Competitor - JenaValve, page-5

Thanks HuonScott.

I mentioned in another post that I am now doing a bit more homework to better understand what AHZ is worth as a TAVR/structural heart company, competitor analysis is just part of the process (if only I did my homework
before investing!)

I have a slightly different take on in (re: it's not what we want to see at the moment). Sure there is competition however it shows me there is no shortage of money to be invested in this space. Why AHZ needed to go to the equivalent of loan sharks for funding rather than these types of strategic long term investors is beyond me. The only thing I can thing of is that a portion of them would have a mandate to invest only in private companies.

As for why AHZ's product is superior Patto has stated a few of these reasons single piece valve (^durability), ADAPT tissue (anti-calcification), catheter size (I cant recall ? French not sure it was much smaller than current competitors), sterile packaging (reduced prep/op time), and he stated something around the haemodynamics (I cant recall figures).

From the tiny bit of proper research I've done, the main differentiator (value driver) I can see at present is durability. Reading some comments from TVT 2019 (the structural heart conference) durability of TAVR devices was a concern raised by several/many? surgeons (and not just those on the AHZ advisory board).

I recall from the mechanical testing of the prototype valve vs some competitor's valves, that AHZ's performed better (suffered less degradation?) however I can't remember seeing many specifics about degree of wear and tear to any/all of the valves tested.

This gives me some hope for AHZ and their TAVR however still a way to go, further testing in man, larger trial (inc. appropriate design), FDA approval, need to win market share from incumbents (and we saw how difficult that was with ADAPT!).

Part of the reason for posting this info on JenaValve is to get a more realistic idea of both potential company value and to better understand the costs and timeline involved.

An opportunity I see is that if (and its a big if) AHZ can design and execute a trial to demonstrate far greater durability of their valve vs the major competitors, the company may have a real chance/bright future. With my limited knowledge I believe this would need to be an in-human trial and would need to show statistically significant (i.e. p<0.05) improvement in durability. I'm not sure how you do this in less than 10 years... (and without the cash to stay in business for another 10 years). Maybe surgeons would take notice of results from another mechanical test if the trial was designed very well and the results written up/approved in the most prestigious Cardiac journal? (However this approach may not work as the simulator may not be seen as representative enough of human use conditions?)

I just don't know enough (yet) to make an intelligent call on all this.

Cheers,
Investek