Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (TARS) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

The next company presenter, Tarsus Pharmaceuticals. Joining us is Jeff Farrow, Chief Strategy Officer and CFO; and Aziz Mottiwala, Chief Commercial Officer. So gentlemen, thanks for joining us.

Thanks for having us, Jason.

So off to a good year 2 in the launch of your full product, the XDEMVY for Demodex blepharitis. Coming off the quarter, I don't know anything you guys would highlight for investors or just sort of how things are progressing with the launch, where you're at relative to maybe where initial expectations were for the drug at this point in time?

Sure. Maybe I'll start with just a quick overview for folks that maybe are new to the story. So we are a commercial company based in Orange County, California. As Jason highlighted, we are on our first commercial launch with a drug called XDEMVY for the treatment of Demodex blepharitis. It's thought to impact about 25 million patients in the United States, and we're targeting 9 million patients that are actually going into the doctor's offices. The launch has gone off very well and, Jason, to your question, I think, exceeded our already high expectations and continues to do so. Arguably one of the most profound recent drug launches in the eye care space for quite some time. So in the second -- in the first quarter, we recorded revenue of about $78.2 million and delivered on 72,000 bottles dispensed, which represents about 20% growth from the fourth quarter. Our gross to net discount was about 47%. We anticipate that sort of declining sequentially quarter-over-quarter to in the low 40s, sort of 42% to 43%. We are targeting about 15,000 eye care professionals, half of which are optometrists, half of which are ophthalmologists. And then beyond XDEMVY, we also have an exciting pipeline, something called Ocular Rosacea, which we think about as another potential Demodex blepharitis opportunity. There's nothing out there from an FDA-approved therapeutic perspective. It impacts about 15 million to 18 million patients in the United States. The vast majority are caused by Demodex mites, and we know we're very efficacious in killing mites. So we're going to be initiating a Phase II study in the back half of this year. And then, of course, we've got our Lyme disease program there. It's a prophylactic oral treatment for the prevention of Lyme, which is essentially killing the ticks before it transmits the bacteria that causes Lyme disease. And we had some very compelling data that we had last year that showed we killed about 98% of the ticks before that transmission window there. So we're excited to potentially start a Phase IIb study in that program in 2026 as well. So...

Okay. So Aziz, you've had some involvement in building another category in dry eye, right, with Restasis. And as you think about sort of the hurdles to be overcome here, building a new category, be it getting -- establishing the payer coverage, getting doctors motivated, incentives for doctors to prescribe, how would you compare the 2 in terms of like year 2, basically where we're at now? And do you feel like that's still a good comp? I think you guys have talked about this being the biggest ever front of the eye drug, right, which would mean that it can surpass Restasis in terms of peak sales.

Yes. I mean I think it's a relevant comp in the sense that it's the key audience, right? And what are the similarities? This is one of the key things that eye doctors see all the time, right? They see dry eye. They see blepharitis. They see things like ocular allergy. So this is one of the most commonly seen things for eye doctors. The thing that we found is that the doctors underappreciated the role that Demodex plays in this, right? And then you start getting into what are the differences. Well, the differences are in dry eye, you had a vast selection of over-the-counter therapies that work pretty well. In fact, the company I was with had the #1 over-the-counter product for dry eye. So you're almost competing with yourself here. There really is no competition, right? There are some things that people might use that are palliative, but they really don't work. They don't feel good. So this is really, one, a targeted solution that gets to the root cause; two, the only solution; and three, delivers really profound results. And it was not really the same case in dry eye, where the effectiveness of the product was good, but not anywhere near as good as what we see with XDEMVY. So you have a lot more opportunity with this product in that we've got a best-in-class product that targets the root cause. You've got an inherent diagnostic with collarettes, the crusting on the eyelids, that makes the identification and diagnosis of these patients very easy, which is very different. And then I think that these things combined have really yielded us a very unique dynamic with the payers, where we were able to establish high-quality coverage in today's environment, what I would consider a really record time, right? We have over 90% of lives covered as we started this year. It's really remarkable in this environment with the payers. And I think it's because the payers, like the doctors, saw this product works, it's targeted, and it is the only thing that's available for these patients. So when we think about the potential for this and how this might evolve to becoming one of the most significant products in the eye care space, you've got something that works in almost every single patient, that the doctors can clearly identify the right patients in the practice and has utility across a broad range of patients. And I think that's where we really spend a lot of time thinking about what this opportunity really means because this disease overlaps some of the most commonly seen patient types in the practice. You got blepharitis, which I said is one that they see all the time. We've got data in Meibomian Gland Disease, which is well understood about the oils in the eyes getting affected by the mites. Dry eye patients that are coming in, oftentimes cycling through therapies, they've either got concomitant disease or were misdiagnosed. Patients coming in for cataract surgery where over half of these patients have blepharitis. And then patients, when you think about optometrists, have a hard time staying in their contact lenses, and that's another opportunity for us. So you've got these clear, large patient segments that are in the practice today that can be really untapped as the doctors continue to get their utilization of the product. So I think really great product, untapped market and very clear specific patient types that spread across the practice dynamic for these doctors.

Yes. You mentioned, I guess, lack of competition. I think Viatris has a Phase III of pimecrolimus, which is an anti-inflammatory, different endpoint, looking at, I guess, more to address the inflammation with blepharitis as opposed to the Demodex infestation. So how do you see just conceptually that lining up relative to something that gets to eradicating the Demodex and how physicians would view that? Would they -- do you have a sense -- would they view that as more complementary, something that would be used if maybe the inflammation was more of a symptom as opposed to something that's zero-sum game competitor?

Yes. I'll start and then, Jeff, feel free to chime in. I think it's probably that, right, because it's sort of treating the downstream impact, the inflammation, which is secondary to the root cause. So it could be complementary. I think still more work to do there. I think they have a data readout, [ just have to file ] [indiscernible]. And it's a broader sort of nonspecific approach where with us, we've got a best-in-class, well-targeted approach. And quite frankly, I think what really bodes well for XDEMVY even outside of this conversation around another product is our level of effect is so great and it's super safe, right? This product has got one of the cleanest profiles of any eye drop that's out there. It's very well tolerated and safe, and it works in almost every patient with profound outcomes. So I think this is best-in-class. This is standard of care product. I think anything else that might come out would be complementary or additive potentially down the line, if it gets approved.

Okay. Maybe, Jeff, you guys have some tailwinds to the business in '25 between the Part D tailwinds. You've got the MGD data, some added sales force, things like that. Like how would you force rank those things? And what do you -- I imagine you're going to say 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.

I think initially, especially coming in here in the first half of the year, probably the biggest tailwind has been the increasing sales force, right? So they really came into full force in the fourth quarter, and then they've gotten their sea legs and really have driven, I think, an extraordinary Q1 even beyond what we thought. We were expecting a little bit more tempered just given the dynamics that typically happen in Q1 with co-pays resetting, people changing insurance plans. And I think that helped drive even bigger growth than what we anticipated in the first quarter. So that's clearly been a real near-term impact. I think when we think about DTC and MGD, those are probably more to come. We've certainly seen some impact and that's resonated -- but I think it's going to -- we're going to see more of that impact in the back half of this year as we move forward. And then on the Medicare point, I think that has been helpful as well because some of the doctors had told us that they were just not going to prescribe to Medicare patients because it was such a pain to get through the payer process. And so I think we saw some nice benefit in Q1 from that as well.

Yes. So I mean there was some caution around 1Q seasonality. And you said you had outperformed expectations and you've got these sort of tailwinds. Do you feel like that understanding of the seasonality of the product is evolving and such that like the idea that 1Q, 3Q are depressed, there might be some upside to that potentially?

It's tough to say at this point. We only have 1 year under our belt. That 1 year was the first year of launch. I will say Q3 we've taken a look at other eye care products, looking at NRx specifically. And there tends to be a slowdown in growth, the flattening in that area there. We expect growth still from Q2 to Q3, but it will be somewhat tempered compared to what we saw between Q1 and Q2 or even Q4 to Q1. So -- but I think next year, we'll have a better sense of really natural history and be able to better predict.

So going into the year, depth of prescribing was like a key kind of initiative, right? Basically, most of your targets were at least prescribing 1 script. But like as you kind of like drill down into the data, is this a very heavy weighted sort of subset of doctors that are really driving this at higher depth of utilization? Or do you feel like it's broad-based?

It's quickly evolving, right? All of our attention now is focused because last year, we've got all 15,000 doctors that we occupy our time with to prescribe the product. And now all of our attention is repeat prescribing, regular prescribing and moving quickly. And we try to move each of the doctors down the continuum, right? Are they going from, okay, I tried it to -- I'm writing it at least once a month to I'm writing at least once a week to I'm writing it once a day. And one of the things we highlighted was a really profound jump in the number of doctors that are writing this every single week, 110% growth from before the sales force expansion to the end of the first quarter. And that number is in the thousands. So if you think about an audience of 15,000, and we've got thousands of doctors already writing this monthly, we saw a similar growth rate in doctors that are starting to write this multiple times a week. Then you really think about how quickly this is progressing. And then for us, that will continue to go. And the idea is at like any market, you're going to have sort of your top writers and your middle writers. But to the extent we can expand that pool as broadly as possible, we think that's the strategy here, to have a broad pool of prescribers that are writing this on a routine basis, on a daily basis. I mean if you think about it, the prevalence work we've done says there's 58% of patients in the clinic that could be eligible for treatment. So there's tons of opportunity. Even our top prescribers, one thing we consistently hear is they haven't even tapped out, right? They've got a lot of room to grow. So I think that's going to continue to progress. And I envision us coming back a year from now saying, okay, the metrics are even different because that scale will shift over time.

Okay. Maybe any anecdote so far with like MGD and how that dynamic is evolving? I imagine with a lot of these things, the answer is evolving, right? Like do you feel like doctors are hitting a roadblock with MGD or dry eye, right, in terms of the success outcomes with the treatments that they have? And like now they have something maybe different to reach for to try, do you feel like it's getting worked in as something complementary to existing dry eye therapies as sort of like a multidrug approach?

Yes. I think there's a couple of things you're hearing. And the one that really excites me is what we heard at the ASCRS conference a couple of weeks ago in that when doctors get exposed to the data, they see not only, okay, utility in MGD, which obviously opens up the door for patients that, I don't know, maybe recalcitrant dry eye and maybe have MGD. But what was really exciting is the fact that this has a halo effect across other patient segments like cataract surgery. The data that we released last year shows an improvement in fluctuating vision. And one of the biggest concerns a doctor has after doing cataract surgery is that the patients got 20/20 vision some time but not all the time, and that's fluctuating vision. And when you have data that says, hey, if you're able to pretreat these patients, these patients that are free of their mites, their lids are improved, their MGD is improved, their fluctuating vision reduces, that becomes an incentive for the doctor to look at patients presurgically and say, okay, let me clean up everything, right, because I'm going to try to get the best surgical outcome possible. And we started to hear that at the ASCRS conference. We heard it on the podium. We heard it in advisory boards. And to me, yes, you'll get the patients that have MGD. This is going to be an opportunity for them. If they see collarettes, I can treat these patients and know I can treat the component that's going to help improve the MGD overall. But this idea of fluctuating vision and irritation for the patient is something that has even broader utility across all the segments. And it becomes a trigger for the doctor, not just to say, okay, you have MGD, but also, hey, if I'm doing cataract surgery or you're a failed dry eye patient or, hey, maybe this is the reason you're not in your contacts anymore.

Yes. Any early metrics with respect to the DTC program? I feel like I'm a target audience because I see the commercials all the time. And anything that you're tracking insofar in terms of how that's going in terms of driving utilization?

Yes. No, we spent a lot of time tracking and monitoring that very closely. We see it as a key lever for us and one that is already showing some great results and would anticipate, as Jeff mentioned earlier, to show even more. I think it's important to provide the context of how we got to the stage in DTC, right? So we started at the end of last year on streaming. And we started it then for a few reasons. At that point, we had a pretty good line of sight on, one, all the prescribers are writing this product; two, we've got a good line of sight that we're going to have great coverage from January; and three, our sales force is in place, fully loaded and ready to go. So all these things are in place to really optimize the impact of DTC. So timing is very important there. So timing was one and two is approach. So we started on streaming platforms. And the reason we did that is because it gets you just very robust data. You get lots of insights. You get to understand what type of programs people watch, what they respond best to. You get to understand the number of scripts written per ad sort of thing, right? You can model that out. And then you also see what are the early indicators of scripts. So we found a couple of things. One is website visits, the other is when people are on the website, they take a quiz. And both of those, the quizzes and the website visits, correlate to future prescription growth. So that allows us then to take those and apply them to network streaming, which we started in Q1 of this year and we're scaling in Q2. And that allows us to say, okay, near term, are we seeing the positive response? And the answer is yes. We shared that on the call -- on the earnings call a couple of weeks back where we've seen real great growth in our website visits. We've seen tremendous growth in the number of people taking the quiz on a weekly basis. And those are indicative of patients that are prepping to go see their doctor, who will eventually make their appointment and get a script. And to Jeff's point earlier, we see that as being a bigger driver as the year progresses. We're obviously seeing good script impact now, but we really see that coming more to fruition as the year progresses. Patients see the ad multiple times. They got to make the appointment, they got to get in. So in terms of the impact, we're starting to see it. We anticipate it growing. And in terms of what are we seeing right now, we're seeing all the behaviors, all the metrics indicating that, that will be [ the case ].

Yes. Okay. And so maybe just remind us how this is a practice builder for optometrists. I think the -- 60% of use is optometrists. And optometrists have historically been focusing on eye exams but now have something to prescribe and broaden the practice out. I think it could even change the reimbursement fee of a visit if there's a certain diagnosis done. And so that may be scalable for them as well. So maybe talk about how that's driving the prescriber base incentive to be involved in this in some way.

Yes. So there's 2 factors here. One is sort of the overall trend we've seen over the last handful of years where more and more of the primary care of eye care, so the medical management is getting shifted towards optometry. So that's already happening, and we're able to build on that. One of the reasons it's happening is just the demand for eye services versus the supply that's out there is sort of off-balance where ophthalmologists are getting inundated with more surgeries. That leaves less clinic time that the optometrists are making up. Why is that good for optometry? Well, because historically, optometry were getting reimbursed on vision visits that were coming in from insurance companies like DSP. They only reimburse you for your lenses and frames and a basic vision exam. They don't reimburse you for a full medical exam. If you're diagnosing diseases like Demodex blepharitis, you're now doing a much more thorough exam and are able to bill against medical insurance, which typically bills back or reimburses the physician back at a higher rate. It also becomes a catalyst for the patient to come back. So it's not uncommon to hear a doctor say, hey, I screened a patient. I saw they had Demodex blepharitis. I started them on XDEMVY. I'm going to bring them back a couple of months later post treatment to see how they did. And that's a good follow-up visit, again, a comprehensive follow-up visit, which typically reimburses significantly more than a vision exam. And there's a reason, right? If you went to your doctor and he said, hey, I got a few new glasses, and I want you to come back in 2 months to see if the glasses are working, okay? But if I said, hey, look, this is what your eyes look like. They're red and crusted. I can show you a picture of this in the slit lamp. And we're going to treat you, and we're going to bring you back 2 months later and see how much you've improved, the patient is very likely to come back. So it's allowing the optometrists to take on the volumes that the ophthalmologists can't handle. It's allowing them to tap into a thorough reimbursement for a thorough exam, and it's a catalyst to getting repeat visits and keeping patients in the practice. So all these things factor into a lot of incentive for the optometrists to do this. And for the ophthalmologists, it's important, too, right, because they want to be in the OR. And if they don't do a good job managing these patients prior to surgery, that pulls them into the clinic. And that kind of rubs against this other tension we talked about where their demand needs to be in the OR. So that's the incentive for the ophthalmologists to treat these patients effectively, so they're not coming back post-surgically complaining of redness, irritation and not being able to see clearly.

Yes. Is there a possibility that this trend could mushroom, right? So you're targeting a subset of optometrists. There's more of them out there, right? And if this practice shift is occurring, like could more optometrists kind of start to engage in this sort of practice shift and then that becomes a new call point potentially down the line? Like is that an evolving dynamic? Or am I making too much of that?

I think it's going to take some time. I think there's a core group of optometrists. So to put it in context, there's about 45,000 optometrists in the country. We focus on about 8,000 of them. Those are the ones that do the vast majority of this. I think you're going to start to see that evolve, but I think what you're going to see first is that 8,000 continuing to drive this trend more deeply before you see it expand.

All right. And so as you talk about the patients coming back to the doctor, getting an assessment, that sparks, I guess, the point of retreatment, right? And so is your sense in terms of when the more common examples of retreatment happens, does it happen typically immediate after the 12-week course where maybe they didn't get an optimal outcome and then there's [indiscernible] longer, get another script? Or is it, I don't know, like a year later, that the patient is coming back and saying, hey, I've got a relapse or recurrence of this and now I need treatment again.

Yes. Every once in a while, you'll hear somebody, I got a good response, but I'm looking for perfection, so I maybe gave the patient a second round. That's -- I'd say that's more exception than rule. I think the norm is really patients got treated several months ago. And then I think what you're really looking at in terms of physician and patient behavior is, I'd say, kind of proactive versus reactive, right? The doctor is saying, I'm going to bring you back in at 6 months or at 12 months for your annual. And if I see it, I'm going to treat it. Or the reactive is, hey, come back. And if it starts to feel like it's coming back, just call me and we'll bring you back in for a follow-up. I want you back on therapy. So some are saying, hey, we're going to treat you, right? We're not going to let it come back. I'm going to bring you in for a follow-up. If I see anything, I'm going to just get on top of it. The other ones are going to say, look, I'm going to wait for you to say, hey, I'm starting to feel it. So a little bit more reactive. And I think that those behaviors will evolve as we get more time under the curve. But the vast majority of these are patients that were treated a long time ago, had great success maybe 9, 12 months ago and then are coming back in for a follow-up exam, an annual exam and getting screened by the doctor or proactively asking the doctor, hey, can I get back on therapy?

You talked about 25 million patients and 9 million patients targeted, I believe, right? So should we think about like if in future years, you're getting to 500,000 patients treated, most of them kind of fall out of the treatment pool? And some of that, patients who are not in the 9 million in a given year, but they're in the broader epidemiology, kind of come into the treatment pool? Like do you think there's a dynamic there versus like they're treated, they're out of the treatment pool and you have this compressing sort of TAM, if you will?

Yes. We don't think that the TAM is compressing, right? We think, if anything, that TAM will continue to grow. That's one of the other effects of DTC, right? You should get more of that 25 million into the 9 million. And quite frankly, 9 million is a lot of patients, right? So if we can penetrate even 15% to 20% of that 9 million, that's a really great place to be over time, right? But we think that we could do really well there. We've had great success early in the launch, and we've just scratched the surface, a few hundred thousand patients. So a long way to go to really untap that full potential in the 9 million. And then we anticipate -- and we've seen this in other markets, right? Once you have a successful product in the market, it does well, diagnosis rates increase, patients coming into the funnel increase. So if anything, we expect that TAM to grow over time. And of course, you're going to get some patients fall out, but I think that over time, we've got more than enough patients to feed this opportunity for a long, long time.

Okay. Any additional data generation that you feel like will be important to sort of the marketing story here?

Yes. So I think we're looking at multiple Phase IV studies, each focused on those different segments that we talked about, MGD, contact lens, cataract surgery, so all those areas we're looking to expand. And there's some other things that we're thinking too outside of those specific areas that could incent doctors to take and look for patients like [ that ].

Are these still thought bubbles? Or are these data sets that we could have like maybe in a 12- to 18-month time horizon?

We could probably see some of these in the 12- to 18-month time horizon, but some of them are still thought bubbles as we initiate those studies.

Yes. Okay. And then with the expansion into Part D at the start of the year, it seems like if I have it right, there was still pretty good coverage against the Part D patient without the official contracting. But now that you have it, maybe should the way to think about it is maybe a little less friction in terms of those patients in terms of getting their therapeutic? But as we look at 2024 or even parts of 2023, those patients were still able to -- they're a meaningful contributor to the revenue number.

Yes. They definitely helped with less friction. The Med Part D came in really in the beginning of this year. And I think that's helped us on the Q1 numbers actually. Typically, you do see a little bit of a downtick there. But we do think that friction will reduce in the second quarter as well and continue to help drive the revenue numbers throughout 2025.

It sort of has a halo effect, too, right? So doctors' impression of this is, okay, the Part D patients are covered. But it also impacts the commercial patients because the overall perception of the drug and the access is really positive. So you've got doctors saying, okay, I can treat this -- pretty much any patient coming in the door has great access. So I don't have to think about that. So it really changes the perception for the physician. And to Jeff's point, with that friction gone, it really opens the door for broader use.

Maybe just given all the macro stuff around most favored nations and IRA, and you have a decent Medicare as a proportion of revenues, and if you get to where our targets are, I imagine, would you be on the 9-year track absent the pill penalty getting removed? Would you follow that designation? Do you get a biotech exemption? Maybe kind of -- maybe level set us on sort of IRA exposure.

Yes. I think -- we think we're probably more on the 9-year track. So we don't anticipate any near-term impact of IRA at this point. On the most favored nation issues, I think we're -- it was clear as mud on Monday in terms of what that might look like in terms of the potential executive order. We're continuing to follow that. But...

But there's no plans to launch in an OECD country, right? You have partnerships with China, which wouldn't count, right, as a non-OECD country. So having a reference point that -- there are none at the moment.

There's none at the moment. We're exploring Europe as a potential opportunity, but we'll take that into...

You control the pricing decision.

We control the pricing decision or the launch, particularly over in those areas, right? So that will be part of the overall factor about whether we want to launch ex U.S.

Yes. Maybe then -- we've got about a little under 5 minutes here. Ocular Rosacea, what you like about it, what you think -- how it overlaps with Demodex blepharitis or is completely additive to it?

Yes. No, it's a completely different segment actually. And so just as a reminder, we had some Phase II data that showed efficacy in PPR type of rosacea that causes these pustules and the redness of the skin. And we reduce both of those. The challenge there in the derm space, it's very competitive. You've got ivermectin cream, and the gross to net discounts can be challenging in those type of environments. And so we were initially thinking about partnering that. But as we showed this data to eye care professionals, they became pretty enthusiastic about the Ocular Rosacea opportunity. It's something they see all the time where you have this redness around the eyes, and there's nothing out there to treat these patients currently at all from an FDA-approved therapeutic perspective. And so it's a complete white space, about 15 million to 18 million patients that are impacted. The majority of them are caused by Demodex mites. And what we're doing now is looking at initiating a Phase II study in the back half of this year with the endpoints being reduction in the redness as well as the reduction in the telltale signs of these sort of -- the vessels that are -- become prevalent in patients that have Ocular Rosacea. Doesn't have to be curative, just a reduction based on the feedback that we've gotten from the agency there. So should have proof-of-concept data here in the second half of 2026, but key factor right now is developing that scale and making sure it's robust and consistent across different ECP perspectives in terms of looking at that data point.

Yes. So I think you've got a lot of safety validation for the API applied in that area of the body. So I imagine maybe the more -- the objective is the signal on the redness or other exploratory endpoints and then having an end of Phase II meeting and figuring out if that could be the basis for a pivotal trial design. Is that sort of the pathway? And would it be presumably a 2-trial requirement, I assume?

Likely 2. I think that's our baseline assumptions. We're going to try to potentially push on that to see if things evolve given the new agency. So stay tuned on that. But I think you're absolutely right. We'll take a look at the Phase II data, have a discussion with the agency about what the study -- pivotal study might look like and then move from there.

Yes. I know from a -- BD has been something that you guys have talked about as a company. You've also said probably not looking in 2025, but maybe post 2025, you could be active in BD with a focus on kind of new category creation within the ophthalmology area, if I've got that right. Yes, I imagine you're still looking at assets. And do you feel like there's a lot out there? Or do you feel like maybe like your own internal shots on goals with things like Ocular Rosacea?

We like our internal shots on goal. I think Ocular Rosacea for us is an exciting program, and we're hearing the ECPs really are excited about it. So that's a slam dunk for us. I think we are exploring everything in the anterior segment. There's a few interesting assets out there that we're exploring and could be considered category creating, much like XDEMVY. The other thing we're looking at, too, is, is there an opportunity to synergize our sales force. We now have the second largest sales force in the front of the eye space. And so is there an opportunity to bring another on-market asset into the bags of our current sales reps? Maybe something that's not P1, but maybe P2, P3 where we think we can drive better revenues, but also have more access to the physicians as well. So another opportunity to come in and talk about this new product, but also remind them about the new data we've generated on XDEMVY and DB as well.

Yes. Would that extend even to like the medtech field? Or do you feel like Rx is the focus? Because I know in the eye care world, the medtech, intraocular lenses, things like that, like there's some interplay there.

Yes. No, I think for us, right now, our core competencies is really in sort of the therapeutic areas. So I think for now, we'll probably stick in that area.

Okay. Well, we're out of time, gentlemen. So thanks so much for joining us.

Thank you for having us.

Thanks, Jason.

Of course.