In Vivo is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

Medtronic “Repurposes” Spine Convention Booth To Tell Its Side of BMP Story

Executive Summary

The firm’s bare-bones booth at the North American Spine Society annual meeting was a conspicuous sign of strains between Medtronic and the clinical group over how issues surrounding its rhBMP-2 Infuse bone graft have been presented.

You may also be interested in...



INFUSE Review Leads To Discussion And Some Discord At NASS

Medtronic’s subdued showing at NASS in October revealed the sometimes rocky relationship among industry, clinicians, and academia:  The Yale University Open Data Access Project suggested rhBMP-2 didn’t fuse bone any better than standard-iliac crest bone graft, yet Medtronic executives found some vindication in the process, saying it supported on-label use of BMP, and suggested the Yale University-led process could be a model to settle future controversies in the medical industry.

No Advantage For Medtronic’s InFuse Versus Bone Graft In Spine Fusion

The long-awaited independent analysis of clinical data on Medtronic’s InFuse recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) found no advantages to using it as a substitute for traditional bone grafts in spinal fusion surgery, while also revealing that the risks of rhBMP-2 may be greater than has been previously reported.

PODs Alert: HHS Inspector General Issues Fraud Warning For Physician-Owned Device Distributors

The March 26 special fraud alert reiterates the HHS watchdog’s “longstanding position that the opportunity for a referring physician to earn a profit, including through an investment in an entity for which he or she generates business, could constitute illegal remuneration under the anti-kickback statute.”

Topics

Related Companies

Related Deals

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

LL111109

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel