Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc ($JAZZ)

Good morning, everyone, again. Thanks for joining us for this next session with Jazz Pharmaceuticals. I've got Phil Johnson, who's the CFO of the company, along with John Blose and Jack Spinks from the IR team. Phil, thank you so much for taking the time to be with us today. What I'd like to do is maybe turn it over to you for some opening remarks, and then we can dive into a Q&A.

No, definitely appreciate it, Ami. Thank you very much for hosting us today. Looking forward to the opportunity to answer questions that are of interest to you and have already enjoyed some of the interactions we've had with investors through virtual conference, looking forward to further sessions later today. Before I get started, please do note that we'll be making forward-looking statements today. Those are all subject to risks. Actual results could differ materially from what we're describing. Please do consult our SEC filings for a more fulsome disclosure of the risk factors affecting our business. And then if we do refer to guidance today, which I'm sure we will, we're referring to the guidance that we gave on our fourth quarter 2025 earnings call on February 24. So maybe just starting with a high-level overview of where the company is at. 2025 was an exceptional year for Jazz. It was our 21st consecutive year of top line revenue growth. Strong commercial execution across our diversified portfolio delivered record total revenues of $4.3 billion. for our largest product, Xywav, we start 2026 with a really strong position, roughly 16,000 patients at the end of last year, taking that particular product, excellent payer contracts in place to begin the year. And our position is the only low sodium oxybate, something that's really, I think, resonating well with physicians and patients, places us in a position of strength as we enter a year with some more uncertainties, in particular, the introduction of generic high sodium oxybate and the introduction of some daytime wake-promoting agents in the back half of the year as well. We're focused on sustaining the really strong execution and launch mode for Medeso as well as that first-line maintenance indication for Zepzelca and reinforcing those differentiated profiles that we have for both Epidiolex and Xywav, our 2 largest products. 2026 total revenue is expected to be $4.25 billion to $4.5 billion. That -- we're gunning for our 22nd consecutive year of revenue growth, expect double-digit growth across our epilepsy and oncology franchises driven by Epidiolex, Medeso and XYHirRA. And then as we talked, expect Xywav to be flat relative to 2025 to up mid-single digits. We're excited on the pipeline side as well, some progress that we've made, presented practice-changing dataatamab for both zanidatamab in HER2-positive first-line metastatic GEA at ASCO GI and also the data we presented last year for Zepzelca in the first-line maintenance setting for extensive stage small cell lung cancer, completed the sBLA submission to the FDA under also the real-time oncology review program for zani in first-line GEA -- that could result in our expectation is we will get an approval and launch in the second half of this year. And also at our last call, we did notice that -- or did note that the FDA granted breakthrough designation for zani in this particular setting as well. We did submit the abstract from the ASCO GI presentation to NCCN for their consideration for inclusion in guidelines. And as soon as we have presentation -- or sorry, publication, I should say, in a top-tier journal, which we expect in the near term, we'll submit those data as well to NCCN to support potential guideline inclusion there. And then lastly, I'd say on zani first-line GEA, we do expect, as stated before, that second interim overall survival readout for Arm B, the doublet to occur mid this year. More broadly on the zani development program, we're seeing continued strong enrollment of patients into EMPOWER, the metastatic breast cancer study underway where we'll be the first to generate really important data in patients who either progressed on or are intolerant to En HER2. We're confident that zani can play a really meaningful role in this setting, aim to complete enrollment in the study in the first half of next year with top line data late in 2027, early in 2028. And then the pan tumor trial also is enrolling well. On dergabipprone, we do expect by year-end this year or early 2027, the first interim overall survival analysis from the ACTION study that studying dgabprone in that first-line setting of H3K27M mutant diffuse glioma. On the business development front, we made some great progress last year, both with the Chimerix acquisition as well as the licensing deal with Saniona in the epilepsy space. We do expect to have more deals this year to announce, and we're in a great position financially to transact with that's with licensing or M&A, having finished last year with $2.4 billion in cash and investments and strong cash flows. So looking forward to further bolstering our future growth outlook as well as building out, as Rene had talked about earlier this year, our refined corporate strategy focusing on rare disease. So great momentum. We just had a recent, I think, all-time closing stock price high the other day as well. So lots of great momentum in the company and looking forward to a great year in '26 and beyond. questions.

Yes. No, first of all, congratulations on all the momentum that we are seeing with the progress as well as it's being reflected in the stock price. Maybe I wanted to kick us off with the comment that you made around sort of Rene talking about the shift in focus and strategy of the company to rare diseases. Could you elaborate on what that truly means in terms of your prioritization across the different segments of the business, whether it's CNS, oncology and some of the assets in both CNS and oncology could be viewed as rare diseases as well. So what does that really mean in terms of how you prioritize investments in your portfolio, but also how you think about business development?

Yes. I think in reality, Jazz is and has been a rare disease company, even though we've talked about our business, as oncology and neuroscience, in effect, all of our currently marketed products and all of our successes have been in places where they're effectively rare diseases. And we have divested some opportunities that had broader application, thinking of Sunosi back in the day, for example. So I do think it's a refinement of the strategy, not necessarily a revolution of the strategy. It is also the case that we have been looking in select cases at some investment opportunities that would have been more broad. And those are ones that we're saying de novo, we're not going to do that anymore. We will focus on those things that are rare disease within areas that are existing strengths of ours like epilepsy, oncology and sleep, but also look to get into new areas of rare disease as well. should something that is either internally developed or licensed or acquired lead us into something that is a broad disease, we'll certainly want to look at how we maximize value. We're certainly doing that, I think, effectively with Zanidatamab as we initially brought that in, thinking of its potential in biliary tract cancer and gastric cancer and now see some great potential in breast cancer, which is a larger tumor type. So we won't turn away those opportunities, but that won't be the focus. We'll be really looking to build in rare disease where we've got some demonstrated capabilities that we think allow us to be very successful getting those molecules to patients and also creating positive return for shareholders. There's an important differentiation that Rene pointed out in the strategy that I think would be welcome news for investors as well. We recognize that in areas that we have strong pre-existing expertise, including in-house expertise, that we can and should be in a position to invest across the broad spectrum of opportunities from marketed products all the way back into preclinical, like we did with Saniona last year in the epilepsy space. We do expect to get into one or more additional rare disease areas. We want to take more measured risks as we make those entries. So we'd be looking probably at things that are post proof of concept. So post Phase II or Park that are on market as our initial entry. I could see us doing something that is maybe not post proof of concept for that molecule, but that concept has already been proved out by another molecule, and we think we have the best-in-class. But we wouldn't go earlier than that. Once we've then established greater expertise and have a more solid foundation upon which to make those investment decisions, then you would expect to see us going into Phase I or even preclinical in those areas.

Maybe I want to sort of layer on, on top of that and try and understand how you're thinking about business development, and it's always been very core to Jazz's strategy. And Rene, as you've gone in new role, reemphasized that, that continues to be one of the pillars of the strategy. But I think over the years, Jazz has done a wide variety of deals. For example, the GW transaction, Zani, Modeso, I think they are all different in scale at the time when you made those acquisitions. But they've all sort of ended up helping you achieve the direction that has set out -- has been set out for the company. But given that you are about to launch or expand the indication for zani, you have maybe a line of sight into breast cancer data, continue to grow some of your other end market products. What is the priority in terms of bringing on either a mid-stage asset versus a much more transformational deal that can add another big pillar, even if it's in rare disease, another big pillar to the company.

Yes. No, great question. Before I actually get to answer your question, I do want to just give a quick aside. The company is in think a longer arc of time in a really important transformation for more traditional spec pharma into more biotech biopharma. And -- and we announced on the fourth quarter call that we had the first actually Jazz and invented molecule move into the clinic. So while corporate development, I think will always be an important part of how we source molecules to benefit patients and benefit shareholders. Our expectation is that over time, you'll see some portion of those assets that we're bringing to market coming from our own research efforts. We -- through the GW acquisition, got some really good capabilities in the chemistry side of things, actually with Chimerix recently, some great capabilities in biology that we'll continue to build upon -- but I would say, again, longer arc of time, many of the investors, we know maybe have a shorter time frame they're thinking of. But as you think about Jazz overall, please do keep in mind this transformation that we have front and center that we're driving toward as well. In terms of the types of deals, obviously, Pisani and numerics are more representative of both what we're focused on and what's available to us realistically. We look last year as we were revising and refining the strategy, and what were the opportunities in each of the areas we're currently in and then more broadly in rare disease areas that we could move into an Pulpereally was significant substrate in those areas, probably with the 1 exception actually of sleep. We're currently or sort of Orexo and not much else. But I do think the Zane licensing deal has been a really important transaction for us and 1 that can be significant not only for patients but for shareholders in terms of the return Chimerix equally, I think, well was an acquisition, another licensing deal, much later stage, carry market asset is shaping up to be a really great asset both for patients and for shareholders. So we'll look to do both licensing and acquisitions. Those -- I think people should expect the more likely more bolt-on than transformational. I think you can never say never. If facts and circumstances will dictate what makes a ton of sense for us. But most of the things we're seeing in rare disease on the acquisition side are probably in that $500 million to $2.5 billion kind of a range of mass balance. And then licensing, obviously, is more measured investment less upfront within shared economics downstream. But looking to be very active. We have upped the amount of management time and attention we placed on this. We had the press release out earlier this year with Tom Riga, who came to us with the Chimerix acquisition, stepping into that Chief Business Officer role, and he's added great energy and excitement to that area. -- and really pleased to have him working with the Executive Committee and the Board on our future Corpdev activities.

So I'd like to move on to Zane for our next segment of the discussion. You've recently announced that you've submitted the SLA, you've made the submissions for the NCCN guideline changes. -- what is your expectation with regards to the time line around the NCCN guideline change? And maybe given all the data and the excitement around it, -- it would be helpful to get your earliest thoughts on the target addressable market and the peak revenue potential for the product. I was earlier talking with Zymeworks and there are certainly a lot more optimistic and wanted to get your view as well.

Yes, appreciate it. Jack, do you want to pick one? .

Yes, happy to, Phil. And thanks, Ami, for the question. I think I'll start with how fast we've gone to date. We presented top line data here on the HORIZON TAR 1 trial in November. We were able to submit that data presented at ASCO GI. And ultimately, as you mentioned, I submit that SBLA towards the end of February. So the team's gone really quick. I think, in ensuring that we can get this data to market. We've already submitted the NCCN data. So this puts us in a really great spot when we think about launch. If you think about the time line, again, assuming a priority review here, we would hear about the PDUFA 60 days after that submission in late February, assuming a priority review, that would give us 6 months late August PDUFA date. So we'll be hearing about that soon. But that keeps us square in that second half of this year launch time line for GA. So we're quite excited. Again, we have our tour. We have breakthrough therapy designation. So I think a lot of positives here, and we hope to hear about that doda soon. No update on the NCCN guideline timing, Amy. We have submitted that. It's a bit out of our control. But when we think about when the regularly scheduled meetings are, we know there's 1 in August. Again, we hope to have an off-cycle review. But I would note it becomes less relevant if you have an earlier launch. So I think those are things we're paying attention to and thinking about as we look to launch later this year. And maybe I'll just address the last piece of your question, when we're thinking about the addressable market for Certainly, we think it's quite exciting. We are approved and indicated in second-line B2C. That's a very slow patient population. When we think about broader HER2-positive BDC in the U.S., you call it 3,000 patients. Again, we're talking about just second line where we're through today. We have the ongoing registrational trial in first line. But that second line indication is very small. So when you think about GEA broaden. This data we've submitted would indicate us for first-line GEA. That's potentially you're looking at an addressable patient population who are HER2 basis around 8,000. So it's a substantially larger patient population relative to our currently indicated. Globally, it's much larger around 63,000. So certainly excited through the launch. We think the data themselves, the data speaks for themselves. They're quite excited. When you think about that launch, that uptake, having strong data here is very helpful, and it's something we certainly think we have -- so looking forward to getting the PDUFA date and looking forward to launch potential in CCM listing, all exciting coming this year.

I want to move to the breast cancer programs. Obviously, you've demonstrated that Zane can be beneficial for patients post in HER2 in GEA. How does that sort of increase your level of excitement around the potential in breast cancer? Is there any maybe sort of size up for us what are the pros and cons for its applicability in breast cancer. What is different about breast cancer as an indication and the competitive space there that may make it different or give you more confidence based on the data that you've seen in GEA in breast cancer.

Jack, why don't you start off and then I may complement. .

Sure. Yes. So I think that's a great question, Amit. Breast cancer is on the whole, I would say a more competitive space. But I do think there's an interesting space where they can play here. When we think about the trial we have ongoing the Phase III EMPOWER breast cancer trial. This is a patient population that's looking at patients who have progressed on in HER2 or are intolerant to HER2 -- so that space is really wide open. There's not a HER2-targete that's generating data there, and we can be the first to do that. Again, that -- as Phil mentioned earlier, that data is reading out late late next year, early '28. And I think having that data really helps inform treatment decisions post in HER2, which today, there's not a good guideline in breast and set for what should you receive in terms of HER2 target agents posted HER2 we certainly do have data being generated to date that's already been generated in post in HER2 patients. And I think Zane's MOA really leads itself to having a positive trial here. I would note importantly here, and you mentioned some of the gives and takes. I think it's really important to think about what this trial is looking at addressing. What's what's the experiment being run here? Your GEA data was is enadatumab a better HER2-target agent than Herceptin. At the end of the day, that's what we were testing. Our Phase III EMPOWER trial the comparison is Herceptin chemo. So we -- yes, different indications. So we will certainly need to see that data we want to have the Phase III data to inform those decisions. But when we think about what we are testing against is added a better HER2-targeted agent than Herceptin in breast cancer -- we know the answer in GEA, it's definitively yes. And so I think when we look to this breast cancer trial, I think we're quite excited, given we have that GA data given we have data in patients who have progressed on TDXC, -- so we need to generate the data. Ultimately, we need to read that data out. But I think what we have to date is really promising in terms of what this trial has potential for. And then we have this late-line trial. We also have an ongoing power breast cancer trial in neoadjuvant adjuvant patients, which I think is equally exciting. That's a little bit longer dated. But again, when we think about where Zanadatatacan play, and I do want to take a step back briefly because it's not that we have to say we need to be in HER2. We can say, Zanadatatub can play in these areas can look at novel combinations across the HER2-positive space in breast cancer and beyond and say, we can own these spaces, we can generate data that our practice is changing -- so I think we've got a lot to be excited for certainly in this, call it, second-line setting within HER2, but also broadly Phil, I don't know, if you had anything to add there...

Well said, your first point was what I wanted to make sure I got Alowe're good. Going to the next great.

Excellent. You've also generated some promising data for zani in combination with doxitaxel. -- in first line in HER2 positer breast cancer and some of the data that was presented at ESMO last year. what are your plans for developing further in this patient population?

Yes. It's a great question, Ami. And that data, I think, do service proof of concept. When we think about the response rate we saw, the progression-free survival, that wasn't a fully mature trial. And our partners be 1 presented that data. And I think it's again, when we think about what amdatimab can do in breast cancer patients, this -- that data are certainly very supportive I think I'll leave a little bit on my prior commentary because I don't think we have to go head to head against in HER2. I think the data that they presented in first-line are extremely good. you could argue practice changing. And I think they're set to move and be the first-line standard of care. And I think with Zanidatamab, we don't have to say we need to target beating in HER2 in first line. I think having that data later line post progression is a huge white space, having data in neoadjuvant adjuvant where we can decrease overall toxicity for patients with early-stage breast cancer I think those are all areas where we can play, can we look at novel combinations. We've had data with HR-positive breast cancer patients. We've had data in combination with CD47. So we've had a lot of interesting data in interesting spaces, where we can look at minerals, all still very meaningful without necessarily saying we need to go head to head against HER2 run a very long study. We can instead look at areas, where I think we can effectively commercialize, where we can effectively compete and do so with a high probability of success.

Okay. I'd like to move to Modes next, but maybe is there a plan that you want to highlight anything that might be presented at the AACR meeting this weekend on Zani, particularly? On the pipeline, maybe...

You may be the most up to speed. I'm also going to give an advance notice, I'm not sure if my computer is going to force a restart here. I thought I had said this to not do this until this evening. But if you lose me, that may be what happens. So Jack, do you want to -- anything you got to say on the coming medical meeting?

Yes, I can briefly touch on ACR. I mean there's, I think, some exciting early data. We have data being presented the NeoZAnHER trial, which is an early neoadjuvant study of abating breast cancer. I think that data is certainly exciting. Build on data that's been presented -- when we think about some of the early MOA working that we're presenting a poster on new Zane's MOA and specifically looking at models, preclinical models in activity post TDX. So again, speaking to this breast cancer opportunity, I think that's, again, incrementally helpful. And then we are looking at also presenting some data across JZP-507 and indoor abroad. So I think there's some exciting early data there, Ami. So we're looking forward to presenting that and also obviously looking forward to later in the year with upcoming medical meetings. We have obviously second interim analysis of zanidatamab later this year, launch for set and GA. So a lot of exciting milestones of upcoming.

Yes. Okay. Let's start with Modeso. It's sort of been a promising launch at the outset. Maybe if you could talk about your sort of initiatives to continue to tap into the market and your latest thoughts around the peak revenue potential what it will take to get there? And what is the possibility of achieving above those peak revenue expectations that you put up in?

John, how about you in the mix here.

Sure. Happy to. So Phil mentioned, Amy, why the Chimerix acquisition of edasa was such a good strategic fit for us from business development. strategy standpoint. One of the other reasons is because it represented such an advance for patient care. This product is the first advance for patients with this horrible form of glioma. -- in about 50 years. So there's great hope and excitement among the physician and patient community. -- for the product. And so we're really excited that we were able to get it approved and onto the market so quickly, and we're very excited about the launch as it's progressed so far. -- with all that patient and physician excitement. And I think there are a couple of variables which will help sort of determine what the slope of that launch curve looks like. One of them is the duration of therapy and what that duration of therapy is going to look like. I think we'll emerge with more visibility as we go through the next several quarters. And then the other piece is related to -- sorry, I had a brake.

Therapy.

Yes, the. Thank you, Phil, is related to how many patients there are. And so we think there are about 2,000 patients. And we might be right. We might be wrong about that. There could be more, there could be less. And I think that with a lot of rare diseases, you see when there is a new therapy that comes online, you see patients kind of come out of the woodwork because there's a new option for patients. So I think those are the 2 pieces that are going to really dictate what the slope of the launch curve looks like.

And I think also the peak revenue potential that you asked about on me as well. So -- this is one, it's going to take a while for that first element that John had mentioned to become more apparent to us. So how many months of treatment are we seeing in actual clinical treatment. Again, this is a product that depending on how you measure it, has somewhere in that 22% to 28%, if I'm recalling the numbers correctly response and some pretty long responses. So with the launch having just occurred in August of [indiscernible ...

A computer or did sales computer Okay. There you go. We lost you for a second there, Phil, but you're back.

Okay. So it will take until into this year, year-end and into next year for us to really know how many patients are persisting for much, much longer than the 10 months average that we're assuming -- so that will take a bit of time for it to play out. We're quite hopeful with that. But again, it will take probably into next year for us to really have a good read for the average sneaking mean, not median, duration of response and duration on treatment.

Maybe 1 last point is that we've got the ACTION trial ongoing. And so that trial will get some initial data from, we think, late this year, beginning of next year. And while we do think there is some first-line use going on right now with physicians, that's a trial that could bring that into the label as well.

Yes. Okay. I'd like to switch gears to the sleep franchise or maybe Xi way. You've talked about IHH being the continued sort of growth driver for this drug. Of course, we have the dynamic with generic Xyrem impacting the market a little bit. But could you elaborate on what is it that you're focused on in terms of continuing to drive growth for Ziva this year, particularly. And talk about the backdrop of the competitive landscape potentially that's likely to change. With the Lumeris IH data that's expected soon and then Stepping back, we are seeing an evolution in the face with the orexin data, of course, we've seen less data in IH, but I think that is going to come around the corner. So how are you thinking about the drugs sort of trajectory over the next couple of years?

Yes. So I would say on the overall oxybate front, clearly, for us, Xywave is the product that offers unique benefits in the marketplace right now is the only approved low sodium oxybate and as reflected in our guidance for this year, we expect to be a really important piece of our business moving forward through this year and where we have commented on the future, we still see a really strong role for Xywave beyond '26 largely in IH as you're pointing out, -- so within IH, this is a market that we're still building and raising awareness and education, including in the physician community. So we have significant efforts that continue there in terms of just disease state awareness patient identification. The overall market is large. This is 1 that had seemed to be -- if you look at some of the stated data, maybe half the size of the narcolepsy market, 37,000 are patients relative to the 75 or so in narcolepsy, we continue to have many of our prescribing physicians state that they think they have a similar number of IH patients as they would narcolepsy patients. So there is a lot of growth we see in this market. It's possible that having more than 1 company eventually out marketing could help with that awareness and penetration of the category of oxybate into the IH market. I would say we will continue to have a unique benefit, which is low sodium. This is resonating with patients and physicians currently even in a scenario within the narcolepsy market where now for close to 3 years, we've had a branded high sodium competitor. We've had an AG for the last couple of years, high sodium. We've continued to be adding patients met each quarter, where I think speaks volumes to the health benefits that physicians see with low sodium. This is a patient population where you're talking patients with narcolepsy, orthotics that do have a 2 to 3x increased risk for cardiovascular events. We and others have generated data that shows increasing sodium intake leads to clinically meaningful increases in blood pressure, which is a negative prognostic factor for cardiovascular events. So that benefit will continue to be something that Zial offer that at least the current products would not. Also in IH, while data may be coming soon. My understanding is they can actually market NIH until March of 2028. And in fact, any significant revenues that are generated in non-narcolepsy indications prior to that time, there's a very significant royalty that's paid to Jazz on those. So we will look for sort of coining evolutions what that data looks like -- on other products coming into, whether it's in the narcolepsy space or in IH, orexins in particular, as you know, for a long time, we said we view these as being complementary, not competitive products. I do think, over time, others in the space, whether those are companies acquiring assets that are in the oxybate space and they already have an orexin or KOLs, increasingly, I think, are seeing that these will likely be complementary therapies and not substituted. Data so far looks strongest with orexin in MP1 patients, Narcoletype-1 patients, expect, frankly, to have that first approval coming here later in the year. it's a bit more mixed. I think when we see NT2 data and then still dry out sort of on a of what the data will look like there. But initial data, I'd say doesn't look to be as strong and something like NT2 NT1 and I think a pretty big question mark in IH. But Certainly, we would welcome if there are daytime wake-promoting agents that are helping these patients, whether those are narcolepsy patients or IH patients to experience better outcomes, phenomenal, but we do see a continued really strong role for oxybate to play in a strong role for a low sodium oxybate like site try to me I think, you are on mute Ami. Trying to read your lips.

I thought you could. So maybe just a quick follow-up on that. We've heard from almost every expert that we've spoken with or some of the other companies in the space that they view the oxybate as complementary. And I think there's an effort to generate more data on sort of sleep architecture with the orexins. So I'm curious if from your perspective, you're thinking about generating any additional data on Xi way to further sort of elucidate the impact on nighttime seed architecture. So Phil, I think we lost you for a second there. I'm happy to repeat the question.

I may need to go ahead and have Jack and John tag team on this time getting us a multiple cycling of this coming out of. I mean just... Rejoin. Sorry, I really apologize. .

Yes. Happy to jump in here, Amy. I think our team is continuously looking at what additional data we can generate. I think it will be helpful once in orexin is approved, makes it a little bit easier to run these kind of studies. But I think when we think about overall super architecture we certainly see the benefit of having an oxybate in particular, Xywav. And I think it would be helpful as we think about the landscape and it's evolving to have that data. So I think that's something Rob will certainly be thinking about going forward is where and when can we generate that kind of additional data. So nothing to speak to today, but I think we're continuously looking at where else can we generate this data to benefit patients.

Yes, Yes. I wanted to switch gears to epidotics. The performance has continued to exceed expectations, what are some of the measures that are being employed to ensure consistent growth in 2026? And you've also talked about assessing Epidiolex in focal onset seizures -- the focal onset seizure space is evolving with a lot of data that has recently been generated and more to come. So maybe if you can just speak to how you see its position evolving in that market.

Sure, sure. Maybe I'll start with the first part of it and what we're doing with Epidolix to continue the robust growth that we we saw last year to continue that going forward, 1 of the programs that we've got as a nurse navigator program that really helps patients manage through dosing and compliance with the polypharmacy that exists in the epilepsy space. And that's been a very successful program. So we're going to keep leaning into that and expand it and try and get that program to more and more patients and awareness among providers. And then when you look at the additional growth opportunities in the space, the adult population is really another area for us to focus on. So I think those are 2 growth areas that from an execution standpoint, the team is looking to continue to execute around -- and then with regard to focal onset seizures, yes, we did just start a study at the end of last year in focal onset -- and looking at the impact Epidolex has had in other seizure types, we're very excited about seeing that data. But the study is just getting off the ground right now, but we think it has the potential to be a good fit in the polypharmacy approach to focal onset seizures also.

Okay. I know we are coming up on time, but maybe if I could squeeze in 1 last question on JZP047, which you've identified for absent epilepsy. What gets you excited about the mechanism? And maybe just talk to us about the opportunity in assets.

Sure. So we haven't disclosed the mechanism. We're going to keep that close to our vest for now. But I think what's especially exciting about it for us is that it's a Jazz developed molecule. And so we've talked a lot about how corporate development is going to be part of this ongoing shift in transition from a specialty pharma company to an innovative biotech company. Our pipeline -- our R&D pipeline, we want to fill with our own programs, and we're starting to do that now with JCP 047. So we think there's a need in obsance, and we've got that expertise in epilepsy. And so we're excited to move that program forward and share more with you.

Okay. All right. It looks like we are at the end of our time. Thank you both and to Phil as well for taking the time to have this conversation and participating in our conference.

Thanks for having us, Ami. We appreciate it.

Thank you.