C. Mills
Analyst · Lake Street
Thank you, Bernadine, and thank you all for joining us today. It is an exceptionally busy and exciting time for us at Elutia, and I'm eager to get you up to speed on our progress. Here's how we'll spend our time. First, the need. It is serious and the lack of attention being paid to it by industry is astonishing. Infection was a major focus at last month's meeting of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons in Houston. It came up in every one of the 11 breast research sessions, yet there were no commercial products addressing it and no company on the exhibit floor was talking about a solution. That market dislocation has created a tremendous opportunity for Elutia. Second, we'll review the great progress the team is making on NXT-41X. Our key GLP antimicrobial study met its predetermined endpoints. Surgeon feedback on the actual product was very favorable and NXT-41X is set to head to FDA this quarter. Then Matt will walk you through how we funded ourselves through launch without an equity offering. He'll also cover our cardiovascular business and its remarkable growth, take you through the third quarter results and end with the milestones ahead. Then we'll open the line for your questions, including the milestones ahead, including some that were actually brought in by you. Let me start with the need because that is where everything at Elutia begins. Infection in plastic and reconstructive surgery is common. It is serious and it remains unsolved. Over the next few slides, I'll show you what surgeons themselves presented on at this year's national meeting because their data and insights make the case better than we ever could. The ASPS meeting was in Houston last month and to me, one of the most astonishing things that stood out above the rest was infection. There were 11 scientific sessions devoted to breast research. Infection risk and prevention were discussed in every one of them. Of the 135 research presentations, 70% or 52% addressed infection. Infection wasn't only covered in the research sessions, however. The conference included an entire course called 28 years later, current strategies in salvaging the infected implant. Think about that. Surgeons have been fighting implant infection for decades, and it is still one of the biggest problems plastic and reconstructive surgeons face today. The data presented at the meeting were sobering. Investigators from UCSF reported on 1,094 breasts that underwent immediate implant-based surgery. In women who did not receive chemotherapy before surgery, 17.6% developed an infection. In women who did, it was 23%. That is nearly 1 in 4. A second study from Miami Cancer Institute looked at 419 breasts. Every one of those patients received antibiotics before and after surgery and 19.3% still developed an infection. These are leading centers following current best practices and infection still approaches 1 in 4. And in most cases, these are women who are already fighting cancer. Think about that. So why not just do what we normally do and give patients more antibiotics because it doesn't work. A 20-year multicenter study presented at the meeting answered that question definitively. It looked at 4,647 patients across 170 health care organizations, extending antibiotics past 24 hours did not reduce infection at 30 days, 60 days or 90 days. And the biology explains why. Systemic antibiotics travel through the blood and mastectomy closes off the very blood vessels that would carry those drugs to the surgical site. You can give more drug but it can't get to where it needs to go, which brings me back to what struck me most in Houston. In the session rooms, in the hallways at the receptions, surgeons were focused on infection, 70 presentations across all 11 breast research sessions. Then I walk into the exhibit floor and found a sea of commodity surgical matrices. There were literally 25 on the market and none are demonstrably different from the next but no commercial offering for infection. No one was even talking about it. On one side, you have surgeons and their patients living with this problem. On the other, an industry that hasn't offered them a solution. That gap is the unmet need. It is the reason Elutia exists, and it is exactly what we intend to fix with NXT-41X. Now let me turn to how we intend to close that gap. NXT-41X is our lead drug delivery program. Our key GLP study is complete. Our manufacturing is set for commercial production, and we plan to submit NXT-41X to FDA this quarter. Let me walk you through where our programs stand. We currently have 2 product development programs and both are on track. I want to be clear that they are on separate submissions on independent time lines. First, NXT-41, our biological surgical matrix without drug. The 510(k) is submitted. The review is progressing as expected, and we anticipate a clearance decision this quarter, and we have every reason to believe it will be favorable. However, it is largely academic at this point. NXT-41 has already done its job, which was to discover and answer FDA's questions about the base matrix. We have no intention of commercializing NXT-41. It broke the regulatory [indiscernible] for NXT-41X and everything that we learned from it has been built into the NXT-41X platform. The more material submission is NXT-41X, our lead drug delivery program. Our key GLP study met its predetermined endpoints, and we plan to submit NXT-41X to FDA this quarter. From there, we anticipate a clearance decision in the second quarter of 2027, a commercial soft launch in the second half of 2027 and a full commercial launch in 2028. That timing reflects our current expectations and is, of course, subject to FDA review. But all in all, it is a very busy but exciting time in R&D and regulatory. This is the study that supports our submission, and it is pretty cool. In a GLP rabbit implant study, NXT-41X met its prespecified performance endpoints. We challenged it with MRSA, a drug-resistant gram-positive form of the most common pathogen in breast surgery, staph aureus. And we then challenged it with E. coli, a particularly nasty gram-negative rod that can cause serious infection and lead to sepsis. And we didn't make this easy. We put the bacteria on the uncoated side of the matrix away from the drug and we added a lot of them. The MRSA challenge was 8 logs. That is 100 million bacteria. The E. coli challenge was 6 logs, 1 million bacteria. Both represent far more contamination than would normally be present in the operating room, creating true worst-case conditions. So the results after 7 days of implantation, we recovered 0 viable bacteria from the NXT-41X samples and surrounding tissue, 0. Contrast that with the matrix without antibiotics. Every animal implanted with the matrix alone developed fulminant colonization by those same pathogens, 0 versus 100%, pretty cool. Data matter, but the surgeon's opinion matters, too, since they are the ultimate decision-maker. While we were in Houston, our NXT-41X surgeon steering committee met in person and their feedback on the design, handling and performance of NXT-41X was both informative and very positive. And while we talked about a number of different product attributes, 2 really stood out as the difference makers. And I wanted to share them with you since this is how a surgeon takes a look at a product like 41X. They put it simply, it's about the drug being in the right place at the right time. The right place to them means powerful antibiotics that are uniformly distributed across the entire surgical site, that's exactly where systemic antibiotics fail to reach. The right time means 30 days of coverage. Why? Because that carries them through drain removal, which usually happens somewhere around day 17. It was simple and it was a powerful message for us to hear and it was gratifying for the team since that's what we designed NXT-41X to do. And we're ready to make it. Our automated drug coating system is set for commercial production. It gives us at least $300 million in revenue capacity at launch and is designed to support a gross margin above 80% at scale. That matters for 2 obvious reasons. First, we certainly don't want to be supply constrained if the product is launching. Second, we want to be able to make money with this product and the margin profile we wanted was built into the manufacturing process from day 1. So when you take a step back and you look at it, I hope you can see what we're creating here, a product for a true unmet medical need, one that already has been proven with our own technology that our own technology can answer and one that we can make money with. And we have the capital and team and intellectual property to see it through. And with that, I'll turn it over to Matt to close out and then be back with you for Q&A.