Avita Medical, Inc. Common Stock KOL event

Thank you, Katie. As surgeons, we need temporary wound coverage that bridges excision and definitive skin grafting. Traditionally, that role has been filled by allograft, but allograft has limitations, including cost, availability, and workflow. The question we wanted to answer was straightforward: Can PermeaDerm provide a clinically comparable alternative while reducing the cost of care? That's the rationale behind the PermeaDerm-I study. This is a randomized controlled trial involving 40 patients with wounds covering up to 30% of total body surface area. Following excision, patients received either PermeaDerm or allograft during the temporization period before undergoing split-thickness skin grafting. Patients were then followed for 8 weeks. Importantly, we looked at multiple endpoints. We evaluated what matters in clinical practice: graft take, healing, inflammation, adverse events, and surgeon experience.

We also measured the practical aspects that matter to hospitals, including preparation time, application time, and the cost of treating the wound. Taken together, these endpoints were designed to determine whether PermeaDerm could deliver comparable clinical performance while offering meaningful economic advantages over Allograft. Collectively, 11 burn centers contributed data to the study and are listed here on this slide. The participation of multiple investigators across diverse institutions and patient populations help demonstrate that these findings are representative of real-world burn and wound care, rather than the experience of a single center. Turning to the results, the primary endpoint of the study was met. PermeaDerm reduced treatment cost by 70% compared with Allograft, and that difference was statistically significant. If you look at the chart on the left, the difference is immediately apparent.

On a cost per percent TBSA treated basis, the mean cost was $148.70 for PermeaDerm versus $497.10 for Allograft. For clinicians and hospitals, that's a meaningful result. It demonstrates that PermeaDerm can deliver the temporary wound coverage we need while substantially reducing the cost of care. Put another way, PermeaDerm reduced costs by approximately $348 for every 1% of TBSA treated, highlighting the potential economic impact in routine clinical practice. The workflow benefits were just as compelling as the cost findings. PermeaDerm reduced preparation time by nearly 96% compared with Allograft. The reason is straightforward. Unlike Allograft, PermeaDerm does not require tissue tracking, thawing, or meshing, so it's ready for use immediately. Once in the hands of the surgeons, application time was comparable between the two groups. The key question, of course, is whether those economic and workflow advantages came at the expense of healing.

Based on these results, the answer is no. Healing outcomes were highly comparable between the two groups. At one week following grafting, approximately 94% of PermeaDerm patients achieved at least 95% graft take, essentially the same as Allograft. By eight weeks, all patients in both groups had achieved wound healing, demonstrating comparable progression to definitive closure. Taken together, these findings show that PermeaDerm delivered meaningful cost and workflow advantages while maintaining the outcomes surgeons expect when using temporary wound coverage. As these products are used in medically complex burn patients, safety is an extremely important part of the study. Reassuringly, there were no PermeaDerm-related adverse events, and overall, adverse events were numerically lower with PermeaDerm than Allograft, including fewer study area events. Wound bed biopsies also showed no meaningful differences in inflammation between groups. Overall, these findings support the safety of PermeaDerm as a temporary wound coverage option.

Investigators and patients both reported high satisfaction with PermeaDerm, with 100% in each group rating it satisfied or very satisfied. This is an important practical signal, suggesting the product is well-tolerated by patients and easy to incorporate into a surgeon's operative workflow. The aggregate data we've reviewed is supported by what we observed in individual patients. This slide shows a comparative case example illustrating how PermeaDerm performed relative to Allograft. These two patients were similar in age and had wounds with similar size, mechanisms of injury, as well as wound location. Following excision of these full-thickness burns down to fat, both wounds required temporary coverage before autograft placement. As you can see, both products provided effective wound protection throughout the first several days. An important difference, however, is that PermeaDerm is transparent, allowing the surgeon to directly visualize the wound bed without removing the dressing.

That visibility can make ongoing assessment easier while maintaining wound coverage, something that isn't readily available with allograft on the wound bed. At one week, the PermeaDerm and allograft were removed, and autograft was applied. The images on the right of the screen are 8-week follow-up and demonstrate comparable healing outcomes. This representative case illustrates that PermeaDerm provided effective interim coverage in a manner that was clinically comparable to allograft, with the added practical advantage of visualization of the wound bed without removal of the product. Taken together, the data from the trial suggests that PermeaDerm delivered comparable clinical results with less workflow burden and lower cost. We saw comparable graft take and healing, no difference in safety or inflammatory profile, and high satisfaction from both surgeons and patients.

From a practical standpoint, PermeaDerm also simplified workflow by eliminating thawing, meshing, and tissue bank logistics while remaining easy to integrate into clinical protocols. PermeaDerm is also predictable as it comes in standardized configurations, unlike allograft, which can vary in size and thickness depending on donor and vendor. PermeaDerm is a synthetic product that is not subject to the supply constraints or donor availability limitations that can possibly be associated with cadaver skin. Economically, the product demonstrated a 70% reduction in product cost. Together, these findings support PermeaDerm as a temporizing option with meaningful operational and economic advantages. I will now pass over the presentation to Dr. Sharon, who will be talking about her clinical experience with the product.