All right. I think we'll get started here with the next fireside. My name's Derek Archila. I'm one of the Senior Biotech Analysts here at Wells. Very excited to have argenx with us, and Karen Massey, CEO. Karen, great to have you here. Thank you for having me here. It's great to see you. Excellent. Lots have been going on at argenx, so many things to talk about. But you've been in the CEO seat for four-ish months now, so maybe just kind of give us, I guess, a little recap of what's happened and Yeah. Ultimately, kind of the continued growth going forward and your priorities as a new CEO. Yeah, absolutely. It's been an exciting couple of months for argenx. A very busy few months. Just in the argenx way. We have laid out our vision for the company as Vision 2030. We set that out a few years ago, to treat 50,000 patients by the end of the decade, to be treating 10 diseases, and to have five new molecules in late-stage development. What we've seen over the summer, over the last couple of months, is really incredible progress against all of those goals. We had a Q2, delivering $1.5 billion in revenue for the quarter and really strong growth with MG and CIDP and seronegative MG launch, off to a great start. Obviously, we had positive data in terms of myositis. I'm sure we'll talk about that. That was very exciting, and exciting for patients as well as for argenx, so adding to the number of indications that we can bring to patients. Then, of course, on our five molecules in late-stage development, we've been moving our internal pipeline along at a rapid rate, and we can unpack a lot of news in there. But obviously, we had also the acquisition of Forte Biosciences, FB102, so another molecule added into our pipeline. So really strong progress against our Vision 2030 goals. The reason that we set out Vision 2030 in that way, not just focusing on number of patients, but also number of diseases treated and number of molecules, is because our goal is to set up to become the immunology innovator of the future and to continue our sustained growth through the 2030s, through the next decade. By being in that position in 2030, that really sets up the next phase of growth. Excellent. So maybe let's start with the base business in myasthenia gravis. One of the questions that we get, I'm sure you get also, is continued growth there, what gets you convicted that continues to grow and VYVGART's got sustainable growth there amidst more competitive intensity and things like that. So, where do you kind of feel like FcRn is best placed in that market and where VYVGART really stands out? Yeah. When I look at this and we use the phrase that we're still at the beginning of the growth curve in MG, which is amazing when you think it's been 18 quarters since launch. Yeah. How can that still be at the beginning of a growth curve? Why I say that is 80% of MG patients are still not treated with a targeted biology. So that's how much room there is for growth in the MG market. When you ask physicians, four out of five of them will tell you, "The first biologic I go to is VYVGART." What we know is there's 80% of patients out there that are not yet treated with a biologic. The majority of neurologists will choose VYVGART when they want to start a patient on a biologic. So we're well positioned, and now it's up to us and our team to really drive that adoption and that prescribing behavior, and our ocular MG data will help with that. Many times, patients have ocular MG symptoms first. That's how they're presenting to their patients. So in our drive to move into earlier lines of treatment, that ocular MG data and the upcoming launch, knock on wood, that potential launch should help. I guess when you think about 80% of patients still not on a kind of biologic or targeted therapy, where do you think that goes? Does it go to 50% on biologics and targeted therapies? What sort of expansion opportunity for just the overall market, but specifically for VYVGART, in the context of, as you just mentioned, ocular, seronegative, broadest label, prefilled syringe, autoinjector. You have all these things that could come through to the MG market. So where do you think peak share could be for that? Yeah. When we did the math, that's how we laid out the expansion opportunity that we laid out for MG. When we launched in MG, we thought there were 17,000 patients in the addressable market. That's when we were more thinking about VYVGART being used in the more refractory patients, which is where you asked about competition. That's more where the competition is being used. With our launch, particularly of prefilled syringe, we were able to move more into the earlier line patients. We identified that there's about 25,000 early line patients that we think are eligible for VYVGART based on the burden of their disease, and that we're in the process of penetrating that portion of the market. Then there's the 7,000 patients in ocular MG as well. That's not the entire ocular MG patient population, but it's the patient population that we think should be eligible for VYVGART. When you combine that with seronegative, which was the 11,000, that's how we get to the entire TAM being 60,000 patients in MG. I know you've characterized it as well as Karl about with kind of seronegative and the, I guess it's not an inflection in growth. It's more about sustaining the current growth trajectory. Because we're getting large numbers at this point. Yeah. I guess, do you feel the same way about ocular when that's introduced in terms of the launch, it's kind of just keeping that trajectory the same, or could you see more of an inflection there? I think it will continue the growth trajectory that we are on. I don't think you will see an inflection point. If anything, those triple seronegative patients, in particular, have been waiting for VYVGART. We saw a strong uptake from them as soon as the payers were able to get it on policy. I think with ocular MG, we have more work to do in terms of making sure that the neurologists really understand the burden of this disease, and have the urgency to treat. I don't see that there will be an inflection point, I think, but it will allow us this continued steady momentum and steady growth that is truly incredible 18 quarters since the launch. Got it. Understood. Maybe just shifting gears to CIDP. I guess this market relative to MG, a little bit smaller, more entrenched competition with- Yep IVIG. You have a couple strategies, not only with VYVGART, switching data, but also with empasiprubart. I guess, how do you think about the overall opportunity there, across both therapies? Yeah. There's significant opportunity for growth in the CIDP market. We identified the addressable market as 12,000 patients, but there's 42,000 CIDP patients out there. I think as we continue to get more experience with VYVGART in the market, what we hear from neurologists, what we hear from prescribers is the more experience they get switching patients from IVIG, the more they see the benefit that patients are getting from VYVGART, the more comfortable they are in making the switch, but also in starting naive patients on VYVGART. I think we're well positioned for continued growth there, and that's just a matter of working our way through those patients. Then, as you say, really exciting with empasiprubart as well. We know that VYVGART has the best response rate, and the most robust data set of the approved therapies on the market today. Having said that, there are some patients that don't respond, and we do believe some disease is driven by IgM not just IgG. So empasiprubart, a second molecule that we're studying within CIDP, is a really exciting opportunity for us to, yes, potentially bring another mechanism, and in the future, potentially even a combination therapy. Can you spend a minute on, so we talked about this last night about, we all got the MG market wrong. We were modeling EUR 1.5 billion peak for VYVGART there, and now you're well eclipsed. You're doing that a quarter. So essentially, think about MG today, CIDP, but even some of these future indications that you're looking at with VYVGART. How should we be thinking about these markets? Is there still upside to MG? Is there still upside to CIDP here? That kind of white space comment that you talked a lot about last night, where do you see that opportunity now within these already in place indications? Yeah. Absolutely. You will see it as a big part of our corporate strategy, is trying to identify what we call these white space indications, which I think are easily missed. But the benefit of these white space indications, or part of the reason that they are often missed is when there has been limited innovation, there is lower diagnosis, lower treatment rates. So it is harder to size the market. It is harder to get a good understanding. If you look at IMNM, our next potential indication, there is not a specific ICD-10 code for IMNM. So it is not easy to just go out and pull the data and say, "Hey, how big is the market?" And put it into our spreadsheet like we all do. We really take the time, and I think our team is incredibly good at it, at saying, "Where are these white space indications that we think are underdiagnosed, undertreated, where we might be able to make a real benefit or impact with our medicines because they have been underserved?" And look, some of them, not all of them, but many of them, I think that we will get wrong because we are just looking at the data that is in the system. But it is reflecting a treatment paradigm that is not optimal. By going after these white space indications, I believe you have more opportunity for more upside and more of those positive surprises, if you will. Understood. So maybe a good segue to IMNM. Next likely indication, positive results. Maybe characterize those results and relative to standard of care. Again, if there is not an ICD-10 code, does that hinder a launch, or is that a lot more pre-work that you guys need to do to get ready for launch and education? Yeah. I think the lack of the ICD-10 code doesn't hinder the launch. We can get around that. It more hinders the ability to do the analysis and the market sizing and that type of thing. There's ways to get around that, I'm not concerned when we actually launch. Look, I'm incredibly impressed by the numbers that we saw in myositis. Positive P value on the combined population, IMNM and DM, which is what the study was designed for. When you look at the data on the TIS, 15 point difference, consistent. IMNM and DM. Really consistent. You look at all of the secondary measures, all of the core outcome set within the TIS, incredible consistency within IMNM and within DM, and also across. Whether you look at muscle component, skin component, physician-reported, patient-reported, I know we use this word consistency sometimes too much, but there's no other way to describe the data. I think that's important because it shows that you're not seeing a chance finding. Yeah. You are seeing a medicine that works in both of these indications, and that's why you hear our commitment so strongly that, yes, we have a path forward in IMNM, and we'll move quickly there with the FDA, and we want to pursue a path forward in DM as well, and we need to determine what that path is, and the first step is have a conversation with the FDA, but we have conviction in the data. Yeah. Let's revisit that in a second. In terms of IMNM, would you think the characteristics of that indication more align with an MG type of launch or a CIDP type of launch? Yeah. Without being to a little bit of both. Yeah. The size, we say about 20,000 IMNM patients. That is more a size of CIDP. You will recall the dosing is similar to CIDP. But I think in terms of the unmet need, it is actually not like either of them, but potentially more like MG, where there is nothing approved. So you do not have IVIG entrenched in the market in the way that you do with CIDP. I think from a patient perspective, you will be able to get that uptake quite quickly. This is a dive into rheumatology, so new area Yep. For you guys. You had the benefit of some overlap with CIDP and MG and having already kind of communicated VYVGART to the neurology community. How do you plan to do that within rheumatology? It even said, I think you guys said last night, there is a little bit of overlap with IMNM specifically across neuro. Yep. How do you kind of leverage some of that as you move forward into rheum? Yeah. Absolutely. We'll take the same playbook of launching into neurology as we launch into rheumatology and all of the learnings. I think we've been really successful as establishing argenx as a trusted partner to neurologists. We'll do the same in neurology. Certainly VYVGART as, let's say, their go-to FcRn. Being first in class matters, so we'll be first in class in rheumatology. I think also what plays in our favor in the case of rheumatology is that we already have 20,000 patient years of safety. So, they'll have that. In terms of how we think about rheumatologists, always grounding ourselves in the quality of the science, and the data, I think is how argenx likes to show up. That's how we intend to show up and expand into rheumatology. What other data will you present, I assume, at ACR later this year, like that detailed data, secondary endpoints? What should we be looking for as investors, but also what is going to be most data that resonates with physicians in terms of potential prescribing and commercial uptake? Yeah. It is going to come back to what I said, which is the consistency across. Rheumatologists are used to treating very complicated diseases, and the treatments that they have available often have these trade-offs between efficacy and safety, between sometimes is the efficacy sort of clinically meaningful? Is there consistency across endpoints? I think the fact to be looking out for that consistency of efficacy along with the confidence in the safety, I think will be really meaningful. For me, what has been important in rheumatology, actually since we had the Sjögren's phase II data a few years back now, and nipocalimab also had the data. When I was at ACR at that time, you started to hear rheumatologists talk about, and only a few of the rheumatologists talk about, "Okay, it seems like autoantibodies are actually playing a role in these diseases. They are not just innocent bystanders. Rheumatologists say, "Up until now, I had questioned maybe these were just innocent bystanders and were FcRns really going to work?" I think since that Sjögren's data and especially now with the myositis data, you really hear that tide turning. If you will. I think what I would be listening out for is rheumatologists broadly understanding the important role that autoantibodies play. Are they seeing and therefore translating that into, "Okay, I can see a place for FcRn in my patients. Understood. Maybe going back to DM, is this more a question of when it gets approved in DM versus if, based on the data, and obviously you have to talk to the FDA, but what's kind of the base case that you guys are planning for? Yeah. No, absolutely. We have to talk to the FDA, and see what the path forward is, but we are committed to getting a label in DM. So it is as you say, it's a when, not if, and we have a good precedent that many of you know. When we read out the ADHERE data in MG, we had seronegative patients in that study, but didn't show a statistical significant improvement. In that case, because of the placebo, we had the discussion with the FDA. We were able to design a shorter, smaller study to be able to reinforce, and we were able to bring VYVGART to seronegative patients. That was a commitment we made to the community. It's a commitment we stuck by. If we get to that place, that's what we'll do with DM as well. Got you. The data look very competitive. Indeed. How do you think about the opportunity in DM? There will be an incumbent, Roivant will be there Yep. With brepo. So I guess how do you think the market could break down? Efficacy-wise, it is probably more competitive than most people thought it would be. Yep. That was a pleasant surprise. Talking about how that market might evolve and what you will be looking for the brepo launch, presuming that you might be coming in behind. Yeah, absolutely. I agree. I think the efficacy really stands up. What is going to be very important is that safety. We know rheumatologists care, as all specialties, really care about safety. The fact that we have 20,000 patient years of safety and how that's one of the greatest strengths of VYVGART. Then obviously, ease of route of administration, I mean a weekly injection, which frankly some patients prefer to an oral. I think it'll rely on the package of data that we bring forward, and also how we show up as a company, how argenx shows up, and I think we've demonstrated the ability in neurology, to really, as I said earlier, to win the trust, the loyalty, and really become partners to neurologists in treating their patients. I think we'll be able to do the same. I'm sure Roivant has a will have a great launch. It's fantastic for patients who have had nothing other than IVIG. The fact that two innovations are coming to market I think is fantastic. What we've seen in every other market that's come before us is that when you have innovation coming, the market grows. There's certainly more need for more than one MOA. There will be patients that are more suited for one than the other. There'll be an ordering that starts to unfold, and we'll do that based on the data and based on the evidence. Got it. Maybe let's move to empasiprubart. VYVGART's little brother there. I guess we got MMN data coming out. It's exciting because maybe MMN's a smaller market, but maybe you can talk about the opportunity, but it's mostly about kind of de-risking this molecule and as we were talking about before, you're evaluating its CIDP, graft-versus-host disease, and others. I guess how important is MMN, not only just for telling that pipeline and product story, but just for argenx, specifically just in terms of, like, "Oh, we've now got two products. We're not a single product company, and we have the internal capacity and capability to develop a pipeline in-house. Yep. I think you said it exactly. Our goal and our mission is to be an immunology innovation company. VYVGART is an incredible molecule to build the foundation off of, but it is not enough, and it is not our only goal. This is an incredibly important step forward for the company with our second molecule. empasiprubart is a really cool molecule. It is really well-designed. C2 is a great target. I can tell you, if this was the first molecule for another biotech, people would be incredibly excited because it is a multi-billion dollar asset, a pipeline in a product. If you look at MMN and the opportunity there, when I talked earlier about white space indications, this is another exact white space argenx-like indication. There has not been innovation. IVIG is the only approved therapy. There has not been innovation in years. These patients are amongst the highest users of IVIG, and yet they are still progressing. They are not doing well. There is really room to bring real value to these patients and also to the healthcare system. Let us dig into the trial. It is a non-inferiority trial. Yeah. I guess, how important is that versus hitting superiority as another potential in the trial? I guess, do you need to be superior to win in the market? Can you be non-inferior? I guess one of the questions that we get is, in that control arm, how should we be thinking about, I guess, the patient performance or the control arm performance for IVIG? Will they actually get better a little bit, or should they about stay the same as they get randomized on basically the same kind of dose? Maybe just walk us through how you guys are thinking about that. Yeah, absolutely. A win on the study is a positive study. The primary endpoint is non-inferiority, and I think that will absolutely be a compelling package to be able to launch. It's actually quite unique to be launching with head-to-head comparative data, even at non-inferiority. When you think about the hours that these patients spend in the chair if they're on IVIG, even just competing on that, but I think we'll have more than that. A win is non-inferiority. We have superiority as a very close follow on. Of course, we're all optimistic that we end there as well, and that's the upside scenario. In terms of how we think about the study and how it's designed, it's pretty challenging to do a head-to-head study versus IVIG. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Partly because the dosing is somewhat individualized in how it's used in the real world. In order to do the study, we have to sort of stabilize patients on their individual dose of IVIG and make sure that it's that stable dose, and then they're on that dose through the rest of the study, while the others are randomized to empasiprubart. The primary endpoint is grip strength. Look, what we know and what we expect if you look at other data on IVIG and grip strength is there's a little bit of up and down with their response rate over time. What we saw in our clinical trial, and we've published this data, phase II data for empasiprubart, is pretty smooth and even improvement on grip strength. I think the data will look strong. Look, we'll have to turn over the data card. We've just designed it for non-inferiority, but I think the team has designed a well-designed study and is executing it, a very complicated study, very well. You guys have IV right now for empasiprubart. That's right. Then you guys are working on SubQ. I think it's already in phase I development. Maybe just- Yep. Talk about that, not only for MMN, but CIDP and future indications as well. Yeah. It's the exact playbook that we take for VYVGART, that we'll, I'm sure, start talking about FB102- Indeed. Yep. And every other molecule. Yeah. I think one of our learnings through the launch of VYVGART and one of the things we've done incredibly well is just serial innovation. Launch with IV, very quickly bring a Subcutaneous, very quickly bring a prefilled syringe. Next year for VYVGART, we have the autoinjector. We'll take that same playbook. I think we've developed a real capability to do this, even with large volume injections, and we'll take that same playbook with empasiprubart. How should we think about the read-through from MMN to CIDP for empasiprubart? They're different diseases, obviously, so there won't be a direct read-through. Right. What we know for both, what we know for MMN is that it's IgM driven. Our belief in CIDP is that there is some portion that is IgM driven, and that's the portion that we think is not being treated by VYVGART. So if we see positive impact Right. In MMN, you can imagine that we would see it in CIDP. But yeah, let's turn over first the MMN card Yeah. And see where we land and go from there. What do you think about the field of other complement inhibitors? It's always C2 now. People talk about C1s and MMN and CIDP as well. So where do you feel empasiprubart could differentiate there? There's always talk about safety and labels, so maybe you can kind of opine. Yeah. Look, we chose C2 very specifically for a few different reasons, and one of them is safety, as you mentioned, and specifically because of the potential risk of lupus with C1. We also chose it not just for that risk, also because it is at that intersection of the classical and the lectin pathway. We believe actually by being at C2, you open up more pipeline in a product opportunities for empasiprubart. For me, that is the more important point of why C2. For me, the important point around why C2 is you have opportunity to impact a broader range of indications as a pipeline in a product. I think leaving the alternative pathway is important from a safety perspective, and obviously, that applies to C1 as well. You can still mount a bacterial infection, and we have data that you can do that. I think that is important from a safety perspective as well. Do you think they all get some sort of vaccine requirement anyways, just because of the way the trials have been run, they are requiring them already? Yeah, certainly. Exactly. The vaccines are required in the trial. The trials are being run in that way. I would imagine at launch, that would be the base case and assumption. Understood. Maybe move to Forte. You did this acquisition. Maybe talk about the genesis of your interest in CD122, because it seems like it predates Forte, and you guys have been studying it for a while. So, maybe excitement around that target and ultimately where you think you can take it. Yeah. We have been studying it for a while. Our BD and our search and evaluation team is out there, asking them to look for new biology, look for new targets and new mechanisms of action. A few years ago, they identified CD122 and really the initial excitement around CD122 was as much around the fact that how the elegance about sparing the Tregs. That is what got our scientific team really excited that you can have an impact on the disease, but spare the Tregs. Then as we started learning more and more about the potential impact of CD122, the breadth of indications, the fact that they are white space indications that I was talking about before, it started to look more and more like an argenx-like indication or an argenx-like molecule. So we have been following the space and staying close. For us, the important de-risking moment was that vitiligo data, and seeing that readout. That was the moment for us to be able to say, "Okay. We see that there is an exciting molecule here. We see that it is the right moment for us to get engaged where we believe we can still bring value to the development of the asset." We were talking earlier about, I think argenx's strength in being able to develop different product presentations. Also, unique clinical trial design and innovative clinical trial design and moving pipeline into product assets forward in parallel on multiple programs. So, we felt that this was the right moment to act, and that it was an exciting molecule. Got you. I guess, when you think about the space and IL-15 kind of monotherapy, we just saw the data from Teva in celiac, and I think one of the things that we have learned looking at all these celiac trials, very hard to cross-trial compare. Yep. But you guys, Forte was going to have celiac data. Maybe talk about how much you will disclose around that and if you will give an update around FB102's data. I guess, do you get more excited about celiac or vitiligo or some of the other indications, particularly given the biology? We were talking about earlier, IL-2 really bounces up once you actually have a gluten challenge or you- Yep You take gluten. Maybe that is a better indication, but you tell us in terms of, again, where you think you can take this and what makes sense for this mechanism. Yeah. Lots of questions in there. We saw the data last week to start there with IL-15, which I think gives even stronger conviction in celiac. We believe targeting CD122, so you are actually blocking IL-15 and IL-2, is a stronger value proposition and a more elegant solution. In fact, not just for celiac disease, but as you say, also for vitiligo, for alopecia, and then there is a host of other beyond that indications that we are exploring. And that we will look into as well. We always start with the biology and move from there. I think you are hitting on an important point, which is these are the types of molecules that argenx likes to go after, which are targeting a point in the immune system that is like a switch, that is impacting multiple different diseases. I think it really allows us, from a corporate strategy perspective, optionality, and it reduces risk because you are not reliant on one indication working or not. You have, let us say, multiple shots on goal with the same molecule. I think that is an important component. And just in terms of the celiac results, will you put something out or will we understand? Yeah, sorry, that was the other question. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. We're expecting phase II results. We will share some level as we always do. It's a learning study. In terms of what are we looking for in this study, you mentioned as you get more and more up to speed on celiac, what you realize is there's so many different factors and levers to successfully designing a clinical trial. We know we have phase I-B data, that this medicine should work in celiac. Now it's about how do we make sure that we design the clinical development program to really be able to show that in the best light. I think this phase II learning study will give us a lot of insight into that. Because of the patient population, it's sort of relatively broad patient population, it's enrolled the intensity of the gluten challenge. It's a quite long eight-week gluten challenge. It starts with quite high gluten and then reduces the gluten over time. We'll be able to look at a lot of different factors, in terms of dose response, in terms of gluten challenge, that I think will help inform the right type of phase III study. We will share data as we get it at the highest level, then over time, we'll share more data as appropriate. Can you talk about maybe this land and expand potential strategy? Yeah. In celiac and it's a big indication. Yep. How would you build around that in terms of a clinical development program? Yeah, that's the discussions that we're having at the moment. I don't have an answer for you. We'll be able to share more probably at JPMorgan once we have the phase II data, once we've done the full analysis. But yeah, in celiac, I think they estimate 2.5 million patients in the U.S., so quite a big patient population. There are those that can control their disease with diet, but to varying degrees of how much gluten sensitivity is there. There's a way that you do a trial in that population versus there's a patient population that is not even able to control and is still symptomatic despite a gluten-free diet. The way you design and execute a study in that patient population is quite different. Both populations, you need to have histology and symptomatology endpoints, but also the, let's say, balance in what you're looking for in each are different. We'll look to segment the market, see where we can go first, see what the different trials are in order to make sure. The goal, similar to what you've seen us do in MG, is we want to be able to bring this, a medicine that works to all patients over time. It just depends on what order we go about that in. Got it. Maybe one last one on FB102. You talked about alopecia and being excited about that opportunity. I guess, these are fairly straightforward, they grow their hair back, objective kind of measures. I guess, again, how strong do you think the biology is there for FB102? Ultimately, again, is this something that can really be only addressed by a CD122 IL-15, IL-2 targeting agent? Yeah. I do not think alopecia, I think, is exclusively only going to be able to be addressed by CD122. We saw that in the vitiligo, but I do think you will see differentiated efficacy because of the combination of IL-15 and IL-2. We will see the data play out there. There is a lot of indications where this particular combination of cytokines is at play. Got you. We will end here with kind of durability of the overall company and the franchise, mostly with VYVGART here. You have some follow-on molecules, but you guys are all in on FcRn. Yep. You got long acting, you got hyper-concentrated, you got oral. Walk us through kind of these differing strategies. As we get them into the clinic, we already have one of the extended half-lives that is phase III ready. Yep. Talk us about how you think about the development plan for those and ultimately, again, just driving a durable franchise for decades here. Yeah, absolutely. That is the goal, is to lead in FcRn for decades to come, and to deliver that durable growth for decades to come with our FcRn franchise. You laid it out, I think what we are doing right now is leading in MG and CIDP and myositis in the places, and we can continue to expand our leadership there where the biology is known. I think our goal, what we have been doing since the very beginning as leaders in FcRn, is unraveling the biology of FcRn and discovering where FcRn is playing a role and can play a role. I think we will continue to expand the indication set that you see that FcRn can impact. We have two molecules, two next-gen molecules in order to sort of explore even further than we could with VYVGART. As you said, we have an oral FcRn as well, which I think could be a game changer over time. We are well-positioned to lead this space, and to really expand this space for decades. As I mentioned earlier, our goal is not to be a FcRn company, our goal is to be an immunology innovation company. That is a really important leg to the stool. The rest of our pipeline, we are putting equal focus on to say, how do we make sure that we are maximizing impact for patients across a breadth of different targets? Yeah. Maybe let us end on that note in terms of that evolution and transformation from kind of single product, more niche rare disease. Now, with the Forte transaction, you are getting into larger disease. Do you want to move to even larger I&I, like to be a fully functioning dominant I&I player? What do you think you need to do over the next 5+ years? Is it more external BD? Is it more development from the pipeline? Is it just using the opportunities that are already ahead of you with the current assets? Where do you want to take it? Yeah. I think it is all those things. To start with, I think we are in a position of strength. When you look at our pipeline and map out the growth trajectory that we have over the next decade, you can see durable and continued growth. It is always good to start from a position of strength. Our mission and what we are hunting for is, can we find novel biology, exciting, cool science like we did with CD122, and in our internal pipeline as well, where we find cool, novel biology in these white space indications within immunology? And where we can find those, that combination, whether it is internally in our own pipeline, whether it is with academic institutions, whether it is like Forte with other biotech companies, then we have the flexibility on the balance sheet to be able to go after it, and bring those in-house, and then hopefully make a difference for patients. So, I feel very fortunate that we are building on this foundation of strength, but we are certainly thinking about the future and how we make sure we take advantage of that foundation to build for the long term. Great. Well, thanks, Karen. We will leave it there. Thanks so much. Great. Thanks, Derek. All right, take care. Good to see you.