Forum Topics PNV PNV Business Model/Strategy

Pinned straw:

Last edited 4 months ago

Their Product:


Novosorb - a biocompatible synthetic polymer used to create a dermal matrix, effectively scaffolding, to assist in the healing of the deeper layers of the skin (dermis). Used for burns and other wounds to fill and secure the wound as it heals, biocompatibility means the polymer is safely absorbed into the body as it heals.

2 versions of the matrix exist:

  • BTM - consisting of Novosorb with a laminated outer layer to strengthen the foam and to seal the wound from external contaminants. The laminate has to be eventually removed as it does not biodegrade within the body.
  • MTX - Novosorb without the laminate, can be implanted within the body and will be entirely degraded


Being synthetic Novosorb is a more consistent product (from batch to batch) in comparison to biologic equivalents resulting is less post-operative complications. 


Their Customers:


In simple terms, based on who they receive money from, their customers are the medical institutions (public and private) that purchase Novosorb.

However, I think their actual customers are doctors and surgeons primarily in burns and trauma centers, but also other types of hospitals, medical centers and medical research institutes.

You could also say the patient that receives Novosorb as treatment is the end customer/consumer though.

To stich these all together:

Polynovos customers are medical institutions whose practitioners use Novosorb to treat patients. Practitioners will prefer Novosorb if:

  • It is easier to use than other products
  • Can be used in wider array of procedures
  • Provides better outcomes for the patient


The crux of this is while the Institutions buy the product, it's the doctors they sell it to.

Moat:


Sources of a moat for Polynovo include:

  1. Regulatory approval - Polynovo have approval for Novosorb in North America, India, UK and Europe, Australia and parts of S.E Asia. This is a significant hurdle for new competitors to get over
  2. Hospital approvals - individual hospitals will assess and approve new products. Polynovo has a good history of expanding the number of hospitals is sells into.
  3. Becoming the standard of care. Once you become the go-to product it makes it harder for new players to compete. They will have to work hard and spend a lot of money on sales people to convince doctors to switch to their products. The more indications the product is useful for the greater the entrenchment.
  4. Lower cost - while I have not seen the pricing exactly myself, my understanding is the synthetic product is cheaper to produce than the equivalent biological product


The first 3 are kinda a tiered network-effect moat - First you need Country/Regional approval, then the hospitals themselves, then finally the doctors. In the end it becomes a network effect as you become the standard.

2 and 3 are still expanding for Polynovo with Novosorb as it adds more hospitals and doctors as its customers


Their Competitors


There are a lot of companies in the space, however not all of them are direct competitors.

Some examples are:

Integra Life Sciences

Integra produces a range of biologic dermal products used for wound reconstruction - some of these compete directly with Novosorb. Based on the last few earnings calls it seems revenues for these products are declining. With their guidance anticipating flat growth for these products for 2024.

Note Integra make the bulk of their revenue from products unrelated to Polynovo (e.g. Neurosurgery products and instruments)

Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals

Mallinckrodt acquired the company developing StrataGraft, a direct competitor to Novosorb, however according to their website the product is still in clinical trials.


Their Scalability


While Novosorb is a manufactured product, according to David Williams the facilities are not that capitally intensive. (It is a to-do to assess the capital cost of their factories). Worth noting they do have software like gross margins (~80%).

Existing manufacturing + the new facility (due to come online in 2025) should provide the capacity to deliver ~18x the devices manufactured in FY23.

Creating extra manufacturing, if required, should not be an issue and will be possible from the amount of cash they currently have + future cashflow.

The TAM is large, but hard for me to quantify in $.

As a guide, currently there are 145,000+ burns and soft tissues wounds in the US each year. I think an increase in sales of 2 orders of magnitude would not be unreasonable.


Management


Mr David Williams - Chairman

Experienced director and investment banker. Has special interest in the medical and pharma industry. Most importantly, used his own money to buy shares in Polynovo.

Stake: 21m shares (3.1% of PNV)

Mr Swami Raote

Was previously divisional head at Johnson & Johnson. Has no stake in the company as far as I can tell

A number of their senior leadership and board have stakes in Polynovo - while not large percentage-wise these do amount to reasonable amount in dollar terms.

Jan Gielen - CFO: 930k (0.14%)

David McQuillan - CTO: 670k (0.1%)

Leon Hoare - Director: 1.2m (0.18%)

Bruce Rathie - Director: 3.2m (0.47%)


Risks


They have a product which is (or at least seems) significantly better than the status quo and is being increasingly adopted, both in terms of their target market but also new markets (use cases). They have reached cashflow breakeven, have ~$40m in cash and basically no debt. From here I think there are 2 main risks:

  1. Execution - They have to continue to gain sales and produce quality product. It is critical that they maintain contaminant free and uniform product as they scale production. A single severe incident of contamination could cost them years of sales traction (if not the whole business).
  2. Disruption - A better product could come to market, perhaps that works in a in drastically different way. The benefit of their moat is it would take time for it to gain traction, but would not stop a better product with a good sales team (who have enough money).


I was able to find 2 products that could potentially compete with Novosorb both are apparently in trial stage:

  • StrataGraft - Mallinckrodt
  • DuraSorb - Integra


However I'd note they seem very similar (synthetic absorbable matrices) so not sure they would be sufficiently better to warrant adopting. However, with such great gross margins on offer, they could potentially compete on price particularly in the more price conscious markets.


Thesis


The thesis here is pretty straight forward - Polynovo to continue to increase market penetration and (therefore) revenue of it's Novosorb products.


Why I'd Sell

  1. A prolonged period (12+ months) of sales stagnation (that is, even if there no competitor, but suggests a saturated market or a failure of new sales execution)
  2. A new market competitor that takes significant sales from Polynovo's existing customers - even if Polynovo has continued top line growth
  3. A major incident involving the quality of it product.
  4. An acquisition buying spree - if Polynovo decides to use it's cashflow and buy other companies. A couple of good, strategic sounding, acquisitions is fine, but I'm not interested in owning a "roll-up".


jcmleng
Added 4 months ago

Great work @lyndonator !

I had a read of Novosorb and what it does, as best as my beanie mindset will allow, which isnt much! What I am trying to better understand and am wondering if someone has got a simple layperson's explanation:

  1. How does NovSorb work or interplay with Avita's RECELL Go spray on skin, if at all.
  2. Is it right to say that broadly generalising, NovoSorb works under the skin, Avita's RECELL is the new skin that goes on top of an area treated by NovoSorb, meaning, both Recell and NovoSorb are complementary, not competing treatments?
  3. You could use Recell and NovoSorb together (per point 2), or separately without the other, depending on the nature of the burn wound?


Both PNV and AVH do not mention each other as a competitor and maybe that is indeed the case. This is the one thing I can't get my head around as I probe deeper into PNV while already holding a position in AVH.

Discl: Hold AVH IRL and in SM, PNV not held

14

laoshi
Added 4 months ago

From Perplexity search.

how does novosorb btm work with recell to treat burns

NovoSorb BTM (Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix) and RECELL (Autologous Skin Cell Suspension) can be used together effectively to treat severe full-thickness burns. Here's how they work in combination:


1. NovoSorb BTM is first applied to the debrided burn wound. It serves as a 3D scaffold that allows blood vessels and fibroblasts to infiltrate and proliferate over 3-4 weeks[1][3].


2. The BTM integrates into the wound bed, creating a vascularized neodermis. Once fully integrated, the outer sealing membrane of the BTM is removed[3].


3. RECELL is then used to create an autologous skin cell suspension from a small skin sample. This suspension contains keratinocytes, fibroblasts, and melanocytes[1].


4. The RECELL suspension is sprayed onto the newly formed neodermis, often in combination with a widely meshed split-thickness skin graft (e.g. 3:1 or 4:1 ratio)[1][5].


5. This combination allows for treatment of large burn areas while requiring less donor skin compared to traditional grafting methods[1].


The use of BTM with RECELL addresses some challenges of dermal substitutes by:


- Providing a robust scaffold that can persist even in the presence of infection

- Allowing definitive wound closure with less donor skin

- Potentially improving aesthetic and functional outcomes


This approach has shown promising results in achieving definitive closure of full-thickness burn wounds with acceptable outcomes[1][5].


Citations:

[1] Treatment of a Full-Thickness Burn Injury With NovoSorb ... - NCBI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6990449/

[2] Treatment of Complex Wounds with NovoSorb® Biodegradable ... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9781929/

[3] NovoSorb® BTM | Biodegradable Synthetic Dermal Substitute https://polynovo.com/novosorb-btm-int-en/

[4] (PDF) Treatment of a Full-Thickness Burn Injury With NovoSorb ... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337518774_Treatment_of_a_Full-Thickness_Burn_Injury_With_NovoSorb_Biodegradable_Temporizing_Matrix_and_RECELL_Autologous_Skin_Cell_Suspension_A_Case_Series

[5] Use of Dermal Regenerative Templates for Burns - Oxford Academic https://academic.oup.com/jbcr/article/

44/Supplement_1/S19/6960753

14

mikebrisy
Added 4 months ago

@jcmleng you have raised a good point in "Both PNV and AVH do not mention each other as a competitor and maybe that is indeed the case. "

I have wondered whether one reason why $AVH does not mention $PNV is that $AVH are going through a process to partner with other dermal repair products and businesses to have a collaborative approach in their go to market. When I had last checked, they had not landed on a dermal repair partnership. There are a lot of other products that $AVH might choose, so clearly they want to get the best commercial deal - for them. Logically, it might make sense for them to pick a second-tier player to promote alongside their product.

As @laoshi rightly points out, BTM's action is focused on the dermis, whereas ReCELL's action is focused on the epidermis. So the business logic for $AVH is that one of the things it is struggling with, and which is holding back its SP, is its high sales and marketing cost relative to sales and sales growth. By having the sales reps. promoting a portfolio of products, it will help the overall business economics.

I further imagine that, even if $AVH were to select $PNV as their partners, $PNV in the US might not agree to this. This is because $PNV has now built a strong salesforce in the US with favourable economics and growing market share. In the US, they need $AVH less than $AVH seems to need a dermal partner.

DW does mention $AVH when asked in investor presentations, and his key message is to draw on the complementarity of the products. On LinkedIn, DW recently called out and congratulated $AVH when they got their ReCell GO FDA approval recently.

In practice, there is huge variety and complexity in wounds types and seriousness (burns just being one segment). So while there are cases where a surgeon might just use BTM and others where they might just use ReCell, and others where they might he used together, I imagine there are also instances where either one OR the other might be used. In that context, for some surgeons and some wound types they may be an exclusive choice and so there could be an element of competition. (Think of a Venn diagram - usually they don't compete, but in some instances they might.)

I'm not 100% confident on what I've written above - but it is something I am also keeping an eye on.

20
Bear77
Added 4 months ago

Excellent work @lyndonator . I'm at an airport about to catch a flight back to Adelaide. Will comment further once home and hosed.

13

Bear77
Added 4 months ago

What @mikebrisy said @lyndonator - I can't add anything useful - Mike's all over this one, I am a long way behind with my understanding of PNV. Biotechs, both pharma and device companies, or anything related to medicine is well outside my wheelhouse - I only hold this one because they have a product that works and they're selling it and growing at a good clip, and I like their Chairman and they appear to have good management below Board level also. And Mike and others here have me convinced that this is one worth backing. Good work on that Straw @lyndonator - comprehensive. You're asking and answering the right questions IMO. There will always be more to add as your understanding expands - we learn more avery day - about different things, but the basic framework you're employing is solid, and the research is solid too.

26