PNV - Banter and General Comments, page-1914

The main similarity I see between Novosorb BTM and Orthocell’s CelGro is that both are resorbable tissue repair scaffolds.

One obvious difference between the two products is the indications for which they are being developed. CelGro is being used to augment the surgical repair of tendons, bone, peripheral nerves and articular cartilage whereas Novosorb BTM is being used to aid in the reconstruction of the dermal layer of the skin.

Another key difference is the material from which they are made – Celgro is a biologic scaffold, specifically a porcine peritoneum-derived collagen membrane, whereas BTM is a synthetic polymer device. The method of producing CelGro is said to involve mechanical removal of fat, a proprietary decellularisation process, dehydration and sterilisation by gamma irradiation.

My understanding is that, compared with BTM, biologic products in general are relatively costly and slow to produce and incapable of surge production. They also require refrigeration/freezing and need preparation time in theatre prior to use and are more prone to infection. A further specific disadvantage of a porcine-derived product, as I see it, is its potential unsuitability for use in a significant number of patients, based on religious and ethical grounds.

It is unclear to me the extent of Celgro’s competitive advantage over other collagen-based membranes which are already commercially available from more than 20 companies. Orthocell suggests that CelGro has the advantage of cell compatibility, strength, ease of use and high quality tissue repair and also reports that nerve repair using CelGro resulted in improvements in muscle power at 12 months that were comparable to what would normally be expected at 24 months with other methods. However, it isn’t clear which methods. Does Celgro achieve this result when compared with other collagen-based membranes?

Also unclear to me is the cost-effectiveness of Celgro compared with competitor products. As the company doesn’t talk about it, I assume it doesn’t have this advantage. Cost-effectiveness is hugely important for hospitals and reimbursers. This is certainly a key competitive advantage of Novosorb BTM. Cheaper manufacturing cost means that BTM has a significant price advantage over the market leading competitor product, in addition to offering better handling properties, lower risk of infection and superior outcomes.