[角色] 你是一名拥有10年投资银行从业经验的资深研究分析师，专门负责上市公司、行业研究。你擅长解读公司财报、行业动态、宏观市场，发现潜在的投资机会和风险。 [任务] 你需要仔细研读一份上市公司或者行业研究的电话会议记录，请阅读全文，一步一步思考，总结全文列出关键要点，不要错过任何信息，包括： * 纪要涉及的行业或者公司 * 纪要提到的核心观点和论据 * 其他重要但是可能被忽略的内容 如果没有相关内容，请跳过这一部分，进行其他的部分。 总结时要全面、详细、尽可能覆盖全部的内容、不遗漏重点,并根据上述方面对内容进行分组。 要引用原文数字数据和百分比变化,注意单位换算(billion=十亿,million=百万,thousand=千)。 [注意事项] 1) 使用中文,不要出现句号 2) 采用markdown格式 3) 不使用第一人称,以"公司"、"行业"代替 4) 只输出关于公司和行业的内容 5) 在每一个关键点后用[序号]形式引用原文档id 6) 一个[序号]只应该包含一个数字，不能包含多个，如果多个就用[序号][序号]分开写，不要写成 [序号-序号] 7) 每个关键要点后边的 [序号] 不要超过 3 个 Content: --------- <doc id='1'>ab 25 September 2025 China Medtech Expert call takeaways: Pulse check on China's IVD market China IVD market update for Q325 We hosted an expert call with Mr. Fang, an in-vitro diagnostics (IVD) distributor with over 15 years of industry experience. The key topics included: 1) market size, test volume, channel inventory and the competitive landscape in Q325; 2) the implementation status and impact of existing policies in relation to test volume and test fee/reagent prices; and 3) the expert's estimates of market growth and potential competitive dynamics in Q425/2026.</doc> <doc id='2'>Q325 results likely to diverge across test types According to the expert, the market growth in regions under his analysis was as follows: 1) Chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA): -17% YoY in test volume and -25% YoY in revenue. Volume declined QoQ, with a negative impact from panel test unbundling policies. On a monthly basis, the expert noted stabilisation of test volume in September 2025 following declines in July-August. 2) Clinical chemistry: -8% YoY in volume and revenue. Similar to CLIA, the QoQ volume decline for clinical chemistry tests was mainly reflected in July-August 2025. 3) Haematology: +8% YoY in volume and +6% YoY in revenue. The QoQ volume decline was less than 2%, primarily attributable to an off- season for physical examinations. 4) Haemostasis: +3% YoY in volume and revenue. Test volume was largely flat QoQ. 5) Point of care tests (POCT): -12% YoY in volume and revenue. Test volume was largely flat QoQ.</doc> <doc id='3'>Channel destocking close to an end; import substitution status varies by test With respect to channel inventory, the expert highlighted the following: 1) CLIA: For global brands, channel inventory is equivalent to 10-12 weeks of sales. For local brands, it is equivalent to 8-10 weeks of sales. 2) Haematology: Leading players had channel inventory equivalent to ~6 months of sales last year and have had channel destocking YTD. In terms of import substitution, the expert noted the following: 1) CLIA: Import substitution was accelerated by volume-based procurement (VBP) in Q325, with domestic brands more accepted by grade A tertiary hospitals; the trend is likely to extend into Q425-2026. 2) Clinical chemistry: A stable competitive landscape, with domestic brands commanding a large share. 3) Haematology: Import substitution in lower-tier markets and even some top-tier hospitals; the expert expects the trend to be sustained in Q425-2026. 4) Haemostasis: Ongoing import substitution but at a relatively slow pace.</doc> <doc id='4'>The expert estimates market growth in 2026 for major tests, except CLIA Overall, the expert expects sector-wide test volume to bottom out in Q425, with the negative impact of the test unbundling policy largely reflected. In terms of the 2026 outlook, he thinks major test categories are likely to grow YoY, except for CLIA, for which revenue may continue to decline YoY, given a relatively high base for reagent prices. According to the expert: 1) CLIA: The market size could shrink 10%+ YoY as new prices for tumour biomarkers and thyroid function reagents are implemented in Q425. The inflection point is most likely to occur in Q426, but it could be as early as Q326. 2) Clinical chemistry: The expert expects market growth below 5% in 2026. 3) Haematology: There is high growth visibility, with a relatively low likelihood of VBP; the expert expects c10% growth in 2026. 4) Haemostasis: The expert thinks this category has a relatively high possibility of VBP. That said, 10% market growth in 2026 could be feasible without VBP.</doc> <doc id='5'>Equities China Healthcare Jun Deng Analyst jun.deng@ubs.com +852-3712 2103 Emma Ma, CFA Associate S1460124070003 emma-mc.ma@ubs.com +86-21-3866 8981 Chen Chen, PhD Analyst chen-zb.chen@ubs.com +86-10-5832 8201 This report has been prepared by UBS Securities Asia Limited. ANALYST CERTIFICATION AND REQUIRED DISCLOSURES, including information on the Quantitative Research Review published by UBS, begin on page 6. UBS does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision.</doc> <doc id='6'>Expert call key takeaways We hosted an expert call with Mr. Fang, an IVD distributor with over 15 years of industry experience. Below, we present highlights from the meeting. We have made edits for clarity; minor grammatical changes that do not impact the meaning of content have been applied. The opinions expressed by the expert herein do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of UBS. UBS accepts no responsibility for the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information and will not be liable either directly or indirectly for any loss or damage arising out of the use of this information or any part thereof.</doc> <doc id='7'>1. What do you see for China's IVD market growth by revenue and test volume in Q325? According to the expert, the market growth in regions under his analysis was as follows: 1) Chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA): -17% YoY in test volume and -25% YoY in revenue. Volume declined QoQ, with a negative impact from panel test unbundling policies. On a monthly basis, the expert noted stabilisation of test volume in September 2025 following declines in July-August. 2) Clinical chemistry: -8% YoY in volume and revenue. Similar to CLIA, the QoQ volume decline for clinical chemistry tests was mainly reflected in July-August 2025. 3) Haematology: +8% YoY in volume and +6% YoY in revenue. The QoQ volume decline was less than 2%, primarily attributable to an off- season for physical examinations. 4) Haemostasis: +3% YoY in volume and revenue. Test volume was largely flat QoQ. 5) Point of care tests (POCT): -12% YoY in volume and revenue. Test volume was largely flat QoQ.</doc> <doc id='8'>2. For the haematology business, why did the top two players have notable revenue declines in Q225? In Q225, Mindray and Sysmex had notable revenue declines YoY for the haematology business. This was the opposite of the market expansion observed by the expert. For example, Dymind, the third-largest player in the market, had 10%+ growth in volume and revenue in the first nine months of 2025. In addition, Maccura, another key player, saw single-digit growth in H125.</doc> <doc id='9'>As per the expert, Sysmex's revenue decline in Q225 may be attributable to import substitution and channel destocking. For Mindray, potential reasons for the revenue decline in the quarter include channel destocking and a high revenue base last year.</doc> <doc id='10'>3. What is the level of channel inventory for reagents across test categories? Will channel destocking continue to pressure companies' revenue growth in the near future? At the sector level, the expert estimates channel inventory as of Q325 to be as follows: 1) CLIA: For global brands, channel inventory is equivalent to 10-12 weeks of sales. For local brands, it is equivalent to 8-10 weeks of sales. 2) Clinical chemistry: Not much change in Q325. 3) Haematology: Leading players had channel inventory equivalent to ~6 months of sales last year and have had channel destocking YTD. The expert believes channel destocking may be close to an end for Mindray's haematology business. Heading into Q425, the expert expects a limited impact from channel destocking for leading domestic companies such as Mindray, with relatively low channel inventory in haematology, CLIA and clinical chemistry.</doc> <doc id='11'>4. What is the potential market growth across test categories in Q425-2026? Overall, the expert expects sector-wide test volume to bottom out in Q425, with the negative impact of the test unbundling policy largely reflected.</doc> <doc id='12'>In terms of the 2026 outlook, he thinks major test categories are likely to grow YoY, except for CLIA, for which revenue may continue to decline YoY, given a relatively high base for reagent prices. According to the expert: 1) CLIA: The market size could shrink 10%+ YoY as new prices for tumour biomarkers and thyroid function reagents are implemented in Q425. The inflection point is most likely to occur in Q426, but it could</doc> <doc id='13'>be as early as Q326. 2) Clinical chemistry: The expert expects market growth below 5% in 2026. 3) Haematology: There is high growth visibility , with a relatively low likelihood of VBP; the expert expects c10% growth in 2026. 4) Haemostasis: The expert thinks this category has a relatively high possibility of VBP. That said, 10% market growth in 2026 could be feasible without VBP.</doc> <doc id='14'>5. What are the current status and potential outlook of import substitution across test categories? 1) CLIA: Import substitution was accelerated by VBP in Q325, with domestic brands more accepted by grade A tertiary hospitals; the trend is likely to extend into Q425- 2026. 2) Clinical chemistry: A stable competitive landscape, with domestic brands commanding a large share. 3) Haematology: Import substitution for local brands, such as Mindray, Dymind and Urit, in some top-tier hospitals, as well as continued import substitution in lower-tier markets; the expert expects the trend to be sustained in Q425- 2026. 4) Haemostasis: Ongoing import substitution but at a relatively slow pace.</doc> <doc id='15'>For Mindray specifically, the expert sees market share gain potential across test types. For example, he believes it could be feasible to gain 2% share annually in CLIA market in the next three years. That said, the potential market share gain in haematology could be modest, given its high market share.</doc> <doc id='16'>6. What will be the actual impact of test volume-related policies in Q325? When do you expect these policies' impact to fade? Can any potential new policies further erode test volume? According to the expert, the test unbundling policy could lead ~15%/~5% volume declines YoY for CLIA/clinical chemistry in Q325. In contrast, the expert thinks there will be a limited impact for haematology and haemostasis. The expert expects the policy impact to fade in Q425, as test unbundling may be largely completed by September 2025. In addition, a few regions had rebundling for some panel tests that were previously unbundled.</doc> <doc id='17'>Beyond test unbundling, the expert foresees a very limited additional impact from DRG implementation and mutual recognition of test results. Moreover, he does not think there will be more new policies to further erode test volume at the sector level.</doc> <doc id='18'>7. For the VBP of tumour biomarkers and thyroid function reagents, what are the likely implementation timeline and ex-factory price cuts? The expert expects this round of VBP to be implemented starting in October 2025 and to cover most of the participating provinces by December 2025. The ex-factory price adjustment has not been completed yet, although a few companies have adjusted thyroid function reagent prices following the previous VBP in Gansu.</doc> <doc id='19'>On the magnitude of ex-factory price cuts, the expert thinks domestic companies may have 20%+ cuts for tumour markers and 10%+ cuts for thyroid function reagents. For overseas companies, the expert expects further price erosion for tumour biomarkers reagents on top of the price revisions following the previous testing fee correction. For thyroid function reagents, the ex-factory price cuts could reach c30%.</doc> <doc id='20'>8. Which reagents are likely to be covered by the next round of VBP? What is the potential timeline? The expert reiterated his view that CLIA will be the priority for VBP in 2026. Implementation is likely to start in 2027, although the impact could be limited, as major test items under CLIA have been covered by VBP. In addition to CLIA, the expert now thinks the VBP of haemostasis tests may take place in 2026 or 2027. Similar to CLIA, it may take about one year from the result announcement to official implementation for haemostasis VBP, in the expert's view.</doc> <doc id='21'>9. What is the potential impact of Hunan Province's recent test-fee correction for drug-resistant tuberculosis molecular testing? Which tests may be subject to a test-fee correction going forward? The expert expects a limited impact from this initiative, considering the small market size of tuberculosis-related tests in China (Rmb300m+ in total, with the market size of drug- resistant tuberculosis tests amounting to Rmb100m+). Overseas companies such as Cepheid (a member of Danaher Group) and domestic companies such as Zeesan, Ustar and Wantai may have some impact, as per the expert.</doc> <doc id='22'>The expert noted that tests with particularly high fees will be the focus of the upcoming testing fee correction. Thus, the main focus could be CLIA, such as tumour biomarkers, infectious diseases, thyroid functions and myocarditis tests.</doc> <doc id='23'>Valuation Method and Risk Statement We believe the risks facing China's medtech industry include: 1) larger-than-expected price reductions and smaller-than-expected market share gains from medical device VBP programs; 2) weaker-than-expected demand from equipment renewal programs; 3) a greater-than- expected impact from the anti-corruption drive; 4) geopolitical risks affecting the supply chain of medical device products; and 5) slower-than-expected product R&D and technological breakthroughs.</doc> <doc id='24'>Required Disclosures This document has been prepared by UBS Securities Asia Limited, an affiliate of UBS AG. UBS AG, its subsidiaries, branches and affiliates, including former Credit Suisse AG and its subsidiaries, branches and affiliates are referred to herein as "UBS".</doc> <doc id='25'>For information on the ways in which UBS manages conflicts and maintains independence of its UBS Global Research product; historical performance information; certain additional disclosures concerning UBS Global Research recommendations; and terms and conditions for certain third party data used in research report, please visit https://www.ubs.com/disclosures. Unless otherwise indicated, information and data in this report are based on company disclosures including but not limited to annual, interim, quarterly reports and other company announcements. The figures contained in performance charts refer to the past; past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Additional information will be made available upon request. UBS Securities Co. Limited is licensed to conduct securities investment consultancy businesses by the China Securities Regulatory Commission. UBS acts or may act as principal in the debt securities (or in related derivatives) that may be the subject of this report. This recommendation was finalized on: 25 September 2025 03:15 PM GMT. UBS has designated certain UBS Global Research department members as Derivatives Research Analysts where those department members publish research principally on the analysis of the price or market for a derivative, and provide information reasonably sufficient upon which to base a decision to enter into a derivatives transaction. Where Derivatives Research Analysts co-author research reports with Equity Research Analysts or Economists, the Derivatives Research Analyst is responsible for the derivatives investment views, forecasts, and/or recommendations. Quantitative Research Review: UBS Global Research publishes a quantitative assessment of its analysts' responses to certain questions about the likelihood of an occurrence of a number of short term factors in a product known as the 'Quantitative Research Review'. Views contained in this assessment on a particular stock reflect only the views on those short term factors which are a different timeframe to the 12-month timeframe reflected in any equity rating set out in this note. For the latest responses,