Should PNV consider taking over ARX?, page-54

Hi Squaremile - thanks for the question, as they say in Parliament.

PNV is still in its infancy in terms of market penetration and product lines. The first product, BTM, is gaining traction rapidly in a difficult circumstance during COVID. It has some strong advantages over biologic matices and has been priced to equal Integra currently not because it costs a lot to make but because it can. The margins are circa 90% as described by the Chair in presentations past.

As noted by others, very robust infection control is a key advantage as well as: less chance of antibody based rejection, reliability of integration to create a superior and pliable dermis, excellent wound bed for grafting, short recovery times, flexibility in application (not just burns but ANY dermal damage), long shelf life, shorter operating time due to ease of application (cut a piece and staple it on), ability to release patients to out-patient care earlier, reliability of healing in non-compliant patients, better integration over bones and tendons, it is totally autologous skin after BTM has been digested, can replace partially if there is an issue and finally quoting a couple of surgeons testimonials, "It just works" and "I will use it where I know other solutions will fail".

I am sure there are more but these are all examples of BTM advantages over biologic options from my understanding of the literature to date. There are several case studies now where BTM has saved lives where other temporizing options would not have worked.

PNV buying ARX would be retrograde and not provide SH value in my opinion and it is unfortunate for the company that they are competing with such a strong product in Novosorb and its future cousin products..