Nevro or Nuvectra

Quote



anonymous said:
Look, first off, for the people talking Nevro up, just go to an SCS patient forum. spine-health.com seems to be pretty good for SCS stuff. I've never seen complaints like you'll read there. Yeah the IPG is huge - i think it's twice the size of the competitors. A couple people complained that it was so big that it actually cut through their skin from the inside. And people there also complain about hot batteries - theyre big, and have to be recharged daily. And the intense post-surgical pain (probably because it's so big). And, no, Nevro is not a mass market device. Their system is aimed at a particular niche - I'll look it up and see what I can find.

So, for NVTR, nobody else's leads are stretchy. Some significant portion of people don't convert to permanent from trial, b/c complications or poor efficacy (e.g., poor lead placement). NVTR fixes that problem - first, leads are stretchy, so won't break/migrate -> less complications during this trial phase. And they have really awesome electrode technology - they basically figured out a way to make an electrode array that was much smaller, but with the same impedance as the competitors' larger arrays (important so it doesn't use more power). So it's easier to steer into the epidural space. And also, theyre the only one with 12 electrodes on an array (b/c coil-in-coil lead body), which means the doc doesn't have to pick which of the 3 dermatomes to cover - this is huge, by the way - you just cover all dermatomes, and then it's to programming to see which ones to turn off (and they can turn them off, b/c they have triphase electrodes; the other company with independent power sources is only biphase, i believe, which means only positive or negative charges). Between steerability and full dermatome coverage, algovita's efficacy should be relatively high compared to the competitors. And then, once we've converted to permanent, obviously fewer complications (from lead breakage/migration, or roughly 22% of patients) is something that payers, doctors, and patients would all react to positively.

One of the big things here is their platform. So, just filed for SNS approvals today. Have a development agreement with Aleva, which does DBS. Aleva's DBS crushes the current options. The current options have a cylindrical lead tip, and they apply stimulation around the entire cylinder (e.g., the electrode is a single ring). Aleva has a lead tip that's also cylindrical, but they've placed 3 separate electrodes around the ring, instead of having one ring-shaped electrode. And with nvtr's independent power sources, they can offer directional stimulation, which is pretty darn important when we're talking about pumping electricity into the brain.

Once the 12 electrode lead (full 3 dermatome coverage) is placed, then it's just a matter of programming, and they have algorithms that assist here - very doctor friendly. the patient key fob is small and discrete, and the thing only needs to be charged twice per week, despite the fact that it's smaller (volume wise) than the competitors.

Regarding HF, they already go up to 2000 hz or w/e. As mentioned, Greatbatch bought CCC. And mgmt has indicated that their IPG has capabilities that they haven't requested approval for yet, b/c they wanted to approve the simplest device (to get a literature based approval). So, fairly certain that the device does have the ability to go up to 10, where nevro is, but they haven't activated that feature. MRI compatibility coming out in the first half of this year, I think. Accelerometer might be included in that upgrade, too. And, b/c the platform device is constant across indications, I think they'll be able to upgrade all of them without actually having to do multiple product upgrade and fda approval processes (not certain here, but fairly sure). So, they'll be able to upgrade their whole portfolio at once - talk about improving time to market.

They actually do have a number of breakthrough technologies, including the stretchy lead body and the tiny electrode array. There's alot of detail i haven't gone into b/c space constraints, too. And these are things the industry has been after, and hasn't been able to get. I know this from reading Medtronic's patents - they call out what the "long felt needs" of the industry are. But they're not engineering bells and whistles, which it seems you guys are looking for. It is truly an advanced, differentiated product. It's just that the differentiation / tech aspects aren't really glittery. But if you read those patents of theirs, it's pretty impressive. I think it's just a question of "Can they sell it?" Too early to tell, but i guess we'll see.
Click to expand...

You definitely win the word count battle.
 


anonymous said:
Your writing style is strikingly similar to a few of the NVTR patients on spine-health.com. Interesting coincidence.
Click to expand...

Maybe, except I'm a 25 year old who just likes stocks...but hey, more than happy to take the other side of this trade. It just seemed like none of you understood what they had done with Algovita, which is understandable - it was a bit of a treasure hunt tracking it all down - so I just wanted to provide some info for you. and also, since it seems like you're all fairly well informed, was sort of hoping to see if I misunderstood any of that info...

also, I can link a few other forums with similar info to spine-health, if you want to see. and the nevro comments go back years, too, by the way..
 


anonymous said:
That's not evidence. That's a rambling potpourri of opinions, nonsense and falsehoods. Nevro is the only company that can run HF because they have a patent from 1500hz and up.

Nevro market cap: 2.5-3B.
Nuvectra market cap: 60-80M.

That's all anyone with a brain needs to know.
Click to expand...

one of nuvectra's risks in its 10-k basically implies that, were they to do the HF thing, they would be exposed to patent litigation risk. it's not a general patent litigation risk disclosure - the language is tailored such that it sounds as if they're specifically talking about CCC's HF ipgs. And again, GB owns CCC. So your point is a good one. But two things. 1) you can't patent a frequency, and 2) regardless of whether nevro has the patent, my only claim was that their IPG had the capability to ramp up to 10khz. So, that's a separate issue than the patent issue. So, yes on "rambling potpourri," but also, no on "opinions/nonsense/falsehoods." I'll look at nevro's patents re: "can you patent a frequency" and get back to you.

Second, exactly. this is exactly my point - the market caps. Don't know if you're familiar with spinoff dynamics, and specifically orphan spinoffs, and specifically orphan spinoffs where mgmt seems to not be interested in marketing the company (e.g., so they can poach salespeople with stock options at insanely low strike prices). That's why I learned about this, because of this particular dynamic. When they were spun, there was a complete information void. You can go to any site where folks post their investment ideas, and the best analysis for nuvectra until about a month ago was that it was trading for less than the cash on it's books. They still aren't really marketing the company, but their IR presentations are getting into more detail on specifics, etc. I'd expect this to ramp once sales start coming in, salesforce gets bigger, clinical trial data comes out, etc. Why do you think Nuevectra is trading so low? It's because nobody even knows about it. Your implicit argument is market efficiency - nevro is 2.5-3b, and nvtr is 50-60m, so nevro is awesome and nuvectra sucks, obviously. My point is that the spinoff dynamic is an explanation for why there's market INEFFICENCY. there's a reason it's trading at 60-80, and this is your answer. And, actually, it used to trade at about $50m until a month ago. And then someone posted a bunch of information that didn't seem to really be in the public sphere yet (that was me), and we're now at $80. As visibility goes up, so too will the stock.
 


anonymous said:
Go ahead, go work for NEVRO and watch 45% of them get explanted because they DON'T work after 6 months. Also, their programming is a "black box" to physicians so when it doesn't work, they have no way of responding to their patients. Watch Nuvectra start to eat into everyone else. This is the best system I have ever implanted and it kicks Boston's ass!!! The power, fidelity and capability of the Nuvectra IPG far exceed the capabilities of everyone else, including NEVRO. The spiral-wound leads are by far the most robust and their 15-20% stretch capability reduces breakage and migration. I'm not saying that NEVRO or Boston are going to die, but seriously watch Nuvectra start to wow everyone. I know because I have used all of these devices and have never seen results like Nuvectra's.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate? I've been reading not great things about nevro, but where's the explant stat from? And when you say you've used the devices, do you mean you've implanted them?
 


anonymous said:
That's not evidence. That's a rambling potpourri of opinions, nonsense and falsehoods. Nevro is the only company that can run HF because they have a patent from 1500hz and up.

Nevro market cap: 2.5-3B.
Nuvectra market cap: 60-80M.

That's all anyone with a brain needs to know.
Click to expand...

Yeah and you're wrong on 1500 hz and up. Algovita is approved up to 2000 hz. they could still have valid, defensible patents, but it's not for anything over 1500 hz
 


anonymous said:
Yeah and you're wrong on 1500 hz and up. Algovita is approved up to 2000 hz. they could still have valid, defensible patents, but it's not for anything over 1500 hz
Click to expand...

I love the complete certainty with which you have no idea what you're talking about.

And for the genius above who says "you can't can't patent a frequency" tell that to the US patent office, which has granted a large bundle of patents to Nevro for exactly that.
 


anonymous said:
one of nuvectra's risks in its 10-k basically implies that, were they to do the HF thing, they would be exposed to patent litigation risk. it's not a general patent litigation risk disclosure - the language is tailored such that it sounds as if they're specifically talking about CCC's HF ipgs. And again, GB owns CCC. So your point is a good one. But two things. 1) you can't patent a frequency, and 2) regardless of whether nevro has the patent, my only claim was that their IPG had the capability to ramp up to 10khz. So, that's a separate issue than the patent issue. So, yes on "rambling potpourri," but also, no on "opinions/nonsense/falsehoods." I'll look at nevro's patents re: "can you patent a frequency" and get back to you.

Second, exactly. this is exactly my point - the market caps. Don't know if you're familiar with spinoff dynamics, and specifically orphan spinoffs, and specifically orphan spinoffs where mgmt seems to not be interested in marketing the company (e.g., so they can poach salespeople with stock options at insanely low strike prices). That's why I learned about this, because of this particular dynamic. When they were spun, there was a complete information void. You can go to any site where folks post their investment ideas, and the best analysis for nuvectra until about a month ago was that it was trading for less than the cash on it's books. They still aren't really marketing the company, but their IR presentations are getting into more detail on specifics, etc. I'd expect this to ramp once sales start coming in, salesforce gets bigger, clinical trial data comes out, etc. Why do you think Nuevectra is trading so low? It's because nobody even knows about it. Your implicit argument is market efficiency - nevro is 2.5-3b, and nvtr is 50-60m, so nevro is awesome and nuvectra sucks, obviously. My point is that the spinoff dynamic is an explanation for why there's market INEFFICENCY. there's a reason it's trading at 60-80, and this is your answer. And, actually, it used to trade at about $50m until a month ago. And then someone posted a bunch of information that didn't seem to really be in the public sphere yet (that was me), and we're now at $80. As visibility goes up, so too will the stock.
Click to expand...

True enough, but you seem to be ignorant to the fact that the equity variance of the spinoff dynamic, specifically the bastard spinoff ratio, will have an inversion effect on short term fractional rates.
 






anonymous said:
Anyone know how Algovita's length of surgery (time) compares to its competitors?
Any plans here for MRI compatible device out of NVTR?
Thanks
Click to expand...

Lead steer...avg time
Retrieval of stylette after it pops out of tip...1 hour
Programmer exchange for one that works...30 minutes
Ipg issues...2 hours

Equals...long damn case
 










anonymous said:
Interesting, you seem to be a minority among your peers. Most of the people I know are having a hard time understanding the advantages of Nuvectra...if there are any. With several recalls and dismal earnings, I would not expect them to be around much longer. Most of their reps have come and gone, only 10 months into commercialization. I just don't see it and I would argue that others would subscribe to my belief and not yours
Click to expand...
 


anonymous said:
Both are total, total garbage. Everything Nuvectra makes is crap, by the way. Total crap, believe me.
Click to expand...

You are making a claim while hiding in anonymity. Further, you make no compelling reasons for us to believe you. You offer no credentials, no case studies, complaints, data, statistics, etc...

Reps and others on this board don't want to hear childish ranting and name calling, they want data, evidence, and reason - so that they may be able to make informed judgments themselves

If you could point to data or studies that Algovita isn't good then we would have no choice but to believe you. But what you did there, good sir, was clip a sentence out of Trump's speech and paste it in the forums - and you convinced no one.
 


Stan C said:
You are making a claim while hiding in anonymity. Further, you make no compelling reasons for us to believe you. You offer no credentials, no case studies, complaints, data, statistics, etc...

Reps and others on this board don't want to hear childish ranting and name calling, they want data, evidence, and reason - so that they may be able to make informed judgments themselves

If you could point to data or studies that Algovita isn't good then we would have no choice but to believe you. But what you did there, good sir, was clip a sentence out of Trump's speech and paste it in the forums - and you convinced no one.
Click to expand...
 




Stan C said:
You are making a claim while hiding in anonymity. Further, you make no compelling reasons for us to believe you. You offer no credentials, no case studies, complaints, data, statistics, etc...

Reps and others on this board don't want to hear childish ranting and name calling, they want data, evidence, and reason - so that they may be able to make informed judgments themselves

If you could point to data or studies that Algovita isn't good then we would have no choice but to believe you. But what you did there, good sir, was clip a sentence out of Trump's speech and paste it in the forums - and you convinced no one.
Click to expand...

Is there any data supporting the efficacy of Algovita?
 



Write your reply...
Top Bottom
Back
Quote