Ann: Appendix 4C - quarterly, page-92

O2vent connect is CPAP attached to a MAD so it will have same if not greater efficacy than CPAP alone as theoretically you should need lower pressures as you are bringing the jaw forward instead of strapping it backwards to keep the mask on.

This would be of benefit for those who don't tolerate a mask, they may however not tolerate a mouthguard either and not sure how it will all connect to the mouthguard without being even more cumbersome than the current CPAP setup as it is currently strapped to your head but can imagine there is going to be difficulties and opportunity for misadventure if it is tied to your teeth unless they make it disconnect with little force which could lead to faulty connectors.

Exvent is like hi-flow nasal prongs in terms of efficacy, may not be as good as cpap or bipap but has shown in some cases to have better efficacy and is definitely better than no therapy at all.

Would probably be better for those with a receding chin or those who are less heavy and wouldn't need as high pressures as I imagine the exvent would probably be giving the equivalent of maybe about 3-7 cmH2O of pressure depending on which vent you use not sure if anyone has an exact figure but because you have the added benefit of the MAD you don't need to have as high pressures.

The aim is to keep the airway open and CPAP does this by using air pressure, MAD bring the jaw forward so that it doesn't crowd the airway, the O2vent with the exvent is a MAD with a poor man's version of CPAP, but if that's all you need that is enough.

That being said the presentations have been quite disingenuous in regards to the "minimum" numbers quoted in contracts as we are then told it will take months to get up to the "minimum" numbers in each site. The meaning of "minimum" should be the lowest amount possible which does not seem to be the case for these contracts and the rate of onboarding of contracts is a bit woeful. What is the point of announcing all these contracts if months down the line the majority of them have yet to be implemented.

The results for the 4c were expected to be bad but the commentary was woeful because even with their major cap raise it looks their runway may not be sufficient and they will have to raise again unless there is some acceleration in the implementation.

The announcement about sharing capital equipment is also bizarre. The whole lab in lab model is supposed to be about a seamless experience but now we are being told the equipment isn't needed all the time.

Does this mean these centres aren't going to be selling Oventus products every day which begs the question why not? Who is supposed to be lugging this equipment between sites each day? Are these "minimum" orders then not enough to recoup the costs of the capital equipment?

It makes you question whether they have their business model down pact or have they been taken for a ride by these sleep groups. The actual lab in lab model should have legs and somnomed replicating it is testament to this but how Oventus is struggling to take out Somnomed's turf which is worth 60 million a year and I think we would all be happy if OVN reached that anytime soon. It is a bit troubling though as the efficacy rates should be enough of a selling point to get the Oventus MAD over the line but ergonomically they don't seem to be anywhere near as nice as the somnomed devices

They should also be actively case finding failed CPAP users. They have the money to fund the purchase of the equipment and they need to get established quickly as the principal behind the technology is not exactly hard to understand but making the product ergonomic and work potentially is and somnomed and other companies probably have more skill in this than oventus does and I'm sure there would be work arounds for whatever patent protection of oventus did have.