Member Info for NickE

ChatGPT part 4

Key Sources and Validation

Rua Life Sciences - Elast-Eon™ Technology: This source details the general applications and biocompatibility features of Elast-Eon™, including its use in FDA-approved devices​

FDA Approvals and Clinical Data: Evidence from FDA-approved devices using Elast-Eon™ supports its validated biocompatibility and safety​ ​.

Clinical and Preclinical Studies: Published studies on devices using Elast-Eon™ further confirm its biocompatibility and safety through clinical outcomes and long-term implant data​ ​.

Summary

Elast-Eon™ has been thoroughly validated for biocompatibility and safety in structural heart applications. It has undergone rigorous testing, including cytotoxicity, sensitization, systemic toxicity, hemocompatibility, and calcification resistance. Its use in FDA-approved cardiovascular devices, such as annuloplasty rings and transcatheter components, underscores its suitability and reliability for heart valve applications.

ChatGPT part 3

Has Elast-Eon™ already been validated for biocompatibility and safety in other structural heart applications

Elast-Eon™, a proprietary polymer developed by Rua Life Sciences, has indeed been validated for biocompatibility and safety in various structural heart applications. This material has undergone extensive testing to meet regulatory standards and has been successfully used in several cardiovascular devices. Here’s a detailed overview:

1. Biocompatibility Validation

Tests Conducted:

Cytotoxicity: Elast-Eon™ has been tested for cytotoxicity to ensure that it does not induce cell death or inhibit cell growth. This is crucial for materials that come into prolonged contact with body tissues​ (50Wheel)​.

Sensitization and Irritation: The material has undergone testing for sensitization and irritation to confirm that it does not provoke allergic reactions or localized irritation​ (Blackbird)​.

Systemic Toxicity: Evaluations have been conducted to ensure that Elast-Eon™ does not produce systemic toxic effects when implanted in the body​

Hemocompatibility: Elast-Eon™ has been tested for compatibility with blood, including assessments for thrombogenicity (tendency to cause blood clots) and hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells)​

Calcification Resistance: Elast-Eon™ is known for its resistance to calcification, which is critical for maintaining the functionality of heart valves over time​

2. Safety Validation

Testing and Applications:

Long-Term Implant Studies: Elast-Eon™ has been evaluated in long-term implantation studies to demonstrate its durability and stability within the body​

Use in FDA-Approved Devices: The material is already employed in FDA-approved devices for cardiovascular applications, such as annuloplasty rings, which confirms its safety profile​

Clinical Data: Clinical data from devices using Elast-Eon™ support its safety, showing favorable outcomes and minimal adverse reactions in patients​

3. Applications in Structural Heart Devices

Specific Uses:

Annuloplasty Rings: Elast-Eon™ is used in annuloplasty rings, devices that are employed to reshape and support the valve annulus during valve repair procedures​ (Blackbird)​​ (MASV)​.

Transcatheter Devices: It has been incorporated into components of transcatheter devices, where its durability and flexibility are advantageous​.

Part 2

Total Timeframe for Mechanical and Physical Testing

The combined timeframe for comprehensive mechanical and physical testing of Elast-Eon™ in a new heart valve product is estimated to be 8 to 12 months. This includes:

Fatigue Testing: 3-6 months

Hydrodynamic Performance: 2-4 months

Wear and Tear Testing: 3-6 months

Regulatory Compliance Documentation: 1-2 months

This accelerated testing schedule leverages prior biocompatibility data and focuses solely on performance metrics crucial for heart valve functionality.

Conclusion

Focusing on mechanical and physical testing for Elast-Eon™ in new heart valve applications, given its established biocompatibility in other devices, streamlines the evaluation process to around 8 to 12 months. This approach assesses the material’s performance, durability, and compliance with heart valve standards without redundant biocompatibility testing.

ChatGPT again:- part 1

Mechanical and Physical Testing: Overview and Timeframe

**1. Mechanical Durability Testing

Tests Involved:

Fatigue Testing: Evaluate the material’s endurance under repetitive stress, simulating the cyclic loading experienced by heart valves​ .

Tensile and Compressive Strength: Measure the material’s resistance to stretching and compressing forces​ ​.

Flexibility and Elasticity: Determine how well the material can flex and return to its original shape without damage​

Timeframe:

Duration: Typically, mechanical durability testing takes about 3-6 months, depending on the complexity of the tests and the need for long-term cyclic loading studies​ (50Wheel)​​ (Blackbird)​.

**2. Hydrodynamic Performance Testing

Tests Involved:

Effective Orifice Area: Measure the valve’s opening size and flow characteristics to ensure efficient blood flow​.

Regurgitation Testing: Assess the backflow of blood through the valve to ensure minimal leakage​ ​

Pressure Drop: Evaluate the pressure difference across the valve to ensure it does not impede blood flow​ ​.

Timeframe:

Duration: Hydrodynamic performance testing can be completed in approximately 2-4 months. This includes setting up test protocols, running tests under various conditions, and analyzing the data​ .

**3. Wear and Tear Testing

Tests Involved:

Abrasion Resistance: Test for material degradation due to friction and wear​ (50Wheel)​.

Long-term Simulation: Simulate the material’s performance over extended periods to ensure it withstands the conditions of use​ (50Wheel)​​ (Blackbird)​.

Timeframe:

Duration: Wear and tear testing typically requires 3-6 months, as it involves long-term exposure and repeated testing to simulate years of use​ (Blackbird)​.

**4. Compliance with Regulatory Standards

Tests Involved:

ISO 5840 Compliance: Ensure that all mechanical tests meet the standards for heart valve devices, particularly those set by the ISO 5840 series​ ​.

Timeframe:

Duration: Documentation and compliance checks can add another 1-2 months to the overall timeline, depending on the complexity of the regulatory requirements​ ​.

Total Timeframe for Mechanical and Physical Testing

The combined timeframe for comprehensive mechanical and physical testing of Elast-Eon™ in a new heart valve product is estimated to be 8 to 12 months. This includes:

Fatigue Testing: 3-6 months

Hydrodynamic Performance: 2-4 months

Wear and Tear Testing: 3-6 months

Regulatory Compliance Documentation: 1-2 months

Part 2

**3. Intellectual Property (IP) and Exclusivity:

The strength and scope of Elast-Eon™'s patents, along with exclusivity rights in specific medical applications, would significantly impact the deal’s value. Comprehensive IP protection can enhance the bargaining position of Rua Life Sciences.

**4. Stage of Development and Regulatory Approval:

The level of clinical validation and regulatory approval (e.g., FDA, CE mark) achieved for Elast-Eon™ in heart valve applications affects its market readiness and, consequently, its valuation.

3. Estimated Valuation Range

**1. Sale of Rights:

Estimated Value: $150 million to $400 million.

Context: Based on the strategic importance of Elast-Eon™ in structural heart applications and comparable deals in the medical technology space.

**2. Licensing Agreement:

Upfront Payment: $30 million to $100 million.

Milestone Payments: Up to an additional $200 million, contingent on achieving specific development and sales targets.

Conclusion

Rua Life Sciences could potentially receive a valuation in the range of $150 million to $400 million for selling the rights to use Elast-Eon™ in heart valve applications, based on comparable sales and licensing deals. Licensing the technology could also provide substantial immediate and future revenue, combining an upfront payment with milestone-based earnings.

These figures are indicative and would ultimately depend on negotiations, the competitive landscape, and the specific strategic needs of the acquiring company.

Had a bit of fun with ChatGPT:-

ChatGPT

Estimating the potential value of Rua Life Sciences selling the rights to use Elast-Eon™ to a major heart valve company involves analyzing several factors, including comparative sales, market size, and the strategic importance of the material. Below is an overview of what Rua might expect, based on similar deals in the medical devices sector:

1. Comparative Sales and Licensing Deals

Recent Comparable Transactions in Medical Devices:

Gore’s Acquisition of Tactus Technology (2021):

Value: Estimated at around $300 million.

Context: Tactus developed a tactile feedback technology relevant to medical and consumer devices.

Implication: Significant value for proprietary technology applicable across multiple domains.

Medtronic’s Acquisition of HeartWare International (2016):

Value: Approximately $1.1 billion.

Context: HeartWare developed a heart pump technology, relevant to Medtronic's cardiovascular portfolio.

Implication: High valuation for a company with specialized heart technology, indicating premium value for strategic cardiovascular innovations.

Edwards Lifesciences’ Acquisition of CardiAQ Valve Technologies (2015):

Value: $350 million upfront, with additional milestone payments.

Context: CardiAQ developed transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) technology.

Implication: Illustrates substantial upfront payments and additional future incentives for promising cardiovascular technologies.

Licensing and Royalty Agreements:

Johnson & Johnson’s Licensing Agreement with Genmab (2017):

Value: Upfront payment of $50 million, potential for up to $1.5 billion in milestones.

Context: Rights to use Genmab’s proprietary technology in biopharmaceutical applications.

Implication: Significant potential earnings from initial licensing fees and milestones, applicable in a highly specialized medical field.

Boston Scientific’s Agreement with Baylis Medical (2016):

Value: Upfront payment and milestone-based payments totaling approximately $175 million.

Context: Licensing of proprietary technology for structural heart applications.

Implication: High value for technology enhancing existing product lines in the structural heart market.

2. Valuation Factors

**1. Market Size and Growth:

The global heart valve devices market was valued at approximately $8.4 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach around $12.1 billion by 2028, growing at a CAGR of 7.4% .

**2. Strategic Fit:

Elast-Eon™ has unique properties that enhance durability and biocompatibility, crucial for heart valve devices. A strategic buyer may place a high value on the ability to integrate this polymer into existing or new product lines, potentially reducing long-term development costs and improving product performance.

Yes, if ever there is anything that could be termed a realistic ten-bagger then RUA fits the bill. Doesn't mean it will happen of course but there is a decent chance.

With Foldax doing their last funding round at $135m valuation then it only take an offer of about half that solely for RUA Structural Heart to get a £60m plus valuation the other three divisions remaining to give further upside. It would make sense for any interested major player to buy Structural Heart and the relevant IP for the heart valve material rather than pay an upfront fee, milestones as it progresses through trials and ultimately royalties.

I am sure that would be managements preference and the wording of the options RNS certainly made sure investors were made aware of the possible prospect and benefits to directors who are now very much aligned to shareholder aspirations.

Going back to the question of whether a multibagger prospect is realistic I'd say that the material seems to solve some key issues that arise with existing products:- avoids the need for lifetime anti-coagulants , proven, at least internally, as more durable than mechanical valves and those using animal material and not subject to catastrophic failure.

So there is potentially a quick route to a ten bagger via the sale of RUA Structural Heart (say a £50m offer for this segment alone) and a less instant route to three to five bagger through RUA Medical doubling contract manufacturing revenues - say £20m to £35m m/cap once it transitions the Company as a whole to breakeven/profitability. I'd discount RUA Vascular but £7m value can be thrown in for RUA Biomaterials and it's circa £550,000 profit contribution.

Could get both of course (a £50m sale of Structural heart and breakeven for the rest of the group) and get a 15 bagger but that's just being greedy!

I'd like to see another company do a MTA but, who knows, although there is no declared exclusivity with the current agreement, there might be a mutual understanding to wait for this Company's testing and decision within an undeclared but internally known and reasonable timeframe.

I asked the Company about competition and it appears the only main competitor is Foldax but only in India where they are conducting regulatory trials. Foldax raised funds at $135m valuation about a year ago which highlights how under-valued RUA is. I think Foldax complete their Indian trials in late 2025 but then they have to monitor it for five years. So RUA is well ahead of the game of a company valued at $135.

I also asked about the regulatory environment and was advised that devices are approved not specific components or materials. The advantage of ElastEon is the material is proven to work in the clinical environment thus giving a manufacturer greater confidence to use it.

I assume that means that if the heart valve company with the MTA wanted to move forward they could use RUA's material in their existing regulated valve products without having to go through regulatory trials. That's massive for RUA and no doubt a major factor on why they have embarked on a deal for material rather than create a heart valve for licensing.

They do of course have a heart valve for which their engineer achieved an award for its excellence which begs the question whether it could be a commercial offering but I doubt it and it conflicts with their declared strategy. I understand it's just an excellent product used for testing and further development purposes.

Yes I agree the options award creates interesting speculation about timing and potential developments with the MTA. Also I believe they are putting the new patent application for the material within RUA Structural Heart rather than the usual business section holding the IP . RUA structural Heart is being structured for a licensing deal or outright sale I think. So the terms referencing the options kicking in on a return of cash or takeover might be fairly standard but they were made very clear in the RNS - so an indicator of how things could pan out. I think if the MTA does move forward it will result in an a sale of the division and a return of cash rather than a licensing deal depending on the amount offered.

I agree it is a positive development and aligns and incentivises the board. I think it signifies the hope and perhaps expectation for positive developments in due course within the two segments of the business that are most likely to drive the share upwards - Structural Heart and RUA Medical. With the cost savings from the personnel changes It looks like Bill Brown is intent on pushing the Company to break even/profitability as early as possible.

Arguably the stock should be valued at about £15m or 20p now. That's based on average industry revenue multiples for the two profitable businesses as flagged up in recent broker notes without adding anything for cash, Structural Heart and Vascular.

On the back of good growth for RUA Medical (contract manufacturing) then a £20m to 27m/cap or around 30p to 40p is realistic. On the back of the MTA progressing to a commercial license with double-digit royalties then 100p plus is conservative (£60m plus m/cap).

Equity Development has a target of in excess of 100p but they have discounted both Vascular and Structural Heart by 50%. Reasonable for Vascular given the lack of activity but less so for Structural Heart.

I saw one broker note (probably Cavendish) that projected circa £10m per annum royalties from the licensing of RUA's heart valve material supply based on the likes of Edwards or Medtronic doing a deal and gaining a 5% share of the heart valve market for a valve containing RUA's material. I think that was when RUA's strategy was to produce a heart valve and now it's the supply of material so I am not sure how that changes those figures.

If RUA were deemed on target for those figures (5% market share would seemingly be low for either of the two companies referenced ) and given a medical device company type P/E of 71.5 https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/industry/medical-devices/ then that would mean a market cap of £700m or close to £12 a share.

Admittedly, that's getting into fanciful territory. A more likely scenario is a takeover for say £60m plus (100p plus ). RUA just needs whoever is involved in the MTA to move forward with it. Big companies, however, are notoriously slow.

The risk-reward appears good given RUA Medical does look solid and set for growth which more than underpins the current valuation given the cash held and reduced losses. Effectively, it allows exposure to the blue sky element for free.

To list on the main Saudi index would mean an issue of an additional 30% shares for either Kefi or GMCO to meet the criteria.

On the more NOMU – Parallel Market. it's 20%

https://www.saudiexchange.sa/wps/portal/saudiexchange/listing/become-an-issuer

It would mean significant dilution but they have to resolve the funding gap by some means. I still think it would be worth listing on the main market and perhaps they wouldn't have to issue shares with the AIM share price as the reference but I suspect they would and then potentially very significant share price appreciation should start post listing.

The alternative is to await TK funding sign-off and then do a farm-out which would lead to a decent share price uplift and then list. With a farm-out the funding of ARTAR would be resolved and then the 20%/30% dilution less justifiable. I would prefer the first option of listing on the main Saudi exchange and then Kefi can keep hold of all of the 80% stake in TK and also fund Saudi etc.

Some shareholders won't like either option but, in my view, these are the only two viable options that solve the current predicament. I think they are much more preferable to continued discounted placings on AIM and it's clear HAA recognises this.

Either option that results in a well-funded company with valuable assets and the funds to add to these assets via explorations should ultimately add significant value.

Rob, I agree that the best scenario by far would be a dual listing in Saudi. HAA did rule it out a few months back referencing that no junior miner was listed there amongst other unspecified complication issues. He also mentioned that it would be much easier to list in Ethiopia and the relevant body for the new exchange and even asked Kefi if they would list.

I wonder if he is revisiting the potential for a Saudi listing via GMCO. The issue will be that there will have to be some stock made available for an IPO and how much would both Kefi and ARTAR have to relinquish to satisfy the market requirements for free float? Secondly, is ARTAR willing to go down that route?

It would be easier if Kefi listed itself and almost certainly the dilution would be well worth it for shareholders given it would resolve funding issues and the stock would get a significant re-rating. Given the wording that the structure of GMCO is being appraised for mutual benefit, that does perhaps imply a GMCO potential listing. That would be a game-changer if that happens. I don't see a farm-out for TK until funding is formalised as anticipated in September as Kefi wouldn't get an optimum price right now, but that would also resolve funding issues.

Completely agree Jimzi, cash and two profitable strands to the business make it compelling risk reward with the two blue sky elements thrown in for free. Structural heart looks the most likely to bring a substantive re-rating but the contract manufacturing side also has the capacity (no pun intended!) to achieve that. Judging by a move up in level 2 by one MM it looks like the trades today are buys.

Yes, it's an interesting one CTSFO. I sent a query over the weekend to RUA asking if they could explain the anomaly of why they are developing a heart valve given their official line is that they are focusing solely on the material and allowing potential licensees or buyers to develop their own valve.

I assume it is just for assisting with internal and external testing, but it's an interesting development.

As IntrVnus has correctly stated RUA are not attempting to create a commercial valve but have opted to license the material or do an outright sale. I just wonder where the recent news story regarding RUA developing a prototype heart valve (with the engineer winning an award) fits in. I can only assume it's because they need a valve for testing and are not developing it for commercialisation, quite curious though.

"Our 2024 Young Engineer of the Year Award (YEYA24) in partnership with The Incorporation of Hammermen of Glasgow was presented to Ross McPhillie of RUA Life Sciences for his role in developing a prosthetic heart valve prototype that is transitioning to commercialisation.22 May 2024"

https://www.scottishengineering.org.uk/meet-our-2024-annual-awards-winners/#:~:text=Our%202024%20Young%20Engineer%20of,that%20is%20transitioning%20to%20commercialisation

Of course every holder wants to see an rns that propels the shares to 50p plus over night but RUA is an unusual investment in that it has the blue sky upside of an oil play or exciting biotech going through clinical trials. However, it doesn't have the downsides because it has several years cash and two profitable segments.

So, whilst I await MTA progress from the heart valve company and any potential funder for vascular I do so with the knowledge that RUA is undervalued at current levels and it could even get to a much higher value of 40p to 50p on the profitable segments alone over time if they double contract manufacturing revenues as per their specified objective.

I see they have applied for a patent for the material in Structural Heart and they have specified it will go in that division rather than Rua Biomaterials. I assume that is because it makes licensing agreements easier and there is a chance the MTA heart valve company may want to purchase Rua Structural Heart as a distinct entity rather than the whole company.

Yes, aside from an opportunity to add, the daily ranges are fairly irrelevant for holders awaiting a significant re-rating that could come instantly with news on the MTA or more gradually as the contract manufacturing side and particularly the contract with the gobal company increases revenues.

I see the Cavendish morning note in April following RUA's year end results this year observed there had been a significant smaller reduction in cash to £4m cash rather than their previously estimated £3.3m.

"RUA LIFE SCIENCES (RUA): CORP Strong strategic progress RUA Life Sciences has provided a business update for the year to March 2024, noting revenue shortfalls experienced in H1/24 have been made up by a strong second half. Revenues for the year are therefore expected to be in-line with our forecast £2.2m, while the company notes gross margin will exceed our forecasts, with operating costs remaining tightly controlled. RUA Life Sciences closed FY24 with cash of c£4.0m versus our £3.3m estimate. The company reports significant progress towards its goal of near-term profitability through growing its contract manufacturing business, noting strong progress with a ‘global enterprise’. Finally, RUA has completed a Material Transfer Agreement with a global Heart Valve company covering its composite heart valve material. We believe this update demonstrates excellent progress against the company’s revised strategy."

Interesting to see how Bill Brown valued the two profitable businesses in his Chairman's piece in the Annual Report.

He said for Contract manufacturing "revenue multiples of 7 are paid in the sector" with revenues of £1,625K that gives a value for this strand of Rua's business of £11.375m and of course the target is to double revenues ultimately giving a value of over £22m.

For Rua Biomaterials based on £554k revenues and a 89% margin (after patent costs) he wrote: "Rua considers the cash flows from the business segment as a 'growing perpetuity' which at a discount rate of 12% and growth rate of 5% would value this business segment at around £7m."

Using Bill Brown's (an accountant) figures, the business valuation is supported by the two profitable segments at over £18 million. This valuation could increase by an additional £11 million if the contract manufacturing segment achieves its objective of doubling revenues. This equates to an approximate share value of 28p currently, and about 48p if contract manufacturing revenues are doubled.

These figures are presumably based on prices paid for takeovers in the sector, suggesting they are quite solid. This implies that the blue sky elements, plus cash, are effectively included for free.

I don't believe Rua could separate the profitable businesses in the event of takeover interest for the Vascular and Structural Heart segments, as the patents are likely held within the contract manufacturing segment. However, the value of these two profitable businesses would need to be factored into any valuation even if the acquirer was targeting the blue sky elements.

You could well be on the mark CTSFO regarding Metronic. A mere $100b m/cap. I'd call it sound reasoning rather than ramping!

It could be one of about five majors but my best bet is still Edwards Lifesciences . That's mainly because Rua non-exec, John Ely, previously led a research and development team there. There again, all the majors would be aware of Elast-Eon. Acquiring Rua for say £50m to £60m (which fits with the research note valuation) by either company would just be petty cash.

Rua applied for patent protection sometime before Dec 2023 for the heart valve leaflet material as announced in the MTA update Dec last year so I wonder if the 'partner' (as RUA reference them) would wait for patent grant before making a commercial move - licensing or even a takeover. All the majors will have massive legal teams so would probably do their own internal due diligence on Rua's IP rather than wait for formal grant but it's a possibility.

At 8m m/cap with two profitable businesses (including one that is awaiting a potential significant contract), debt free with several years cash, a steady move towards breakeven/profitability and two blue sky strands under their wing I would love to know of a better risk/reward play on AIM.

I can see where you are coming from as just writing that feels a bit 'rampy' but, as far as I can see, it's an accurate summary of the state of play.