Nykode Therapeutics AS (NYKD) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Greetings, and welcome to the Nykode Q4 2024 Financial Results Webcast. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It's now my pleasure to turn the call over to your CEO, Michael Engsig. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Kevin. And also from my side, a warm welcome to all the participants for this Nykode's fourth quarter webcast. Just a quick reminder of our forward-looking statement. We assume you're all familiar with those. On that note, we'll move forward. I am very pleased to, as usual, have Agnete Fredriksen, Chief Scientific Officer, Head of Business Development and Co-Founder, with me together with Harald Gurvin, Chief Financial Officer. And together, we'll take you through the key highlights of fourth quarter as well, of course, the financial numbers. So it's been an eventful fourth quarter for us, although, obviously, there are parts of this we are not looking forward to see any time through. It has been a tough period with a number of layoffs and people leaving the organization, because we have announced the strategic refocus to align our activities and our organization and our cash burns with our cash runway. And we're good through these processes right now. The intent is, of course, to align the activities with the cash runway and to extend the cash runway into 2030. We'll achieve that by reaching an annual cost base of approximately $20 million going forward. We are reporting today strong cash position of more than $150 million which is, I think, in these days in this industry, a uniquely strong position to be in. Also on the very positive side, we did publish the final data set from our Phase II trial, the C-02 trial in the peer-reviewed JITC Journal, once again confirming what we saw in the interim data, a prolonged benefit, definitive vaccination effect in the patients with advanced cervical cancer. We regained ownership, including the IP rights to our VB10.NEO program from our partner Genentech and are now looking into the optimal path for that program going forward. We did announce a small set of data from the N-02 trial that does confirm what we've seen earlier in the N-01 trial, a competitive immune response. I will take you a little bit through these data again later in this call here. But just to say that we remain very confident in the VB10.NEO program compared to the industry or other programs in the same field. Then we presented new data on both our cancer vaccine, the mRNA modality, and we'll spend a little bit of time for that later in this call here and, of course, on our very exciting APC-targeted immune-tolerance program. And we'll also be spending some time on this later in this call here. We've been through this before, but just want to recap for everybody. The purpose of our refocused strategy is to create a company, which is obviously lean and research focused, focused on discovering novel assets, which we, in turn, think will create very exciting investment opportunities through targeted development activities, including also clinical trials. And everything we do will be geared and aimed towards generating early partnerships. We do believe that is the best way to create value for a company like Nykode with a very strong technology platform, but also with our strongest competencies in the product discovery and early development area. So expect to see us continue to generate exciting new assets from our research engine at a very cost conscious way, also take decisions on targeting cost-efficient development activities to create shareholder value and pave the way for early partnerships. Our lead program, VB10.16, is still in focus. And also here reminding you that we are addressing a patient population with a huge unmet need. And perhaps surprising to some, still remain with high and growing incidences. It's been a notion that some of the prophylactic vaccines would change the market opportunity for this patient population going forward. That does not seem to be the case, first of all, because of a lack of uptake of prophylactic vaccines around the world, which means there will be a continued use of -- or need for therapeutic vaccines in the HPV16-driven cancer fields in the future. We have now reported very strong data for VB10.16 combined with atezolizumab in the C-02 trial together with also a favorable safety profile. We see an even stronger effect in the PD-L1 positive patients, and again even stronger effect in the PD-L1 positive patients with only one prior line of systemic treatment. Again, reminding you that we have also in our very first trial with VB10.16 in HSIL patient, seeing very encouraging effects with VB10.16 as a monotherapy in an area that is also gaining increasing attentions from industry players around the world. We have an ongoing trial, C-03, where we are looking for the immune responses and safety in patients with -- first line patients with head and neck in combination with pembrolizumab. We did announce or publish the data in the -- from C-02 trial, and we're not going to take you through all the data. The publication is available also through a link on the homepage. But just want to remind you what gives us a very high level of confidence and conviction in VB10.16. What you show here is the key data from the patient population with high PD-L1 expression. And we see on here the overall response rate, the PFS and the median overall survival compared to 3 different historical trials that we're assessing, checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in a very similar patient population, also PD-L1 positive. And you see that the C-02 trial basically observed an ORR of 29% compared to -- from 16% to 18% seen with checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy. We saw PFS of 6.3 months compared to 1.9 to 3 months for the checkpoint inhibitor monotherapies. And very impressively, we saw the median overall survival land at 24.7 months compared to overall survivals ranging from approximately 10.6 to 13.9 months observed with checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy. This data obviously gives us, as I said before, very high level of conviction and confidence in the effects of VB10.16 and give us every reason to continue developing VB10.16 and look for partners. Next slide just shows you what we've seen in the patient population that are PD-L1 positive and have only received one prior line of systemic therapy. If you go to the far-right of this graph or table here, you see the ORR climbing from 29% up to 40%, the PFS from 6.3 to 15.8 months. And for this patient population, we did not reach the median overall survival. So this also gives us conviction that the earlier stage we go into, the higher the efficacy we will observe for VB10.16. With those words, I'm going to hand over to, Agnete, our Chief Scientific Officer, Head of Business Development, to take us through the updates on VB10.NEO and our immune-tolerance program. So please, Agnete.

Yes. Thank you, Michael. So moving into VB10.NEO, that's our fully individualized neoantigen-based cancer vaccine. This has really the potential to address a broad set of indications as we do make one vaccine per patient that could be applicable for basically all tumor types. We do see a strategic focus on large investments these days in individualized cancer vaccines in late-stage trials by our peers, focusing then importantly on the adjuvant setting and expecting data readout from these trials from our peers in '25 some and in '26-'27. So as you may all be aware of, there has been limited transactions in the field of cancer vaccines. Since Nykode was very active in the space in 2020 and 2021, we now see that, that is changing in the landscape being very aware of what's happening in the field of cancer vaccines in early stage. So that's positive for Nykode and now also regaining the rights from VB10.NEO. We do have, as you all should be aware of, proven to generate broad and long-lasting T cell responses across 2 clinical trials. And importantly, this has not been in adjuvant setting. This has been in heavily pretreated patients with recurrent metastatic solid tumors. We have successfully established in-house proprietary neoantigen selection algorithm that we call NeoSELECT and we work with plasmid DNAs that for individualized cancer vaccines do have a very competitive turnaround time and cost of goods reaching the market. A strong patent protection, do remember we got a patent approved earlier this year for our VB10.NEO. And as we reported in Q3, preliminary immunogenicity data from the N-02 trial aligns and confirms that final positive data from the N-01 trial, even though these patients are with even a broader set of indications and later-stage patients. Final analysis is currently ongoing as we are regaining also all the rights from Genentech for this program, looking forward to finalize all the analysis. And as we also showed in Q3, preclinical data supports the opportunity for strong and durable responses using our technology across modalities, importantly here with mRNA, which I'll show in the next slide. So just to remind you, we have done some preliminary analysis from VB-N-02 that we reported in Q3, where we see comparing to what was presented in N-01 that we generate the same amount or even slightly higher percentage of immunogenic neoantigen patients with at least one immunogenic or de novo-induced vaccine response and those that do have response to any neoepitope. Additionally, where we haven't shown you really data yet, we are looking forward to do that in the future. We do see a persistent expansion of T cell clones in the majority of evaluable patients measured also by the alternative method TCR sequencing. We see persistently expanded clones emerging already as early as after 2 to 4 vaccinations and also durable frequencies. And the induction of this persistent and no T cell response has been confirmed by IVS ELISpot, which means we can identify that some of these clones are truly generated by the vaccine. So we continue to be very confident in VB10.NEO's potential and happy to see that there is an increased interest in cancer vaccines by the environment. If we go to the next, these are data that we've generated to also investigate our technology across modalities. So this has been generated by mRNA-LNP and we looked into durability. As Michael mentioned, we have very strong, convincing durability of VB10.16 in the C-02 trial, leading to prolonged median overall survival. We wanted to see if that holds true when we also use the mRNA format. Here, we have vaccinated in preclinical models 2 times early and looked that we can actually still identify neoantigen specific T cell responses at day 133 after 2 initial vaccinations. But also importantly, when we boost this with a third vaccination at day 132, we are able to really boost the T cell responses up to 35,000 spots there in this particular experiment, which can mimic either the [indiscernible] the antigen coming naturally by the disease or with a third vaccination, so very promising data. We also see very strong increase in this -- in the number of neoepitopes that are boosted after this long-term -- in this long-term assay. If we go to the next, we also looked whether these T cell responses were able to counter tumor protection at this later time point. So here, vaccinating either at day 0 or 2 times, day 0 and day 21, and doing a tumor challenge as late as day 90, we see that with once vaccination, we generate 75% tumor protection, but with 2 vaccinations, we've been able to fully protect the mice at this later time point of tumor challenge. So able to prove that the T-cell responses that's generated are efficacious also long-term. And then as Michael mentioned, the immune-tolerance field is a very interesting field these days in the industry. We see a lot of activities in immune-tolerance. We also see a lot of activities and interest into this field that we are working with, which is truly antigen-specific immune-tolerance. The field as such has huge opportunities, both within a range of autoimmune diseases, but also allergies and organ transplant rejection. So basically those indications where we see an unwanted antigen-specific immune response that we can then modulate with the treatment. The antigen-specific immune-tolerance field is unique and still new with a few players, but a lot of activities. Also, we see transactions in the field. There is a lot of unmet medical need. And we know that up to 1 in 10 people are actually affected by autoimmune disorders and then you can add allergies to organ transplant rejection. So this has a huge focus for Nykode these days. That is, obviously, supported by the preclinical proof-of-concept data that we've generated in the most common autoimmune disease models that is being used by the field. We show potent therapeutic advantage of our APC targeting technology that is significantly better than other technologies operating in the space that do not have our APC targeting platform patents obviously submitted. And we are moving very rapidly forward now establishing several tolerance relevant methods and assays that will be extremely important in order to both identify the most optimal version of the Nykode's tolerance vaccine, but also to really understand our opportunity to specifically modulate the immune system in different directions also within autoimmune diseases. If you go to the next. So these are data shown in Q3 where we -- Q4, sorry, with the comparison of 2 different versions of our technology where we have kept everything identical except the 2 targeting units. So we have a range of different targeting units that we can use that we believe can turn immune response into tolerance. You see they are both very effective in preventing disease in this EAE model, which is the model that most of the players in our field are using really to understand the efficacy and the mode of action of antigen-specific tolerance. If you go to the next. When we look into that, in particular, with different dose levels as well as comparing with constructs that do not have any relevant targeting units of the non-targeted vaccine, which is then shown in black in the figures, you really see that adding a functional targeting unit provides a very strong increase in the ability to alleviate disease in this model. And this was done with the first targeting unit that we did show earlier this year. And then if you go to the next, we mimic this with the second targeting unit and confirm that this also works and potentially works as good or even slightly better with this targeting unit here. And then if you go to the next version, we have also now successfully set up a very interesting alternative model, which is a relapsing-remitting EAE model, which means that we have generated data with another construct that holds the different relevant antigen PLP compared to the MOG antigen that we used before. We also see that this provides efficacy in a relapsing-remitting model. And all of these data now allows us to move more rapidly forward from where we stand today to really dig into the variety of our different constructs, which ones provides the optimal activity and modulates which arms of the immune system. So if we go to the next. We are currently in Boston and looking forward to present new data from our antigen-specific immune-tolerance effort at this highly relevant conference Antigen-Specific Immune Tolerance Summit going on this week and we'll present a lot of interesting data tomorrow. Then by those words, I will transfer to you, Harald, for going through the financial results.

Thank you, Agnete. Looking at the income statement, we reported total revenue of $6.9 million in the fourth quarter, up from $2.3 million for the same period in 2023. $6.8 million of the revenues relate to R&D activities delivered under agreements with Genentech and Regeneron and the remaining relates to government grants. The increase in the quarter is mainly due to the cancellation of the contract with Genentech. Part of the $245 million in upfront and milestone payments received under the contracts were taken to income over time as the R&D services under contract were delivered. Following the cancellation of the contract in the fourth quarter, the outstanding balance of $6.8 million was taken to income in full. Employee benefit expenses were $8.3 million in the fourth quarter, down from $8.9 million for the same period in 2023, reflecting the first part of the organizational changes executed during the second half of 2024. The main part of the reorganization was executed in January and is expected to be finalized in the first half of 2025, which will significantly reduce the employee benefit expenses going forward. Other operating expenses were $4.1 million, down from $10 million in the same period for 2023, mainly reflecting reduced R&D services to Genentech and reduced clinical activities. Finance income and costs were a net $1 million negative in the fourth quarter, which mainly relates to interest income and unrealized currency movements on the Norwegian kroner exposure. So overall, we reported a net loss of $6.8 million for the fourth quarter, compared to a net loss of $5.3 million for the same period in 2023. Next slide, please. Then moving on to the balance sheet, we had a strong cash position of $115.4 million at year-end, which based on the reorganization will give us a runway into 2030. As previously communicated, we received a decision from the Norwegian tax authorities in October 2023 relating to the tax treatment of upfront payment received under a license agreement entered into in 2020, which generated a payable of approximately USD 30 million to the tax authorities in the fourth quarter of 2023. Nykode is confident that upfront payment had been treated correctly, a view which has also been confirmed by third-party experts. Nykode appealed the decision in the first quarter of 2024 and the payment has been booked as a receivable while we wait the outcome of the appeal. The receivable is the Norwegian kroners and the dollar amount in our account will fluctuate with movements in the exchange rate, which also explains the large unrealized movements in finance income and the costs in the income statement between the quarters. In February this year, we received a letter from the tax authorities that we can expect a draft of the recommendation from the Secretariat in the first quarter of 2026. Next, please. Moving on to equity and liabilities. We have total equity of $136.2 million at the year-end, which represents a strong equity ratio of 89%. And with that, I will give the word back to Michael.

Thank you very much, Harald, and we'll finish off with an outlook on our priorities for 2025 before we open up the call for a few questions. So we are actually having a high focus right now from the management side on continuing the implementation of our refocused strategy and organizational adaptations, aligning our financial resources and cash runway with the new organizational priorities. As we said, we are aiming for a cost base of approximately USD 20 million per year, which will in turn extend the cash runway into 2030. We also continue to be convinced and progress our pipeline. We are currently executing the C-03 trial in the VB10.16 program in first-line head and neck patients, where we are assessing VB10.16 in combination with pembrolizumab. This trial is expected to read out later this year here and we'll mainly be looking for the ability of VB10.16 to generate immune responses in these patient populations and of course assess the safety in this particular patient population. We'll also be assessing the -- or discussing the optimal path forward for VB10.NEO, aiming at positioning VB10.NEO for future partnerships. And for the immune-tolerance program, we are working hard to retain our leadership in this field here and really position Nykode's immune-tolerance platform as the best-in-class antigen-specific tolerance treatment, and we'll of course also be on the outlook for partnerships in that field. And with those words, I think we've come to the end of the formal presentation. And I'm ready to take some questions. Kevin?

[Operator Instructions]. Our first question is coming from Geir Holom from DNB Markets. It's in 2 parts. Part one, what are the most important events for value creation in the coming years as you see them? And part 2 is, you aim to reach a cost base of approximately USD 20 million per annum, how fast can you get down to that level and what cost level could we expect?

Thank you very much, Geir, for your questions. I think I will address question #1 and then I'll hand over to you, Harald, for addressing question #2. So the most, actually, important event for us in the coming years, not just 2025, is obviously to see progress on our most important assets. And our assets, I would say I would divide into the 3, probably obvious one for -- so everybody: VB10.16, VB10.NEO and our immune-tolerance platform. So for VB10.16, we did just report very exciting final data from the C-02 trial in patients with advanced cervical cancer and we will be seeing the results of the C-03 trial this year. As I said before, the C-03 trial is mainly designed to give us a feeling for the immune response levels and the safety in this patient population, which is the first time we test VB10.16 in first-line head and neck. So that will also be important. And I think together, all these data will inform us on the next best step for VB10.16. So we will, of course, on the back of that trial, be coming out and giving some guidance on where we see the next step for VB10.16 as a sense of priority. For the VB10.NEO program, we remain, as I said a couple of times during this call here, convinced about the uniqueness of the program and the ability to generate a broad and deep immune response. We see the levels that Agnete went through earlier on a very competitive level compared to what we see with peer reported data. So our conviction in VB10.NEO is, despite the development from the partnership front, actually unchanged. We also sense that the excitement around individualized immune therapies these years here are higher than ever. They are being put more money into clinical development of individualized immune-therapies across the industry than we've seen any earlier year with several pivotal programs going on and also a range of randomized Phase II programs going on from peers. And as always, in this field here, we do expect to see a lot of spillover effect should those programs come out positive, which we, of course, hope they will. And we sense that also from discussions with the pharma industry, we do see an increasing pickup on the number of pharma companies that wants to get an update in this field here. So I think our job for the VB10.NEO is to really figure out how we position ourselves best as the most attractive unencumbered individualized immune therapy, aiming obviously at entering a future partnership. And how we do that exactly? We've indicated earlier, we will need a little bit more time. I think we've indicated we'll be coming back in the first half of 2025 with further guidance on how we see the best path for VB10.NEO going forward. And then, of course, the whole field of immune-tolerance, which is an extremely exciting field these days, generating a lot of interest from potential pharma partners. Here, we will continue to strengthen the underlying base for the APC targeted technology platform and continue to demonstrate that our approach is really unique and best-in-class. We will be on the lookout for various construction soft collaborations with partners that could potentially accelerate both our -- both the programs and, of course, contribute critical know-how and muscles to the programs. So that's basically how we approach that. And as Agnete indicated in her slide, we will be presenting what we actually consider to be exciting preclinical data at the conference in Boston tomorrow, which we think further establishes the APC targeted technology platform that we have as one of the best-in-class, if not the best-in-class. I think I'm going to leave it to you, Harald, to talk about the second question.

Yes. Thank you. We are, of course, constantly working to prioritize costs where they bring the most value. If you look at 2025, there will, of course, be both the restructuring costs. The main part of the reorganization was executed in January. And there will also be ongoing costs related to the C-03 trial and finalization of the N-02 trial. So the cost level for 2025 will be higher than the $20 million long-term cost base we are aiming at. Exactly how, we will come back to once we have more clarity. But if you look at when we aim to reach the new long-term cost base, based on the current plans, we should already next year be able to reach that $20 million cost level.

Our next question is coming from Shan Hama from Jefferies. In your discussions with potential partners, has anyone said whether they await further data from VB10.16 before signing an agreement, such as immunogenicity data from VB-C-03? When can we expect this data?

Yes. Thank you very much. And of course, I fully do appreciate the question, but it does, to some extent, suddenly become a gross simplification of, I think, partnership dialogue in general when you try to boil it down to so singular questions. So when we talk to partners about any programs, it's an ongoing dialogue that stretches over long periods where you try to keep people engaged in the program and tell them about the progress and the data coming out. And the responses comes in, in a broad range along a spectrum from -- there will be people who are not even focused on these strategic areas, then there will be people who are on the lookout and trying to stay updated and there will be people who are interested, but will be looking for something more. So it is a correct implication that some companies need to see more data, some companies even say they want to see randomized data before going into new modalities. And therefore, there will be companies who have said we'll be looking for more data in the areas. Where the C-03 is bringing those data? We will have to see whether that will be enough. It depends both on the outcome of the data and the way I think some of the parameters that we are not emphasizing here pans out when you dig down into patient cases. So we'll have to see, but we are definitely not ruling it out.

Next question is a follow-up from Shan Hama from Jefferies. What have you gathered from FDA regarding the feasibility of running later-stage trials for personalized cancer vaccines and the scope for commerciality?

Yes. Thank you. Also a good question. And I think this whole field is in a flux these years. And I say that in a positive sense, although I realize it can be perceived as something that is risky. I always felt that or we always felt that, in particular, the FDA have had a very open mind to these new technologies and the prospect of using AI-driven algorithms to design individualized therapies. So I think FDA is one of the more forward-looking agencies you'll find together with perhaps the German authorities, PEI. We don't sense that there's any hesitancy from FDA towards a particular patient population. But we do agree with the majority of parties in the industry right now that the sweet spot for the current individualized immunotherapy platforms, including probably our own, lies towards the more early stage cancer or tumor types, so in the adjuvant setting, the locally advanced or resectable settings, where we've seen actually quite encouraging data coming out. We never ruled out late-stage cancer, but I think just to repeat myself here, we do agree that it is probably in the early stage. We will see the first breakthroughs for individualized immune-therapies like ours and our peers and also expect that is where we will be focusing our own thoughts as we map out our plans.

Next question is coming from Chiara Montironi from Van Lanschot Kempen. What kind of partnership are you looking for or are you open for?

Thank you. As you know, partnerships come in all shapes and forms, and we are, in general, very open for exploring multiple partnerships. Particularly at this stage of the company, I think if you look at our 3 main priorities programs at the moment, VB10.16 is an asset that we find to be very mature as it is, has generated very promising data across cervical cancer and we're now waiting for the first data in head and neck cancer. So that is more likely to be a traditional partnership with pharma that we will prioritize. Although there are also other innovative therapies moving forward towards approval that can be interesting to explore in combination with also VB10.16. When it comes to VB10.NEO, we have a very broad opportunity space for partnerships. We have currently generated promising data from everything from feasibility, turnaround time, cost of goods and immunogenicity, also signs of clinical efficacy in very late-stage cancer patients across multiple different indications with the plasmid DNA format in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. We do see that the field is moving forward, really focusing on very similar setups, but in adjuvant setting. So still here, really open for standard collaborations moving the asset forward into adjuvant setting. But we also importantly here, as you see the results, have the opportunity to explore partnerships on the back of other modalities like RNA. We also have the opportunity to explore partnerships in combination with other therapies that are moving forward. We've seen approvals recently with cell therapies in the space and there are multiple cancer immune-therapies that we now see are reaching a stage where they are looking for combinations that can further increase the potency of their therapies and cancer vaccines, both off-the-shelf and individualized cancer vaccines falls in that space. So I would say there is a broad opportunity space for potential partnership structures that we can explore, particularly for where we have VB10.NEO at the moment. Then for immune-tolerance, that field is currently very different from cancer immunotherapy. There has been multiple years now where you need late-stage clinical trials in order to see transactions in cancer immunotherapy or there's basically not been very much activity on the transaction side in cancer immunotherapy. While in the field of immune-tolerance and also specifically in the field of antigen-specific immune tolerance, we see a very active space with multiple pharma companies saying this really falls within their strategy and we see also transactions on a preclinical stage. And if you look at our data and we'll also see multiple data tomorrow, what we have here with our platform is really differentiating from the other technologies being explored in the field and we are getting closer and closer to be in a position to continue to support the differentiation and the ability we have when we are changing our APC targeting units and modulate the immune response in different directions. So we are focusing really here on the preclinical path to be able to support those partnership discussions that we are currently seeing, so what's really differentiates our platform compared to others. And there are certainly opportunities that we will explore to also pursue early stage partnerships, even at the preclinical stage, which is obviously of importance for us because they could be more near-term than clinical partnerships based on clinical data. I think that answers the question. We'll go to next.

[Operator Instructions]. Our next question comes from Arvid Necander from Carnegie. It's in 2 parts. I'll ask part one first. What is the current development stage of your most advanced immune tolerance project? And when do you anticipate entering the clinic?

Yes. Thank you, Arvid. I think I've touched upon that also in answer for the previous question. And the antigen-specific immune-tolerance space is newer. There are fewer players. There are fewer players that have moved into the clinic. There are a few players now that also are not in dialogue or already in a partnership with pharma companies. What we are focusing on at the moment, which is based on tight interactions with a range of potential future partners, is to really show and understand the differentiation of broader our technology compared to technologies that are not using APC targeting, but also the opportunity to investigate different APC targeting units and whether we can see a differentiated modulation of the immune response, which can be applicable for different sets of indications within autoimmunity, allergy, organ transplant rejections. Currently, we don't see any other companies out there that do have a technology that has the same potential as we have, which is where we really truly differentiate, and that's where we focus on before we choose the optimal path forward to move into the clinic, either alone or in collaboration with a partner per indication.

A follow-up from Arvid Necander from Carnegie is, what's your strategy now more focused on asset generation and early stage development? Do you approach pipeline expansion in terms of therapeutic focus and breadth?

Yes. So I'll continue with the tolerance part here. I think the breadth of the pipeline in tolerance can obviously be further expanded by, first, focusing on the platform and the uniqueness of the platform and the potential across different APC targeting unit, different antigens and models and allow us to broaden the pipeline also in collaboration with partners which are indications specific. So that, obviously, has a strong potential to broaden the pipeline within tolerance in the future years to come. We do focus our cancer immunotherapy pipeline on further advancing the assets that is already -- has already provided clinical benefit, which is including VB10.16 and VB10.NEO and making sure that we move those forward in the most cost-effective manner and that can lead to partnership discussion and further support the platform so we can continue to expand the pipeline in the future also here.

We've reached the end of our question-and-answer session. I'd like to turn the floor back over for any further or closing comments.

Thank you very much, Kevin. Thank you very much to all the participants joining in for the questions that we covered today. Stay-tuned, we are looking forward to keep you updated on progress, both on our immune-tolerance platform, but also as we'll be giving further guidance on the next step for VB10.NEO, and of course for VB10.16 once we've seen the readout from the C-03. So with those words, we wish you all a continued good day and look forward to keep you updated. Bye.

Thank you. That does conclude today's webcast. You may disconnect your line at this time and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation today.