My name's Rajan Sharma. I'm a European Pharma and Biotech Analyst here at Goldman Sachs. Thank you for joining us for the last session of the conference. Some may say that we've saved the best till last, but I'm very pleased to have Adam Steensberg, CEO from Zealand Pharma, with us. Adam, thank you for joining. Thanks for the invitation. Perfect. Maybe to start, it's been obviously an eventful 12 months since we were here on this stage last year, just ahead of the Petrelintide 16 week phase 1b data. Could you just talk us through the progress that the company's made in that period of time? Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's been one of the most eventful periods of the company. It's something we had actually prepared for for some time. When I took over as CEO three years ago, we kind of doubled down on the BTT journey. A few years back, we decided to really go forward once we saw the initial data for some of our assets. Just after the conference last year here at Goldman Sachs, we received fantastic data points from a 16-week phase 1b study. Really, for the first time, I would say, demonstrating the potential of Petrelintide as an alternative and potential foundational therapy for obesity and alternatives to the GLP-1s. Later in the year, we started the efforts to partner up with a large pharma company. We were very clear on what we wanted to achieve. We wanted to have a true partnership, including profit share. It was a highly competitive process. Ultimately, we decided to team up with Roche on getting Petrelintide all the way to the market with the patients because we found that we shared, we had a very similar view on what it takes to lead in such a space in the future. Okay. You have also made some additions to the management team over that period of time. Most of those were in actually newly created roles. Could you just talk us through the rationale for those new roles being created? What does it tell us about the long-term strategy at Zealand? Yeah, we have a very ambitious vision for the company. We want to grow and to become a generational biotech. We actually think we have all the pieces in place now to realize that dream. Again, it's a journey that we started a few years back together with the board, where we said we actually think we have something that can define how obese patients will be treated in the future. Why don't we, together with a big pharma partner, take the lead here? We have been building our organization to make sure that we could become a true partner once we engaged also in later stage development and also as we approach commercialization. With the hires that you have seen in the last nine months, we hired a Chief Commercial Officer second half of last year, Eric, who can help us, of course, with that part of the journey. In the last months or so, we have hired a new Chief Scientific Officer to really focus in on what we would call perhaps life beyond Petrelintide, so make sure that we have a pipeline that can continue to drive value also into the 2030s and 2040s. Steven Johnson as a Chief Development Officer to really help take the lead as we progress Petrelintide into later stage development together with Roche. David Kendall will, of course, still be around as our Chief Medical Officer to make sure that we will get a much stronger presence in the obesity space because we think we have such a unique story too. There's obviously in that period of time, there's also been kind of a lot of evolution of the obesity market, both from a commercial perspective, from a clinical perspective, with almost constantly getting new waves of data. If you were just to kind of dial back and think about what your perspective is on the market and how Petrelintide fits into the market as it stands. Right. It is, of course, a highly developing market. It is not a big surprise because, as we have said for a long time, and I think most of the world agrees to that, obesity is probably the biggest health care challenge that we are facing right now, which probably soon to be 50% of the global population being obese. You have 220 diseases that follow obesity and millions of deaths every year that you can ascribe to obesity. It is such a huge challenge. We have seen the launch of the two first molecules that actually help patients achieve the weight loss that they're looking for, 10-20% weight loss. Of course, there's been a period where people then say, well, now we have these two tools that can help people lose weight and look how well they're doing in the launch and so on. It's probably game over. We kind of thought, well, that's a very naive thought that you can solve the obesity pandemic and the crisis that we see with obesity with only two quite similar molecules. Of course, you need very many different tools, especially you need things that can help people not only lose weight, but also maintain that weight loss. Because if you lose weight and you gain it again, you don't achieve any health benefits. What we think we have with Petrelintide in particular is a product that can deliver the weight loss that the majority of obese individuals are looking for. That's a 10-20% weight loss. Importantly, help them maintain that weight loss because we do not see the same side effects as we have seen with the GLP-1 class. Okay. And then just thinking about kind of commercialization and one pushback that we sometimes get from investors is that given the head start that Lilly and Novo have, it looks like it may be kind of something of a potentially a contracting market. Is that the way that you think about the commercial opportunity? To what extent have you had conversations with your partners at Roche on how you would kind of circumvent that? In my book, of course, you have two companies in particular, Novo, who was leading this effort. They were first movers into the obesity space. Then Lilly followed and could take some learnings from some of the steps that Novo did. You have these two companies playing in this space right now. Remember, they are first movers in the GLP-1 space. Of course, it's going to be difficult to break into that space because they have data, they have volumes within that class of molecules. When you think about novel classes, I think there's significant opportunity to rethink how you actually approach the patients and take some of the learnings from these companies, but also do it differently. I think it's a huge advantage not to be first mover in a field like this that is moving so fast and changing so much. Taking those learnings, and then also when it comes to, as an example, manufacturing built for high volume, high capacity, instead of trying to retrofit old factories and so on, I think you can end up being in a very competitive, having a competitive advantage being a later entrance rather than trying to retrofit what you already have. I just see a huge opportunity, in particular, if you approach with a novel modality and alternative to the GLP-1s. Of course, it's going to be difficult to break into the existing GLP-1 space. If you have an alternative, it's a completely different story. Okay. And then the other piece, just to maybe round out on competitive developments, the oral piece has been in focus and we're expecting some additional data at ADA. How do you think about the market long term in terms of split between injectables and orals, conscious that there's no oral in the pipeline at Zealand as well? Yeah. So I think if people took the time to really review the reasons that people stopped taking GLP-1s, it's not because they're injectables. People stopped taking GLP-1s because they have achieved their weight loss. If you ask most patients, it's either due to financial reasons or it could be due to the fact that many patients have continuous side effects such as constipation, diarrhea, or the fact that when you are on a GLP-1, many patients have that feeling that they have lost their appetite, which is not the most pleasant experience. Your tolerance level for side effects is much less once you have achieved your weight loss. I don't think an oral therapy addressed that. Actually, what we have seen thus far, probably you have more of those side effects. I don't think all therapies are the, for all GLP-1s, the answer for maintenance therapy. All GLP-1s may be an opportunity for those patients who are concerned with a needle. But remember, many patients who get on treatment, but they just stop taking them. It doesn't seem to be a big barrier to get on the needles. Even compounding, it's like what, 30% of the volume in the US, that's a vial, a syringe. It's not even a convenient injection device. I don't see that needle being a barrier to getting on therapy. I don't see oral to be the solution for maintenance therapy because it doesn't solve the biggest issues with the GLP-1s, which is constipation, diarrhea, losing your appetite, I believe. Okay. I kind of hear your views there. In a scenario where the orals get better traction than you're expecting, how viable do you think it is to have an oral formulation for Petrelintide or amylin more broadly? I think the oral amylin is some way, some time away because it's much more complex biology to understand amylin. You have to consider three receptors rather than just one on a GLP-1. You also need to ultimately, if you want to think about a small molecule amylin, make sure that it's easy to manufacture. Conceptually, of course, if you can develop an amylin because they are more tolerable, there could be an upside in an oral because you could skip some manufacturing steps and so on. I just think it's a very long way out. It's not what we should expect to see in the coming few years. It's more complex. I'm pretty sure there will have to be many attempts before somebody gets it right. Okay. And then moving on to Petrelintide and the deal with Roche earlier this year, could you maybe just talk us through how that deal came around? I mean, during the process, you talked about having discussions with multiple companies. And you took your time to kind of execute on a deal. What made this the right terms and what made Roche the right partner? I mean, we started the process almost one year back after we had the data to reach out to all large pharma companies to have a conversation, also share our view on the obesity market, really trying to educate also on the potential for a monotherapy, an alternative to the GLP-1s. Because at that time, just looking one year back, I think most of the world were still a GLP-1 world. I think that was hugely helpful because we ended up having a very competitive process. There was no question in our minds that when we engage in this process, it was not just about the headline numbers of upfronts and what have you. For us, we really wanted to make sure we got a partner who was truly committed to the obesity space, somebody who shared our vision that they want to come in and lead in this space because we see so much opportunity, not just being here because it was hot, if you will. With Roche, I think they just ticked all the boxes in the sense that they, as we all know, acquired Carmot some years back. They have really thought through what it takes to lead in this space. They had plans in place for manufacturing, as we discussed before, so we can make sure we can hopefully ultimately manufacture at the lowest possible cost. With Thomas, of course, they also had a CEO who was driving this and had been driving this for a long time. There was a strong cultural fit. The other part that was important for us when we decided to go with Roche was, of course, beyond just the financials, was also the framework of the collaboration where they were very open to having a full co-development and co-commercialization agreement with profit share in the U.S. and in Europe. That is about retaining the long-term value because we see the potential of Petrelintide as being a foundational therapy and potentially the biggest selling obesity drug ever. It was hugely important for us to retain as much value in the long term as possible. Another important parameter for us was the cultural fit. We just found in the discussions that we had a very strong cultural fit with the Roche organization. Okay. I guess sort of on the vision for Petrelintide, do you and Roche share the same vision? You've always been quite clear that this is a monotherapy first type approach. It's Petrelintide first and then other assets fit around that. Are you confident that Roche share that? Yeah. I think we have a shared view on that one. Remember, we also have 50% of the value on the combination product. The CT388, that's Roche's GLP-1/GIP, which we actually, with the data that we have reviewed, and of course, we did diligence on the asset as well, we think it probably has the potential to be the best GLP-1/GIP molecule in development right now. We will have 50% profit on that combination product again with the Petrelintide. It is also clear that if you look into the world in a few years from now, with the number of patients who have been exposed to a GLP-1 but also decided never to be on a GLP-1 again, there will probably be more obese individuals who have tried a GLP-1 and said never again than there will be obese individuals on a GLP-1. It is much more intuitive to launch an alternative because all those patients will be candidates for an alternative, whereas a combination product will not be a solution for those because it still has GLP-1 within it. The combination product is a fantastic tool for those who are most morbidly obese, those who would otherwise be candidates for bariatric surgery, for instance. Or it is a good tool for perhaps patients who live with type two diabetes and are obese because you get the benefit from the HbA1c reductions and the weight loss. The main value is within the monotherapy. That is the foundation. The combination is for those who have special needs. Okay. You talked about Petrelintide potentially being the largest ever obesity drug. How do you think about the proportion of revenues that come from the monotherapy versus potential combination? I personally believe that the monotherapy, if we deliver the target product profile we have, I think it will address the need for weight loss in the majority of the obese population. If you ask patients, most patients would tell you they would be looking for a 10-20% weight loss. Very few patients are looking for a 25-30% weight loss. It is only the most morbidly obese patients. Number two, in order to maintain these weight losses, and we sometimes forget that, you actually have to change your lifestyle a lot. Even if there were zero side effects, if you want to achieve and maintain a 30% weight loss, you need to change your life so much that many patients are not ready for that. If you have reached a certain age and you have such a weight loss, your body appearance will also change quite a bit. I have met a number of patients who, let's say, lost 19% on one of the current molecules. They said, "That's a little bit too much. Step down in dosing." Then they were down to 16% weight loss. They gained a few pounds. People would come up to tell them, say, "I mean, you look super healthy. What happened?" "I just gained a few kilos." It is a little bit back. Sometimes we forget that we are just humans and we actually want to live lives. Most of our lives involves having a good time around a dinner conversation and also enjoying a glass of red wine once in a while. We should be careful not to be too ambitious on behalf of patients because the most effective chronic therapies are the therapies that people stay on. If people stop taking these therapies, you do not get the health benefits. You can have the most effective chronic therapy, but it does not work if people do not stay on it. If it requires too much effort, many patients will not commit to it. Okay. And then we've heard from you before in terms of amylin differentiation as a mechanism relative to the GLP-1s. Within the amylin class, there's obviously a huge amount of development ongoing there, arguably Petrelintide in the lead after Novo from a monotherapy perspective. How do you think about the differentiation relative to things like Abri and Gubra's asset? You have the Mazdutide data that we saw days before yesterday, Aloralintide from Lilly. I think you're touching upon a very important aspect here now that most people are starting to realize that amylin actually holds the potential as an alternative to the GLP-1s. Now it's really important that people start to think about the different aspects of the different molecules because it's not just about amylin. It's about two different amylin receptors and a calcitonin receptor. And there's specific pharmacology and physiology relating to all of these receptors. We think it's hugely important that you have the right balance on these molecules. What we are learning right now is that you can actually achieve a weight loss probably short term, at least with most of these concepts. The question, of course, becomes then what is the durability and what are the longer term safety aspects where our understanding of the current space, and we hope to present more data on all these aspects in the coming period, is that you need to have a balanced approach on the amylin 3 and calcitonin, not have too much calcitonin. You also do not want to have molecules that are too potent on these receptors. I think Lilly showed us that with the summer calcitonin backbone. There is so much more to this than just the name of amylin. It is something we will start to educate the market a little bit more on in the coming period. Okay. I guess petrelintide is potentially kind of one of the main focus points given that that is a calcitonin amylin selective. Is there anything that you may be looking for in that data set that may change your view that you do need the balance as opposed to just having a selective? I mean, from a weight loss perspective, it would be durability. I mean, one thing is if you can achieve short term weight loss, but maybe durability is also something that will last into if you think chronic therapy because, again, we're talking about chronic therapies and not just short term therapies. I think you would also start to hear more about what additional health benefits the different receptors might actually benefit with. It is actually not just down to weight loss. If you only drive weight loss targeting, let's say, only two of the three receptors, maybe you have to push them too much. You might start to see some side effects that are unwanted. In theory, you might consider, well, there should be less if you only hit two. In practice, if you want to achieve the most weight loss, you might actually start to see some specific side effects. We know from these systems that we are playing with, if you push them too much, you will start to see unwanted side effects. That is why I think in order to achieve a molecule that can provide a true alternative with a significant weight loss as a monotherapy, you probably want to be on all three receptors. If you're only on two, maybe you'll get into some issues at the higher doses where you also see the higher weight losses. That is something we would speculate. Okay. So you think that your hypothesis is that the weight loss is driven by activity at all three receptors? If you look into animal studies, they are very kind of consistent that the most efficacious drugs hit all three receptors, amylin, 3, and calcitonin being the most important. You would also see that if you are too much on calcitonin, maybe that's wrong. I would also speculate that if you don't include calcitonin, you will probably not be able to achieve the same degree of weight loss without pushing the doses too high maybe. Data will have to tell as we progress this. That's our current understanding. Okay. And then thinking about one of the other dacras in terms of Cagrilintide monotherapy, how do you think Novo have now confirmed, obviously, they're pursuing that as a monotherapy strategy. How do you think that informs the development strategy for Petrelintide? And do you think it is a competitive risk? For Cagrilintide for Novo Nordisk, we're actually super happy with the data that we have seen, probably as one of the few people in this world. I think CagriSema and also Cagrilintide as a monotherapy actually looks like it's providing a decent weight loss, especially if you consider with CagriSema that only 60% of the patients reach the top dose. Had they pushed the doses more, I'm sure you would have gotten the numbers that you all hope for. On Cagrilintide monotherapy, they were around 12% weight loss. In our book, it's a very low dose of amylin compared to where we are going. It gives us a lot of confidence that we can achieve 15% plus weight loss with our approach because we have the same receptor balance as they have. One of the major differences is that we are stable at neutral pH. We have not seen injection site reactions and immunogenicity to the degree that has been reported with Cagrilintide. We think we can dose higher. We know we can dose higher. Of course, it's a de-risking event to see 68-week data from that molecule because it's very much built on the same construct of how to engage with these three receptors. For us, it's de-risking the program big time. Okay. If ultimately you kind of want to position this as a best-in-class amylin, do you think you might need to do a head-to-head study versus Cagrilintide, for example? I mean, I'm not sure I have to, but I would probably be happy to. Okay. I want to touch on the, sorry, the phase three program. Just to wrap up on Petrelintide from a data perspective, one of the other kind of hypothesized benefits of amylin is obviously the effect on lean muscle. When should we expect to see data for Petrelintide? We have included in our phase 2 study, which completed enrollment in February, 500 patients' MRI scans. We get a full assessment of the body composition, which should provide some initial data. If there is a potential to preserve muscle mass in humans as we have seen in animals, I mean, early data sets with Petrelintide suggest that we can completely preserve all muscle mass in animals when they lose weight. I would not expect to see that in humans because after all, we are humans, they are animals. Let's see if there will be a signal here. It would be a very strong thing for Petrelintide because if you can preserve just a little bit more muscle, you would also expect the resting energy metabolism to be higher. It would be easier to maintain your weight loss than having lost more muscle. Okay. Ultimately, if that kind of holds true and you see it in phase three trials, do you think that could be a label claim or is it more about a positioning of the drug relative to come? Yeah, it remains to be seen because I personally believe that it will not be as black and white. I mean, it's more a concept, can you preserve a little bit more? I think it's difficult to, I mean, we need to see the data before I would speculate if it could ultimately end up in a label. Let's see. Okay. I guess the other piece that we're waiting for from the phase 1b is just kind of relative weight loss in males versus females. Will we see that data at ADA? What are your expectations? How would you kind of preview that data? It is one of the most known things in obesity that any weight loss program, females, they lose more weight than males. Women lose more weight than men. It is something we also, we have qualitatively stated that we also see that in our product. We will present the data now. It is quite striking, but it is what you have seen and what we have known for any weight loss program. It is, of course, important when you compare programs across different studies and so on. If you have more females, you can expect to see a significantly larger weight loss than if you only have males, number one. The other thing is what is also important is, of course, body mass index. If you have a higher body mass index, normally you would also expect to see a little bit more weight loss, especially if you're in the lower parts. There's a limit to how much you can lose if you're not a very heavy person. Okay. And then just thinking about the phase three development program. First, you said that you'll share interim data from the phase two trial with the FDA to support a phase three start. Given that the trial enrolled faster than you expected, as you previously told us, when is the interim and when should we expect that? I know that you're not going to share data with the market. Together with Roche, we'll review the 28-week data in the second half. We will wait with disclosure of the full data set until we have completed the full 42-week study. It is still planned to be disclosed in the first half of next year. What it allows us to do with the interim, not the review of the 28-week data, is, of course, to progress as fast as possible to the end of phase two, meeting with the FDA, set the doses for phase three, and then get the phase three study started hopefully in the second half next year. It enhances our speed, but unfortunately, you guys will have to wait until the first half likely to see the data. In terms of phase three initiations, would be second half of 2026, is that? I think that's the current plans. Okay. How should we think about what the phase three program would look like? Would it be a typical kind of obesity trial, then a diabetic obese? Yeah. We have plans in place to study weight loss in obese individuals and also obese individuals with type two diabetes, and then also initiate a very large outcome study, which of course we'll read out later. We need to discuss now with Roche all the important details of that program, how to make sure we get the most out of the program, which is going to be a large program. Those are the discussions we're having right now. In the coming period, we can also disclose more on the designs together with Roche. Okay. Is the plan to run phase threes in diabetes, or is it just going to be obesity the focus? We have an ambition to rapidly expand into additional indications. We need to now discuss with Roche what are the most important additional indications and in which order to pursue them because remember with the combination product, that is really a product that could be tailor-made for obese individuals with type two diabetes. We will have to have some key discussions on how much we want to do monotherapy for diabetes versus more focusing on the combination product for that population. I think personally, I think the monotherapy for obesity is a very attractive product for prediabetes or recent onset diabetes because data would suggest that amylins are less effective on HbA1c, but actually more effective on weight loss. That is the perfect tool for a prediabetic person. It also perhaps will work on insulin sensitivity rather than just stimulating insulin. That is the deal the ones are doing. These are discussions again we'll have to have with our new partner. Okay. That makes sense. And then just thinking about costs. You probably had a figure in mind in terms of when you're entering into these partnership discussions. How much do you think it costs to bring Petrelintide from where it is now to kind of a commercial product, i.e., going through all of the phase threes? We know that outcome trials are large, long, and expensive. We cannot share our specific cost estimates. It was a very important part for us in the discussions when talking about financials that we would always be in a situation where we can honor our obligations into the partnership. With our models, we have a very healthy balance sheet also once we get to the launch year, which is the most expensive year, which allows us to also increase our investments big time into the research activities we have. From a cost perspective, you should of course expect Zealand cost base to go up, but it is only in the launch year and the year before where you will see a step change because that is where you need to invest both in the clinical trial conduct plus in commercial readiness. We are in a situation where we can see our way to profitability without having to the need for additional cash and still increase our investments big time in research and early development activities. That makes sense. Just in terms of some of the other aspects that we want to touch on in the last five, six minutes, Dafiglutide, we're expecting an update from the higher dose cohort. I think it was supposed to be first half of the year. It's not come yet. What's the latest there? Yeah. I mean, it's still expected in the first half of the year. Yes, you can imagine it's going to be pretty soon. We look forward to see the data. It's a program which leverages both the GLP-1 biology and weight loss and all the benefits that we know from the GLP-1 class. Then it has added GLP-2, which we believe provides additional anti-inflammatory properties. It should be something that a molecule, if it comes out the way we hope, actually has a huge upside from some of the comorbidities to obesity, which have a larger inflammatory component. We'll see the data soon. We'll report the top line. Then we'll have some firm discussions internally how to progress this asset because honestly speaking, I don't think the world needs more GLP-1s just for weight loss. We have enough. We probably think a little bit more of a niche approach here. Could it be IBD? Could it be psoriasis where that inflammation component plays a bigger role where we can really leverage the molecule? If we were going for only cardiovascular outcome, we wouldn't have the answer until 10 years from now, which is a little long to wait. Yeah. For medications. We will get them much sooner. I see that it's a huge opportunity to go in and provide a complementary treatment in these disease areas where you have mostly concepts available that build on the same narrative of trying to manage inflammation as such and not the underlying disease, which we might be able to do with this product. Okay. The update that we get will be sort of weight loss for now, right? On the higher dose, you're not going to be able to show any inflammation. It will be mainly weight loss. Of course, you could expect to see some effects on CRP, but it will be rough estimates because these are general obese patients. It is not patients who have heavy underlying low-grade inflammation. It is probably too rough to make any firm conclusions. Okay. Makes sense. The other one is Survodutide. Obviously, that's already partnered and Boehringer Ingelheim are in control there. Could you just remind us on timelines there, phase three data should be first half of 2026? Yeah. They have completed enrollment into all their phase three studies in obesity and are still enrolling in the MASH space. We expect Boehringer to release top line data from this program in the first half of next year. We actually expect that they will have the data later this year. Of course, hope that they will progress quickly towards a regulatory submission. In our books, I would say Boehringer is likely to be the third last pharma company to enter this space with Survodutide, which is a hugely differentiated molecule with potential not only in obesity, but also in MASH, where last year they reported fantastic phase two data, groundbreaking as they described them, which I agree to. It is really, again, leveraging the GLP-1 component, but then adding glucagon into this mix really to get nutritions out of the liver so you get a more healthy liver. That could have broad metabolic benefits beyond MASH. I look very much forward to seeing the data sets also beyond MASH and beyond weight loss because I think the whole concept reinstalling the liver as the major metabolic switch, which has been disturbed in many cases for these patients, I think could have very broad benefits across a range of different comorbidities to obesity. I think it is a very strong opportunity, which is overlooked a little bit in the current environment, but we have a lot of confidence in Boehringer's ability to deliver. Yeah. Okay. Just going back to the phase two data, I think there were some people that were a little bit concerned about the tolerability profile that we saw back at ADA. Is that a concern to you? Actually not because it doesn't, in our book at least, it's exactly the same profile as was seen with the phase two studies for some of the earlier GLP-1s. And it's something you manage when you get into phase three where you do more careful titration, you allow use of anti-medication, and then you also just work more closely with the patients. I'm more flexible in how you titrate. As one example, and that's also giving us a lot of confidence, Boehringer is moving forward with higher doses in phase three than what was applied. If they had serious concerns about the tolerability, I don't think they would have gone that way. I am very confident that they have found a way to manage that, just as no one really found a way to manage that in their phase three programs. The data will show soon. Okay. And then maybe one asset that's arguably forgotten amongst all the obesity assets in glepaglutide. Can you just, you obviously had the CRL at the end of 2024. Can you just give us an update on timelines here in terms of base case for refiling? Yes. We have actually just submitted the marketing authorization application in Europe for the product. We hope to have that approved by the European authorities next year. In the second half, we are starting an additional phase three study to support the FDA approval in the U.S. because FDA was very clear they wanted to see more data, substantial evidence as they described it because, yeah, they thought we should have more patient exposure. We are fully committed to progress that. In parallel, we will also continue to explore partnership opportunities here because, of course, it is not the major part of our equity story anymore, but it is still a product that carries significant potential for a lot of patients and also value for companies who would put full efforts behind that program. As a company, we rather spend our efforts on the Petrelintide side, of course, but then also focusing on the value drivers beyond Petrelintide side. Yeah. And just to that end, I mean, you said it's not the driver of the equity story, which is fair. Could there be, like in retrospect looking back, that given the amount of focus on Petrelintide and executing there, which all went to plan, that perhaps there's a little bit less attention paid to Glepaglutide, which is why there was a CRL at the end of the year? With that said, does it not make sense just to kind of expedite a partnership just to make sure you crystallize the value? No. I mean, I think we actually did work with FDA for a long time to get the paper approved. I think it was ultimately different views on how much once weekly could support twice weekly and so on. I mean, it's always a scientific discussion. Actually, it was not a lack of focus that resulted in the complete response data. It was basically just different views on how the data sets could support the ultimate opportunity here. Having said that, it does make sense to move on because it is not the major value driver for Zealand in five years from now. Okay. In the last minute or so, it's obviously last year was a pretty phenomenal year for the stock. This year has been slightly different in line with the sector, albeit. What's your message to investors at this point, given that some people may have been affected by the way that the stock's performed? Yeah. I mean, my message is, and I think it's also the feedback I get back, that we are doing everything right. We have the fundamental story and the fundamental data in place. If you have that in place, things will change at the right moment. It's actually not something that concerns us a lot, those things right now. We think we are on a really strong trajectory to actually lead in obesity in the future. That's our ambition. That's what we have all the parameters in place to actually pursue now. Perfect. I think we're right at time. So thank you very much, Adam. Thank you.