http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9150-8608
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
Skin Replacement Technologies (SRTs) emerged as skin alternatives for burns, large excisions or trauma. The original publications represent the available knowledge on a subject and can be modeled as a logistic S-curve which depicts the technology’s evolution life-cycle. The Technology Innovation Maturation Evaluation (TIME) model was previously introduced to study the life-cycles of biotechnologies.
Methods
PubMed database was searched 1900–2015 to review relevant publications. All skin replacement or regeneration products on the US market were included. The TIME model was applied to assess evolutionary patterns for each technology.
Results and discussion
Three SRT clusters were identified: processed biologics technologies (PBT), extracellular matrix technologies (EMT), and cell-based technologies (CBT). Publications on EMTs and CBTs start decades after PBTs, however, are greater in number and follow an ascending trend. PBTs reached a plateau, suggesting near-senescence. The CBT curve was non-logarithmic and the TIME model could not be applied. The technology initiation point (Ti) for PBTs was 1939 and the establishment point (Te) 1992. For EMT, Ti was 1966 and Te 2010. Sixty-one products were identified (49 EMTs, 7 CBTs, 5 PBTs). PBTs appeared 11 years after Te and EMTs four years prior Te. Thirty-seven products in the EMT category, and one in the PBT category, were developed before Te. The most common FDA regulatory mechanism for SRT was found to be 510(k) followed by HCT/P 361.
Conclusion
Innovation is an indicator of the evolution of technology. The number of publications can be used as a metric of this evolution and the fact that the SRT field falls under such pattern demonstrates that SRT is an innovation-based industry. EMT is the most efficient cluster. Few products from SRT registered a commercial success, and from those that did, those technologies were generally found to be part of the most productive cluster, 1st in concept, conceptually simple, easily regulated and produced, cost and clinically efficient, reimbursable, able to solve a specific problem efficiently, had a platform technology design that allowed for further innovation and adaptation for other uses and, as found by application of the TIME model, appear prior to technology establishment.
Citation: Climov M, Panayi AC, Borah G, Orgill DP (2020) The life-cycles of skin replacement technologies. PLoS ONE 15(3): e0229455. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229455
Editor: Christophe Egles, Universite de Technologie de Compiegne, FRANCE
Received: May 12, 2019; Accepted: February 4, 2020; Published: March 4, 2020
Copyright: © 2020 Climov et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: Dennis P. Orgill is a consultant for Integra® Life Sciences Corp, Mihail Climov is a co-founder of Redact Bio Inc. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction
Technological advancement and proper management are imperative for the success of new products, and awareness of technology life cycles (TLC), defined as a product’s commercial gain and financial return during its life span from research and development to market maturity to decline, is becoming increasingly important for medical professionals[1]. Knowledge can aid prediction and projection of product potential as well as the successful establishment of innovation avenues.
Prior research showed that TLCs follow a sigmoid or S-curve [2]. Following the development of a technology, there is an initial period of slow growth and knowledge expansion during which time the prototypes are tested. The innovation then undergoes improvements characterized by linear growth. Eventually, the innovation attains maturity, and at this time products are expected to debut on the market. After this stage, there is minimal innovation and the product either enters a stagnation or a decline phase. Factors that influence the length of each phase of the cycle include the inherent characteristics of the product, its management, as well as external market conditions [3]. The standard assumption is that the natural course of all technologies is to reach a plateau followed by a period of senescence and obsoletion or a technological jump with the start of a new cycle [4].
Publications on medical technologies have been shown to exponentially accumulate and can be depicted on a sigmoid curve. Statistical analysis of a number of PubMed entries using the Technology Innovation Maturation Evaluation (TIME) model has been used to simulate the technological growth and maturation of biotech products [5]. Successful products dependent on the degree of technological maturity and studying the correlation between inflection points along with the elements of technological productivity provides useful insights for product management as well as the projection of future developments [6]. Application of the TIME model [6] to the fields of gene therapy, Alzheimer’s disease and cancer therapeutics [7–9] highlighted the main milestones in publication accumulation, specifically the point of initiation, Ti—occurrence of seminal events that enable exponential growth of the literature—and the establishment point, Te—when exponential growth starts to slow down. Prior research using the TIME model has shown that a period of 14 years for cancer therapeutics, [9] 22 years for Alzheimer’s disease [7], 31 years for cardiovascular[10], and 25 years in general for translational science [6] must pass after Te for products to be developed. Although new technologies bring great promise, they seldom meet the market standards resulting in failure [6–9]. Such exits are enforced by currently established technologies [4], and only technologies that manage to achieve some level of maturity remain successful [6].
Given that skin is the largest organ of the body and a 30% loss has the potential to be lethal, there has been extensive innovation in the development of Skin Replacement Technologies (SRTs). These technologies are life-saving, particularly when autologous tissue is unavailable. Mortality due to extensive burns has dramatically decreased since the 1950s, partly due to advancements in intensive care but also SRT development [11–14]. Despite the fact that skin was the first human tissue to be “engineered,” there is little understanding of SRT product development, TLCs and why this technology represents a slowly evolving industry.
SRTs can be broadly subcategorized into Processed Biologics Technologies (PBTs), Extracellular Matrix Technologies (EMTs) and Cell-based Technologies (CBTs). PBTs represent the oldest type of SRT and include technologies for harvesting, sterilizing, processing and preserving skin grafts to enhance infection control and off-the-shelf lifespan. Although allo- and xenografts have been used for a long time, the first publications on the technology, detailing issues of graft rejection, came only at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.[15,16] Later publications described early attempts to decrease rejection[17–19] EMTs are technologies that provide a scaffold that can be incorporated into the body by engraftment and angiogenesis helping to replace or regenerate the dermis.[20–23] These technologies consist of natural biomaterials, decellularized biologic tissues, or semi-synthetic materials. The first in concept EMT is Integra® (Integra LifeSciences Corporation, Plainsboro, NJ), a collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffold used as a dermal replacement (Table 1).
Matrix decellularization is another approach to obtain a scaffold that naturally mimics the dermal extracellular matrix (ECM) but lacks cells consequently limiting rejection as the most immunogenic components are removed. The first product to be developed was AlloDerm® (LifeCell Corporation, Branchburg, NJ). Similar processes were applied to other tissues, including small intestinal submucosa and pericardium, from various sources such as cadavers, bovine, porcine, and neonatal animals. This has resulted in various products with different applications (Table 1, Fig 1).
CBTs arose with the introduction of an improved method of culturing keratinocytes allowing the production of large epithelium sheets for grafting.[24] Cultured epidermal autografts were first used in the treatment of major burns in 1981.[25] The technology led to the commercially available product Epicel™ (Vericel Corporation, Cambridge, MA). Other approaches were tested, most notably the “Living Skin Equivalent”- a bilayer of fibroblasts in a collagen lattice and an epidermal-like layer constructed from keratinocytes. Although promising, this failed to engraft.[26–29] A variation of this product was commercialized as the allogeneic bilayered equivalent-Apligraf® (Organogenesis Inc, Canton, MA) that works mostly as a biologic dressing converting a chronic to an acute wound.[30] EMTs were subsequently combined with cells [31,32] leading to several technologies, including NovaDerm™, StrataGraft®, Dermagraft®, and OrCel®, all in different stages of FDA clearance and marketing (Fig 1, Table 1).
In this study, we applied the TIME model to SRTs to establish the pattern of evolution in this sector. Our goal is to elucidate whether the field follows the previously described model of growth, quantify the capacity for innovation, and attempt to correlate this with the economic and clinical efficiency of products. Our hypothesis is that one of the characteristics that predict the success of an SRT is the capacity to allow for further innovation.
Results
SRT classification
Given the large heterogenicity of products, we classified SRTs into three clusters according to their method of action, degree of processing and source: Processed Biologics Technologies (PBT), Extracellular Matrix Technologies (EMT), and Cell-Based Technologies (CBT). First-in-concept products are highlighted for each cluster (Table 1). All three clusters were found to be disruptive to the prior standard of care, that is moist-wound therapy.
Application of theories of innovation to SRTs
Analysis of publications emphasized that number increases with time in all clusters. Publications on EMTs and CBTs start several decades after the first PBT publication (Fig 2 and S2 Fig). Despite this, EMTs and CBTs have a larger number of original publications and continue to follow an ascending trend. Overall 61 products satisfied the criteria to be considered an SRT, with the most productive cluster being EMTs (49), followed by CBTs (7) and finally PBTs (5) (Figs 3 and 4).
The Ti, where linear growth starts, for PBTs was 1939 which corresponds to increased use of skin allografts during the war, that later continued with the work of Billingham and Medawar on skin transplantation,[33,34] as well as the early clinical studies on allografts and xenografts.[19,35,36] Eventually exponential growth slowed down, reaching the Te in 1992 after which publications significantly decreased. There are two inflection points, 1967 and 2005. A boost in innovation occurred in 1967 causing the curve to display a technological jump (Figs 1, 5 and 6). Associated with this period are inventions and studies on allograft cryopreservation, use for burns, as well as the increasing use of tissue banks. After 1967, there is a spike in publications correlating to multiple studies attempting to alter skin immunogenicity as well as clinical studies investigating the use of allografts in burns. The jump seen in 2005 may be associated with the first face transplant that drew attention to the subject of skin rejection. In the same year, Gammagraft®, an irradiated skin allograft product, received FDA clearance enabling longer storage and applications that do not require freezing.
A (left). Initiation and establishment points were calculated as previously published.[7] B (Right). PBT curve presents with several inflection points, one in 1968 and second in 2005. The 1st inflection point corresponds with a small technological jump that is likely associated with the series of inventions and studies on allograft cryopreservation, use for burns, as well as the increasing use of tissue banks. After 1967, there is a spike in publications correlating to multiple studies attempting to alter skin immunogenicity as well as clinical studies investigating the use of allografts in burns. The jump seen in 2005 may be associated with the first face transplant that put in the spotlight the problem os skin rejection and attempts to overcome.
Emphasized technology initiation and establishment timepoints.
PBTs are not productive from a New Therapeutic Entity (NTE) perspective, as hospital-based tissue banks, and cadaveric labs decreased the need for commercially available products. Despite the widespread use of PBTs from the start of the century, the first commercially available product, Mediskin, a porcine frozen skin xenograft, was only approved in 1983 and is no longer available. In this category, all products appeared after the Te (1992) with the exception of Mediskin. The technology evolution curve plateaus after 1992 suggesting that the cluster has reached its limit and is approaching senescence (Figs 5 and 6). It should be noted that although allografts and xenografts were in use much earlier than the calculated Te they were not adopted by industry, possibly due to lack of technological infrastructure.
The Ti for EMTs was in 1966, which corresponds with extensive work on the function of collagen in the dermis as well as on altering its composition. Studies included decellularization experiments and development of freeze-drying following by a period of exponential growth of publications was seen. Te was reached in 2010 a time with an advanced understanding of collagen and other biomaterials as well as their interaction with wounds, their porosity, structure and other properties. Thirty-seven NTEs were developed before Te, with first in concept approved by FDA being AlloDerm™ in 1994 and Integra® in 1996. Integra® was already in experimental use as early as 1981, but similarly to Epicel™, it received FDA approval much later.
The Ti for CBTs was difficult to establish as the curve is still growing and does not appear to follow the same pattern. This cluster has not yet reached its Te, which is encouraging for future research especially in the development of an allogeneic, “off-the-shelf,” model. Although few NTEs have been approved, all appear before Te. First in concept is Epicel™ that has been in use since 1981. This is the first cellular product to be used in humans and the only currently approved permanent solution for large skin defects. Eight NTEs were included in the CBT cluster, and only Epicel™, Apligraf®, and Dermagraft® are on the market. OrCel®, Transcyte®, and Gintuit™ failed despite being hailed as promising products.[37–40] NovaDerm™ and StrataGraft® failed to receive FDA approval and did not reach commercialization so far, despite StrataGraft® completing Phase III of clinical trials[41] and NovaDerm™ showing successful results in a clinical trials.[42] Apligraf® was initially developed for use in burns or reconstruction, but showed unexpected results in trials and is now used as a temporary, bioactive wound dressing for chronic wounds.
Regulation in SRT evolution
In our analysis, we identified two major pathways of FDA clearance for SRT products. PHS 361 that does not require FDA pre-approval but follows rigorous manufacturing guidelines, good tissue practice and procedures to prevent infectious diseases and PHS 351 that requires FDA preapproval and has five licensing options: 1) Premarket application (PMA): requires proof of safety and effectiveness of class III devices, 2) Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE): does not require proof of efficacy[43, 3] 510(k): premarket submission that shows that the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed product, 4) Biologics License Application (BLA): clearance mechanism for biologicals. Only Gintuit™ was cleared through this mechanism, 5) NDA (new drug application): no NTEs are regulated through this mechanism.
SRTs were classified according to the regulatory mechanism (Fig 4). EMTs had the easiest regulation: PHS 361 (n = 22) and 510(k) (n = 26). Although the straightforward production—in terms of processing and materials—of EMTs and PBTs is more attractive to industry, the development, clinical trials, and commercialization costs are lower than PMA cleared products. The extent of processing, as well as the materials, influence what regulation may be required. PMA products have narrow applications that are highly enforced and regulated, unlike 510(k) products. Two CBTs (NovaDerm™, StrataGraft®) have an orphan status designation, which offers multiple incentives including tax credits for clinical testing [44].
Discussion
Success, in broad strokes, means achieving a goal, and in business, signifies monetary gain.[45–47] In biotech, success requires clinical and business effectiveness. We support that SRTs are clinically successful when they offer a significant advantage over pre-existing products, and successful in business when they continuously generate profits as well as provide the potential for technological innovation.
In our analysis, we found that the prerequisites for success include maturity, the potential for innovation, easy regulation. Efficiency, that is the ability to offer better treatment, is related to reimbursement. EMTs were the most efficient cluster and had 37 NTEs approved prior to Te. This questions whether publication numbers accurately mark success in this industry. Skin allografts and xenografts had been in use since ancient times, however, only recently became commercialized. One of the earliest developments, EpicelTM, does not have the highest financial success, possibly due to inadequate market size as it addresses only a small fraction of the population. EpicelTM has a prohibitive construction cost as the autologous approach business model is complex and requires preliminary skin biopsy and culture.
The two most successful SRTs, AlloDerm™ and Integra®, have allowed further improvement and experimentation. This emphasizes the importance of successful marketing and management, active research and good development team. Although both started as SRTs, AlloDerm™ was found to be more useful clinically as a mesh for breast or hernia surgery. Consequently, finding other applications for the technology as well as designing a technology that allows use in other areas in our assessment is a predictor of success. Innovation should not be limited to the intended purpose. This was seen with Integra® when its intended use was extended from burns to chronic wounds and nerve regeneration. When quantifying publications of selected NTEs, AlloDerm™ and Integra® had the highest publication number. The skin indications for AlloDerm™ are few compared with overall publication with other applications, reinforcing the hypothesis of proper market strategy to explore additional uses and invade other markets.
Two clusters attained maturity but differed in productivity, allowing speculation of the importance of the business model and clinical effectiveness as well as target product profile such as “off-the-shelfness.” Irrespective of this, both EMTs and CBTs have an ascending slope as their innovation continues. On the other hand, PBTs plateaued in 1992, suggesting that this cluster is on the path to senescence and, for further success, needs a technological jump, possibly innovation in immune tolerance. Senescence can be partially explained by a disruptive effect brought about by the rise of EMTs and CBTs—new technologies render older technologies obsolete.[4,48]
Scientific and business success are two interlinked but different concepts which depend on multiple factors (S1 Fig). The most successful SRTs are those who are not “end products,” for example Epicel™, and do not attempt to simultaneously solve all issues, rather address one particular aspect of skin replacement. Successful products allow space for further implementation and innovation. Success sometimes requires a change in paradigm, for example in the case of Integra® which instead of healing quicker, as initially projected, the healing lasted longer. Despite the benefits of dermis regeneration, it took two decades for the paradigm shift to occur before Integra® was used on a regular basis. Such versatility of use is a result of research and experimentation that together with proper business management may result in FDA approval for multiple uses that can potentially provide a high bar for competitors to achieve. An example of this is the PMA approval of Integra for burn, burn scar revision and diabetic foot ulcer.
For PBTs, success was finding better preservation methods of allografts and xenografts to increase shelf-life, decrease infection and demonstrate effectiveness. For CBTs, success was finding situations where rejection does not occur or does not play an essential role, as was the case with Apligraf® and Dermagraft®. Success for EMTs was achieved by finding the most efficient matrices and profitable ways of producing them, as well as enlarging the market.
In this analysis, we found that the level of innovation is a good performance indicator for technology. Indirectly this proves that SRTs are an innovation-based industry.
The database search strategy comes with limitations. Despite being extensive, Pubmed is not exhaustive and may lack literature published worldwide and older studies. As we excluded non-English language publications, as well as unpublished studies, this study is not free of publication bias. In addition, comparison of known historical milestones does not entirely correlate to the Pubmed search. For example, there is a discrepancy between the key time points of Reverdin performing the first skin allografts and the Pubmed search results. Also it is important to consider that “general meaning of words alter with time”[49] and lexicon of fields and terminology changes over time making it difficult to precisely isolate the publications on PubMed according to the subject of the search, neither it is required, affecting the model’s precision. The limitations of bibliometric analysis have been well defined, and include inefficiency of the text-based search method in selecting relevant publications as well as excluding irrelevant publications which contain the appropriate text strings [5]. The TIME model also suffes from inherent limitations. Specifically, the numerical methods it employs do not allow prediction of whether the technologies will exhibit a characteristic S-curve pattern of growth or when the exponential growth might slow.
There are also limitations in the assessment of the products worldwide, which was impossible and would be very difficult to compare based on no-similar regulatory and business development pathways. We attempted to be comprehensive however based on the resources we had we might have missed some products on the US market.
Conclusion
The current study suggests that the main influence on success is clinical need with the potential to significantly improve a problem. The market-size must be large, and the product be first-in-class or at a stage before the cluster’s establishment point. In addition, the product should have room for further innovation or potential for diverse applications, must offer significant advantages over pre-existing products and be simple to produce in terms of materials, construction, and regulation. Products should be managed through an appropriate business model and market size and be released on the market when the economy and industry are ready. Compared to other fields of translational sciences which on average require 25 years from Te to production, our research emphasized that SRTs is much faster passed industry that has on average products appearing 4 years prior to Te for EMT and 11 years after Te for PBT, which makes this a very fast passed industry that could potentially be very attractive for investments. Overall, by analyzing TLCs, researchers, as well as industry, can appropriately maximize opportunity.
Methods
Data sources
Original publications and products of a technology were identified from 1900 to 2017. While performing the search, we noted a delay in reporting, finding new products and indexing in PubMed. Hence, and to decrease sampling error from missing new products and non-indexed publications, we set a study cut off for December 2015. Data regarding the publications were obtained from PubMed, while the database of products was compiled using the websites: accessgudid.nlm.nih.gov, www.fdazilla.com, www.FDA.gov, and www.510kdecisions.com, as well as insurance carriers’ websites BCBS, and reputable review articles on the subject. The publication and product search were conducted from January 1900 to end of 2017 and for the aforementioned reasons an earlier cutoff was set for December 2015. The specific search strategy and list of search terms applied when selecting eligible publications are available in S2 Fig and S1 File. The inclusion criteria for SRT products were any products available on the US market intended to be used for skin replacement or regeneration. All human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products that fall under sections 351 and 361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act; 42 the United State Code) according to the Code of Federal Regulation, Title 21, Part 1271.20 and 1271.10, were included. The date of product appearance was considered when the tradmark was registered for the HCT/P 361 and for FDA regulated products the time of approval. All included products were approved for use in the US or are under different degrees of approval (S2 File).
The bibliometric method, modulation of curves
The Technology Innovation Maturation Evaluation (TIME) model used in this analysis was first introduced by McNamee et al [5] and has previously been implemented in the field of gene therapy, Alzheimer’s disease, and cancer therapeutics [7,8]. Briefly, the technology analysis was performed by approximation of the exponential log-logistic regression to model the number of publications (N) as described in prior studies [7,8]:
Calculation provides a logistic sigmoid function over log scales characterized by a symmetric growth phase that is exponential on average. The Initiation and Establishment points can then be calculated with:
Fig 1 with the technological milestones was prepared with Office Timeline (version 3.14, Bellevue, WA, USA) and subsequently modified by ACP. GraphPad Prism 5.0 and 7.0 and Microsoft Excel were used for analysis and figure preparation (S3 File).
Supporting information
S1 Fig.
A. (top figure) “Sweet spot” of successful products. A successful product combines scientific advancement, ideal spatial-temporal context and proper marketing. B. (bottom figure) Technology performance machinery. Technological advantage implies increase in usage which drives increased in revenue and interest/attention which drived to even more increase in performance due to research.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229455.s001
(TIF)
S2 Fig. SRT technological cluster Boolean term searches.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229455.s002
(TIF)
S1 File. Pubmed Boolean Searches–results of PubMed search.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229455.s003
(XLSX)
S2 File. New therapeutic entities–analyzed products.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229455.s004
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Drs. Fred Ledley, Jennifer Beierlein and Laura McNamee for inspiration, advice and help with data analysis and curve modulation and interpretation, Dr. Jonghwan Lee for help with curve computation, Andrea Moscoso for productive criticism and discussions, Dr. Christopher Gemmiti for critical review of the manuscript, and Jennifer Rokosz for presenting the study at American Association of Plastic Surgery Annual Meeting 2018.
References
- 1. Debackere K, Verbeek A, Luwel M, Zimmermann E. Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology—II: The multiple uses of technometric indicators. Int J Manag Rev [Internet]. 2002 Sep 1 [cited 2019 Dec 17];4(3):213–31. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1468-2370.00085
- 2. Tarde G. The Laws of Imitation. Vol. 10, Psychological Review. 1903. 671–671 p.
- 3. Kim K-H, Kim C-H, Park H-W. A New Approach to Estimating Product Lifetimes: A Case Study of an LED Based LCD TV. Asian J Innov Policy [Internet]. 2012 Nov 1 [cited 2018 Feb 3];1(2):200–18. Available from: http://koreascience.or.kr/journal/view.jsp?kj=GSHSS5&py=2012&vnc=v1n2&sp=200
- 4. Butler JE. Theories of technological innovation as useful tools for corporate strategy. Strateg Manag J [Internet]. 1988 Jan [cited 2016 Jul 26];9(1):15–29. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/smj.4250090103
- 5. McNamee LM, Ledley FD. Patterns of technological innovation in biotech. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(10):937–43. pmid:23051809
- 6. McNamee LM, Walsh MJ, Ledley FD. Timelines of translational science from technology initiation for drugs approved by the FDA 2010–2013. PLoS One [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 May 29];in press. Available from: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177371&type=printable
- 7. Beierlein JM, McNamee LM, Walsh MJ, Ledley FD. Patterns of Innovation in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development: A Strategic Assessment Based on Technological Maturity. Clin Ther [Internet]. 2015 Aug [cited 2016 Feb 19];37(8):1643–51.e3. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26243074 pmid:26243074
- 8. Ledley FD, McNamee LM, Uzdil V, Morgan IW. Why commercialization of gene therapy stalled; examining the life cycles of gene therapy technologies. Gene Ther [Internet]. 2014 Feb [cited 2014 Dec 24];21(2):188–94. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24305420 pmid:24305420
- 9. McNamee LM, Ledley FD. Modeling timelines for translational science in cancer; the impact of technological maturation. Rosenbloom JL, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2017 Mar 27 [cited 2017 May 29];12(3):e0174538. Available from: pmid:28346525
- 10. Beierlein JM, McNamee LM, Walsh MJ, Kaitin KI, DiMasi JA, Ledley FD. Landscape of Innovation for Cardiovascular Pharmaceuticals: From Basic Science to New Molecular Entities. Clin Ther [Internet]. 2017;39(7):1409–1425.e20. Available from: pmid:28652015
- 11. Barnes B. Mortality of burns at the Massachusetts General Hospital, 1939–1954. Ann Surg [Internet]. 1957 Feb 1 [cited 2016 Apr 8];145(2):210–22. Available from: http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/pmc/articles/PMC1465464/?page=5 pmid:13395307
- 12. Bull JP, Squire JR. A Study of Mortality in a Burns Unit: Standards for the Evaluation of Alternative Methods of Treatment. Ann Surg [Internet]. 1949 Aug [cited 2016 Apr 8];130(2):160–73. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1616308&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract pmid:17859418
- 13. Clark A, Hanson J. Mortality rates in patients with burns; a report of experience at San Francisco City and County Hospital, 1943–1956. Calif Med [Internet]. 1958 Sep 1 [cited 2016 Apr 8];89(3):210–4. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC1512468/?report = abstract pmid:13573189
- 14.
American Burns Association. 2016 National Burns Repository. 2016.
- 15. Gibson T, Medawar PB. The fate of skin homografts in man. J Anat [Internet]. 1943 Jul [cited 2016 Sep 16];77(Pt 4):299–310.4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17104936 pmid:17104936
- 16. Davis JS. I. The Treatment of Scalping Accidents: Report of Two Cases of Scalping by Machinery, with a Consideration of Scalping Accidents in General. Ann Surg [Internet]. 1910 Dec [cited 2016 Dec 26];52(6):721–52. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17862616 pmid:17862616
- 17. MEDAWAR PB. Immunity to homologous grafted skin; the fate of skin homografts transplanted to the brain, to subcutaneous tissue, and to the anterior chamber of the eye. Br J Exp Pathol [Internet]. 1948 Feb [cited 2015 Dec 8];29(1):58–69. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2073079&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract pmid:18865105
- 18. Kozlova I. [Results in application of cadaveric skin treated with chloracide in treatment of wounds following radical ear operations]. Vestn Otorinolaringol [Internet]. 1950 Jan [cited 2016 Apr 7];12(6):24–33. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14788513 pmid:14788513
- 19. Sanders G, Moore R. Use of homografts in extensively burned patients. Am J Surg [Internet]. 1950 Nov 15 [cited 2016 Apr 7];80(6):637–44. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14790102 pmid:14790102
- 20. Yannas I V, Burke JF. Design of an artificial skin. I. Basic design principles ". 1980;14:65–81.
- 21. Yannas I, Burke J. Design of an artificial skin. II. Control of chemical composition. J … [Internet]. 1980 [cited 2014 Dec 15];14:107–31. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbm.820140203/abstract
- 22. Dagalakis N, Flinkt J, Stasikelis P, Burke JF, Yannass I V. Design of an artificial skin. Part III. Control of pre structure. J Biomed Mater Res. 1980;14:511–28. pmid:7400201
- 23. Burke JF, Yannas I V, Quinby WC, Bondoc CC, Jung WK, Ph D, et al. Successful use of a physiologically acceptable artificial skin in the treatment of extensive burn injury. Ann Surg. 1981;194(4):413–28. pmid:6792993
- 24. Rheinwald JG, Green H. Serial cultivation of strains of human epidermal keratinocytes: the formation of keratinizing colonies from single cells. Cell. 1975;6(3):331–43. pmid:1052771
- 25. O’Connor NE, Mulliken JB, Banks-Schlegel S, Kehinde O, Green H. Grafting of burns with cultured epithelium prepared from autologous epidermal cells. Lancet [Internet]. 1981 Jan 10 [cited 2015 Jun 15];1(8211):75–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6109123 pmid:6109123
- 26. Bell E, Ehrlich HP, Sher S, Merrill C, Sarber R, Hull B, et al. Development and use of a living skin equivalent. Plast Reconstr Surg [Internet]. 1981 Mar [cited 2015 Jun 16];67(3):386–92. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7232576 pmid:7232576
- 27. Bell E, Ehrlich HP, Buttle DJ, Nakatsuji T. Living tissue formed in vitro and accepted as skin-equivalent tissue of full thickness. Science [Internet]. 1981 Mar 6 [cited 2015 May 25];211(4486):1052–4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7008197 pmid:7008197
- 28. Griffiths M, Ojeh N, Livingstone R, Price R, Navsaria H. Survival of Apligraf in Acute Human Wounds. Tissue Eng [Internet]. 2004 Jul 1 [cited 2015 Jun 14];10(7–8):1180–95. Available from: http://online.liebertpub.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/doi/abs/10.1089/ten.2004.10.1180 pmid:15363174
- 29. Climov M, Medeiros E, Farkash EA, Qiao J, Rousseau CF, Dong S, et al. Bioengineered Self-assembled Skin as an Alternative to Skin Grafts. Plast Reconstr Surg—Glob Open [Internet]. 2016 Jun [cited 2016 Jun 21];4(6):e731. Available from: http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=01720096-900000000-99252 pmid:27482479
- 30. Stone RC, Stojadinovic O, Rosa AM, Ramirez HA, Badiavas E, Blumenberg M, et al. A bioengineered living cell construct activates an acute wound healing response in venous leg ulcers. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(371).
- 31. Yannas I V, Burke JF, Orgill DP, Skrabut EM. Wound tissue can utilize a polymeric template to synthesize a functional extension of skin. Science [Internet]. 1982 Jan 8 [cited 2015 Sep 21];215(4529):174–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7031899 pmid:7031899
- 32. Boyce ST, Goretsky MJ, Greenhalgh DG, Kagan RJ, Rieman MT, Warden GD. Comparative Assessment of Cultured Skin Substitutes and Native Skin Autograft for Treatment of Full-Thickness Burns. Ann Surg [Internet]. 1995 Dec;222(6):743–52. Available from: http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00000658-199512000-00008 pmid:8526581
- 33. Verbeken G, Verween G, De Vos D, Pascual B, De Corte P, Richters C, et al. Glycerol treatment as recovery procedure for cryopreserved human skin allografts positive for bacteria and fungi. Cell Tissue Bank [Internet]. 2012 Mar [cited 2016 Dec 27];13(1):1–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360142 pmid:21360142
- 34. Billingham R, Medawar P. The freezing, drying and storage of mammalian skin. J Exp Biol. 1952;29:454.
- 35. McNichol J. Experience with a case of simultaneous autograft and homograft of skin in third degree burns on ACTH. Plast Reconstr Surg (1946) [Internet]. 1952 May [cited 2016 Dec 26];9(5):437–72. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14941703
- 36. Brown JB, Fryer MP, Randall P, Lu M. Postmortem homografts as biological dressings for extensive burns and denuded areas; immediate and preserved homografts as life-saving procedures. Ann Surg [Internet]. 1953 Oct [cited 2016 Dec 26];138(4):618–30. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13092792 pmid:13092792
- 37. Amani H, Dougherty WR, Blome-Eberwein S. Use of Transcyte and dermabrasion to treat burns reduces length of stay in burns of all size and etiology. Burns [Internet]. 2006 Nov [cited 2017 May 30];32(7):828–32. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16997480 pmid:16997480
- 38. Kumar RJ, Kimble RM, Boots R, Pegg SP. Treatment of partial-thickness burns: a prospective, randomized trial using Transcyte. ANZ J Surg [Internet]. 2004 Aug [cited 2017 May 30];74(8):622–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15315558 pmid:15315558
- 39. Still J, Glat P, Silverstein P, Griswold J, Mozingo D. The use of a collagen sponge/living cell composite material to treat donor sites in burn patients. Burns [Internet]. 2003 Dec [cited 2017 May 30];29(8):837–41. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14636761 pmid:14636761
- 40. Lukish JR, Eichelberger MR, Newman KD, Pao M, Nobuhara K, Keating M, et al. The use of a bioactive skin substitute decreases length of stay for pediatric burn patients. J Pediatr Surg [Internet]. 2001 Aug [cited 2017 May 30];36(8):1118–21. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11479839 pmid:11479839
- 41. Centanni JM, Straseski J a, Wicks A, Hank J a, Rasmussen C a, Lokuta M a, et al. StrataGraft skin substitute is well-tolerated and is not acutely immunogenic in patients with traumatic wounds: results from a prospective, randomized, controlled dose escalation trial. Ann Surg [Internet]. 2011 Apr [cited 2014 Oct 27];253(4):672–83. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3392756&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract pmid:21475006
- 42. Boyce ST, Simpson PS, Rieman MT, Warner PM, Yakuboff KP, Bailey JK, et al. Randomized, Paired-Site Comparison of Autologous Engineered Skin Substitutes and Split-Thickness Skin Graft for Closure of Extensive, Full-Thickness Burns. J Burn Care Res [Internet]. 2016 Jul 21 [cited 2016 Dec 29];1. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27404165
- 43.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Humanitarian Device Exemption. 2016 [cited 2017 May 27]; Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/howtomarketyourdevice/premarketsubmissions/humanitariandeviceexemption/default.htm
- 44. McNeilly EK. Designating an Orphan Product: Drug and Biological Products—Orphan Drug Regulations: Regulatory History. 2014 [cited 2017 May 27];283745. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/forindustry/developingproductsforrarediseasesconditions/howtoapplyfororphanproductdesignation/default.htm
- 45. Lehmann J-P. What is the Meaning of Success [Internet]. Forbes. 2015 [cited 2017 Mar 2]. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jplehmann/2015/12/07/what-is-the-meaning-of-success/#232520614205
- 46.
Under 30 CEO. 62 Business Leaders Answer: What Does Success Mean To You? [Internet]. Under 30 CEO. 2017 [cited 2017 Mar 2]. Available from: http://under30ceo.com/62-business-leaders-answer-what-does-success-mean-to-you/
- 47. Mielach David. Entrepreneurs Define the Meaning of Success [Internet]. Business News Daily. 2013 [cited 2017 Mar 2]. Available from: http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/4161-definition-business-success.html
- 48. Grinyer P, Al-Bazzaz S, Yasai-Ardekani M. Towards a contingency theory of corporate planning: Findings in 48 U.K. companies. Strateg Manag J [Internet]. 1986 Jan [cited 2016 Jul 27];7(1):3–28. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/smj.4250070103
- 49. Yano K, Tsuyuki K, Watanabe N, Kasanuki H, Yamato M. The regulation of allogeneic human cells and tissue products as biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2013;34(13):3165–73. pmid:23410682
- 50. Davis JS II. Skin Grafting at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Ann Surg [Internet]. 1909 Sep [cited 2017 May 23];50(3):542–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17862406 pmid:17862406
- 51. Nather A, Yusof N, Hilmy N. Allograft Procurement, Processing and Transplantation: A Comprehensive Guide for Tissue Banks [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2017 May 27]. p. 565. Available from: http://www.worldscibooks.com/medsci/7539.html
- 52. Shores JT, Gabriel A, Gupta S. Skin substitutes and alternatives: a review. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2007 Sep;20(9 Pt 1):493–508; quiz 509–10.
- 53. Yannas I V, Burke JF, Warpehoski M, Stasikelis P, Skrabut EM, Orgill D, et al. Prompt, long-term functional replacement of skin. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs [Internet]. 1981 [cited 2016 Sep 16];27:19–23. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7036496 pmid:7036496
- 54. Wainwright DJ. Use of an acellular allograft dermal matrix (AlloDerm) in the management of full-thickness burns. Burns [Internet]. 1995 Jun [cited 2016 Feb 18];21(4):243–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7662122 pmid:7662122