Zai Lab Limited (ZLAB) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us today. My name is Jack Lin, I'm the China biotech analyst for Morgan Stanley. And today, it's our pleasure to invite Zai Lab to join us in this conference. And today with us, we have Josh Smiley, President and COO of the company; as well as Ms. Samantha Du, the Founder, Chairperson and CEO of the company. Thank you for joining us today.

Thank you, Jack.

And before we start, for important disclosures, please visit the Morgan Stanley research webpage at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. For any other questions you might have, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative.

So let's get started. So Josh and Samantha, so for -- just in case there are investors here that are not super familiar with us and the latest update of the company, could you give us kind of a brief introduction in terms of who we are, what's Zai Lab about?

And I will start. And Zai Lab was founded in 2014 and then we IPOed in NASDAQ and dual listed on Hong Kong Stock Exchange also 2019. So we have -- now we have our own discovery, development and commercialization in China. We have about 1,700 employees across the world, majority in China, right, commercial in China. And R&D, we have R&D and all the corporate functions in Boston and also in South Bay. Company have -- currently, we have 8 launched commercial products and also 2 more to get approval, this -- later this year or early first quarter next year. And that's on the China rights side. And on the global side, we have DLL3 ADC, second line, we're entering pivotal trial. First line, we are still -- we're starting first-line combos and also for neuroendocrine, I would say, in second line for small cell lung cancer -- non-small cell lung cancer. And also, we have a full global pipeline. We have internally discovered IL-13, IL-31, finished primate studies and entering pivotal -- Phase I in U.S. this year. And so next year, we're going to have -- in October, DLL3, we will give the full update at a major medical conference on the second line and the Phase II studies. And we're also going to next year, early -- sometime next year, first line small cell lung cancer -- non-small cell lung cancer and also neuroendocrine will have updates as well. And so we -- internally, we focus our pipeline in oncology and immunology. But for our pipeline in China, we also let -- we also have some in neuro and because, for example, our key product and name again?

COBENFY, KarXT.

COBENFY, KarXT, yes. Yes. And it's the [ psycho -- it's developed ] for neuro. And there's a huge population in China. This is a drug hasn't been approved with a black-box for 70 years. So we own the China rights. And also for our partner, argenx product, which we own in China is also fast growing. And last year, we had total sales of USD 400 million, and we have $800 million cash in the bank. So overall, I think company is in a very healthy state. Josh, you want to?

Great. Very good.

That's perfect. Thanks for the overview. So kind of -- when we talk about we are in multiple different therapeutic areas, and we have a big operation in commercial and R&D. But kind of before we dive into all of that, I kind of want to start off with, so in-licensing model. This is a kind of an innovation model that really first put Zai Lab on the map, I guess, a couple -- quite a few years ago. And it's been a bit of time since then. I'm just curious to kind of better understand. So for the in-licensing model, how do we see -- given the current landscape in China and globally, how do we evaluate this model now? Are there still opportunities? And where do we go from here with this kind of innovation model?

I think for China -- for China market, right, we think if their product, they are synergistic with our existing pipeline. We're still interested in China rights because China is still -- I think the -- looking back, China just started NRDL reimbursement 2018. So just -- it's not long, it's 7 years, but the market has been growing. And like for the Iressa, it's close to USD 1 billion sales already in China. So several products are reaching that kind of scale. And that's for China. So we're still interested in great assets either stand-alone pipeline of product or asset synergistic with our existing China pipeline. But for global rights, we -- of course, we are very selective. And we prefer that in the therapeutic areas, we have strong expertise, strong internal expertise, and we combine our own discovery with external innovation. So we opened a good -- with our presence in China for the last 25 years and as the first company, biotech company, that was the previous company, and we have a lot of know-how in terms of the market, in terms of the people, in terms of the good clinical sites. So we're definitely open to in-licensing good global assets.

Got it. And I think as you mentioned, for in-licensing side of the equation, we have done a lot in oncology, and then we make a big foray into, I think, neurology/immunology with VYVGART. And then we're also kind of exploring further into kind of the CNS space with KarXT. So I mean you mentioned in terms of whatever we're looking for next direction has to be synergistic. But just given the existing landscape in China and considering the competition and considering the outlook, like is there any particular area that we might look to further build up in, whether it's neurology or immunology, given that we have 2 pretty major assets in the space already?

Yes, definitely because we already have great products in those 2 areas. Like earlier this year, we did the pove, right, from Vertex. So that's also synergistic with our immunology pipeline. And so if there is -- in China for China rights, immunology, oncology and also neurology, definitely we'll be interested with a synergistic combination. But for global rights, we prefer to stay in the therapeutic areas where like as I said, oncology, immunology where we feel we are very -- we can handle the global trials ourselves.

Understood. So I think that's a good place to kind of also transition to. So the other side of your equation is, we have made a lot of strides and efforts into leveraging kind of internal discovery or leverage other approaches to developing potential global assets, right? So could you kind of walk us through your thought process in terms of how do we balance between internal discovery or kind of getting global rights to other assets externally? How do we balance that? And in terms of carrying forward, what kind of assets or what's our consideration in terms of looking for partnership to bring an asset further along or in terms of doing it ourselves for the global expansion?

Josh runs the BD team and here, I'll let Josh answer that.

Yes. Yes. I mean, I'll start. As we think about the global pipeline, we do have our own discovery capabilities. And I think what we've sort of focused on there is where do we think we can make the biggest difference. So we're focused on large molecule platforms like monoclonal antibodies, ADCs, bispecifics in oncology and immunology. So while we have some chemistry capabilities, I think our view is other people can do that differently better and so on. And we'll focus on a handful of good discovery programs a year. I think our experience, both Samantha's as well as mine, I used to work at Eli Lilly, she worked at Pfizer, is once you start to get up to 10, 20, 30 projects per year in the candidate space, it gets very hard to manage, and there's lots of temptations to move things forward that aren't best-in-class. So we're going to pick precedented mechanisms where we think we can make a difference with those technologies and initiate those programs. And I think probably it's fair to assume the equivalent of 1 to 2 INDs a year out of our own focused efforts, we're going to supplement that then with business development focused on, I think, early phase opportunities. I think we can make the most difference. If we look at opportunities in the preclinical to early clinical space where we can add some insights, leverage our global development capabilities to bring something, it's a good idea to bring it forward fast. And I think we saw that on the DLL3 program. So again, I think there as Samantha mentioned, focused on oncology and immunology, we have the scientific capabilities, the insight and the development capabilities to move those fast. I would think of that over time, probably similarly, one -- the equivalent of 1 to 2 INDs a year coming out of that space. We look all over the world. We want innovation to be first-in-class, best-in-class kind of opportunities. Increasingly, we see some of those opportunities in China. And of course, we have -- with Samantha's background and network and our experience in China, we have really good -- the whole team. We have great insights there. But I think -- so maybe more frequently, you'll see things like the ADC program that we did with DLL3, but I'm based in Boston, our business development teams all over the world. We're looking at stuff everywhere.

Perfect. So yes, I think in terms of this direction that you're mentioning, especially in immunology, right? So we recently also published a global report that focus that we think immunology is one area of out-licensing from China. That's relatively less tapped than, say, oncology or cardiometabolic obesity space specifically, right? There's been good healthy deals from China for these kind of assets. So if you could walk through us in terms of how do we think about the opportunity set in this immunology space, right? How could we leverage this kind of potential need if it becomes the next wave of out-licensing, then how are we positioned in this space?

I'll start. Yes. And then you can jump in. I think, first, what we see, if we contrast immunology with oncology, I think what we see with immunology is a little bit of patient data and a little bit of differentiation goes a long way, right? So I think with oncology, we can get excited about the mechanisms and you still have to run all the trials and you get surprised on overall survival and all those kind of things. I think with immunology, you know pretty quickly whether you have an opportunity or not. So we're quite interested in that space. We have great expertise in immunology. Now we're running -- I mean, we've got probably the equivalent of probably approaching 1,000 patients in clinical trials because we do all the China work for argenx and now for pove and otherwise. So our ability to learn from our portfolio and to leverage clinical sites and investigators and other things, I think, gives us a real capability boost and advantage. So I think we're going to look for -- again, I think we're probably less interested given the company of our size and otherwise in totally novel biology. But I think for precedented mechanisms where a new modality may make sense or where there's still a race or an opportunity through creative design or fast-moving sort of development, we're going to want to take advantage of that. And I think we see ourselves able to play across a range of the immunology conditions. And I say, the good thing, and I would take our IL-13/31 as an example, I think by this time next year, we should begin to generate data in atopic dermatitis patients, where, again, whether it's a better dosing regimen, faster onset of action or better relief on itch, a little bit of that data, I think, becomes a pretty valuable asset. And we'll see that -- we'll look for that to bring in and develop ourselves as well for other conditions. Sorry, Samantha, jump in.

No, it's great.

Yes. So we've been talking a lot in terms of the strategic level, right? If I think we can take a bit deeper into the individual pipelines. So I think as you guys mentioned earlier, DLL3 ADC is really one of the key assets that we have in terms of our globalization plan. Could you kind of give us a bit more background in terms of -- given that all the positive data this DLL3 has published, how do we see its differentiation from the current landscape? There are fairly many other competitions in the whole small cell lung cancer space, right? And in terms of how do we prioritize our clinical development strategies for this asset specifically and also kind of the development plan forward, partnership how far long. Could you kind of lay it out for us in terms of how we see this one to come to fruition basically?

Go ahead.

Okay. I'll start. So I think -- I mean, of course, in small cell lung cancer, there's lots of, Jack, as you say, sort of investment and developments otherwise. But if we look at the thing that's right in front of us, which is second line and later small cell lung cancer, there's really 2 options today in the U.S. and even fewer options outside the U.S. It's some kind of chemo regimen or IMDELLTRA. And IMDELLTRA is off to a great start in the U.S., I think, trending towards -- annualizing towards like $500 million in sales. But it's a difficult drug to administer in a second-line setting. Our view is that -- well, first, the overall response rate is what, 35%, I think, in the confirmatory trial and sort of there are challenges in terms of monitoring patients. And otherwise, our view is probably somewhere in the range of 20% or less of patients have access to that drug in the U.S. just because of the monitoring and the safety concerns. And that is why I think we see ourselves as Samantha mentioned at the beginning, in a position for an accelerated approval in second line and later small cell lung cancer in the U.S. by the end of 2027. So about 2 years from now. And I think that, that space in the U.S. is pretty -- it's pretty big, right? I mean so if IMDELLTRA is trending at that level after less than 2 years on the market and a pretty limited sort of patient aperture, I think, we see this as a pretty big opportunity. And we think -- certainly, from a DLL3 perspective, we think that's a great target. I think, of course, IMDELLTRA validates that. But I think from an ADC perspective, we see this as an opportunity to provide much better patient response. Our data is 79% ORR in the targeted dose that we're taking into the registration study and a very mild safety profile, less than 6% serious adverse events in the trial. What we know relative to other DLL3 ADCs is we're going to be first by somewhere in the range of 18 to 24 months, I think, is the advantage we have today when we think about the IDEAYA data from the weekend and the next one, Roche in event coming behind that. So we like where we're positioned in the late line setting. And again, that's very easy to see and very definable. I think the space then where we're going to see lots of continued innovation, this is great for patients, is in the frontline setting, and we're doing studies today to support a first-line registration study next year in combination with PD-1 and with or without chemo, we'll see what the data looks like. And then I think over time, other opportunities to combine with emerging agents. I guess the final one I would say is we also see data on B7-H3s as another ADC approach for small cell lung cancer, I think certainly in the second-line setting, we like the profile of -- I think our drug is cleaner, the target is cleaner, and we see that show up in terms of -- certainly in terms of safety and safety events. So I think for us, it's full speed ahead in the second line study. We'll get that up and running this year. Be in a position, we believe, to submit data for an accelerated approval in the U.S. in late '24 and approval in late 2027 with the final confirmatory overall survival data coming after to be in the same trial. So we're really excited about this opportunity.

Understood. Yes. No, I think there's a lot of anticipation for these assets. And I think kind of following up on the time line that Samantha was sharing, I think you touched on it as well that we are potentially expecting kind of a durability type of data on the second-line setting, sometime this October. That's what we expecting and then...

In the mid year, [ next October ]. Yes.

Okay. And also first line sometime next -- early next year. So if you can walk us through in terms of what kind of data or what kind of bar we would be expecting. So first for the second-line setting, if you're looking at the durability, how should we think about the data that's come out? And also for the frontline setting, we haven't really seen much yet from anybody really. So what are going to be kind of the key things that you're going to look for in that first print of kind of first-line combination data?

Please go ahead.

Maybe you want me to start. I think in the second-line data that we'll show in October, it will be -- it's about basically 6 months more data from what we showed at ASCO in June. And I think what's most important in that data set will be to get to the confirmed ORR. Again, we showed a 79% ORR in the dose that we're taking into the registration study in the dose and setting. Of course, just given the maturity of that data, some of that was unconfirmed. So I think the bar we'd expect to be is -- again, there's no reason -- we don't have any reason to believe that won't hold up. But I think the bar we say is somewhere above 60% ORR on a confirmed basis in that dose and in that setting, we think is a winner, okay? And I think we're anxiously awaiting the data cut in the presentation. I think the thing that's a question from the ASCO data, just given the maturity of it, is the duration data, right? So DOR and PFS. And I think that by the data cut that we provide in October, we will presumably have reached the medians. So we'll be able to provide that on a real basis. And I think there -- again, if we think about the second-line setting, I think probably the bar is 4 months or so of PFS or durability overall. I mean for us, I think our DOR and PFS should be pretty close together. We have every reason to believe that we'll be doing better than that, okay? So I think we think about plus or minus 6 months is probably the right place to be. Again, we don't have any -- I'm not saying that's what it's going to be, but I think that's just based on what we could eyeball from the data before. I think we're trending in that direction. But I think drug in the second-line setting that's at a 60% ORR and something better than 4 months with the safety profile that we have, which, of course, contributes to those other 2 variables, we think is an exciting opportunity, be benefit the patient and I think puts us in a good position for an accelerated approval. I think as we get into the first-line setting, of course, we need to see the data. And otherwise, I'd say there's not a lot yet. But the view would be with a mild safety profile that we have with our -- with 1310 combined with a PD-1, we should be able to get the targeted effects of chemo without all the safety liabilities, which should lead to very good PFS and OS benefit versus the current standard of care, which is PD-1 plus chemo regimen. We'll see how that data, as I say -- as Samantha said, we're looking at multiple sort of cohorts there to decide what's the right approach there. But again, I think that anything that can add modest benefits in terms of PFS and survival is going to be an important addition for clinicians in terms of how to treat patients. I think the good thing then over time, and we see this in all the other tumors where you start to get investment and see progress is you start to stack those months up, right? And over time, there'll be opportunities to not only pursue whatever we decide to pursue from a first-line perspective next year. I think there'll be other combinations that will make sense in first-line or maintenance setting, including things like combinations with T-cell engagers and otherwise. So we'll think about all that over time. But I think for the near term, it's using the ADC mechanism to get the more powerful benefits of chemo when combined with the PD-1 without the safety challenges that come with the more promiscuous dosing that you have to do without an ADC.

Yes, yes. And also, we're also doing trials on neuroendocrine based on our preliminary and first -- and POC, we saw the responses, right? So if that -- next year, we'll report that data. I think if that data looks even 20%, that's the breakthrough for that field.

Yes, yes, second line in those neuroendocrine tumors, the ORR and response -- I mean, and durability is pretty low in terms of approved or standard of care today. And again, it's early responses, right? So you don't need to see many to get excited here, and we're excited.

Yes.

Yes. So lots of things to look forward to in the next 6 to 12 months for this asset. And I know we have quite a few kind of major assets, bema, KarXT, VYVGART, right? Just kind of on the topic of -- while we were on the topic of kind of immunology, right? I also want to ask in terms of pove, right? In terms of the overall kind of development landscape and the competitive landscape in China, right, it's not necessarily kind of like the very first one to kind of be doing this. So could you share with us in terms of like the underlying rationale why we choose pove at this time point to kind of explore in this place -- space in China?

I'd start with it's a very big opportunity. I think we look at IgAN in China. Overall, it's in the millions of patients opportunity. And while there's lots of developments in the space, I think from an APRIL/BAFF inhibitor, which we think is the combination of those 2 pathways, I think we think is the most powerful approach to IgAN. We like -- we started discussions with Alpine before they were acquired by Vertex. So we like that asset. We like that space. And I think it's -- we think it's a best-in-class opportunity. But again, I think given the size of the market, having multiple new mechanism approaches, whether it's just a BAFF or the combination or others, I think, is going to be good here in launching the best-in-class as maybe second or third or whatever. And again, a lot of this is going to depend on the data and depend on the specific regulatory path in China. We do believe we're set up well and aligned well with what Vertex is pursuing in the U.S. in terms of an accelerated approval with the interim data cut mid next year. We think that's a workable approach in China as well. So we think we have an opportunity to be near the front of the line, maybe not first in terms of the various mechanisms here, but certainly best-in-class over time. But again, I think even in a competitive space here, that's not a bad thing because this is all -- these are all new approaches to treating IgAN in China. And again, there's a huge market opportunity. So having more than one pathway and maybe multiple competitors even with the same pathways is probably okay. But I think the things we know relative to the others who may or may not launch before us or after us or close to us is, we know we've got dosing benefits, and I think we believe we'll probably have a deeper and more permanent type of benefit. Again, that has to be -- that has to play out, but we really like the opportunity.

Understood. And yes, I think that's what I was thinking because it doesn't hurt to kind of have -- it's a new area to have some others kind of pave the way and we come in with a much better products to help with the penetration. So I mean, I'm being watchful of the time. There's other questions I kind of want to go through in terms of kind of the overall China biotech landscape. But again, we know that we have quite a few major products. So if you kind of give us -- maybe spend the next 3 minutes -- or 3, 4 minutes or so, kind of give us a talk about our big products, like KarXT, VYVGART, bema. And I think those are the kind of 3 major ones. In terms of things we should look forward to in the next 6 to 12 months for these kind of assets.

I'll start with VYVGART. Next 6 months -- so first, the first thing to look at is we're -- it's -- we continue to get more patients in and get them on therapy for longer. And longer for us is getting patients up to at least 3 courses of therapy to get the full benefits of consolidation therapy. And then more than 3 over time to prevent relapses and to make sure that patients with gMG in China can work and live totally normal and healthy lives, and this drug gives you the chance to do that, right? But I think in terms of then sort of meaningful pieces, the most meaningful for this year is in the rearview mirror, but just very close in the rearview mirror, and that's the adoption or the publication of new national guidelines for gMG treatment in China. In those guidelines, VYVGART is positioned as a frontline therapy for patients with mild to moderate gMG and patients who are active, and it reinforces the need to get patients to at least 3 courses of therapy to get the benefits of consolidation therapy. We know from other places where you're building a market, other markets, other therapeutic areas, guidelines make a difference. They're a big difference. We've seen that in GLPs and everything else around the world. So that was big. The next sort of big inflection point for us will be NRDL for 2026. Of course, we want to manage a reasonable price for the IV version, but we need to get the subcu Hytrulo version added in 2025. We expect we will. That will be a big unlock in terms of patient benefits, convenience, persistency over the course of the therapy. I think those are the things to think about in the near term. Maybe back to our comments on pove, getting a few more competitors in this space will be good. I mean we still only have like 10% of patients who could benefit from a newer therapy like VYVGART getting -- even getting prescribed today. So having a few more launches and reasonable competition, I think, will help us overall. We'll see that over the course of the next 12 to 18 months. So I think that's for VYVGART. I think, for COBENFY or KarXT, it's getting the approval and getting out and educating physicians on the benefits of this product. I think we do have some advantages in China relative to the U.S., and that is the concentration of patients, that's still very concentrated in big urban psych wards, monotherapy -- atypical antipsychotic monotherapy is by far the standard of care. It's more diverse in the U.S. where you have much more combination therapy and otherwise. So the label, the opportunity with COBENFY is very straightforward in China. We just need to get approved and get out on the market. Bema, we've said we need to wait now given the most recent update from Amgen, who owns the global disclosure on this product. They've said that in FORTITUDE-101, where we hit on the prespecified interim analysis on overall survival, they've said in the final analysis, which is just descriptive, which is 6 months further follow-up, they saw the overall survival benefit decrease. Given that announcement and the fact that there's a second study 102, that's about to read out, we've just said we're going to -- we will pause on our bema submission efforts, wait for that data package that altogether and move forward. So I don't think we have much to say on bema other than gastric cancer is a huge opportunity in China. There's a big unmet need. And we hope that bema is part of that, part of the go-forward treatment paradigm.

Understood. Perfect. Just one quick question, I think to follow up on the COBENFY as well. So we're expecting a pretty near-term approval. And I understand given the kind of the cycle, there might be a period of time where it's not covered under NRDL. So how do we think about in terms of the NRDL strategy when it comes to pricing, given I think there is some dynamic you mentioned, that's fairly concentrated in China, and that could be good for commercial adoption. So how do we think about in terms of the commercial strategy for under NRDL and also the things that -- key items that we're going to be progressing on during that period before it actually gets covered under NRDL?

I think first, yes, we -- best case scenario is we get an approval right toward the end of the year or very early next year. So we will have some period of time probably close to a calendar year before it's eligible for NRDL listing. That's just the way the process works in China. I think, though, if we fast forward to whatever that is, and we'll work back, I think we can look at lots of reference points in China and the way that the pricing dynamics are set. And I think it's fair to assume that we can or should be at somewhere between 10% to 15% of the U.S. net price which on a daily basis could be $5 or more, you put that against the patient population in China, and you can get to pretty exciting commercial numbers without having to make unrealistic assumptions about -- at any given time, the amount of patients or the penetration relative to atypical antipsychotics like COBENFY. I think in the period between when we're approved and when we have NRDL listing, again, these are patients who certainly need different therapies. This is a drug without a black box warning. It's a drug that provides lots of benefits as it relates to the negative symptoms associated with schizophrenia. So we'll pursue every opportunity through commercial insurance, supplemental insurance. There's lots of trends in China now to try to amplify the opportunities for drugs before they go on to NRDL to be reimbursed and then otherwise. And I think I wouldn't put a huge number in for 2026 in the models, but I think we certainly expect a lot of patients to begin to benefit from this drug and physicians to get experience using it in 2026 in anticipation of a 2027 take-off.

Yes. Understood. Perfect. So I think -- let me walk into kind of a broader topic. So given kind of the rise of China biotech through this year, we're getting a lot more attention. Curious to think about what are your thoughts in terms of moving forward, how does China biotech or just China innovation positions in the global ecosystem, right, in the years down the line? And in terms of having this more nuanced relationship, I guess, with overseas innovators, are there -- what kind of potential geopolitics or policy-related risks or things that you might be concerned with? Or you feel like you might not need to be concerned with?

Let me answer your last question first. I think the U.S.-China relationship has been rocky, we know that for the -- and even before COVID, right? However, we're in a very different field. We are in medicine sales. Even during World War II, right, you have to give treatment to captives, right, even the war captives, soldiers captives. So I think so far, we haven't -- from China and the government side, from the U.S. government side, all the meetings have been to -- I think people are not too concerned about this because we are now seeing -- we are not like database sensitive. We're not into the [ mapping ] genomics, we're really into providing medicine for patients with medical needs. So that's -- I just stop there. But I would say never -- cannot say -- what's the word?

Never say never.

Never say never, right? So I can't -- I'm not a politician. I got a question one time and say when China is going by Times Square, I was like, well, oh, okay. I said I'll recommend you a few very well-known commercial real estate developers, ask him that question, right. But anyway -- so I think coming back to the China ecosystem. I think -- actually, if you flashing back when I first went back, that was 2001, and China was still in the mode of generics and traditional Chinese medicines. I remember the first company when I founded to apply an IND required 2 years and also drug approval between China, even after China joined ICH, between China and U.S. is 5, 7 years lag. But it just -- 2 decades later, now you see more than 5,000 biotech companies. I think this attributed to, I think, number 1 is, over the last 2 decades, you see a heavy investment from multinationals, are setting up R&D centers. And also, you see the policy, China joined ICH. China's regulatory process improved. China also opened up national reimbursement system for innovation -- innovative drugs. So I think all of this and also because the -- lot of also talents, home-grown talent and also a lot of talents who have been sent back to China, just like in the '80s in Japan, when I was working in [ '80s, ] '90s at Pfizer, we set up R&D center in Osaka, Japan. Each year, we spend $1 billion. So we intubate a lot of talents for the country. I think multinationals have done that for China too, but also looking back the talents, I think if you look at the people, Josh, right? You look American. You are American, right? But -- and China is attractive market. And the policy, I think, is more and more through -- I think it's bumpy. I would say bumpy, but still the trend is going up, right? And another one, so patients, patient is there over the last 2 decades. I remember the first global multiple center trials was conducted in China was a project I was involved when I was at Pfizer that was in 1997. Back those days, there's -- you pretty much have to put the people there, just do it for them just for the sake of patients. But after 2 decades, China actually, especially in oncology, in anti-infectives, now immunology, has actually built up the expertise, a lot of global KOLs. Now in a lot of global trials, I think you see the leading KOLs from China and the publications now it's actually exceeding U.S. in scientific journals, new England Journal of Medicine, all of that. So I think patients there, KOLs there, the entrepreneurs there and more and more capital is flowing in, even the Chinese government wants to do 3 pillar industries, one is semiconductor, AI and then life science, innovative life sciences. That's first time ever they announced that. So I think that is good for whole human being because you don't want the U.S. to be the only country to support innovation, pay for innovation and the more and more country doing that is going to be good for everyone.

Awesome. Perfect. Excellent. So I think -- yes, I think we're coming up on time. So we'll close it here. And thank you so much both Samantha and Josh for joining us today. And thank you, everyone for coming.

Thanks, Jack.

Thank you.