David,
I'm still not fully with you here. First, I don't recall you actually commenting on the efficacy, but rather more on the appearance of dermagraft, which by itself would not be an indicator...if the studies are true, meaning a high heal rate without remission, what exactly did the podiatrist say that would contradict this?
Also, I don't see any companies getting into the diabetic foot ulcer industry by way of tissue engineering in the near-term....all are still a distance away time-wise from the fda indication. Of course there will eventually be competition, but this is the nature of business everywhere. Getting out first, and proving efficacy and gradually becoming a gold-standard would appear to be the bigger tasks at hand. Let everybody else target them after...keeping in mind that this wouldn't be within in the next 6-9 months as far as I can tell, and probably not within a year more than likely. Keep in mind exactly how far along most of these companies are in their clinicals for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.
Regarding your comparison with LIFC, IART, etc., I also have to say that I don't see the comparison. IART I have already given my opinions about, and LIFC is fairly similar...both look generally solid, but with much smaller potential, hence accounting for the differences in valuation. LIFC also just announced not too long ago an offering of an additional 4 million shares. Primarily they are doing alloderm, with uses for burns, reconstructive work, etc...similar to iart, although without the specific indications, so slow in coming. The burn area is the crowded one, and it isn't a big market to begin with. Also, in a managed care environment, getting an fda indication for a specific purpose is very important, as are developing good alliances. In other words, I'd like to hear just where these other companies compare with ATIS in all of these areas in your opinion, as they sure look more like generally small potatoes in comparison at this time to me.
Take care,
Marshall |
