Latest news with #cataractsurgery
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Down Over 30%: Wells Fargo Says Now Is the Time to Load Up on These 2 Beaten-Down Stocks
Stock prices can tumble for all sorts of reasons, but not every beaten-down stock deserves to be written off. Some are weighed down by weak fundamentals or lackluster performance, while others are simply caught in the broader market tide. When a company's core business remains strong, a dip in its share price might just be a golden opportunity in disguise. Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter Finding those diamonds in the rough is what separates the savvy investors from the rest. Hone this skill, and you're well on your way to building a portfolio with serious upside. It's the classic strategy: buy low, sell high – easier said than done, but worth mastering. Wells Fargo's analysts are putting that strategy to work. They've pinpointed a pair of stocks that are down more than 30% this year, but still earn a bullish 'Buy' rating. Backed by TipRanks data, we'll take a closer look at why these names have caught the analysts' attention. Let's get into it. RxSight (RXST) The first stock we'll look at here is RxSight, a medical technology company that focuses on the eye – specifically, on the lens of the eye. The company has developed the first, and so far, the only, synthetic intraocular lens that can be adjusted and customized after cataract surgery. In cataract surgeries, a clouded natural lens is removed from the eye and replaced with a synthetic substitute. Because this replacement lens is normally 'fixed,' that is, does not self-adjust the way a natural lens does, patients typically don't experience a return to completely normal vision. RxSight's product, the Light Adjustable Lens (LAL), allows for post-surgical adjustments, using precise UV light treatments. This approach allows the ophthalmologist to 'fine-tune' the lens after the patient has recovered from the surgery, and after natural post-surgical shifting and refractive changes have occurred. By delaying the lens adjustments in this fashion, the patient can be given a better-adjusted lens for more accurate vision. This company has advanced its product to the commercial stage. It received FDA approval for the LAL product line in 2017, and has been marketing the product ever since. In the last reported period, 1Q25, the company brought in $37.9 million in product revenue, up 28.5% year-over-year and about in-line with analyst expectations. At the bottom line, the company ran a net loss of 3 cents per share by non-GAAP measures. This net loss came in 5 cents per share better than had been expected. For the full-year 2025, the company is predicting revenue in the range of $160 million to $175 million, which would represent year-over-year growth between 14% and 25%. That guide represented a reduction; the previously published guidance range had been set at $185.0 million to $197.0 million. The stock fell sharply by nearly 40% after the guidance was revised downward back in April. For the year-to-date, shares in RXST are down 53%. For Wells Fargo analyst Larry Biegelsen, the key points here are RxSight's revenue potential and the sound risk-reward profile. He writes, 'Our Overweight rating on RXST reflects the company's first-in-class IOL technology that can be customized after cataract surgery and its growth opportunity in the multi-billion-dollar premium IOL market where the company holds a significant first-mover advantage. In addition, we see incremental revenue opportunities from the coming wave of post-LASIK patients and international expansion. At current valuation levels, we see an attractive risk-reward profile for RXST shares… RXST currently trades at 2.0x consensus 2025 sales, or >50% discount to SMID cap peers. RXST has above average growth, a strong moat, & relatively high gross margins which should increase over time. Therefore, we think it should trade at least at a market multiple.' That Overweight (i.e., Buy) rating is backed up by a $25 price target, implying a one-year upside potential of 54%. (To watch Biegelsen's track record, click here) RxSight has picked up a Moderate Buy consensus rating based on 10 recent analyst reviews, including 5 Buys, 3 Holds, and 2 Sells. The shares are priced at $16.23 and their $25.30 average target price indicates room for an upside of 56% this coming year. (See RXST stock forecast) Omnicell (OMCL) California-based Omnicell, the second stock on our list here, has been working in the medical field since 1992. The company is known as a leader in the field of autonomous pharmacy technology, using a combination of smart devices, robotics, and software to improve efficiencies, cost savings, and supply chain controls in the global pharmacy sector. Omnicell's devices, tools, and methods are particularly popular among hospital and other institutional pharmacy settings. Autonomous pharmacy tech, Omnicell's specialty, plays a vital role in the medical field, improving patient outcomes by improving compliance with prescription directions. Omnicell's systems allow for clearer, more accurate prescription fills, giving improved medication packaging, better regulatory compliance, and even allowing additional tools for patients to manage medication. Distribution errors in medication can have serious, even severe, repercussions for patients, and Omnicell provides medical providers with the tools and technology to minimize those errors. Chief among the company's product lines is the XT Amplify Automated Dispensing System. In its earnings release for 1Q25, Omnicell reported a 10% year-over-year gain in revenue to $270 million, beating the forecast by almost $10 million. At the bottom line, Omnicell's non-GAAP EPS came to 26 cents, or 6 cents per share better than the estimates, based on a total non-GAAP quarterly net income of $12 million. The company finished the quarter with a balance sheet featuring $387 million in cash and liquid assets, $341 million in total debt, and $2.2 billion in total assets. We should note here that shares in Omnicell are down for the year. OMCL stock has fallen 33% so far in 2025 – due in part to concerns over the company's exposure to tariffs. That share price drop hasn't stopped analyst Stan Berenshteyn from taking an upbeat view of this stock. In his coverage for Wells Fargo, the analyst says of OMCL, 'We see Omnicell as a leading strategic vendor of pharmacy automation solutions for health systems. While we see some more near-term drag from XT upgrade reaching an end, we see a path for Bookings acceleration in 2026 from upgrades and robot adoption and think at least partial tariff resolution should drive upside momentum to EBITDA estimates beyond 2025… While tariff risks remain fluid, we believe trade talks will likely steer outcomes toward the lower end of the risk range, supporting a more optimistic stance.' Quantifying his stance, Berenshteyn gives the stock an Overweight (Buy) rating, and his price target of $37 points toward a 12-month gain of 24%. (To watch Berenshteyn's track record, click here) This stock's Moderate Buy consensus rating is based on 6 recent reviews that break down to 4 Buys and 2 Holds. The shares have a current trading price of $29.83 and the average target price, at $40.40, suggests that the stock will gain 35.5% by this time next year. (See OMCL stock forecast) To find good ideas for stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks' Best Stocks to Buy, a tool that unites all of TipRanks' equity insights. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment. Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue Sign in to access your portfolio
Medscape
20-05-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Office-Based Cataract Surgery Measures Up To ASC Cases
Cataract surgeries performed in a surgery suite in the ophthalmologist's office had significantly lower complication rates than operations performed in an ambulatory surgery center, a study of more than 1300 operations performed by the same surgeon in both settings found. Joseph Starns 'Our study shows that performing cataract surgery in an office setting does not increase the rate or risk of adverse events,' Joseph Starns, a medical student at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine in New Orleans, told Medscape Medical News . Starns presented results of a retrospective review of 1335 cataract surgeries performed in both an office-based setting and a surgery center on May 7 at Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) 2025 Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City. All the operations were performed by Brendon Sumich, MD, a cornea specialist in New Orleans. The 656 surgeries performed in the office occurred between September 2022 and June 2024; the 679 operations in the surgery center took place from January 2021 through June 2024. Adverse Event Rates Seven patients (1%) treated in the office setting experienced an adverse event. These complications included three unplanned vitrectomies (0.46%), two returns to the operating room (0.3%), one referral for retinal complications (0.15%), and one call to 911 (0.15%). Among patients seen in the surgery center, 22 patients (3%) experienced adverse events. These included one case of endophthalmitis (0.15%), six unplanned vitrectomies (0.88%), nine returns to the operating room (1.33%), five referrals for retinal complications (0.74%), and one event of persistent corneal edema (0.15%). In the past decade or so, cataract surgeons have been transitioning straightforward operations from surgery centers to the office. Market Scope Ophthalmic Perspectives, a data analytics firm, reported the proportion of office-based cataract procedures rose to 2.2% in 2023, up from 0.5% in 2020. 'We anticipate office-based surgery becoming more popular over the next 5-10 years,' Starns told Medscape Medical News . Cataract surgery does not require patients to receive an IV or to fast before the operation, and in most cases, they already know both the setting and the support staff, Starns said. But potential drawbacks can include more difficulty for the operating team to control patient anxiety and the inability to combine the cataract surgery with other procedures, such as minimally invasive glaucoma surgery, he said. The latter point can potentially skew outcomes, Starns said. 'There may be selection bias, in that anticipated complex surgery may be selectively scheduled' for a surgery center, he acknowledged. The new study did not look at the cost of having cataract surgery in one setting vs the other, but Starns said office-based procedures are likely more cost-effective because they do not require anesthesia and the fees for these services. Nor does it require preoperative testing or medical clearance examinations from the patient's primary care provider, cardiologist, or other types of providers. He added that providers do not charge a facility fee for office-based surgery, whereas surgery centers do, which further lowers costs for the office setting. Currently, Medicare does not cover facility fees for office-based procedures, but it does so for surgery centers. Strengths and Limitations Starns noted one strength of the study is that one surgeon performed all the procedures. 'That means uniform surgical techniques, patient population, and perioperative care routines,' he said. Both observation groups demonstrated 'significant surgical volume,' he added. Neal Shorstein, MD The study population size is another strength, said Neal Shorstein, MD, a retired cataract surgery with Kaiser Permanente in Northern California and an adviser to the Seva Foundation, a nonprofit group that develops eye care programs in underserved regions. 'When you get over 1000 or so, a study of this nature has a little bit more statistical power,' he said. The evidence comparing the two settings for cataract surgery is limited, he said. However, the new findings agree with results of a 2016 retrospective consecutive case series of 21,505 cataract operations performed in an office setting, Shorstein said. Clarity on the types of cases performed in the office is needed to better compare those done in a surgery center. 'That's extremely important because their conclusion that office-based surgery was better, with fewer adverse events, raises the question: Was there some sort of conscious or unconscious selection bias of healthier patients for the office-based surgery?' Shorstein said. The study was independently supported. Starns and Shorstein reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
Medscape
20-05-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Study: Dropless Cataract Surgery Slashes Drug Costs
A regimen that spares patients recovering from cataract surgery the burden of using antibacterial and anti-inflammatory eye drops several times a day for weeks and instead uses an injection to administer those drugs immediately after the procedure is nearly as effective at preventing complications as the traditional drop regimen at a fraction of the cost, a study of both approaches found. 'Our study aims to underscore the benefits of the dropless cataract surgery approach as a promising alternative to the traditional drop regimen, particularly for populations where adherence to postoperative drops is challenging,' Yousef Yousef, a medical student at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, New York, told Medscape Medical News. 'We hope our findings will encourage broader adoption of the dropless protocol by cataract surgeons, potentially establishing it as a new standard of care.' Yousef Yousef Yousef presented results from a retrospective chart review of 544 eyes that had cataract surgery at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) 2025 Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City. Dropless vs Traditional Protocol The traditional protocol, used in 265 study eyes, consisted of giving patients a prescription for drops of the anti-inflammatory corticosteroid prednisolone 1%, the antibiotic moxifloxacin 0.5%, and the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory ketorolac 0.5% four times a day with a 4-week taper. The dropless protocol, assigned to 279 eyes, consisted of an intracameral injection of 0.2 mL of moxifloxacin 0.5% and a 10 mg/mL subconjunctival injection of the glucocorticoid triamcinolone (Kenalog) on completion of the operation. The researchers found no significant differences in best-corrected visual acuity. Patients who had the dropless protocol had a higher incidence of cystoid macular edema — 5% vs 1% — Yousef said, but the incidence of ocular hypertension was not statistically significant between the two groups (2% vs 1%). A multivariate regression analysis showed the dropless protocol was not associated with increased risks for either complication, he added. The dropless protocol has three key potential advantages over the traditional approach, Yousef said: Convenience for patients, improved drug bioavailability, and lower cost. 'The traditional drop protocol requires patients to administer three different medications four times daily over a 4-week tapering period,' he told Medscape Medical News . 'This regimen results in a total of 12 drops per day for one eye and 210 drops over the course of the taper.' Poor drug bioavailability is a 'significant concern' with topical drops, Yousef said, because the epithelial membrane of the cornea can limit the ability of the drops from penetrating into the eye. 'Intracameral injection bypasses these barriers, delivering a more direct treatment,' he said. A 2020 analysis of Medicare claims reported the average cost of medications for eye drops after cataract surgery was $228 per eye. 'Notably, 76.5% of this total cost was attributed to the use of brand-name medications,' Yousef said. 'In contrast, the dropless approach costs just $15.91 per eye when a single vial is used for approximately 10 cases.' The new data are important because few randomized clinical trials have compared the dropless and traditional protocols for treating pain and inflammation and preventing infections after cataract surgery, according to Neal Shorstein, MD, a retired cataract surgeon with Kaiser Permanente in Northern California . Neal Shorstein, MD 'There are an accumulating number of observational studies, so this adds to the retrospective, observational literature, and that's a good thing because different locations and practice environments add to the experience,' said Shorstein, an adviser to the Seva Foundation, a nonprofit group that develops eye care programs in underserved regions. The doses of medication used in the dropless protocol in the analysis are higher than what others have reported. The 0.2 mL of intracameral moxifloxacin 0.5% is 'about the upper limits of what you want to inject of moxifloxacin.' The 0.5-mL dose of subconjunctival triamcinolone is, 'in my estimation, a good dose.' The formulation of triamcinolone used has a large particle size, which 'matters a lot because the safety and effectiveness of triamcinolone depends on the particle size,' he said. Triesence, another formulation of triamcinolone used in some dropless protocols, has a smaller particle size, he said. The entry point on the conjunctiva for the triamcinolone injection is another important factor, Shorstein added. 'Our findings show that 6-8 mm from the limbus is the optimal location,' he said. The study was independently supported. Yousef and Shorstein reported having no relevant financial relationships.
Medscape
09-05-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Cataract Surgery May Be Safe Beyond A1c Cutoffs
Cataract surgery was not associated with an increased risk for postoperative endophthalmitis or serious systemic adverse events in patients with diabetes, even when preoperative A1c levels were poorly controlled and exceeded 11.3%. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study to explore the relationship between cataract surgery and the risk for postoperative endophthalmitis and serious systemic adverse events in patients with diabetes. They examined medical records of 94,952 men and women, aged 18 years or older, with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who underwent phacoemulsification cataract surgery and were stratified by A1c levels: Good (< 7%), moderate (7%-8.4%), poor (8.5%-11.3%), and very poor (> 11.3%) control. Patients in each group of A1c levels were matched by propensity score analysis with individuals without diabetes who underwent cataract surgery. To analyze the risk for serious systemic adverse events — mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, major cardiovascular events, and a composite of these events — the researchers compared 12,835 patients with diabetes who underwent cataract surgery with those who had similar A1c levels and a record of a routine eye examination but did not undergo the procedure. In both analyses, A1c documentation was required to have occurred within 3 months prior to cataract surgery. TAKEAWAY: The 30-day risk for postoperative endophthalmitis did not differ across A1c levels between patients with diabetes and people without the condition (good control: hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.27; moderate control: HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.44-2.66; poor control: HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.43-4.28; and very poor control: HR, 2.85; 95% CI, 0.29-27.44). Similarly, the risk for serious systemic adverse events within 30 or 90 days after cataract surgery showed no difference across A1c levels in patients with diabetes who did or did not undergo cataract surgery. IN PRACTICE: 'Our findings suggest that preoperative A1c alone should not be a reason to cancel cataract surgery,' the authors wrote. 'A1c should be utilized as measure to inform wider control of hyperglycemia- and diabetes-related systemic comorbidities and that delaying cataract surgery on the numerical basis of elevated A1c is not necessary,' they added. SOURCE: This study was led by Zain S. Hussain, MD, and Ahmed F. Shakarchi, MD, MPH, from the Harvey and Bernice Jones Eye Institute at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, Arkansas. It was published online on May 3, 2025, in American Journal of Ophthalmology . LIMITATIONS: The retrospective design limited the ability of this study to infer causality. Small sample sizes in certain subgroups of A1c resulted in wide CIs for some outcomes, potentially limiting the precision of findings. The control group of patients with diabetes who did not have a diagnosis of cataract may have been healthier, introducing selection bias. DISCLOSURES: No funding was reported by this study. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
