| June 2005 Archives:
 
 June 23, 2005
 "Physician Developed
              and Monitored"That's what the tag line at the bottom of
              every web page on "CardiologyChannel.com" states. So
              what's a patient to think when they go to the Angioplasty article
              and the first thing they see is::
 
 Yes, right under the article title "Angioplasty",
            but before the actual text, is an ad like the one above -- and yes,
            there's a small disclaimer link below it -- but it's the boldest
            thing you see on the page, and it's selling you the 21st Century
            equivalent of snake-oil. "Clean up your arteries with a liquid
            EDTA system". My body, my Chevy! Hold the stent and pass the
            Drano! Sure, it's a free country. But my
            question is why CardiologyChannel places ads for unproven, unregulated,
            no prescription needed "remedies" in such prominence (we
            get patients writing in to our site, asking if such remedies are
            valid or scams). I'd also have to assume that since these types of
            ads run regularly, then someone's making a buck on this stuff (I've
            written more extensively about these pool-cleaner remedies in an
            earlier post). It's one thing to get these ads on search engines,
            etc. but quite another when seen in the context of patient education
            that is "physician developed and monitored". It would make
            you think that someone with letters after their name thinks this
            stuff might work.       
 June 22, 2005
 Dear Fool
 Your piece about the J&J patent trial in today's
  Motley Fool, titled "Stent
  Wars: Jury Strikes Back", is just pushing the George Lucas thing beyond
  the point of interest (only George Lucas is allowed to do that, and he has).
  I mean your previous "Stent Wars" articles (Revenge
  of the Bypass and The
  Market-Share Menace) have appeared over the past year or so, but I first
  used the analogy way back in 2002 in my feature on Drug
  Eluting Stents, specifically to describe litigation and patent disputes.
  Therefore I claim damages for analogy copyright infringement! But having no
  high-powered legal team, I'll just use up the remaining three episodes and
  be done with it.
 "Attack of the Clones" -- definitely
            coming soon to a cath lab near you. Medtronic, Abbott, Conor and
            more have drug-eluting/coated stents in trials and are looking for
            European launches in the next year or so. "Return of the Jedi" -- In the
            early 60's, angioplasty Knights Bill
            Cook and Charlie
            Dotter met at a radiology conference in Chicago and out of this
            encounter came the guide wires and catheters that began this whole
            field of medicine -- but angioplasty started in the leg.
            Thirty years later Cook manufactured the first FDA-approved coronary
            stent, co-invented by Gary Roubin and Cesare Gianturco. Cook bowed
            out of the coronary business last year, but now has a peripheral
            paclitaxel stent in clinical trials that may prove to alleviate
            the symptoms of Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) that have so far
            resisted both surgical and interventional therapies. Feel the Force. And last, but it actually was first, "A
              New Hope" -- I believe that in the short run, bioabsorbable
              stents will be developed to do all the helpful things that metal
              stents now do (repair dissections, keep arteries propped open,
              keep arteries from restenosing) but will over time be absorbed
              into the tissue so that any late term lingering effects and threat
              of stent thrombosis will disappear. And then molecular biologists
              will discover the cause of vascular narrowing and prevent this
              disease that has become the number one killer. By the way, Fool, some thoughts on your closing
            comment that there is concern about Boston Scientific's Liberte stent
            getting blocked from the market by J&J. In today's New York Times, Barnaby
            J. Feder opines that this could antagonize doctors and so there
            is a pressure to work out a financial agreement. I would add: can
            you imagine what might happen when patients (oh yeah, them!) found
            out that they can't be given a potentially superior second-generation
            stent because of a patent dispute. It won't be pretty.       
 June 21, 2005
 Stent Trials: You Know, The Kind With Lawyers...At the March ACC, we got results from the clinical
              stent trials: the Taxus and Cypher drug-eluting stents from
              Boston Scientific and Cordis went head-to-head. Which was better?
 But today the question was "which was first?" and
            a different kind of stent trial came to a conclusion in
            a courtroom in Wilmington, Delaware. After only three hours, the
            jury delivered a verdict in a much-awaited patent infringement case.
            And they found that Boston Scientific's stents (the Express, the
            Taxus and the new Liberte) all infringed on two patents owned by
            J&J / Cordis. Earlier this year, an earlier Boston Scientific
            stent, the NIR, also was found to infringe on the Palmaz-Schatz patent
            owned by Cordis. Oh yeah, that NIR stent -- it was actually manufactured
            by Medinol,
            an Israeli company privately-held by Judith and Kobi Richter; the
            NIR was distributed exclusively by Boston Scientific -- until the
            relationship fell apart -- and yes, that lawsuit starts
            on Monday. It's full of bitterness and somewhat personal -- the
            Richters feel that Boston Scientific dealt with them in bad faith
            and Boston's fear was that the Richters might suddenly slow down
            the manufacturing supply if they weren't happy with the way things
            were going. And then there's "Project
            Independence", a secret company set up in Dublin by Boston
            Scientific to reverse engineer the NIR stent so they could manufacture
            it themselves if they had to.  And then there's the money. Damages to Boston
            Scientific on the Cordis suit may reach a billion bucks. The Richters
            also asked for a billion bucks during mediation, but Boston Scientific
            reportedly offered them $800 million; they said "no"! Can't
            we all just get along? Think you're finished? Boston Scientific is suing
            J&J / Cordis because they say the drug-eluting coating on the
            Cypher stent violates a patent (called the "Ding" patent)
            that Boston Scientific holds. That trial starts tomorrow. Mom and Dad, you were right. I should have been
            a lawyer!       |