My name is Tim Miller, on behalf of Merit Cudkowicz and the VALOR Working Group, I am delighted to present today results from the phase III VALOR study and its open-label extension evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of tofersen in adults with ALS and confirmed SOD1 mutation. This study was sponsored by Biogen and uses antisense oligonucleotides developed by Ionis Pharmaceuticals. Some relevant disclosures, I serve on an advisory board and receive clinical support from Biogen, have a licensing agreement with and consulting for Ionis Pharmaceuticals, you can see other disclosures there as well. Merit Cudkowicz receives compensation from an advisory board for Biogen, you can see her other disclosures there as well. Mutations in SOD1 cause dominantly inherited ALS, about 10%-20% of the 10% that it's familial, or 1%-2% overall for ALS. The mutant SOD1 protein is prone to misfolding and likely interferes with multiple different cellular processes. The evidence indicates that the mutant SOD1 shows a toxic gain of function. Tofersen is an intrathecally administered antisense oligonucleotide that's designed to reduce SOD1 mRNA, and the protein will fall as well, and potentially slow disease progression. The VALOR study was for adults with weakness attributable to ALS and a confirmed SOD1 mutation. Randomization was 2 to 1, with 108 participants overall randomized to tofersen, 100 milligrams, or placebo, and the main part of the study took place for 28 weeks. There's an open-label extension that followed where everyone received the tofersen 100 milligram dose. The primary endpoint is the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised, that total score, the change from baseline. The key secondary endpoints are breathing, the percent predicted of the slow vital capacity, strength, which is the handheld dynamometry megascore, then time to death or permanent ventilation and also time to death. Other secondary endpoints included fluid biomarkers, the CSF or cerebrospinal fluid, SOD1 protein levels, which we expect to decrease with treatment with tofersen, and plasma neurofilament level. One key exploratory endpoint that I'll discuss today is the ALS questionnaire. We used a study enrichment, so a fast progressing population and a slower progressing cohort. The faster progressing cohort was defined by having an SOD1 mutation known to be associated with shorter survival, and greater than 0.2 points per month progression. Another SOD1 mutation with greater than 0.9 points per month progression. Again, this is on the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised, the slope decline. For both of those groups, for slow vital capacity of 65% or greater. There's also the slower progressing cohort, also with SOD1 mutations, with no requirement in terms of how quickly they were progressing and a slow vital capacity of greater than 50%. There was pre-specified subgroups defined based on baseline plasma neurofilament, and I'll show you some of those results. Overall, the groups were relatively well-matched in terms of riluzole and the edaravone use. Those are 2 FDA-approved drugs for ALS. Time from symptom onset, the plasma neurofilament levels, the ALS Functional Rating Scale pre-randomization slope, the ALS Functional Rating Scale baseline total score, and also the percent predicted of the slow vital capacity at baseline. On each of those measures, these groups were relatively well-matched. The effect on clinical function of the ALS Functional Rating Scale was the primary endpoint. The ALS Functional Rating Scale is a 48-point scale. It has 4 sub-domains of fine motor, gross motor, bulbar function, and breathing. On this endpoint, so for each of these slides, or multiple slides will show in blue is the slower progressing group, and in red is the faster progressing group. The solid lines are those treated with 100 milligrams of tofersen, and the dashed lines are those treated with a placebo. On the left is the VALOR study, on the right, the VALOR plus the open-label extension. As you can see in the VALOR study, there was relatively little difference and no statistical difference between the groups treated with tofersen compared to those treated with placebo. In the VALOR plus the open-label extension, there may be some stabilization of the ALS Functional Rating Scale in this group that had been treated with placebo, shown here. In terms of target engagement, this drug is designed to lower levels of SOD1 mRNA, and the protein then falls according to its half-life. The SOD1 protein levels do fall in the cerebrospinal fluid in those treated with tofersen. Again, placebo in the dashed lines, the treated group in solid. These two groups here, they were on placebo up until the time of the open-label extension, and then their SOD1 protein levels also fall in the cerebrospinal fluid. It is clear that SOD1 is lowered by tofersen. How about neurofilament? Neurofilament is a non-specific marker of neurodegeneration. It's an intermediate filament protein that leaks out of the cells, and it is increased in the setting of ALS, as in many other neurodegenerative diseases. With treatment of tofersen, the neurofilament levels fall. That's shown in both the rapid and the slowly progressive group. In the placebo group, they do not change over time. You can see again in the placebo group that once treated, the neurofilament levels are lowered, though perhaps not to the same extent as those who were treated initially with Tofersen. In terms of respiratory function, shown here, the rapidly progressive group, there is a trend towards stabilization of the slow vital capacity, seen in the dark red line here compared to the dashed line. There may be some stabilization of breathing or slow vital capacity in the open-label extension, seen here in the blue dashed line, initially treated with placebo and then open-label treated with Tofersen. In terms of muscle strength, there are very little difference between the Tofersen treated group and the placebo in the primary VALOR study. In the open-label extension, again, there may be some interesting changes here. I should mention that for these previous slides, there's no statistically significant difference between the groups. Looking at a patient reported outcome, looked at the ALS Assessment Questionnaire, 5 questions to look at the patient reported outcomes. Again, there may be some stabilization in the patient reported outcomes. I should mention here that worsening would be increasing, and in the dashed line, the placebo, you can see are getting worse over time. Very little difference in the slowly progressive group, and very little progression on this scale in the slowly progressive group. Looking at the time to event analyses, the median time to death and time to death or permanent ventilation were not able to be estimated due to the low number of events. So we completed a post hoc analysis that also included the withdraw due to disease progression. You can see that in those with early start of tofersen, there were fewer events, in particular, the withdraw due to disease progression. That's shown here. Again, the blue, the slowly progressive, red, more rapidly progressive group. We next looked at enrichment markers. If you look first at the ALS Functional Rating Scale change, so the slope from baseline to day 197, and then look at how does that compare to the pre-randomization ALS Functional Rating Scale slope. Could we tell from this pre-randomization slope who was going to be rapid progressive, who was going to be slowly progressive? There's a relatively weak correlation there. If you use the same Y-axis for the ALS Functional Rating Scale change from baseline, and then look at that and plot it compared to the baseline plasma neurofilament, there's a better correlation here. The plasma neurofilament level was better able to determine the progression during the course of the study. Now looking at the same measures that I showed you already, but now looking with groups that are above or below the median neurofilament level, the faster progressing group above the median neurofilament group, shown in red, the more slowly progressing group below the median neurofilament level, shown in blue. Again, solid lines, treatment, dashed lines, placebo, with the open-label extension. This was the effect on the ALS Functional Rating Scale. If you look at breathing function measured in the similar way, there seems to be some stabilization or a trend to some stabilization of breathing, the slow vital capacity, again, not statistically significant. Here are the changes in the open-label extension. Muscle strength is measured by handheld dynamometry. megascore showed relatively little difference between the groups, perhaps some stabilization in the treated group in the rapidly progressive form. Here's the data in the open-label extension. Looking at the patient reported outcome, this is the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire. There is a trend towards stabilization of this questionnaire. Worsening is increasing, less worsening in the Tofersen treated group. There was relatively little change in the slowly progressive group in either the Tofersen treated or placebo. We looked at the similar time to event analysis, with a post hoc analysis of the withdrawal due to disease progression in the groups. In blue, the more slowly progressive. In red, the more rapidly progressive group. There were fewer events in the Tofersen-related groups or Tofersen-treated groups. About 50% of the SOD1 mutations in the U.S. are secondary to mutations at the A4V, also known as A5V in the newer nomenclature. This mutation has a well-known rapid progressive course. If you look at the median disease duration from these multiple studies, the median disease duration is about 1.2 years. There are two reports of people living for longer than three years with the A4V mutation, and this is time since onset of disease. One natural question to ask is, how do the participants in this trial do on tofersen? You can see the 1.2-year mark here. I should note that there are four participants that are ongoing in the study, in the open-label extension, shown here in the dashed, at the 3.2 years, 2.4 years, and at 1.4 and 1.4 years here. They are still in the open-label extension. You can see that overall, there may be an increase in survival with 1.5 years as the median for time of onset to symptoms to death, withdraw, or the data cutoff here in July of 2021. In terms of safety, nearly all the subjects had at least one treatment emergent adverse event. Most of the events were mild to moderate in severity. Many of the AEs were consistent with ALS disease progression, for example, falls or the lumbar puncture procedure. For example, procedure pain, headache, or back pain. The safety profile in the open-label was comparable to the VALOR study. There were several participants treated with tofersen who had serious adverse events involving the central nervous system. There were no similar events in the placebo group. These are shown here. The myelitis with the sensorimotor deficits was clinically monitorable and was reversible. There were many in the Tofersen group that had treatment emergent CSF abnormalities. Most of these were not reported as adverse events, and there were some changes in the cerebrospinal fluid in the placebo group as well, which is shown here, though a greater number of changes in Tofersen. The changes included a shift to high leukocytes and also a shift to high protein. These are events that we will continue to monitor closely. In summary, VALOR did not achieve statistical significance on its primary endpoint of ALS Functional Rating Scale at 6 months. However, there were consistent effects seen across key secondary and exploratory clinical outcome measures. These effects became more apparent with longer-term follow-up in the extension, as earlier initiation of Tofersen led to a slowing of decline in faster progressing participants and an apparent stabilization of clinical function in the slower progressing participants. tofersen administration led to sustained reductions in the total CSF SOD1 protein, demonstrating a clear target engagement. There were also a lowering of plasma neurofilament levels that's suggestive of a slowing in neuronal degeneration. Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate in severity, and many were consistent with ALS disease progression or LP-related events. There were some serious neurologic events, including myelitis, that were seen in the tofersen-treated participants. Thank you to the study participants and their caregivers and families, the VALOR and open-label extension steering committee, the investigators and site staff, and the entire community, without whom these important studies could not have been conducted. The study steering committee consisted of myself, Merit Cudkowicz, Angela Genge, Pamela Shaw, and Ketan Bhatt. The principal investigators are listed here. There are multiple groups that have supported this program from the beginning, and these groups are listed here. I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to answering some questions. Thank you. Okay, now I think we should take the time to hand the remaining time over to Dr. Miller to talk about the results of his clinical trial. Yes, if we are ready, Dr. Miller, we did receive several questions for you. To get started. Can I jump in just with two things real quick, Sabrina, before we get going? Absolutely. Go ahead. Sure. First, I wanted to extend broader the thank yous. I wanted to mention at UCSD, Richard Smith, Don Cleveland, at Biogen, Toby Ferguson and Stephanie Fradette, and Ionis' colleagues, Holly Kordasiewicz, Tracy Cole, Eric Swayze, Roger Lane, and Frank Bennett. That's the first thing I wanted to mention. Second, I'm several 100 meetings in the virtual space, and haven't had this happen yet, but had one of those, "Oh nos." I recorded another version, and we didn't play the latest version today. The reason to record another version, and I'll see if I make sure I get this exactly right. The safety data you saw slightly overstated the numbers of serious neurologic events. For the correct slides, please see the presentation available through Biogen's website. I wanted to-- And then, the other reason that I'm disappointed we didn't show the second version is because I thought I did a better job with it, and I'm just going to highlight one or two things I thought I did better, Sabrina, before, and then I'll take all your questions. When you sit with these data for a while, I think you notice the strength of the SOD1 knockdown and the really impressive effect on neurofilament. When you sit with the data for a while and look at the OLE, a couple of things stand out. One, in the slow progressors that are treated initially with tafamidis, they don't seem to progress. They're slow. We don't know whether that was the natural history of that group or not. We don't know. In those initially treated with placebo, in the OLE, as you look at that, you see they decline slowly and about 12 weeks in, right when you'd expect SOD1 to be coming down, they also appear to stop progressing. They're slow. It's, again, it's hard to know. The other point to make that I did better on the second version than the first is that if you look at the OLE, in each of the measures, you see a greater separation of tafamidis than placebo as you look out for that longer timeframe. You see the effects on multiple different secondary endpoints. Anyway, I wanted to just comment on that. The slides are available on Biogen's website, so you can now dissect these data. It went by quickly. It's a lot of data to digest in the 20-minute talk. You can also digest all of these data yourself. Okay, let's jump in. No, absolutely, Tim. Thank you so much, and I'm so happy that the recording and the slides will be publicly available. I think many of us who work in ALS trials will definitely look at those closely and keep digesting the data. In terms of target engagement, your data clearly indicated a strong target engagement as evidenced by reduction of SOD1 in the CSF as well as the neurofilament light chain data. A few questions about this. The first question is, do you think that we would need a stronger level of SOD1 knockdown for clinical efficacy? I don't think we need a stronger level of SOD1 knockdown. I think that the lowering that we show is substantial. I think that the effect on neurofilament also shows, in my opinion, that we're having an effect on neurodegeneration on the disease process. The other point to make is that the levels of lowering in the CSF are predicted to be much more substantial lowering in the spinal cord and brainstem. Those levels that we see, there is much greater knockdown in the spinal cord and brainstem. I think that the lowering was very good in the study, and I don't think that we need to go for more lowering. In terms of the neurofilament light chain levels, there was sort of a general question about how this compares to changes in neurofilament levels seen in natural history studies or in other clinical trials. Would you consider the changes that you saw sort of strong evidence of target engagement in this particular trial? When I think about target engagement, I'm thinking specifically about SOD1 and when I think about neurofilament as a biomarker of neurodegeneration, nonspecific marker. In terms of how it changes, the natural history of neurofilament in ALS is that it goes up and then stays up and tends not to change very much over time. Multiple groups have shown that. I'm not aware that it ever comes back down. Maybe somebody's measured the very end stage, but I think that it doesn't come back down. I'm impressed by the lowering, 60% in the rapid progressors. I think that's a large amount. In terms of other studies, and again, Sabrina Paganoni, you could perhaps comment on this as well. I'm not aware of other studies that have shown a major change in neurofilament in ALS. Maybe there's a small enough that I'm not aware of, but I'm not aware of any. Yeah. Me neither. There was a question, not surprisingly, people will be asking about the next steps. Of all the questions that we received, there was a specific question about plans for filing. Is there a plan to file with the FDA for the A4V group? Right. This is a super important question, and it's one that everybody wants to know, and I think it's something that we need to get out there to families with ALS, to people who have ALS now with these SOD1 mutations. It's absolutely an important question. Unfortunately, in this setting and at this time, I'm not able to comment on the regulatory or those next steps, but just recognizing that it's hugely important and an important task going forward, and that, of course, Biogen is now focused on this, and I'll defer to them. Absolutely. Those are the questions we had. I think we have maybe another couple of minutes. I don't know if, Brian, you have any other questions? Yes. Tim, thank you so much for that marvelous presentation, marvelous data. One thing that caught my eye was that when you were looking at the crossover patients, the patients who were initially treated with placebo and then crossed over to actual active treatment, the effect was there, but the magnitude of that effect wasn't as great as for those who were treated earlier. I'm wondering, and maybe you could speak to this, does this hint at the idea that we have to treat early, and that the earlier we treat, the more effect we're likely to see? I suppose the knock-on question to that is, how long did these patients, were they sick before you instituted treatment? What was the sort of average length of their disease? Right. Both good questions, and I anticipated this question from you, Brian, because you brought this up in your talk about earlier treatment, so I think we knew that maybe this was coming from you. In general, you see that either earlier or longer, that's what the open-label extension shows us, both are true of the people that are treated earlier, has a greater effect on the clinical function. I think almost everyone or everyone believes that earlier treatment is better. You see some of that in the open label that, especially in the slow progressers where they do decline and perhaps they stabilize to some extent. You've lost motor neurons by that point. This therapy is not going to bring back motor neurons. The idea is that it would stabilize. Wherever you are when you start, you're not going to get back the motor neurons, and so earlier is always going to be better. You asked about the timing of treatment. That's something we're going back and looking at very carefully, how soon since the onset of the disease, and then does that help us understand the response. It's going to be complicated to understand that because of the onset, defining that can be challenging as you know, and then some of the early parts may be not as linear. I think that we need to, yes, treat earlier and, of course, we'll try to do that. Yeah. Tim, you may have shown this, but I didn't hear it, or maybe it went by too quickly. Was there any difference between males and females in terms of response? Yeah. The top-level comment to say to that is that we are digging in with this sort of responder analysis, which is really fun to do. I don't have any responder sort of data to present to you today, and I don't have even the response by male/female. We will look at that and look at other types of responders. Are there people who did well, and is there anything that we can pull out to understand how they might have done better than others? That's a fun part of the data analysis. If I didn't highlight or make clear, this is a new data set. Right. We haven't been sitting with this for very long. We don't have all the analyses done. The goal was to present the top-line data as soon as we had it and wanted to be able to present it in this form at the ANA meeting, and absolutely thrilled to be able to do so and to make that timeline to get it into this meeting, but we don't have all the analysis. We will continue to look at the data and, of course, and hope to get it into print so that everybody can look at all the details. Great. Great. Brian, I think we are at the end. We are indeed. Thank you very much. Yeah To all of the speakers for their exciting presentations and their marvelous talks, and of course, also to the audience for their insightful questions. I think with that, I will say goodbye and thank you all again.