Zealand Pharma A/S ($ZEAL)

Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us. My name is Rajan Sharma, European pharma and biotech analyst here at Goldman Sachs. Very pleased to have Zealand Pharma with us and Adam Steensberg, CEO, Adam, thank you. Thanks for joining. I know that you've been on the road with ADA. So thanks for adding on this to the trip.

Pleased to be here.

Lots to get through. And obviously, we're coming off the back of 88%. So maybe that's a good place to start. There are a few updates there, both with server tide and petrolintide. Could you maybe just start with server-type because that was kind of the more the newer update that we got over the weekend? And just provide your thoughts on the data.

Absolutely. And as you said, I've just spent almost a week at around at ADA. And it was a really you can say, a positive experience coming out of ADA kicking off Friday with a symposium on amylin and really starting to change the conversations from how we get to the maximum tolerated dose is more towards how do you get to the minimum effective doses when you think about treating obesity. So there is a quite significant change in the ecosystem right now. now that we start to see more modalities approaching the market. And specifically, with Beringer being the CEO, Sean I was, of course, extremely pleased to see the strong presence they had at the conference probably being 1 of the biggest bunches and having this very strong presence around obesity and think lever. And as you also said, they presented data Sunday, which really speaks to the strength of servalotide being liver fat and visual fat targeted therapies, which also showed signs of preserving muscles to a larger extent than what we have seen before with other molecules. So I was actually very pleased with the profile and also with seeing how the burner management team, their excitement around it. When we think about the top line data that was released on the -- both on weight loss and tolerability, I was also a little bit surprised to see that somewhat higher level of vomiting and discontinuation than what I had expected from the study. But at the session, we learned that Berger had applied a very strict titration protocol where it did not allow Peel in the trial to kind of personalize the titration and they did also not allow for deescalation once you have reached the higher doses. So we know that from any other trial that if you don't allow for flexibility in the titration, then people have side effects on the DT1. So that was a little bit of a surprise to me. that, that was started a sign that was chosen investigators indicated that was based on some regulatory interactions. What I would say, however, and what gives me a lot of confidence going beyond those headline numbers is when I speak to the senior executives at Boehringer they are very, very confident that they can -- you can say, change this with a more personalized and modified titration scheme where you're allowed to go slower and also de-escalate ones need be. And they, as you could also see in the release from them, have actually initiated studies now to help inform how to titrate servitotite in a real-world setting, including also new studies in women's health and heart failure and what have you. So a very, very committed team but also a little bit surprised to see that they have been so strict about situation.

Yes. Just on the point on the titration, I remember at the presentation, the presenter noted that the flexibility was added quite late in the trial. -- and that's going to be kind of informing future programs. So are you in synchronized 2, for example, is the flexibility in the trial? So could that be a trial which better and similarly with the leverage program, which will be important for us.

Yes. So we don't have the insights. It was implemented into these studies once Boehringer to discover that they had issues with dropout rates. And apparently, when you listen to the investigators had a meaningful impact -- for some of these studies, it was perhaps too late to have an impact what the investigators indicated, I think, at the conference was that deliberate studies, which we started later. I think they were running with the flexible titration schedule from the start. And there, they felt that the issues with tolerability have been addressed. So -- I mean -- and of course, I don't have all the detailed data that Boehringer team have it and they feel extremely comfortable around being able to address this. And that gives me a lot of confidence as the molecule move forward, really being a molecule that targets I think the biggest you can say desire for when you engage in a weight loss that is, you should not focus about who can get the highest weight loss, but who can get the most metabolic benefits out of a reasonable weight loss.

Okay. And just on the piece and you mentioned around sort of liver fat and visceral fat and even body composition. To what extent is that important to both physicians and patients? Because I know, again, at the conference, there was some debate around the whole body composition piece and the extent to which that is important in clinical practice. So what would take there?

I think it's easy to think about for the physicians, it's extremely important that you lose the right amount of that because as a physician, you know that it's the visual fat, it's the fat in the liver. -- that caused all the negative health consequences of living with a strong less driver for a physician to target that weight loss towards bad fat, if you will, and protect somewhat, especially the muscles, but actually also subcutaneous fat. One thing, if we think about people living [indiscernible] who starts on a walas journey, we know for a long time, there's a you can say, a big concern around losing muscles when you embark on a weight loss journey. And here we saw data, I would say, we have, which showed only that 10% of the weight loss was driven by muscle, which is a very different number than the 30% we have seen with other molecules. So that could speak directly to, you can say, the patients really wanting to protect their muscles when they engage in a weight loss journey. The other thing, which I think will also play into the patient experiences that we see a lot of patients stopping taking the higher doses of the currently available ones because they don't want to lose too much facial fat and subcutaneous fat. And that's, again, with servalutide where it's targeted visual and liver fat, I think we actually have a product that will speak directly to being able to have a modest weight loss, lose the right fab, the bad fat and protect your facial fat for instance, so you don't get that you can say, expression where people start to feel that look even older.

Yes. And obviously, as a company, you know the GLP-1 space pretty well as well given your history there. And when you look at the server get data, and that sort of elevated discontinuations and the nausea. Do you think that's driven by the GLP-1 component of servagutide? Or is that additional sort of AEs being driven by the glucagon component.

I think it's driven by DT1. And I think there's not a single tier the 1 out there or in development who which would not deliver the same amount of GI side effects and dropouts, if you were as strict as being initially were in these studies. We know that these drugs are being being personalized. Also in the real world. I mean, there are very few physicians who would prescribe have currently approved T1 according to label because they know they say reasonable both from a side effect profile, but also if you look -- think about -- you don't want to lose to it too fast. So we are -- for a real world, we are starting to learn to dose much more slow with these molecules. And that is what Boehringer is now addressing in an upcoming Phase III study to really inform how to use and how to titrate this product in the real world.

Yes. Okay. Maybe thinking a little bit more positively on Zevo. -- the MAS data, I thought was pretty impressive. Could you again just kind of provide your perspective there and help us put that into context relative to the other GLP ones?

But I'm -- this -- I think I started saying that, that is really what impressed me. And remember, they achieved these data even during the constraints of the study that we just discussed. So that makes it even more impressive. We saw levels that went from 30% fat content to 2% fat content in the presentation. And this is really the holy grail of trying to promote metabolic health and help people living with obesity, having a more a better metabolic condition. And if you then think about that Boehringer also investing in likely the largest studies ever conducted in in Mass. So we have leverage 1 and 2, which address both F2 and 3, but also cirrhotic patients that gives Boehringer a very, very strong value proposition for the sebeltype being if you're an obese individual, there's a 65% chance that you also have excessive fat in your liver. And there's a chance if you live with that condition for a long time, it will develop into end-stage liver diseases, so why not treat the liver, also knowing today that most patients are not interested in that very high weight loss. So if you're a person who looks for 12% to 15% weight loss, and you can target that weight loss to liver health liver fat, that's such a strong value proposition.

Okay. And then if you think about utilization, and obviously, that's up to Boehringer in terms of the commercialization as opposed to yourselves, but you will need to think about commercializing petrolentide. So how would you sort of think about the potential population that servigetide might be relevant for obesity as opposed to MASH.

Yes, but it's relevant for patients who can tolerate a DT1 Yes. And it's, of course, when you're a prescriber, it's relevant for patients where you want to really target that liver-specific weight loss, which could translate into very, very significant metabolic benefits because the liver is actually where a lot of the risk markers for cardiovascular disease arrives that comes from CP lipids, et cetera. That is from the liver. So you may actually consider a product like servlotype could ultimately provide more metabolic benefit, can it also address a topic fat in other organs and thus helping organ organs even more than the indirect effects of a way close. So I think it's really a product that speaks directly into the metabolic health, those who seek metabolic health more than just weight loss, okay? And the narrative that we have been promoted for quite some years, and I've called it to stop the Weiloslympics because the observation in the real world is that patients don't care about that highest weight loss number. We have, for a long time as an industry been pushing towards that biotic surgery weight loss, not realizing that most patients are not info and very fuel actually are offered by adicsurgery historically. Patient seems to be looking for that 10% to 15% weight loss. And if server can deliver that, but generate significant more metabolic health, that's a very sharp value proposition. And that gives me a lot of confidence Boehringer also pushing that narrative forward is 1 of the highly differentiated Tier 1 options out there.

Yes. One of the other things I thought was interesting about that study was the fact that up to 15% of patients on the placebo arm were actually receiving a GLP-1 therapy and got access. So there's probably a good segue into Patry as well. How do you think about controlling that in a clinical trial? And is that just a challenge that the industry faces from here?

I think it's likely the highest number we have seen thus far, but I think it's things we need to get used to deal within clinical trial readouts in the future because there's a lot of patients, number 1 who have already been exposed to therapy and thus you can say, have had initial weight losses, and therefore, you may not be able to expect the same degree of weight loss in the future study environment. The other thing is when people find out that they are on placebo, which is quite easy when you're in a GLP-1study, -- then you have patients who then turn to use GLP-1s. And it was a high number in this study, which also drew up the placebo effect for the study but I think we used to [indiscernible] it very much depends on also which sites you go to it's clear that it's a larger phenomenon in the U.S. because you have easier access to GLT-1 than, for instance, Europe and other places of cans, if you will. So it's something we, as an industry, will have to deal with is something we will have to discuss with FDA how to handle. And of course, when we ultimately view data, we need to take those differences into account.

Okay. And at some point, do you expect that the standard way of running an obesity trial will be to use a GLP-1 or an over-approve medication in the control arm?

I mean that remains to be seen. But remember, if you add Tier 1 as a control arm, then it will not be blinded anymore because people will know what they aren't because of the side effects of the other ones. So it's not easy to just -- there's not a one fix here. It's going to be a multitude of different things. But of course, ultimately, head-to-head studies will be important to inform how to use these medications as we start to have more tools. We have to remind ourselves that today we only have kind of 2 very similar tools, which I would normally describe as a HAMR and one which is a little bit bigger and then somewhat trying to develop a steamer -- once we start to have its proved toolbox, -- of course, in a more mature market, we will start to see more head-to-head studies.

Yes. Okay. And last 1 on ovation I assume the sledgehammer is potentially retire that you're talking about. How do you think servagetide compares in a world where acetate may also be on the market, even it has a gluten component and could have a liver benefit as well.

Yes. But that, of course, remains to be seen how the 2 molecules play out when we start to see the clinical data. I think sebutide, as Boehringer is arguing and as we have been arguing for a long time, it has been specifically been designed to address liver health, liver fat, not with the maximum weight loss in mind. So with the relative balance of an appropriate wait loss, which they released, we saw these fantastic data endeavor getting fat out of the liver. So the relative balance between the GS1 and glean component has to be shown how that, you can say, a different dose levels contribute to a healthy lever for the different molecules. We are very, very, you can say, happy with the profile, the balance between weight loss and metabolic improvements that we see with servitutide and that Bernard reported.

Okay. Maybe we should move on to [indiscernible] inside. I'm conscious that we've also already got through quite a lot of time. What were the key updates that you would highlight fatality at ADA? Obviously, we've already seen the top line data. What were the incremental new learnings in your view?

I mean there's no question that ADA this year was kicked off with an ADA sponsor at Symposium and amylin where the presenters presented amylin as a logical new first-line therapy as they would argue, why would you not start with the most benign treatment and only go to more cumbersome treatments if that first modality doesn't deliver what it's looking for, and specifically at that session, they also presented the different amylin analog. And when patritide was mentioned with the double-digit weight loss and placebo-like tolerability. All of them said, this is a natural first choice therapy for a patient who starts a weight loss journey. And one of the presenters even kind of presented a hypothetical future treatment paradigm where amylin would be really the primary care product and that the other ones would be reserved for the more complicated of these patients, which is actually speaking very much to how we have seen the field and how we have been developing patronside, not trying to go for the highest possible weight loss compromising and tolerability, but really going for that weight loss that we believe most patients are looking for 10% to 15% and then a placebo-like tolerability profile. And that is what we saw at ADA. And when you that the conversations not only in the symposium, but at the conquest in general, it was about tolerability. We need to find medicines in ways whereby patients can stay on therapy. So we don't have these cycles all the time on treatment of treatment -- that doesn't promote a lot of health if people get off treatment all the time, you need to develop to that patients could stay on. What I would also say what -- and I think is going to be a quite you can say, influential ADA when people look back this 1 because it's really -- my sense is that the obesity field at least has matured quite a lot in just compared to last year where we start to think about it like what has happened in other chronic therapy areas once you always start to treat the most difficult to treat patients, but as we mature, we start to think about obesity prevention, why is it we should wait until you have a body mass index of 45? Why not start earlier? And the other thing is, why don't we start with the most benign therapy that has a high likelihood of giving you the weight dose you're looking for just like patocyte and then only after that go to more cumbersome treatment. So that was a lot of the themes that we heard at ADA and [indiscernible]. It just speaks directly into that value proposition.

Yes. I guess to be sort of a definitive first-line therapy, part of that is also going to be outcome? So is that a view that you shared that you would need whether it's cardiovascular or otherwise that you need to demonstrate that there is a benefit beyond the weight loss to be able to justify that first-line use.

Absolutely over time, and we just have to remind ourselves that the reason that we as an industry on this space is, of course, to promote health. So ultimately, we also need to show that in outcome studies. And there, we have more data for the GLP-1 class. So -- but what I would say is that if you think it in the life of a normal prescriber, they have -- there are 3 main drivers for prescription data, hard and hassle. Data is about what is the weight loss you can deliver. And here we think with the transit, we can actually deliver the weight loss that the majority of patients are looking for. Hard that is you have to believe you do something well for the patients. And when we look into the risk markers, for cardiovascular disease and other organ diseases. They all go in the right direction. So at least there's a lot of belief that you can do something good until we deliver the proof in an outcome study and has with the tolerability profile that we have of Petrini, we can remove the hassle that people are more and more aware of with the GLT-1. It's a super cumbersome situation to prescribe the other ones because you have to engage with the patient de-escalate personalized every patient journey that takes a lot of time in the clinics. And the minute we can offer something where it's an easy prescription where you don't hear back from the patients until a few months later, and they can follow the follow the prescription, we think there's going to be a major change in our Phase II study. We had 98% of the patients who could follow the escalation steps without having to modify it that you could not do with the other one. So the change could come very, very fast in the minds of both patients, but also prescribers this first line of therapy.

Yes. You mentioned the Phase III data. Can we talk a little bit around that? So I guess looking at the stock reaction, it's fair to say that the market is a little bit disappointed by the level of weight loss that Petrolina showed in that trial. Has that data that changed your view and your conviction? And I think you talked previously to sort of 15% to 20% weight loss long term. Do you think that's still achievable, given what we've seen in?

The product that we are aiming to deliver now in Phase III is a product that delivers double-digit weight loss and with a placebo tolerability. And what really impressed us with the Phase II data was that the tolerability profile was even better than what we saw in Phase I because we are using escalation every 4 week instead of every 2 weeks. So -- and that is really what is important here, that is to deliver the most tolerable approach to deliver this double-digit weight loss. And I would argue just as a lot of the key opinion leaders at ADA argue that for any patient, it's a logical way to start your wait loss journey to start an anemia in particular with between type because it looks so benign. And if you're among the high responders, most patients will likely get to the weight loss target that they have. If you're in the middle range, some will get to the weight loss target they have. Others would have to add something. And if you're in the lower range, you should change to a different modality. So I'm not going to pursue the highest number, I'm going to pursue the product, which I think will be the natural starting point for any patient. And then as importantly, a product which patients can decide to stay on because it's really the biggest issue is that people start taking the the other one today. And so we don't get to persistency also the way we have less than 20% on treatment after a year, which is a huge dilemma because then we don't achieve the health that we are looking for. If I have a product that is tube that doesn't impact the way people want to live their lives, I believe they will decide to stay on that therapy. And for a company also, of course, is the opportunity to unlock the value in this market if we manage to get patients to stay on therapy rather than just using it for a few months.

Okay. Can we talk about the Phase III as well in terms of what -- I mean, expectations for the trial design? And I think you haven't necessarily publicly committed to higher doses for petrol inside in Phase III and looking at the tolerability profile that you talked to may justify that. So could you just help us understand your thinking there?

Yes. So we are together with Rose, like fully focused on getting this Phase III studies. These studies started here in the second half. So it's fun. We are with both companies really, really putting a lot of effort into speed up and have a keen focus on getting to market as fast as possible. It's clear with -- as we move into Phase III, you should probably expect to see a different gender balance, so we have more females in the study, which should, of course, provide higher numbers and also a study of a longer duration. We'll add to that. When it comes to doses, we have not been, you can say, specific on the doses that we're going to forward take into Phase III, but we have presented the maximum effective dose, which was in the midrange. And I would say you should not expect us to utilize doses that are beyond what we tested in Phase II because if our data suggests that we will not get additional benefits out of that. On the other hand, what the data also suggests is even if we dose very high, we don't see a change in the side effect profile, which gives us a very high confidence as we move forward. that we will not pick up some strange signals in Phase III. So it's with a high degree of confidence we move forward. The profile of the drug is one which we believe will give double-digit weight loss and a placebo tolerability and really speak to that first-line therapy where any patient will start the journey.

Yes. Okay. And then you also have the combination with C3, and I think there is an actual name for that 1 now. How should we think about that fitting in with petrol monotherapy

That was actually -- you're right, we have -- when we partnered up with us, we made sure that we had equal financials and also equal development and commercialization on both the monotherapy patrons, but also the combination and we are going to post the combination into Phase 2 here this summer and which is a rather large study of more than 400 patients to really explore what are the right ratios between Amylin and GL1 TIP or patritide and CD388,it's -- and that -- those -- you can see the outcome of those -- of that study is, of course, going to inform how we're going to dose it in Phase III in a fixed dose, single container system. What I would highlight and another highlight for me at least that this ADA was also that was presented Phase II data from CD38, which, as we have kind of also assessed in our diligence when we partnered up, suggest that it's a very, very good Tier 1 IP. So from a combination point of view, of course, it adds a lot of hope for us to be able to to deliver something very special here.

On the point on sort of the combination, Lilly were obviously quite vocal in their kind of confidence in Lorain tied at ADA as well and talk to kind of having potentially the biggest development in in that company with multiple combinations. So how do you think about competitiveness Petrolina, firstly, the monotherapy relative to loraintide. And then obviously, the combination given that they've already started or they're ahead in development with the tozapatide combination.

For the monotherapy, we feel extremely comfortable because of all the things we have discussed here, it's not about winning the numbers games. It's about delivering a product that can give patients the weight loss. They are looking for in the most benign way. And that we think that profile is what we see with transit. We're actually super happy to see that Lilly is also moving forward with a monotherapy because then we can be 2 companies who are going to build a new category. It's not a small task to build a new category -- and we personally believe that Amlin is going to become a larger category for weight management because of that first line and that opportunity to actually have people to stay on therapy. When it comes to combination therapies, I actually also think we have the 2 strongest combinations who would not like to combine the most tolerable amylin product with the most potentially efficacious GLP-1 DIP product. So as we approach development of the combination product, we have to be very smart about what we do here as people probably are aware of that an obese individual who also have type 2 diabetes, that could be a natural place for an amylin TLT1 because the TLT-1 is very strong in A1c in less so, amylin is very strong on weight loss and diabetes patients, TF1 less so. So that's a natural opportunity that people are aware of. The other thing, when you think about combination therapies going forward, it's good practice for medical doctors to only combine things that work. And we already know for the the ones they have 15% of patients who don't get any benefit. So you don't want them in your combination study. So we need to be very smart as we start to think about what is the right product profile and who are the patients we're going to develop the combination if it's a focus on highest rate loss. It also has to be patients who actually want to have a 30% wave loss that you enroll in your studies and not general people living with obesity because most are going for that 10% to 15%. So this is where you will see a lot of change in the clinical trial conduct in the coming years and in the marketplace as we start to have choices, we're going to move beyond that that's dosed to the maximum tolerated dose. That is something you normally would do in oncology, not in chronic diseases towards minimum infected doses and then combinations that can help people individualize their weight loss journeys.

Okay. And then on time lines. So the phase the combination Phase III starting this summer, the monotherapy Phase III starting second half of the year. What is sort of time lines for readouts of those trials? And then ultimately, what is your base case for launch?

So we have not committed to that. And in the honor of the partnership, I will not be more, you're going to say, clear on time lines, except to say that we are as companies hyper-focused on speed to market and then, of course, continue to invest to expand the label.

Okay. And how do you execute around that in terms of hyper focus on speed to market? Is there anything that you can do in the Phase III is it rapid recruitment or is it sort of...

It's, of course, making sure, number one, and it's, of course, focusing on recruitment, but still making sure we get the right patients enrolled from the right centers and then it's focused on getting to market with a enough to get to market and then expand the label from there. So -- and.

Okay. And you haven't given a time line for launch, but when you launch in the market, what are your expectations for pricing within obesity?

It's too early to come because it's so dynamic as we all have witnessed in the past period. And I'm not or, [indiscernible] as some have described it, I've seen companies trying to ice points where patients are ready to contribute to paying. So we have almost half of of the people being on treatment today that pay themselves. So you kind of try to put your price where. And that's back to -- if you're sort of prospect to what is the value that the patient feels that they get out. So that's value-based pricing, Justice, you would do in consumer goods. When it comes to the traditional channels, we -- it's again back to value, but that's, of course, more on what value to society and so on. So we need to see the dynamics of the market. And then I just, again, I have to say, as you launch a new category, it will be -- that will carry its own pricing dynamics compared to existing categories, that's what we always see in other disease areas as well. So I cannot comment more specific on pricing, but I think the key opportunity to unlock the value on where the transit will really host the potential to unlike the value is to get patients to stay on therapy because then you also capture more value on -- from these patients.

Okay. And then the ZR2 data set should be expected second half of this year, right? What are your expectations for what we should see there? Or what is the profile that you're hoping to see?

The general notion from, I think, everyone who works on amylin is that in may provide the same degree of weight loss in patients -- individuals who live with type 2 diabetes in those who don't have type 2 diabetes. But are the ones in general, you see 30% less weight loss in patients living with type 2 diabetes. So of course, I look forward to see if the profile of the weight loss is similar to what we observed in patients who did not have diabetes.

Okay. And of course, I guess, the tolerability will you expect still a placebo-like

I would hope.

Just maybe in the last few minutes, you're thinking about some of the commercials on the obesity side of things. We've obviously seen a very strong launch from the first oral GLP-1. How do you think about relevance of the injectable opportunity in the context of that launch?

Yes. But it's clear to me at least that all the other ones do not address the biggest short experience of having lost your appetite. That is what we hear from patients is the biggest issue. And -- but doing it. I guess what we're seeing right now is it may be expanding the number of patients who decided to get on a weight loss medication. With a focus on the novel category as we are doing with patinatide, it's actually an opportunity for us because there will be more patients who have been exposed to TF1 and have those side effects that most actually the side is not for them because we have more patients who have trial and decided never again, then we have patients on a GLP-1. So if anything, it will just expand the number of patients who have been exposed to the 1 and can come and claim to their health care providers. I tried it. I don't want to do another one. I want to try this novel modality when petrenotide hopefully launch into the marketplace.

Okay. And do you have a kind of internal estimate or expectation as to what the split may be between injectables and oral long-term in obesity?

No. It's too early to say. And it's this fine compromise dilemma around, yes, all sounds simple, but we also know that compliance is very bad on oils in general versus an injectable every week once she's taking the first shot. Actually, many people find it more convenient to be an injectable. So it's very difficult to predict where this market will go with all the things that are changes. I have no question there will be in place also for the oil and for the injectables. And let's remember, we are so early into the treatment. We are 4 years into treatment of what I consider the biggest health care tenants of our time, and we are treating so few patients. So there will be plenty of room for growth for a lot of different opportunities.

Okay. And then maybe just to touch on capital allocation. You obviously have very healthy financials post the deal with Roche -- and you did announce a buyback with earnings earlier this year. Could you just talk through the rationale for the buyback and the timing.

Absolutely. And we have a clear set of priorities when it comes to our capital allocation. Number 1 is patriotide and maximizing the opportunity, investing as much as we can into between tight monotherapy, but also the combination product with 388 and secure the strongest launch possible. Number 2 is to expand our research focus. We're actually going to spend 5x as much in research in the coming 5 years as we did in the prior 5 years, so USD 800 million. That is our second priority, including expanding research footprint into Boston, Massachusetts. And then we had excess capital and decided to pay some back to investors in our share buyback program.

Okay. I guess the fact that you think you have excess capital, does that mean that the petrolintide development program is pretty much underpinned by the cash that you have?

We have a clear path to profitability. That was a fair point for me when we did this deal. I didn't want to be in a situation where I could not fund my half of the party.

Okay. And then maybe in the last second, anything in the broader pipeline that you would highlight beyond, maybe even beyond obesity that may be underappreciated.

But we have 2 rare disease assets, 1 which we are going to submit to FDA later this year. It could be on the market next year and then another one, which is currently enrolling in Phase III. So those 2 programs could, of course, add significant value as we make sure they're not going to be the key focus for the company, the early pipeline, how we mature that one, including Phase I asset in a broad autoimmune opportunity. These are some of the new value opportunities that we love to talk more about in the future as well.

Okay., I look forward to hearing that. I think we're at just at time. So thank you very much, Adam.

Thank you.