 35301, for which the 2020 national average physician professional fee payment is $1,187.
Payment for Hospitals
The national unadjusted 2020 payment amounts for MS-DRGs 034, 035 and 036 are $23,512, $14,427 and $10,968 respectively. Based on prior procedure volumes, we estimate that the average payment amount across these three codes is $13,850 in 2020. These single MS DRG payments are intended to cover all hospital costs associated with treating an individual during his or her hospital stay, with the exception of physician charges associated with performing medical procedures. We believe that facilities feel this level of payment represents a reasonable amount for the treatment of patients with carotid artery disease. CEA procedures are reimbursed under MS-DRGs 037, 038 and 039. We expect the national unadjusted 2020 payment amounts for MS-DRGs 037, 038 and 039 to be $20,315, $10,493 and $7,086 respectively. Based on prior procedure volumes, we estimate that the average payment amount across these three codes to be $9,360. The base payment amounts for MS-DRGs may vary greatly by individual acute-care hospital for a number of reasons including but not limited to geographic, teaching status, case-mix index, and use of electronic health record systems.
According to the Healthcare Utilization Project, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, was the primary payer for carotid procedures, covering 78% of CEA procedures and 77% of CAS procedures in 2014. In 2015, we also confirmed with CMS that TCAR, like CAS, was considered under the purview of the National Coverage Determination, or NCD, for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty. Coverage of TCAR by CMS, other government, and commercial payers is important for our commercial development. Currently, pursuant to the NCD for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty, TCAR is covered by CMS under certain circumstances for high surgical risk patients; as well as certain other instances, including participation in certain trials and studies.
Patients at high risk for adverse events from CEA are defined as having significant comorbidities or anatomic risk factors and would be poor candidates for CEA. Symptoms of carotid artery stenosis include carotid transient ischemic attack, focal cerebral ischemia producing a nondisabling stroke, and transient monocular blindness. The determination that a patient is at high risk for adverse events from CEA and the patient’s symptoms arising from carotid artery stenosis must be documented in the patient’s medical records.
CMS has created a list of minimum standards modeled in part on professional society statements on competency. All facilities must at least meet CMS standards in order to receive coverage for CAS, inclusive of TCAR, for high surgical risk patients. Participation in the Society for Vascular Surgery’s Vascular Quality Initiative can provide evidence of compliance to these standards to CMS.
The TCAR Surveillance Project is an FDA-approved extension study. We understand that Medicare has reimbursed hospitals and physicians for symptomatic patients with greater than or equal to 50% carotid artery stenosis and asymptomatic high surgical risk patients with greater than or equal to 80% carotid artery stenosis who participate in the TCAR Surveillance Project. For billing purposes, facilities and providers can submit claims for the TCAR Surveillance Project using National Clinical Trial identifier NCT02850588.
ROADSTER 2 is another FDA-approved Post Approval Study that was completed in 2019. Patients who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for ROADSTER 2 were eligible for CMS coverage under the NCD under certain circumstances. Providers billed the Pre-Market Approval number assigned to the stent system by the FDA, P140026, to obtain reimbursement.
The ENROUTE NPS and the ENROUTE stent are also included in the CREST-2 Companion Registry, or C2R, but not in the CREST 2 randomized clinical trial itself. The objective of C2R is to promote the rapid initiation and completion of enrollment in the CREST-2 randomized clinical trial (clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT02089217). Patient eligibility will include standard surgical risk and high surgical risk patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery disease. Patients will be followed for the occurrence of post-procedural complications. The primary safety and quality endpoint for C2R is the occurrence of any stroke or death within the 30-day period following the stenting procedure. The safety and quality results from C2R will guide selection of interventionists for participation in the CREST-2 randomized clinical trial. Enrollment into C2R began in 2015 and will continue until publication of the primary results of the randomized trial. Providers can bill CMS for TCAR patients enrolled in this registry using NCT02240862.
Research, Development and Clinical Programs
Our research and development activities encompass basic research, clinical research and product development. Our engineering team has mechanical engineering, project management, materials science, and prototyping expertise. In addition, our clinical research organization has trial design and management, data collection and biostatistics expertise.
Our research and development efforts are currently focused on improving and expanding our portfolio of TCAR products and their labeled indications for use to further improve and simplify the treatment experience for a broad base of patients and physicians. We have worked together with vascular surgeons such as Enrique Criado M.D., and David Chang M.D., the pioneers of TCAR, to develop our products. We believe our research and development capabilities, clinical and regulatory organizations and unique insights will enable us to continue to lead this emerging category.
Following the completion of our ROADSTER 2 Post Approval Study, our current clinical program consists of ongoing studies in the European Union and United States to evaluate the rate of sub-clinical embolization as detected through DW-MRI in recently symptomatic patients. We expect to utilize the results of these clinical studies to support our marketing efforts and encourage continued adoption of TCAR.
We also have a broad intellectual property platform addressing the transcarotid approach and, in the future, we intend to leverage our expertise to develop new products targeting market opportunities and disease states that could benefit from the physiologic and engineering advantages made possible by our transcarotid approach, including in the heart, aortic arch and brain.
For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, our research, development and clinical expenses were $12.3 million and $10.3 million, respectively.
TCAR is a relatively new procedure category and as such the basis of competition for our products is with respect to alternative carotid revascularization procedures. We are positioning TCAR as an alternative to the existing procedures CEA and CAS, and therefore compete primarily with manufacturers of medical devices used in those procedures.
The major manufacturers of products, such as patches and shunts, used in connection with CEA include LeMaitre Vascular, Getinge / Maquet, Baxter, Terumo, Gore and Edwards. Many of these companies are large public companies or divisions of publicly-traded companies and have several competitive advantages, including established relationships with vascular surgeons who commonly
perform the CEA procedure, significantly greater name recognition and significantly greater sales and marketing resources.
Companies with actively marketed FDA-approved stents and embolic protection devices for use with CAS procedures include Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Cardinal. Other companies have approved devices not currently marketed in the United States, including Gore and InspireMD. Additionally, some companies have stents and other products under development for use in CAS procedures, including Terumo. Most of these companies have several competitive advantages including the following: more established sales and marketing programs and networks, larger portfolio of products, longer operating histories, established relationships with healthcare professionals and greater name recognition.
In addition to competing for market share for TCAR, we also compete against these companies for personnel, including qualified personnel that are necessary to grow our business.
We believe the principal competitive factors in our market include the following:
•Patient outcomes and adverse event rates;
•Acceptance by treating physicians and referral sources;
•Physician learning curve;
•Ease-of-use and reliability;
•Patient recovery time and level of discomfort;
•Economic benefits and cost savings;
•Availability of reimbursement; and
•Strength of clinical evidence.
We also compete against manufacturers of medications used for medical management of carotid artery disease, including aspirin and statins. Many such companies are large public companies or divisions of publicly-traded companies and have several competitive advantages including the following: established treatment patterns where drugs are generally first-line therapy and invasive procedures or surgery are considered later; established relationships with general practitioners who commonly prescribe such medications; significantly greater name recognition; and significantly greater sales and marketing resources, including direct-to-consumer advertising.
Finally, we may compete with medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers outside the United States when we pursue plans to market our products internationally. Among other competitive advantages, such companies may have more established sales and marketing programs and networks, established relationships with healthcare professionals and greater name recognition in such markets.
We actively seek to protect the intellectual property and proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business, which includes seeking and maintaining patents covering our technology and products, proprietary processes and any other inventions that are commercially or strategically important to the development of our business. We also rely upon trademarks to build and maintain the integrity of our brand, and we seek to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets that may be important to the development of our business.
To protect our proprietary rights, we rely on a combination of trademark, copyright, patent, trade secret and other intellectual property laws, employment, confidentiality and invention assignment agreements, and protective contractual provisions with our employees, contractors, consultants, suppliers, partners and other third parties.
As of December 31, 2019, we owned 76 patents globally, of which 53 were issued U.S. patents and 23 were patents outside of the United States. Our patents expire between November 2024 and December 2034. Our material patents, their jurisdiction, expiration date and the product to which they relate, are listed in the table below:
|Jurisdiction||Patent No.||Expiration Date||Related Product|
|US||8,002,728 || ||12/2/2025||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|US||8,343,089 || ||6/22/2025||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
Transcarotid Stent System
|US||8,157,760 || ||9/3/2030||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|US||8,784,355 || ||8/7/2029||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|US||8,740,834 || ||3/6/2029||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|US||9,011,364 || ||4/10/2031||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|US||9,833,555 || ||10/26/2029||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|Europe||2,173,425 || ||7/18/2028||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|France||2,173,425 || ||7/18/2028||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|Germany||2,173,425 || ||7/18/2028||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|Italy||2,173,425 || ||7/18/2028||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|Great Britain||2,173,425 || ||7/18/2028||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|Japan||5,290,290 || ||7/18/2028||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
|Japan||5,693,661 || ||7/18/2028||Transcarotid Neuroprotection System|
As of December 31, 2019, we had 57 pending patent applications globally, including 29 in the United States and 28 outside the United States.
As of December 31, 2019, we had trademark registrations for “Silk Road Medical,” the “Silk Road Medical” logo, “Enroute” and the “Enroute” logo and “Enhance” in the United States, and various other countries. Including these trademark registrations, our trademark portfolio contained 24 trademark registrations/ applications.
The term of individual patents depends on the legal term for patents in the countries in which they are granted. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date of a nonprovisional patent application in the applicable country. We cannot assure that patents will be issued from any of our pending applications or that, if patents are issued, they will be of sufficient scope or strength to provide meaningful protection for our technology. Notwithstanding the scope of the patent protection available to us, a competitor could develop treatment methods or devices that are not covered by our patents. Furthermore, numerous U.S. and foreign-issued patents and patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing products. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be applications unknown to us, which applications may later result in issued patents that our existing or future products or technologies may be alleged to infringe.
There has been substantial litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the medical device industry. In the future, we may need to engage in litigation to enforce patents issued or licensed to us, to protect our trade secrets or know-how, to defend against claims of infringement of the rights of others or to determine the scope and validity of the proprietary rights of others. Litigation could be costly and could divert our attention from other functions and responsibilities. Furthermore, even if our patents are found to be valid and infringed, a court may refuse to grant injunctive relief against the infringer and instead grant us monetary damages and/or ongoing royalties. Such monetary compensation may be insufficient to adequately offset the damage to our business caused by the infringer’s competition in the market.”
Adverse determinations in litigation could subject us to significant liabilities to third parties, could require us to seek licenses from third parties and could prevent us from manufacturing, selling or using the product, any of which could severely harm our business.
We also seek to maintain certain intellectual property and proprietary know-how as trade secrets, and generally require our partners to execute non-disclosure agreements prior to any substantive discussions or disclosures of our technology or business plans. Our trade secrets include proprietary account analytics, user training methods, and operational processes. For more information, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”
Manufacturing and Supply
We currently manufacture the ENROUTE NPS at and distribute all of our products from our approximately 31,000 square foot facility in Sunnyvale, California. This facility provides approximately 8,000 square feet of space for our production and distribution operations, including manufacturing, quality control and storage. While we believe our existing facility will be sufficient to meet our manufacturing needs for at least the next four years we intend to supplement our distribution operations with a third-party logistics and warehousing service and/or additional leased facilities.
Our manufacturing and distribution operations are subject to regulatory requirements of the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, or QSR, for medical devices sold in the United States, set forth in 21 CFR part 820, and the European Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC and amendments, or MDD, for medical devices marketed in the European Union. When the new EU Medical Regulations take effect in May 2020, our design examination certificates under the MDD remain valid until their expiration. Compliance with the EU MDR will be executed prior to the expiration of the current MDD certificates. We are also subject to applicable local regulations relating to the environment, waste management and health and safety matters, including measures relating to the release, use, storage, treatment, transportation, discharge, disposal, sale, labeling, collection, recycling, treatment and remediation of hazardous substances.
The FDA monitors compliance with the QSR through periodic inspections of our facilities. Our suppliers’ facilities are also subject to FDA regulations, including the QSR, and unannounced inspections by the FDA and other similar regulatory authorities. Our European Union Notified Body, British Standards
Institute, or BSI, monitors compliance with the MDD requirements through both annual scheduled audits and periodic unannounced audits of our manufacturing facilities as well as our contract manufacturers’ facilities.
Our failure, or the failure of our suppliers, to maintain acceptable quality requirements and compliance with all applicable healthcare laws and regulatory requirements could result in the shutdown or significant disruption of our manufacturing operations or the recall of our products, which would harm our business. In the event that one of our suppliers fails to maintain acceptable quality requirements or regulatory compliance, we may have to qualify a new supplier and could experience a material adverse effect to manufacturing and manufacturing delays as a result.
Our quality management system is ISO 13485 and MDD Certified. We have been an FDA registered medical device establishment and California licensed medical device manufacturer since 2011. We moved to our current Sunnyvale, California facility in June 2018, which was registered with the FDA in June 2018 and was issued a California device manufacturing license in August 2018. An ISO 13485 audit was conducted in September 2018 and our facility was recommended for certification.
The FDA conducted a total of five establishment inspections of our manufacturing facility in Sunnyvale, California in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2020. A one-observation Form 483 Notice of Observation was issued in April 2015 relating to a transcription error in patient line listings and no additional follow up with the FDA was required. In February 2020, a one-observation Form 483 Notice of Observation was issued relating to the calibration method used for a specific type of measurement tool. In response, we have initiated a Corrective and Preventive Action, or CAPA, that we believe addresses the single FDA Observation. We believe that we are in compliance, in all material respects, with all applicable FDA requirements, including the QSR.
Since obtaining ISO 13485 certification in 2011, BSI has conducted scheduled surveillance audits annually, recertification audits every third year, and periodic unannounced audits since the initial certification period starting in 2011 for compliance with ISO 13485 and MDD. The most recent recertification audit was conducted in September 2017, and no major non-conformities were identified. The most recent surveillance audit was conducted in October 2019, and no major non-conformities were identified. The most recent unannounced audit was conducted in July 2014, and no major non-conformities were identified. We believe that we are in compliance, in all material respects, with all ISO 13485 and MDD requirements.
Manufacturing of the materials and components of the ENROUTE NPS are provided by approved suppliers, all of which are single source suppliers of key components, sub-assemblies and materials. We purchase finished transcarotid access kit, guidewires and stents through contract manufacturers. Cardinal is our contract manufacturer and currently the sole source supplier for the ENROUTE stent. We typically maintain several months’ worth of ENROUTE stents in inventory, and we estimate that it would take between one and two years to qualify a second source supplier for our ENROUTE stent. The suppliers for the ENROUTE NPS and our other product lines are evaluated, qualified and approved through a stringent supplier management program, which includes various evaluations, assessments, qualifications, validations, testing and inspection to ensure the supplier can meet acceptable quality requirements. We implement a strict change control policy with our key suppliers to ensure that no component or process changes are made without our prior approval.
Order quantities and lead times for components purchased from suppliers are based on our forecasts derived from historical demand and anticipated future demand. Lead times for components may vary depending on the size of the order, time required to fabricate and test the components, specific supplier requirements and current market demand for the components, sub-assemblies and materials. We perform assembly, testing, inspection and final product release activities for the ENROUTE NPS. Finished ENROUTE NPS devices are ethylene oxide sterilized at a qualified supplier.
United States Food & Drug Administration
Our products and operations are subject to extensive and ongoing regulation by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations, as well as other federal and state regulatory bodies in the United States. The laws and regulations govern, among other things, product design and development, pre-clinical and clinical testing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, storage, record keeping and reporting, clearance or approval, marketing, distribution, promotion, import and export, and post-marketing surveillance.
Unless an exemption applies, each new or significantly modified medical device we seek to commercially distribute in the United States will require either a premarket notification to the FDA requesting permission for commercial distribution under Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, also referred to as a 510(k) clearance, or approval from the FDA of a PMA application. Both the 510(k) clearance and PMA processes can be resource intensive, expensive, and lengthy, and require payment of significant user fees, unless an exemption is available.
Under the FDCA, medical devices are classified into one of three classes-Class I, Class II or Class III-depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of control needed to provide reasonable assurances with respect to safety and effectiveness.
Class I includes devices with the lowest risk to the patient and are those for which safety and effectiveness can be reasonably assured by adherence to a set of FDA regulations, referred to as the General Controls for Medical Devices, which require compliance with the applicable portions of the QSR, facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse events and malfunctions, and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling and promotional materials. Some Class I devices, also called Class I reserved devices, also require premarket clearance by the FDA through the 510(k) premarket notification process described below. Most Class I products are exempt from the premarket notification requirements.
Class II devices are those that are subject to the General Controls, and special controls as deemed necessary by the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device. These special controls can include performance standards, patient registries, FDA guidance documents and post-market surveillance. Most Class II devices are subject to premarket review and clearance by the FDA. Premarket review and clearance by the FDA for Class II devices is accomplished through the 510(k) premarket notification process.
Class III devices include devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk such as life-supporting or life-sustaining devices, or implantable devices, in addition to those deemed novel and not substantially equivalent following the 510(k) process. The safety and effectiveness of Class III devices cannot be reasonably assured solely by the General Controls and Special Controls described above. Therefore, these devices are subject to the PMA application process, which is generally more costly and time consuming than the 510(k) process. Through the PMA application process, the applicant must submit data and information demonstrating reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use to the FDA’s satisfaction. Accordingly, a PMA application typically includes, but is not limited to, extensive technical information regarding device design and development, pre-clinical and clinical trial data, manufacturing information, labeling and financial disclosure information for the clinical investigators in device studies. The PMA application must provide valid scientific evidence that demonstrates to the FDA’s satisfaction a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use.
If a new medical device does not qualify for the 510(k) premarket notification process because no predicate device to which it is substantially equivalent can be identified, the device is automatically
classified into Class III. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established a new route to market for low to moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, called the “Request for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation,” or the de novo classification process. This process allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request down-classification of its medical device into Class I or Class II on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk, rather than requiring the submission and approval of a PMA. If the manufacturer seeks reclassification into Class II, the manufacturer must include a draft proposal for special controls that are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the medical device. The FDA may reject the reclassification petition if it identifies a legally marketed predicate device that would be appropriate for a 510(k) or determines that the device is not low to moderate risk and requires PMA or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls cannot be developed.
The investigational device process
In the United States, absent certain limited exceptions, human clinical trials intended to support medical device clearance or approval require an IDE application. Some types of studies deemed to present “non-significant risk” are deemed to have an approved IDE once certain requirements are addressed and IRB approval is obtained. If the device presents a “significant risk” to human health, as defined by the FDA, the sponsor must submit an IDE application to the FDA and obtain IDE approval prior to commencing the human clinical trials. The IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory testing results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE application must be approved in advance by the FDA for a specified number of subjects. Generally, clinical trials for a significant risk device may begin once the IDE application is approved by the FDA and the study protocol and informed consent are approved by appropriate institutional review boards at the clinical trial sites. There can be no assurance that submission of an IDE will result in the ability to commence clinical trials, and although the FDA’s approval of an IDE allows clinical testing to go forward for a specified number of subjects, it does not bind the FDA to accept the results of the trial as sufficient to prove the product’s safety and effectiveness, even if the trial meets its intended success criteria.
All clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s IDE regulations that govern investigational device labeling, prohibit promotion and specify an array of recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study investigators. Clinical trials must further comply with the FDA’s good clinical practice regulations for institutional review board approval and for informed consent and other human subject protections. Required records and reports are subject to inspection by the FDA. The results of clinical testing may be unfavorable, or, even if the intended safety and effectiveness success criteria are achieved, may not be considered sufficient for the FDA to grant marketing approval or clearance of a product. The commencement or completion of any clinical trial may be delayed or halted, or be inadequate to support approval of a PMA application, for numerous reasons, including, but not limited to, the following:
•The FDA or other regulatory authorities do not approve a clinical trial protocol or a clinical trial, or place a clinical trial on hold;
•Patients do not enroll in clinical trials at the rate expected;
•Patients do not comply with trial protocols;
•Patient follow-up is not at the rate expected;
•Patients experience adverse events;
•Patients die during a clinical trial, even though their death may not be related to the products that are part of the trial;
•Device malfunctions occur with unexpected frequency or potential adverse consequences;
•Side effects or device malfunctions of similar products already in the market that change the FDA’s view toward approval of new or similar PMAs or result in the imposition of new requirements or testing;
•Institutional review boards and third-party clinical investigators may delay or reject the trial protocol;
•Third-party clinical investigators decline to participate in a trial or do not perform a trial on the anticipated schedule or consistent with the clinical trial protocol, investigator agreement, investigational plan, good clinical practices, the IDE regulations, or other FDA or IRB requirements;
•Third-party investigators are disqualified by the FDA;
•We or third-party organizations do not perform data collection, monitoring and analysis in a timely or accurate manner or consistent with the clinical trial protocol or investigational or statistical plans, or otherwise fail to comply with the IDE regulations governing responsibilities, records, and reports of sponsors of clinical investigations;
•Third-party clinical investigators have significant financial interests related to us or our study such that the FDA deems the study results unreliable, or the company or investigators fail to disclose such interests;
•Regulatory inspections of our clinical trials or manufacturing facilities, which may, among other things, require us to undertake corrective action or suspend or terminate our clinical trials;
•Changes in government regulations or administrative actions;
•The interim or final results of the clinical trial are inconclusive or unfavorable as to safety or effectiveness; or
•The FDA concludes that our trial design is unreliable or inadequate to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.
The 510(k) approval process
Under the 510(k) process, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification, demonstrating that the device is “substantially equivalent,” as defined in the statute, to a legally marketed predicate device.
A predicate device is a legally marketed device that is not subject to premarket approval, i.e., a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976 (pre-amendments device) and for which a PMA is not required, a device that has been reclassified from Class III to Class II or I, or a device that was previously found substantially equivalent through the 510(k) process. To be “substantially equivalent,” the proposed device must have the same intended use as the predicate device, and either have the same technological characteristics as the predicate device or have different technological characteristics and not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness than the predicate device. Clinical data is sometimes required to support substantial equivalence.
After a 510(k) premarket notification is submitted, the FDA determines whether to accept it for substantive review. If it lacks necessary information for substantive review, the FDA will refuse to accept the 510(k) notification. If it is accepted for filing, the FDA begins a substantive review. The Medical Device User Fee Amendments sets a performance goal of 90 days for FDA review of a 510(k) submission, but the review time can be delayed if FDA raises questions or requests addition information during the review process. As a practical matter, clearance often takes longer, and clearance is never
assured. Although many 510(k) premarket notifications are cleared without clinical data, the FDA may require further information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence, which may significantly prolong the review process. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent, it will grant clearance to commercially market the device.
If the FDA determines that the device is not “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device, or if the device is automatically classified into Class III, the device sponsor must then fulfill the much more rigorous premarketing requirements of the PMA approval process, or seek reclassification of the device through the de novo process. A manufacturer can also submit a petition for direct de novo review if the manufacturer is unable to identify an appropriate predicate device and the new device or new use of the device presents a moderate or low risk.
After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a new or major change in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or, depending on the modification, could require a PMA application or de novo classification. The FDA requires each manufacturer to determine whether the proposed change requires submission of a 510(k) or a PMA in the first instance, but the FDA can review any such decision and disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. Many minor modifications are accomplished by a letter-to-file in which the manufacture documents the change in an internal letter-to-file. The letter-to-file is in lieu of submitting a new 510(k) to obtain clearance for such change. The FDA can always review these letters to file in an inspection. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination regarding whether a new premarket submission is required for the modification of an existing device, the FDA can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or recall the modified device until 510(k) clearance or approval of a PMA application is obtained.
Over the last several years, the FDA has proposed reforms to its 510(k) clearance process, and such proposals could include increased requirements for clinical data and a longer review period, or could make it more difficult for manufacturers to utilize the 510(k) clearance process for their products. For example, in November 2018, FDA officials announced forthcoming steps that the FDA intends to take to modernize the premarket notification pathway under Section 510(k) of the FDCA. Among other things, the FDA announced that it planned to develop proposals to drive manufacturers utilizing the 510(k) pathway toward the use of newer predicates. These proposals included plans to potentially sunset certain older devices that were used as predicates under the 510(k) clearance pathway, and to potentially publish a list of devices that have been cleared on the basis of demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate devices that are more than 10 years old. In May 2019, the FDA solicited public feedback on these proposals. The FDA requested public feedback on whether it should consider certain actions that might require new authority, such as whether to sunset certain older devices that were used as predicates under the 510(k) clearance pathway. These proposals have not yet been finalized or adopted, and the FDA may work with Congress to implement such proposals through legislation.
More recently, in September 2019, the FDA finalized guidance describing an optional “safety and performance based” premarket review pathway for manufacturers of “certain, well-understood device types” to demonstrate substantial equivalence under the 510(k) clearance pathway by showing that such device meets objective safety and performance criteria established by the FDA, thereby obviating the need for manufacturers to compare the safety and performance of their medical devices to specific predicate devices in the clearance process. The FDA intends to develop and maintain a list device types appropriate for the “safety and performance based” pathway and will continue to develop product-specific guidance documents that identify the performance criteria for each such device type, as well as the testing methods recommended in the guidance documents, where feasible.
The PMA approval process
Following receipt of a PMA application, the FDA conducts an administrative review to determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If it is not, the agency will refuse to file the PMA. If it is, the FDA will accept the application for filing and begin the review. The FDA,
by statute and by regulation, has 180 days to review a filed PMA application, although the review of an application more often occurs over a significantly longer period of time. During this review period, the FDA may request additional information or clarification of information already provided, and the FDA may issue a major deficiency letter to the applicant, requesting the applicant’s response to deficiencies communicated by the FDA. The FDA considers a PMA or PMA supplement to have been voluntarily withdrawn if an applicant fails to respond to an FDA request for information (e.g., major deficiency letter) within a total of 360 days. Before approving or denying a PMA, an FDA advisory committee may review the PMA at a public meeting and provide the FDA with the committee’s recommendation on whether the FDA should approve the submission, approve it with specific conditions, or not approve it. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.
Prior to approval of a PMA, the FDA may conduct inspections of the clinical trial data and clinical trial sites, as well as inspections of the manufacturing facility and processes. Overall, the FDA review of a PMA application generally takes between one and three years, but may take significantly longer. The FDA can delay, limit or deny approval of a PMA application for many reasons, including:
•The device may not be shown safe or effective to the FDA’s satisfaction;
•The data from pre-clinical studies and/or clinical trials may be found unreliable or insufficient to support approval;
•The manufacturing process or facilities may not meet applicable requirements; and
•Changes in FDA approval policies or adoption of new regulations may require additional data.
If the FDA evaluation of a PMA is favorable, the FDA will issue either an approval letter, or an approvable letter, the latter of which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the PMA. When and if those conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the FDA, the agency will issue a PMA approval letter authorizing commercial marketing of the device, subject to the conditions of approval and the limitations established in the approval letter. If the FDA’s evaluation of a PMA application or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. The FDA also may determine that additional tests or clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the trials are conducted and data is submitted in an amendment to the PMA, or the PMA is withdrawn and resubmitted when the data are available. The PMA process can be expensive, uncertain and lengthy and a number of devices for which the FDA approval has been sought by other companies have never been approved by the FDA for marketing.
New PMA applications or PMA supplements are required for modification to the manufacturing process, equipment or facility, quality control procedures, sterilization, packaging, expiration date, labeling, device specifications, ingredients, materials or design of a device that has been approved through the PMA process. PMA supplements often require submission of the same type of information as an initial PMA application, except that the supplement is limited to information needed to support any changes from the device covered by the approved PMA application and may or may not require as extensive technical or clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel, depending on the nature of the proposed change.
In approving a PMA application, as a condition of approval, the FDA may also require some form of post-approval study or post-market surveillance, whereby the applicant conducts a follow-up study or follows certain patient groups for a number of years and makes periodic reports to the FDA on the clinical status of those patients when necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional or longer term safety and effectiveness data for the device. The FDA may also require post-market surveillance for certain devices cleared under a 510(k) notification, such as implants or life-supporting or life-sustaining devices used outside a device user facility. The FDA may also approve a PMA application with other
post-approval conditions intended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, such as, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale, distribution and use.
Pervasive and Continuing Regulation
After a device is placed on the market, numerous regulatory requirements continue to apply. These include:
•The FDA’s QSR, which requires manufacturers, including their suppliers, to follow stringent design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures during all aspects of the manufacturing process;
•Labeling regulations and FDA prohibitions against the promotion of products for uncleared, unapproved or off-label uses;
•Medical device reporting, or MDR, regulations, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA if their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur;
•Medical device recalls, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA any recall of a medical device, provided the recall was initiated to either reduce a risk to health posed by the device, or to remedy a violation of the FDCA caused by the device that may present a risk to health; and
•Post-market surveillance regulations, which apply when necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and effectiveness data for the device.
We have registered with the FDA as a medical device manufacturer and a specification developer and have obtained a manufacturing license from the California Department of Public Health, or CDPH. The FDA and CDPH have broad post-market and regulatory enforcement powers. We are subject to unannounced inspections by the FDA and the Food and Drug Branch of CDPH to determine our compliance with the QSR and other regulations, and these inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of our suppliers. Additionally, our Notified Body, the British Standards Institution, or BSI, regularly inspects our manufacturing, design and operational facilities to ensure ongoing ISO 13485 compliance in order to maintain our CE mark.
Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include any of the following sanctions:
•Warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties;
•Repair, replacement, refunds, recall or seizure of our products;
•Operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production;
•Refusing our requests for 510 (k) clearance or premarket approval of new products, new intended uses or modifications to existing products;
•Withdrawing 510 (k) clearance or premarket approvals that have already been granted; and
Our portfolio of TCAR products is regulated in the European Union as a medical device per the European Union Directive 93/42/EEC, also known as the Medical Device Directive, or MDD. The MDD sets out the basic regulatory framework for medical devices in the European Union. The system of
regulating medical devices operates by way of a certification for each medical device. Each certified device is marked with the CE mark which shows that the device has a Certificat de Conformité. There are national bodies known as Competent Authorities in each member state which oversee the implementation of the MDD within their jurisdiction. The means for achieving the requirements for the CE mark vary according to the nature of the device. Devices are classified in accordance with their perceived risks, similarly to the U.S. system. The class of a product determines the conformity assessment required before the CE mark can be placed on a product. Conformity assessments for our products are carried out as required by the MDD. Each member state can appoint Notified Bodies within its jurisdiction. If a Notified Body of one member state has issued a Certificat de Conformité, the device can be sold throughout the European Union without further conformance tests being required in other member states. The CE mark is contingent upon continued compliance with the applicable regulations and the quality system requirements of the ISO 13485 standard. Our current CE mark is issued by BSI. When the new EU Medical Regulations take effect in May 2020, our design examination certificates under the MDD remain valid until their expiration. Compliance with the EU MDR will be executed prior to the expiration of the current MDD certificates.
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, established federal protection for the privacy and security of health information. Under HIPAA, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information used or disclosed by “Covered Entities,” including healthcare providers and their Business Associates. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. The privacy regulations protect medical records and other protected health information by limiting their use and release, giving patients the right to access their medical records and limiting most disclosures of health information to the minimum amount necessary to accomplish an intended purpose. The HIPAA security standards require the adoption of administrative, physical, and technical safeguards and the adoption of written security policies and procedures. HIPAA requires Covered Entities to execute Business Associate Agreements with their Business Associates and subcontractors, who provide services to Covered Entities and who need access to protected health information. In addition, companies that would not otherwise be subject to HIPAA may become contractually obligated to follow HIPAA requirements through agreements with Covered Entities and Business Associates, and some of our customers may require us to agree to these provisions.
In addition, HIPAA and other federal privacy regulations, such as Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, there are a number of state laws regarding the privacy and security of health information and personal data that apply to us. The compliance requirements of these laws, including additional breach reporting requirements, and the penalties for violation vary widely, and new privacy and security laws in this area are evolving. Requirements of these laws and penalties for violations vary widely.
If we or our operations are found to be in violation of HIPAA, HITECH, or their implementing regulations, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, fines, and exclusion from participation in federal or state healthcare programs, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. HITECH increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against Covered Entities, their Business Associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.
U.S. Federal, State and Foreign Fraud and Abuse Laws
The federal and state governments have enacted, and actively enforce, a number of laws to address fraud and abuse in federal healthcare programs. Our business is subject to compliance with these laws.
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation.
The definition of “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including, for example, gifts, certain discounts, the furnishing of free supplies, equipment or services, credit arrangements, payment of cash and waivers of payments. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered businesses, the statute has been violated. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may result in civil monetary penalties up to $104,330 for each violation, plus up to three times the remuneration involved. Civil penalties for such conduct can further be assessed under the federal False Claims Act. Violations can also result in criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $100,000 and imprisonment of up to 10 years. Similarly, violations can result in exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, some kickback allegations have been claimed to violate the Federal False Claims Act.
The Office of Inspector General, or OIG, of the HHS has issued a series of regulations known as “safe harbors.” These safe harbors set forth provisions that, if all their applicable requirements are met, will assure healthcare providers and other parties that they will not be prosecuted under the Anti-Kickback Statute. The failure of a transaction or arrangement to fit precisely within one or more safe harbors does not necessarily mean that it is per se illegal or that prosecution will be pursued. However, conduct and business arrangements that do not fully satisfy an applicable safe harbor may result in increased scrutiny by government enforcement authorities such as OIG.
Many states have adopted laws similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply to referral of recipients for healthcare products or services reimbursed by any source, not only government healthcare programs, and may apply to payments made directly by the patient.
Government officials have focused their enforcement efforts on the marketing of healthcare services and products, among other activities, and recently have brought cases against companies, and certain individual sales, marketing and executive personnel, for allegedly offering unlawful inducements to potential or existing customers in an attempt to procure their business.
Federal False Claims Act
The federal False Claims Act, or FCA, imposes liability on any person or entity that, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment by a federal healthcare program. The qui tam provisions of the FCA allow a private individual to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has violated the FCA and to share in any monetary recovery. In addition, various states have enacted false claims laws analogous to the FCA, and many of these state laws apply where a claim is submitted to any third-party payer and not only a federal healthcare program.
When an entity is determined to have violated the FCA, it may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus civil fines and penalties ranging from $11,665 and $23,331 for each false claim, subject to adjustment for inflation. As part of any settlement, the government may require the entity to enter into a corporate integrity agreement, which imposes certain compliance, certification and reporting obligations. There are many potential bases for liability under the FCA. Liability arises, primarily, when an entity knowingly submits, or causes another to submit, a false claim for reimbursement to the federal government. The federal government has used the FCA to assert liability on the basis of kickbacks, or in instances in which manufacturers have provided billing or coding advice to providers that the government considered to be inaccurate. In these cases, the manufacturer
faces liability for “causing” a false claim. In addition, the federal government has prosecuted companies under the FCA in connection with off-label promotion of products. Our activities relating to the reporting of discount and rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement of our products and the sale and marketing of our products may be subject to scrutiny under these laws.
We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, collaborators, vendors, principal investigators, consultants, independent contractors, and commercial partners. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions. While we are unaware of any current matters, we are unable to predict whether we will be subject to actions under the FCA or a similar state law, or the impact of such actions. Whether or not we are successful in defending against any such actions or investigations, we could incur substantial costs, including legal fees, and divert the attention of management in defending ourselves against any of these claims or investigations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
Civil Monetary Penalties
The Civil Monetary Penalty Act of 1981 imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent, or offering or transferring remuneration to a federal healthcare beneficiary that a person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s decision to order or receive items or services reimbursable by the government from a particular provider or supplier.
The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, known as “Open Payments” and enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act, requires all pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers of products covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to HHS: payments and transfers of value to physicians, certain other healthcare providers, and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Additionally, on October 24, 2018, President Trump signed into law the “Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promoted Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act” which in part (under a provision entitled “Fighting the Opioid Epidemic with Sunshine”) extends the reporting and transparency requirements for physicians in the Physician Payments Sunshine Act to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other mid-level practitioners (with reporting requirements going into effect in 2022 for payments made in 2021). Applicable manufacturers are required to submit annual reports to CMS. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties of up to $176,495 per annual report for failing to report payments in a timely manner. Knowingly failing to submit payment information may result in a civil money penalty of up to $1,176,638. We are subject to Open Payments and the information we disclose may lead to greater scrutiny, which may result in modifications to established practices and additional costs. Additionally, similar reporting requirements have also been enacted on the state level domestically, and an increasing number of countries worldwide either have adopted or are considering similar laws requiring transparency of interactions with healthcare professionals.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order
to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring us to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, if any, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.
In Europe, various countries have adopted anti-bribery laws providing for severe consequences in the form of criminal penalties and significant fines for individuals or companies committing a bribery offense. Violations of these anti-bribery laws, or allegations of such violations, could have a negative impact on our business, results of operations and reputation.
For instance, in the United Kingdom, under the U.K. Bribery Act 2010, a bribery occurs when a person offers, gives or promises to give a financial or other advantage to induce or reward another individual to improperly perform certain functions or activities, including any function of a public nature. Bribery of foreign public officials also falls within the scope of the U.K. Bribery Act 2010. An individual found in violation of the U.K. Bribery Act 2010, faces imprisonment of up to ten years. In addition, the individual can be subject to an unlimited fine, as can commercial organizations for failure to prevent bribery.
There are also international privacy laws that impose restrictions on the access, use, and disclosure of health information. All of these laws may impact our business. Our failure to comply with these privacy laws or significant changes in the laws restricting our ability to obtain required patient information could significantly impact our business and our future business plans.
U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Medicare is a federal program administered by CMS through fiscal intermediaries and carriers. Available to individuals age 65 or over, and certain other individuals, the Medicare program provides, among other things, healthcare benefits that cover, within prescribed limits, the major costs of most medically necessary care for such individuals, subject to certain deductibles and copayments.
CMS has established guidelines for the coverage and reimbursement of certain products and procedures by Medicare. In general, in order to be reimbursed by Medicare, a healthcare procedure furnished to a Medicare beneficiary must be reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury, or to improve the functioning of a malformed body part. The methodology for determining coverage status and the amount of Medicare reimbursement varies based upon, among other factors, the setting in which a Medicare beneficiary received healthcare products and services. Any changes in federal legislation, regulations and policy affecting CMS coverage and reimbursement relative to the procedure using our products could have a material effect on our performance.
CMS also administers the Medicaid program, a cooperative federal/state program that provides medical assistance benefits to qualifying low income and medically needy persons. State participation in Medicaid is optional, and each state is given discretion in developing and administering its own Medicaid program, subject to certain federal requirements pertaining to payment levels, eligibility criteria and minimum categories of services. The coverage, method and level of reimbursement vary from state to state and is subject to each state’s budget restraints. Changes to the availability of coverage, method or level of reimbursement for TCAR may affect future revenue negatively if reimbursement amounts are decreased or discontinued.
All CMS programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, retroactive and prospective rate adjustments, administrative rulings, interpretations of policy, intermediary determinations, and government funding restrictions, all of which may materially increase or decrease the rate of program payments to healthcare facilities and other healthcare providers, including those paid for TCAR.
United States Health Reform
Changes in healthcare policy could increase our costs and subject us to additional regulatory requirements that may interrupt commercialization of our current and future solutions. Changes in healthcare policy could increase our costs, decrease our revenue and impact sales of and reimbursement for our current and future products. The ACA substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts our industry. The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. Among policy makers and payers in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. Current and future legislative proposals to further reform healthcare or reduce healthcare costs may limit coverage of or lower reimbursement for the procedures associated with the use of our products. The cost containment measures that payers and providers are instituting and the effect of any healthcare reform initiative implemented in the future could impact our revenue from the sale of our products.
The implementation of the Affordable Care Act in the United States, for example, has changed healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers substantially, and affected medical device manufacturers significantly. The Affordable Care Act imposed, among other things, a 2.3% federal excise tax, with limited exceptions, on any entity that manufactures or imports Class I, II and III medical devices offered for sale in the United States that began on January 1, 2013. Through a series of legislative amendments, the tax was suspended for 2016 through 2019. In December 2019, this excise tax was permanently repealed for medical device sales, effective after December 31, 2019. The Affordable Care Act also provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research, and implemented payment system reforms including a national pilot program on payment bundling to encourage hospitals, physicians and other providers to improve the coordination, quality and efficiency of certain healthcare services through bundled payment models. Additionally, the Affordable Care Act has expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs and created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research. We do not yet know the full impact that the Affordable Care Act will have on our business. There have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act, and we expect additional challenges and amendments in the future. Moreover, the Trump Administration and the U.S. Congress may take further action regarding the Affordable Care Act, including, but not limited to, repeal or replacement. On December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid. It is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the healthcare industry or our business operations.
In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included reductions to CMS payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Additionally, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced CMS payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.
We believe that there will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators and third-party payers to reduce costs while expanding individual healthcare benefits. Certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the rates we will be able to charge for our current and future products or the amounts of reimbursement available for our current and future products from governmental agencies or third-party payers. Current and future healthcare reform legislation and policies could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
As of December 31, 2019, we had 224 full-time employees. We believe that the success of our business will depend, in part, on our ability to attract and retain qualified personnel. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or are a party to a collective bargaining agreement and we believe that our employee relations are good.
Corporate and other Information
We were incorporated in Delaware on March 21, 2007 as Silk Road Medical, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 1213 Innsbruck Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089, and our telephone number is (408) 720-9002. Our website address is www.silkroadmed.com. Investors and others should note that we announce material financial information to our investors using SEC filings, press releases, our investor relations website, public conference calls and webcasts. We use these channels as well as social media to communicate with investors, customers and the public about our company, our products and other issues. It is possible that information we post on social media channels could be deemed to be material information. We encourage investors, our customers and others interested in our company to review the information we post on our Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/SilkRoadMed/) and Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/silkroadmed). The information on, or that may be accessed through, our website and social media channels is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be considered a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
We have identified the following risks and uncertainties that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects. Our business could be harmed by any of these risks. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. The occurrence of any of the following risks or additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects. The trading price of our common stock could decline due to any of these risks, and you may lose all or part of your investment. In assessing these risks, you should also refer to the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our condensed financial statements and related notes. Please also see “Cautionary Notes Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”
Risks Related to Our Business
We are an early-stage company with a history of net losses, we expect to incur operating losses in the future and we may not be able to achieve or sustain profitability. We have a limited history operating as a commercial company.
We have incurred net losses since our inception in March 2007. For the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, we had a net loss of $52.4 million, and $37.6 million, respectively, and we expect to continue to incur additional losses in the future. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $191.5 million. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through equity and debt financings and from sales of our portfolio of TCAR products that enable transcarotid artery revascularization, or TCAR. The losses and accumulated deficit have primarily been due to the substantial investments we have made to develop our products, as well as for costs related to general research and development, including clinical and regulatory initiatives to obtain marketing approval, sales and marketing efforts and infrastructure improvements.
We fully commercialized our products in the United States in 2016 and therefore do not have a long history operating as a commercial company. Over the next several years, we expect to continue to devote a substantial amount of our resources to expand commercialization efforts and increase adoption of TCAR using our products, improve and expand reimbursement for TCAR, and develop additional products. In addition, as a newly public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. Accordingly, we expect to continue to incur operating losses for the foreseeable future and we cannot assure you that we will achieve profitability in the future or that, if we do become profitable, we will sustain profitability. Our failure to achieve and sustain profitability in the future will make it more difficult to finance our business and accomplish our strategic objectives, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and cause the market price of our common stock to decline. In addition, failure of our products to significantly penetrate the target markets would negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We rely on, and currently sell products to enable, TCAR, a single and new procedure. We have limited commercial sales experience regarding TCAR, which makes it difficult to evaluate our current business, predict our future prospects and forecast our financial performance and growth.
To date, all of our revenue has been derived, and we expect it to continue to be derived in the near term, from sales of our products that enable TCAR. TCAR is a new treatment option for certain patients diagnosed with carotid artery disease and, as a result, physician awareness of TCAR and our products, and experience with TCAR and our products, is limited. As a result, our Company and products have limited brand recognition and TCAR has limited recognition within the medical industry. The novelty of TCAR and our products that enable the procedure, together with our limited commercialization experience, make it difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future prospects. A number of factors that are outside of our control may contribute to fluctuations in our financial results, including:
•Physician and hospital demand for our products and the extent of adoption of TCAR, including the rate at which physicians recommend our products and TCAR to their patients;
•Positive or negative media coverage, or public, patient and/or physician perception, of our products and TCAR or competing products and procedures;
•Any safety or effectiveness concerns that arise regarding our products or TCAR;
•Unanticipated delays in product development or product launches;
•Our ability to maintain our current or obtain further regulatory clearances or approvals;
•Delays in, or failure of, product and component deliveries by our third-party suppliers; and
•Introduction of new products or procedures for treating carotid artery disease that compete with our products and the TCAR procedure.
It is therefore difficult to predict our future financial performance and growth, and such forecasts are inherently limited and subject to a number of uncertainties. If our assumptions regarding the risks and uncertainties we face, which we use to plan our business, are incorrect or change due to circumstances in our business or our markets, or if we do not address these risks successfully, our operating and financial results could differ materially from our expectations and our business could suffer.
In addition, because we devote substantially all of our resources to our products that enable TCAR and rely on our products and the adoption of TCAR as our sole source of revenue, any factors that negatively impact our products or TCAR, or result in a decrease in sales of products, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our business is dependent upon the broad adoption of TCAR by hospitals and physicians.
To date, a substantial majority of our product sales and revenue have been derived from a limited number of hospitals and physicians who have adopted TCAR. Our future growth and profitability largely depends on our ability to increase physician awareness of TCAR and on the willingness of physicians to adopt our products and TCAR, and to recommend the procedure to their patients. Physicians may not adopt our products unless they are able to determine, based on experience, clinical data, medical society recommendations and other analyses, that our products provide a safe and effective treatment alternative for carotid artery disease. Even if we are able to raise awareness among physicians, physicians tend to be slow in changing their medical treatment practices and may be hesitant to select our products or TCAR for recommendation to patients for a variety of reasons, including:
•Long-standing relationships with competing companies and distributors that sell other products, such as stents and embolic protection devices for transfemoral carotid artery stenting, or CAS;
•Competitive response and negative selling efforts from providers of alternative carotid revascularization products;
•Lack of experience with our products and concerns that we are relatively new to market;
•Perceived liability risk generally associated with the use of new products and procedures;
•Lack or perceived lack of sufficient clinical evidence, including long-term data, supporting clinical benefits;
•Reluctance to change to or use new products and procedures;
•Perceptions that our products are unproven; and
•Time commitment and skill development that may be required to gain familiarity and proficiency with TCAR and our products.
Physicians play a significant role in determining the course of a patient’s treatment for carotid artery disease and, as a result, the type of treatment that will be recommended or provided to a patient. We focus our sales, marketing and education efforts primarily on vascular surgeons, and aim to educate referring physicians such as vascular surgeons, cardiologists, radiologists, neurologists, neurosurgeons and general practitioners regarding the patient population that would benefit from TCAR. However, we cannot assure you that we will achieve broad education or market acceptance among these practitioners. For example, if diagnosing physicians that serve as the primary point of contact for patients are not made aware of TCAR, they may not refer patients to physicians for treatment using our products, and those patients may instead not seek treatment at all or may be treated with alternative procedures. In addition, some physicians may choose to utilize TCAR on only a subset of their total patient population or may not adopt TCAR at all. If a physician experiences an adverse event in one or more of their TCAR patients or elects to convert TCAR to CEA mid-procedure, they may not continue offering and performing TCAR at the same rate or at all. Further, as TCAR is a new procedure, it may not fit into the workstreams of certain physicians. If we are not able to effectively demonstrate that TCAR is beneficial in a broad range of patients, adoption of TCAR will be limited and may not occur as rapidly as we anticipate or at all, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We cannot assure you that TCAR or our products will achieve broad market acceptance among hospitals and physicians. Any failure of TCAR or our products to satisfy demand or to achieve meaningful market acceptance and penetration will harm our future prospects and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
In addition, the medical device industry’s relationship with physicians is under increasing scrutiny by the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, or OIG, the Department of Justice, or DOJ, state attorneys general, and other foreign and domestic government agencies. Our failure to comply with laws, rules and regulations governing our relationships with physicians, or an investigation into our compliance by the OIG, DOJ, state attorneys general or other government agencies, could significantly harm our business.
In most cases, before physicians can use our products for the first time, our products must be approved for use by a hospital's new product or value analysis committee, or the staff of a hospital or health system. Following such approval, we may be required to enter into a purchase contract. Such approvals or requirements to enter into a purchase contract could deter or delay the use of our products by physicians. We cannot provide assurance that our efforts to obtain such approvals, enter into purchase contracts, or generate adoption will be successful or increase the use of our products, and if we are not successful, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Adoption of TCAR depends upon positive clinical data and medical society recommendations, and negative clinical data or medical society recommendations would adversely affect our business.
The rate of adoption of TCAR and sales of our products that facilitate the procedure is heavily influenced by clinical data. Although the Society for Vascular Surgery’s TCAR Surveillance Project contains real world data comparing procedures, we have not conducted head-to-head clinical trials to compare TCAR to the procedures historically available to patients, such as CEA or CAS, which may limit the adoption of TCAR. Additionally, the Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis 2 clinical trial is currently being conducted by the National Institutes of Health, which compares the effectiveness of each of CEA and CAS with best medical management solutions. Although we estimate that enrollment will not be completed until 2022, interim results have been released from time to time. At the completion of the four-year follow-up, the trial could conclude that medical management alone achieves the same therapeutic results as CEA and/or CAS, which could have an adverse impact on the adoption of TCAR. Finally, our competitors and third parties may also conduct
clinical trials of our products without our participation. Unfavorable or inconsistent clinical data from existing or future clinical trials conducted by us, our competitors or third parties, the interpretation of our or other clinical data or findings of new or more frequent adverse events, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
As physicians are influenced by guidelines issued by physician organizations, such as the Society for Vascular Surgery, the rate of adoption of TCAR and sales of our products that facilitate the procedure are also heavily influenced by medical society recommendations. We believe the Society for Vascular Surgery’s Clinical Practice Guidelines, or SVS Guidelines, are of particular importance to the broader market acceptance of TCAR. The most current SVS Guidelines on the management of carotid artery disease, published in 2011, do not specifically mention TCAR as a treatment for carotid artery disease, but generally discuss CAS and embolic protection methods, including flow reversal. If the next version of the SVS Guidelines do not recommend TCAR, or if the Society for Vascular Surgery issues a negative or limited statement regarding TCAR, physicians may not adopt or continue to use TCAR or our products at the same rate or at all, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, if key opinion leaders who currently support TCAR cease to recommend TCAR or our products, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected.
Adoption of TCAR depends upon appropriate physician training, and inadequate training may lead to negative patient outcomes, affect adoption of TCAR and adversely affect our business.
The success of TCAR depends in part on the skill of the physician performing the procedure and on our customers’ adherence to appropriate patient selection and proper techniques provided in training sessions conducted by our training faculty. For example, we train our customers to ensure correct use of our ENROUTE NPS and proper deployment of our ENROUTE stent. However, physicians rely on their previous medical training and experience when performing TCAR, and we cannot guarantee that all such physicians will have the necessary surgical and endovascular skills to perform the procedure. While we mandate physician attendance at our TCAR training program or training with proctors, we do not control which physicians perform TCAR or how much training they receive. Physicians who have not completed our training sessions may nonetheless attempt to perform TCAR. If physicians perform TCAR in a manner that is inconsistent with its labeled indications, with components that are not our products or without adhering to or completing our training sessions, their patient outcomes may not be consistent with the outcomes achieved in our and other clinical trials, studies or registries of TCAR. This result may negatively impact the perception of patient benefit and safety and limit adoption of TCAR and our products that facilitate the procedure, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, physician organizations may adopt physician credentialing guidelines requiring TCAR training more extensive than our training program. If physicians conclude that we do not provide adequate TCAR training, they may be less likely to adopt TCAR and our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
A pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease, such as COVID-19, or coronavirus, may adversely affect our business.
If a pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease occurs, our business may be adversely affected. In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus, COVID-19, was identified in Wuhan, China. This virus continues to spread globally and, as of February 2020, has spread to over 50 countries, including the United States. Such events may result in a period of business and manufacturing disruption, and in reduced sales and operations, any of which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, the spread of COVID-19 in the United States may result in travel restrictions impacting our sales professionals and therapy development specialists who support them. Travel restrictions may also reduce the number of physicians travelling to attend our training programs, which would result in fewer physicians trained on the TCAR procedure. In addition, hospitals may reduce staffing and postpone certain procedures in response to COVID-19 or divert
resources to treat those patients with an infectious disease. Hospitals may also limit access for non-patients, including our sales professionals and therapy development specialists, which would negatively impact our access to physicians and their patients. Any of the foregoing actions could adversely affect our sales and the revenue we derive as a result.
The outbreak and persistence of COVID-19 in international markets that we have targeted for our international expansion may also delay preparation for and launch of such expansion efforts. The spread of an infectious disease, including COVID-19, could result in the inability of our suppliers to deliver components or raw materials to us on a timely basis. If there were a shortage of supply, the cost of these materials or components may increase and harm our ability to provide our products on a cost-effective basis. In connection with any supply shortages in the future, reliable and cost-effective replacement sources may not be available on short notice or at all, and this may force us to increase prices and face a corresponding decrease in demand for our products. In the event that any of our suppliers were to discontinue production of our key product components, developing alternate sources of supply for these components would be time consuming, difficult and costly. The extent to which the coronavirus impacts our business will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including new information which may emerge concerning the severity of the coronavirus and the actions to contain the coronavirus or treat its impact, among others.
We have limited long-term data regarding the safety and effectiveness of our products, including our ENROUTE stent and TCAR generally.
Our products enable TCAR, which is a novel procedure, and our success depends on acceptance of our products and TCAR by the medical industry, including physicians and hospitals. The FDA reviews our products for safety and effectiveness, prior to commercial launch of these products. Thereafter, physicians, through their own use of the products and evaluation of clinical data, make their own decisions as to whether our products are safe and effective for their patients and improve their clinical outcomes. Important factors upon which the effectiveness of our products, including our ENROUTE stent, will be measured include but are not limited to long-term data regarding the risk of stroke and death and the rates of restenosis and reintervention following TCAR. The long-term clinical benefits of procedures that use our products are not known. We have limited data on the ENROUTE stent and TCAR up to one year. Any failure of our stent or in-stent restenosis of the carotid artery following deployment of the stent could deter physicians from adopting our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
The results of short-term clinical experience of our products do not necessarily predict long-term clinical benefit. We believe that physicians will compare the rates of long-term risk of stroke and death, as well as restenosis and reintervention for procedures using our products, against alternative procedures, such as CEA and CAS. If the long-term data do not meet physicians’ expectations, or if long-term data indicate that our products are not as safe or effective as other treatment options or as current short-term data would suggest, our products may not become widely adopted, physicians may recommend alternative treatments for their patients and our business could be harmed.
If we are not able to maintain adequate levels of third-party coverage and reimbursement for the procedures using our products, if third parties rescind or modify their coverage or delay payments, or if patients are left with significant out-of-pocket costs, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
TCAR is currently covered under certain circumstances for certain patients by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and has been covered by some commercial payers, independent networks and other entities not governed by the National Coverage Determination. In the United States, we derive our revenue from sales to hospitals and medical centers, which typically bill all or a portion of the costs and fees associated with our products to various third-party payers, including Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans’ Administration, private commercial insurance companies, health maintenance organizations and other healthcare-related organizations, and then bill patients for any applicable
deductibles or co-payments. For example, our contracts are with the hospitals and medical centers that purchase our products for use with TCAR and not with the commercial payers. As a result, access to adequate coverage and reimbursement for our products by third-party payers is essential to the acceptance of our products by our customers.
However, in the United States, there is no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for medical device products and services among third-party payers, so coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payer to payer, and each coverage decision and level of reimbursement is independent. As a result, third-party reimbursement may not be available or adequate for our products, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to maintain our current levels of coverage or reimbursement or be able to expand coverage to other insurance carriers. Further, payers continually review new technologies for possible coverage and can, without notice, deny or limit coverage for products and procedures or delay coverage approval until further clinical data are available. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payer separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained, or maintained if obtained. If third-party reimbursement is not available or adequate for TCAR procedures using our products, or if there is any decline in the amount that payers are willing to reimburse our customers for TCAR or our products, new customers may not adopt, or may reduce their rate of adoption of, our products and we could experience additional pricing pressure, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our products are reimbursed primarily on a per-patient prior authorization basis for patients covered by commercial insurers and on a medical necessity basis for certain patients covered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Based on reimbursement information regarding CEA and CAS, we estimate that approximately 75% of carotid procedures are reimbursed by Medicare/Medicaid and approximately 25% are reimbursed by commercial payers. Current Procedure Terminology, or CPT, codes are developed and issued by the American Medical Association, or AMA. The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, determines Medicare physician payments based on formulas within the Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale, which uses Relative Value Units, or RVUs. The AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee, or RUC, provides periodic recommendations to CMS on the RVU values, but CMS makes the final decisions about Medicare payments. In the future, Medicare physician payments for TCAR using our products may change based on a new RUC review recommendation. CMS makes the final determination regarding Medicare hospital and physician payments. If the Society for Vascular Surgery recommended changes to the RVUs or declined to support the use of TCAR or the Medicare National Coverage Determination no longer covers TCAR, there would be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. If this were to occur, commercial insurance companies could also adjust payment rates at which they reimburse TCAR using our products. Other carotid artery disease treatments, such as CEA, may be more widely covered or subject to different co-pay policies and requirements. If patients are required to cover all or a part of the cost of TCAR or our products out-of-pocket, they may be less likely to elect to use our products and/or undergo the procedure. Additionally, patients may elect to reduce or defer out-of-pocket costs during times of economic uncertainty or periods of legislative change. If hospital, physician and/or patient demand for TCAR, and thus our products that facilitate the procedure, is adversely affected by third-party reimbursement policies and decisions, it will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Internationally, reimbursement systems in foreign markets vary significantly by country and by region within some countries, and reimbursement approvals must be obtained on a country-by-country basis. In certain international markets, a product must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. Additionally, many international markets have government-managed healthcare systems that control reimbursement for products and procedures. In most markets there are both private insurance systems and government-managed systems. If sufficient levels of coverage and
reimbursement are not available for TCAR or our current or future products, in either the United States or internationally, the demand for our products and our revenues will be adversely affected.
Additionally, when payers combine their operations, the combined company may elect to reimburse for TCAR at the lowest rate paid by any of the participants in the consolidation or use its increased size to negotiate reduced rates. If one of the payers participating in the consolidation does not reimburse for TCAR at all, the combined company may elect not to reimburse for TCAR, which would adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.
If we fail to comply with our obligations in our intellectual property license from Cardinal Health, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.
We are a party to a license agreement with Cordis Corporation, or Cordis, which was acquired by Cardinal Health, under which Cordis has granted us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license to certain of its intellectual property related to the PRECISE® carotid stent for transcervical treatment of carotid artery disease with an intravascular stent for certain applications for accessing blood vessels through the neck and cervical area. This license agreement imposes, and we expect that any future license agreements will impose, certain diligence, royalty, and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with these obligations, our licensors, including Cardinal Health, may have the right to reduce the scope of our rights or terminate these agreements, in which event we may not be able to develop and market any product that is covered by these agreements. Termination of this license for failure to comply with such obligations or for other reasons, or reduction or elimination of our licensed rights under it or any other license, may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated licenses on less favorable terms or our not having sufficient intellectual property rights to operate our business or cause us to enter into a new license for a different stent. The occurrence of such events could materially harm our business and financial condition.
The risks described elsewhere pertaining to our intellectual property rights also apply to the intellectual property rights that we in-license, and any failure by us or our licensors, including Cordis, to obtain, maintain, defend and enforce these rights could have a material adverse effect on our business. In some cases we do not have control over the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of the patents that we license, and may not have sufficient ability to provide input into the patent prosecution, maintenance and defense process with respect to such patents, and our licensors may fail to take the steps that we believe are necessary or desirable in order to obtain, maintain, defend and enforce the licensed patents.
We rely on Cardinal Health to supply the ENROUTE stent, and if Cardinal Health fails to supply the ENROUTE stent in sufficient quantities or at all, it will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We rely on Cardinal Health to manufacture the ENROUTE stent pursuant to a supply agreement between us and Cordis Corporation, which was acquired by Cardinal Health. We strive to maintain an inventory of several months’ worth of ENROUTE stents to guard against potential shortfalls in supply, and we estimate that it would take one to two years to find an alternative supplier for our ENROUTE stent and multiple years to identify and seek approval for another stent, and in each case qualify it for use with our other products. In addition, Cardinal Health currently manufactures the ENROUTE stent at a facility in Juarez, Mexico. The current political and trade relationship between the United States and Mexico is strained and may deteriorate. If Cardinal Health’s ability to manufacture the ENROUTE stent is interrupted as a result, or if Cardinal Health breaches its supply agreement with us, we may not have a sufficient number of stents for delivery to support TCAR procedures. Any shortfall in the supply of ENROUTE stents may result in lower adoption rates for TCAR, fewer TCAR procedures being performed generally, and a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
TCAR involves surgical risks and is contraindicated in certain patients, which may limit adoption.
Risks of TCAR using our products include the risks that are common to surgical and endovascular procedures, including perforation, dissection, embolization, bleeding, infection, nerve injury and restenosis. Endovascular procedures occurring in the carotid arteries also include the additional risks of stroke, heart attack and death. We are aware of certain characteristics and features of TCAR that may prevent widespread market adoption, including the fact that physicians would need to adopt a new procedure, and that training for physicians will be required to enable them to effectively operate our products.
Our current products are contraindicated, and therefore should not be used, in certain patients. Our ENROUTE NPS is contraindicated in patients in whom antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation therapy is contraindicated; patients with uncorrected bleeding disorders; patients with severe disease of the ipsilateral common carotid artery; and patients with uncontrollable intolerance to flow reversal. Our ENROUTE stent is contraindicated in patients in whom antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation therapy is contraindicated; patients in whom the ENROUTE NPS is unable to be placed; patients with uncorrected bleeding disorders; patients with known allergies to nitinol; and patients with lesions in the ostium of the common carotid artery. Our ENHANCE peripheral access kit is contraindicated in patients with a known or suspected obstruction in the vessel. Our ENROUTE guidewire is contraindicated in patients judged not acceptable for percutaneous intervention. Additionally, patients that lack at least five centimeters of common carotid artery free of significant disease are not indicated for our ENROUTE NPS.
We have limited experience manufacturing our products in commercial quantities and we face manufacturing risks that may adversely affect our ability to manufacture products and could reduce our gross margins and negatively affect our business and operating results.
Our business strategy depends on our ability to manufacture our current and future products in sufficient quantities and on a timely basis to meet customer demand, while adhering to product quality standards, complying with regulatory quality system requirements and managing manufacturing costs. We have a facility located in Sunnyvale, California, where we assemble and package certain of our products, and inspect, release and ship all of our products. We currently produce our ENROUTE NPS at this facility, and we and the contract manufacturers of our other products do not have redundant facilities. If our or our manufacturing partners’ facilities suffers damage, or a force majeure event, this could materially impact our ability to operate.
We are also subject to numerous other risks relating to our manufacturing capabilities, including:
•Quality and reliability of components, sub-assemblies and materials that we source from third-party suppliers, who are required to meet our quality specifications, the majority of which are our single source suppliers for the products they supply;
•Our or our manufacturing partners’ inability to secure components, sub-assemblies and materials in a timely manner, in sufficient quantities or on commercially reasonable terms;
•Our or our manufacturing partners’ inability to maintain compliance with quality system requirements or pass regulatory quality inspections;
•Our or our manufacturing partners’ failure to increase production capacity or volumes to meet demand;
•Our or our manufacturing partners’ inability to design or modify production processes to enable us to produce future products efficiently or implement changes in current products in response to design or regulatory requirements; and
•Difficulty identifying and qualifying, and obtaining new regulatory approvals, for alternative suppliers for components in a timely manner.
These risks are likely to be exacerbated by our limited experience with our current products and manufacturing processes. As demand for our products increases, we will have to invest additional resources to purchase components, sub-assemblies and materials, hire and train employees and enhance our manufacturing processes. If we fail to increase our production capacity efficiently, we may not be able to fill customer orders on a timely basis, our sales may not increase in line with our expectations and our operating margins could fluctuate or decline. In addition, although we expect some of our products in development to share product features, components, sub-assemblies and materials with our existing products, the manufacture of these products may require modification of our or our manufacturing partners’ current production processes or unique production processes, the hiring of specialized employees, the identification of new suppliers for specific components, sub-assemblies and materials or the development of new manufacturing technologies. It may not be possible for us or our manufacturing partners’ to manufacture these products at a cost or in quantities sufficient to make these products commercially viable or to maintain current operating margins, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We depend on a limited number of single source suppliers to manufacture our components, sub-assemblies and materials, which makes us vulnerable to supply shortages and price fluctuations that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We rely on single source suppliers for the components, sub-assemblies and materials for our ENROUTE NPS. These components, sub-assemblies and materials are critical and there are relatively few alternative sources of supply. We have not qualified or obtained necessary regulatory approvals for additional suppliers for most of these components, sub-assemblies and materials, and we do not carry a significant inventory of these items. While we believe that alternative sources of supply may be available, we cannot be certain whether they will be available if and when we need them, or that any alternative suppliers would be able to provide the quantity and quality of components and materials that we would need to manufacture our products if our existing suppliers were unable to satisfy our supply requirements. To utilize other supply sources, we would need to identify and qualify new suppliers to our quality standards and obtain any additional regulatory approvals required to change suppliers, which could result in manufacturing delays and increase our expenses. Our manufacturing partners rely on single source suppliers as well, and are subject to the foregoing risks.
Our and our manufacturing partners’ dependence on third-party suppliers subjects us to a number of risks that could impact our ability to manufacture our products and harm our business, including:
•Interruption of supply resulting from modifications to, or discontinuation of, a supplier’s operations;
•Delays in product shipments resulting from uncorrected defects, reliability issues or a supplier’s failure to produce components that consistently meet our quality specifications;
•Price fluctuations due to a lack of long-term supply arrangements with our suppliers for key components;
•Inability to obtain adequate supply in a timely manner or on commercially reasonable terms;
•Difficulty identifying and qualifying alternative suppliers for components in a timely manner;
•Inability of suppliers to comply with applicable provisions of the QSR or other applicable laws or regulations enforced by the FDA and state regulatory authorities;
•Inability to adequately ensure the quality of products and components manufactured by third parties;
•Production delays related to the evaluation and testing of products and components from alternative suppliers and corresponding regulatory qualifications;
•Delays in delivery by our suppliers due to changes in demand from us or their other customers; and
•An outbreak of disease or similar public health threat, such as the existing threat of coronavirus, particularly as it may impact our supply chain should the slowdown in China persist.
Although we require our third-party suppliers to supply us with components that meet our specifications and comply with applicable provisions of the QSR and other applicable legal and regulatory requirements in our agreements and contracts, and we perform incoming inspection, testing or other acceptance activities to ensure the components meet our requirements, there is a risk that our suppliers will not always act consistent with our best interests, and may not always supply components that meet our requirements or supply components in a timely manner.
Our results of operations could be materially harmed if we are unable to accurately forecast customer demand for our products and manage our inventory.
We seek to maintain sufficient levels of inventory in order to protect ourselves from supply interruptions, but keep limited components, sub-assemblies, materials and finished products on hand. To ensure adequate inventory supply and manage our operations with our manufacturing partners and suppliers, we forecast anticipated materials requirements and demand for our products in order to predict inventory needs and then place orders with our suppliers based on these predictions. Our ability to accurately forecast demand for our products could be negatively affected by many factors, including our limited historical commercial experience regarding TCAR, rapid growth, failure to accurately manage our expansion strategy, product introductions by competitors, an increase or decrease in customer demand for our products, our failure to accurately forecast customer acceptance of new products, unanticipated changes in general market conditions or regulatory matters and weakening of economic conditions or consumer confidence in future economic conditions.
Inventory levels in excess of customer demand may result in a portion of our inventory becoming obsolete or expiring, as well as inventory write-downs or write-offs, which would impair the strength of our brand. From time to time, we ship products with short shelf life to customers for procedures, and to the extent those products are not used and expire, we may exchange them, and this may materially and adversely affect our gross margin. Conversely, if we underestimate customer demand for our products or our own requirements for components, subassemblies and materials, our manufacturing partners and suppliers may not be able to deliver components, sub-assemblies and materials to meet our requirements, which could result in inadequate inventory levels or interruptions, delays or cancellations of deliveries to our customers, any of which would damage our reputation, customer relationships and business. In addition, several components, sub-assemblies and materials incorporated into our products require lengthy order lead times, and additional supplies or materials may not be available when required on terms that are acceptable to us or our manufacturing partners, or at all, and our manufacturing partners and suppliers may not be able to allocate sufficient capacity in order to meet our increased requirements, any of which could