They had anticipated 30 participants between June 2021 and...

They had anticipated 30 participants between June 2021 and December 2022 but had only been able to recruit 6 by the end of that period.

“Six participants were enrolled and commenced trial medication.
Four participants received topical dosing to wounds as per protocol.
One participant stopped treatment early.
One participant switched to conventional antibiotic therapy.
No serious adverse events were recorded.”

I wouldn’t expect that this lack of recruitment was caused by stinging but if I remember correctly there was a comment by the company at the time that there had been some stinging effect reported.

Use of a gel could be expected to provide a slower, controlled and sustained release of the active compounds to the site. There would thus not be the sudden rush of a stinging compound on application.

Also, the gel might be expected to provide a greater range of options relating to the immediate environment of the site. For example, if the stinging was simply due to the pH (acidity) of the liquid being applied the gel might provide the option of a compatible pH at the surface in contact with the wound, thus eliminating this problem.

If such developments are to form the subject of patent protection ensuing non-disclosure would be very much in the interest of shareholders. “Not releasing information to the market” is not necessarily in conflict with shareholder interests.

In this regard I note that the announcement of 3 Aug 2023 concerning the granting of “the first of Recce’s new Patent Family 4 for RECCE’s anti-infectives” states that “Administration may also be applied as an aerosol, GEL [my emphasis], topical foam or ointment (or impregnated into a dressing for application to skin or mucous membranes for transdermal or transmucosal delivery)”

poorinvestor