Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us. My name is Rajan Sharma, European Pharma and Biotech Analyst here at Goldman Sachs. Very pleased to have Zealand Pharma with us, and Adam Steensberg, CEO. Adam, thank you for joining. I know that you've been on the road with ADA, so thanks for adding on this to the trip. Pleased to be here. Lots to get through. Obviously we're coming off the back of ADA, maybe that's a good place to start. There are a few updates there, both with survodutide and petrelintide. Could you maybe just start with survodutide? That was the newer update that we got over the weekend. Just provide your thoughts on the data. Absolutely. As you said, I've just spent almost a week around at ADA, it was a really, you can say, positive experience coming out of ADA, kicking off Friday with a symposium on amylin, really starting to change the conversations from how we get to the maximum tolerated doses more towards how do we get to the minimum effective doses when you think about treating obesity. There is a quite significant change in the ecosystem right now that we start to see more modalities approaching the market. Specifically with Boehringer being the CEO of Zealand, I was of course extremely pleased to see the strong presence they had at the conference, probably being one of the biggest sponsors, having this very strong presence around See Obesity and Think Liver. As you also said, they presented data Sunday which really speaks to the strength of survodutide being a liver fat and visceral fat-targeted therapies, which also showed signs of preserving muscles to a larger extent than what we have seen before with other molecules. I was actually very pleased with the profile and also with seeing how the Boehringer management team, their excitement around it. When we think about the top-line data that was released both on weight loss and tolerability, I was also a little bit surprised to see that somewhat higher level of vomiting and discontinuation than what I had expected from the study. At the session, we learned that Boehringer had applied a very strict titration protocol where they did not allow people in the trial to personalize the titration, and they did also not allow for de-escalation once you have reached the higher doses. We know that from any other trial that if you don't allow for flexibility in the titration, then people have side effects on the GLP-1. That was a little bit of a surprise to me that that was a study design that was chosen. Investigators indicated that was based on some regulatory interactions. What I would say, however, and what gives me a lot of confidence going beyond those headline numbers is when I speak to the senior executives at Boehringer, they are very confident that they can, you can say, change this with a more personalized and modified titration scheme where you allow to go slower and also deescalate once need be. They, as you could also see in the release from them, have actually initiated studies now to help inform how to titrate survodutide in a real-world setting, including also new studies in women's health and heart failure and what have you. A very committed team, but also a little bit surprised to see that they have been so strict about titration. Just on that point on the titration, I remember at the presentation, the presenter noted that the flexibility was added quite late in the trial, and that's going to be kind of informing future programs. Are you in SYNCHRONIZE-2, for example, is the flexibility in the trial, so could that be a trial which shows better tolerability? Similarly with the LIVERAGE program, which will be important for MASH. We don't have the insights. It was implemented into these studies once Boehringer started to discover that they had issues with dropout rates. Apparently, when you listen to the investigators, it had a meaningful impact. For some of these studies, it was perhaps too late to have an impact. What the investigators indicated, I think, at the conference was that the LIVERAGE studies, which were started later, I think they were running with the flexible titration schedule from the start. There they felt that the issues with tolerability had been addressed. Of course, I don't have all the detailed data. The Boehringer team have it, and they feel extremely comfortable around being able to address this, and that gives me a lot of confidence as the molecule move forward. Really being a molecule that targets, I think, the biggest, you can say, desire for when you engage in a weight loss, that is, you should not focus about who can get the highest weight loss, but who can get the most metabolic benefits out of a reasonable weight loss. Just on the piece, you mentioned around liver fat and visceral fat, and even body composition, to what extent is that important to both physicians and patients? I know, again, at the conference, there was some debate around the whole body composition piece and the extent to which that is important in clinical practice. What's your take there? I think it's easy to think about that for the physicians, it's extremely important that you lose the right amount of fat, as a physician, you know that it's the visceral fat, it's the fat in the liver that cause all the negative health consequences of living with obesity. Strong, per se, driver for a physician to target that weight loss towards bad fat, if you will, and protect somewhat, especially the muscles, but actually also subcutaneous fat. One thing, if we think about people living with obesity who starts on a weight loss journey, we know for a long time there's, you can say, a big concern around losing muscles when you embark on a weight loss journey. Here we saw data, I would say, which showed only that 10% of the weight loss was driven by muscle, which is a very different number than the 30% we have seen with other molecules. That could speak directly to, you can say, the patients really wanting to protect their muscles when they engage in a weight loss journey. The other thing, which I think will also play into the patient experience, is that we see a lot of patients stopping taking the higher doses of the currently available GLP-1s because they don't want to lose too much facial fat and subcutaneous fat. That's again, with survodutide, where it's targeted visceral and liver fat. I think we actually have a product that will speak directly to being able to have a modest weight loss, lose the right fat, the bad fat, and protect your facial fat, for instance, so you don't get that, you can say, expression where people start to feel they look even older. Yeah. Obviously, as a company, you know the GLP-1 space pretty well as well, given your history there. When you look at the survodutide data and that sort of elevated discontinuations and the nausea, do you think that's driven by the GLP-1 component of survodutide or is that additional sort of AEs being driven by the glucagon component? I think it's driven by GLP-1, I think there's not a single GLP-1 out there or in development which would not deliver the same amount of GI side effects and dropouts if you were as strict as Boehringer initially were in these studies. We know that these drugs are being personalized. Also in real world, there are very few physicians who would prescribe a currently approved GLP-1 according to label because they know they would. You don't want to lose weight too fast. In the real world, we are starting to learn to dose much more slow with these molecules, that is what Boehringer is now addressing in an upcoming phase III study to really inform how to use and how to titrate this product in the real world. Yeah. Okay. Maybe thinking a little bit more positively on survo, the MASLD data I thought was pretty impressive. Could you, again, just kind of provide your perspective there and help us put that into context relative to the other GLP-1s? Yeah. I think I started saying that that is really what impressed me. Remember, they achieved these data even during the constraints of the study that we just discussed, so that makes it even more impressive. We saw livers that went from 30% fat content to 2% fat content in the presentation, and this is really the Holy Grail of trying to promote metabolic health and help people living with obesity having a better metabolic condition. If you then think about that Boehringer is also investing in likely the largest studies ever conducted in MASLD. We have LIVERAGE 1 and 2, which address both F2 and F3, but also cirrhotic patients. That gives Boehringer a very strong value proposition for survodutide being, if you're an obese individual, there's a 65% chance that you also have excessive fat in your liver, and there's a chance if you live with that condition for a long time, it will develop into later-stage, end-stage liver diseases. Why not treat the liver? Also knowing today that most patients are not interested in that very high weight loss. If you're a person who looks for 12%-15% weight loss and you can target that weight loss to liver health, liver fat, that's a strong value proposition. If you think about utilization, obviously that's up to Boehringer in terms of the commercialization as opposed to yourselves, you will need to think about commercializing petrelintide. How would you sort of think about the potential population that survodutide might be relevant for in obesity as opposed to in MASH? Yeah, it's relevant for patients who can tolerate a GLP-1. Yeah. It's, of course, when you're a prescriber, it's relevant for patients, where you want to really target that liver-specific weight loss, which could translate into very, very significant metabolic benefits because the liver is actually where a lot of the risk markers for cardiovascular disease arise, that comes from CRP, lipids, et cetera. That is from the liver, you may actually consider a product like survodutide could ultimately provide more metabolic benefit. Can it also address ectopic fat in other organs and thus helping organs even more than the indirect effects of a weight loss? I think it's really a product that speaks directly into the metabolic health, those who seek metabolic health more than just weight loss. Okay. The narrative that we have been promoting for quite some years, I've called it to stop the weight loss Olympics, because the observation in the real world is that patients don't care about that highest weight loss number. We have, for a long time as an industry, been pushing towards that bariatric surgery weight loss, not realizing that most patients are not in for it, very few actually are offered bariatric surgery historically. Patients seems to be looking for that 10%-15% weight loss, if s ervo can deliver that but generate significant more metabolic health, that's a very sharp value proposition. That gives me a lot of confidence in Boehringer also pushing that narrative forward as one of the highly differentiated GLP-1 options out there. Yeah. One of the other things I thought was interesting about that study was the fact that up to 15% of patients on the placebo arm were actually receiving a GLP-1 therapy and got access. That's probably a good segue into petre as well. How do you think about controlling that in a clinical trial, and is that just a challenge that the industry faces from here? I think it's likely the highest number we have seen thus far. I think it's things we need to get used to deal with in clinical trial readouts in the future, because there's a lot of patients, number one, who have already been exposed to therapy, and thus you can say have had initial weight losses, and therefore you may not be able to expect the same degree of weight loss in the future study environment. The other thing is when people find out that they are on placebo, which is quite easy when you're on a GLP-1 study, then you have patients who then turn to use GLP-1s. It was a high number in this study, which also drew up the placebo effect for the study. I think we need to be used to find ways to look at the data despite the fact of these differences in how many patients decide to utilize a GLP-1. It very much depends on also which sites you go to. It's clear that it's a larger phenomenon in the U.S. because you have easier access to GLP-1s than in, for instance, Europe and other places, of access to alternative channels, if you will. It's something we as an industry will have to deal with, it's something we will have to discuss with FDA how to handle, and of course, when we ultimately view data, we need to take those differences into- Yeah into account. Okay. At some point, do you expect that the standard way of running an obesity trial will be to use a GLP-1 or an other approved medication in the control arm? That remains to be seen, but remember, if you add GLP-1 as a control arm, then it will not be blinded anymore. Yeah. People will know what they're on because of the side effects of GLP-1s. It's not easy. There's not a one fix here. It's going to be a multitude of different things. Of course, ultimately head-to-head studies will be important to inform how to use these medications as we start to have more tools. We have to remind ourselves that today we only have two very similar tools, which I would normally describe as a hammer, and one which is a little bit bigger, and then some are trying to develop a sledgehammer. Once we start to have an approved toolbox, of course, in a more mature market, we will start to see more head-to-head studies. Yep. Okay. Last one on survodutide, and I assume the sledgehammer is potentially retatrutide that you're talking about. How do you think survodutide compares in a world where retatrutide may also be on the market, given it has a glucagon component and could have a liver benefit as well? Yeah, that of course remains to be seen how the two molecules play out when we start to see the clinical data. I think survodutide, as Boehringer is arguing, and as we have been arguing for a long time, it has specifically been designed to address liver health, liver fat, not with the maximum weight loss in mind. With the relative balance of an appropriate weight loss which they released, we saw these fantastic data in getting fat out of the liver. The relative balance between the GLP-1 and glucagon component has to be shown how that, you can say, at different dose levels contribute to a healthy liver for the different molecules. We are very, very, you can say, happy with the profile, the balance between weight loss and metabolic improvements that we see with survodutide, and that Boehringer reported. Okay. Maybe we should move on to petrelintide. I'm conscious that we've also already got through quite a lot of time. What were the key updates that you would highlight for petrelintide at ADA? Obviously, we'd already seen the top-line data. What were the incremental new learnings in your view? There's no question that ADA this year was kicked off with an ADA-sponsored symposium on amylin Yep where the presenters presented amylin as a logical new first-line therapy, as they would argue, why would you not start with the most benign treatment and only go to more cumbersome treatments if that first modality doesn't deliver what it's looking for? Specifically at that session, they also presented the different amylin analogs. When petrelintide was mentioned with the double-digit weight loss and placebo-like tolerability, all of them said this is a natural first-choice therapy for a patient who starts a weight loss journey. One of the presenters even presented a hypothetical future treatment paradigm where amylins would be really the primary care product, and the GLP-1s would be reserved for the more complicated obese patients, which is actually speaking very much to how we have seen the field and how we have been developing petrelintide. Not trying to go for the highest possible weight loss compromising on tolerability, but really going for that weight loss that we believe most patients are looking for, 10%-15%, and in a placebo-like tolerability profile. That is what we saw at ADA. The conversations, not only in the symposium, but at the congress in general, it was about tolerability. We need to find medicines and ways whereby patients can stay on therapy, so we don't have these cycles all the time, on treatment, off treatment. That doesn't promote a lot of health if people get off treatment all the time. We need to develop tools that patients can stay on. What I would also say, and I think it's going to be a quite, you can say, influential ADA when people look back at this one, because it's really my sense is that the obesity field at least has matured quite a lot in just compared to last year, where we start to think about it like what has happened in other chronic therapy areas. You always start to treat the most difficult to treat patients. As we mature, we start to think about obesity prevention. Why is it we should wait until you have a body mass index of 45? Why not start earlier? The other thing is why don't we start with the most benign therapy that has a high likelihood of giving you the weight loss you're looking for, just like petrelintide, and then only after that go to more cumbersome treatments. That was a lot of the themes that we heard at ADA, and petrelintide just speaks directly into that value proposition. Yep. I guess to be a definitive first-line therapy, part of that is also going to be outcome data. Is that a view that you share that you would need, whether it's cardiovascular or otherwise, that you need to demonstrate that there is a benefit beyond the weight loss to be able to justify that first-line use? Absolutely, over time. We just have to remind ourselves that the reason that we as an industry are in this space is, of course, to promote health. Ultimately, we also need to show that in outcome studies, and there we have more data for the GLP-1 class. What I would say is that if you think in the life of a normal prescriber, there are three main drivers for prescriptions: data, heart, and hassle. Data is about what is the weight loss you can deliver, and here we think with petrelintide we can actually deliver the weight loss that the majority of patients are looking for. Heart, that is, you have to believe you do something well for the patients. When we look into the risk markers for cardiovascular disease and other organ diseases, they all go in the right direction. At least there's a lot of belief that you can do something good until we deliver the proof in an outcome study. Hassle, with the tolerability profile that we have of petrelintide, we can remove the hassle that people are more and more aware of with the GLP-1s. It's a super cumbersome situation to prescribe GLP-1s because you have to engage with the patients, de-escalate, personalize every patient journey. That takes a lot of time in the clinics, and the minute we can offer something where it's an easy prescription, where you don't hear back from the patients until a few months later, and they can follow the prescription, we think that's going to be a major change. In our phase II study, we had 98% of the patients who could follow the escalation steps without having to modify it. That you could not do with a GLP-1. The change could come very fast in the minds of both patients, but also prescribers, this first line of therapy. Yeah. You mentioned the phase II data. Can we talk a little bit around that? I guess looking at the stock reaction, it's fair to say that the market was a little bit disappointed by the level of weight loss that petrelintide showed in that trial. Has that data set changed your view and your conviction? I think you talked previously to sort of 15%-20% weight loss long term. Do you think that's still achievable given what we've seen in phase II? The product that we are aiming to deliver now in phase III is a product that delivers double-digit weight loss, with a placebo-like tolerability. What really impressed us with the phase II data was that the tolerability profile was even better than what we saw in phase I, because we are using escalation every four weeks instead of every two weeks. That is really what is important here, that is to deliver the most tolerable approach to deliver this double-digit weight loss. I would argue, just as a lot of the key opinion leaders at ADA argue, that for any patient, it's a logical way to start your weight loss journey, to start on an amylin, and in particular with petrelintide, because it looks so benign. If you're among the high responders, most patients will likely get to the weight loss target that they have. If you're in the middle range, some will get to the weight loss target they have. Others will have to add something. If you're in the lower range, you should change to a different modality. I'm not going to pursue the highest number. I'm going to pursue the product which I think will be the natural starting point for any patient, and then as importantly, a product which patients can decide to stay on. Because it's really the biggest issue is that people stop taking the GLP-1s today, we don't get to persistency. It's also the way we have less than 20% on treatment after a year, which is a huge dilemma because then we don't achieve the health that we are looking for. If I have a product that is tolerable, that doesn't impact the way people want to live their lives, I believe they will decide to stay on that therapy. For a company also, of course, it's the opportunity to unlock the value in this market if we manage to get patients to stay on therapy rather than just using it for a few months. Yeah. Okay. Can we talk about the phase III as well in terms of expectations for the trial design? I think you haven't necessarily publicly committed to higher doses for petrelintide in phase III, and looking at the tolerability profile that you talked to may justify that. Could you just help us understand your thinking there? Yeah. We are, together with Roche, fully focused on getting these studies started here in the second half, so it's full on. We are, with both companies, really putting a lot of efforts in to speed up and have a keen focus on getting to market as fast as possible. It's clear as we move into phase III, you should probably expect to see a different gender balance, so we have more females in the study, which should, of course, provide higher numbers and also a study of a longer duration will add to that. When it comes to doses, we have not been, you can say, specific on the doses that we're going to forward take into phase III, but we have presented the maximum effective dose, which was in the mid-range. I would say you should not expect us to utilize doses that are beyond what we tested in phase II, because our data suggest that we will not get additional benefits out of that. On the other hand, what the data also suggests is even if we dose very high, we don't see a change in the side effect profile, which gives us a very high confidence as we move forward that we will not pick up some strange signals in phase III. It's with a high degree of confidence we move forward. The profile of the drug is one which we believe will give double-digit weight loss and a placebo-like tolerability and really speak to that first-line therapy where any patient will start the journey. Yeah. Okay. Then you also have the combination with CT-388, and I think there is an actual name for that one now. How should we think about that fitting in with petrelintide monotherapy? You're right. When we partnered up with Roche, we made sure that we had equal financials and also equal development and commercialization, say, on both the monotherapy with petrelintide but also the combination. We are going to push the combination into phase II here this summer, which is a rather large study of more than 400 patients to really explore what are the right ratios between amylin and GLP-1/GIP, or petrelintide and CT-388. The outcome of that study is, of course, going to inform how we're going to dose it in phase III in a fixed dose, single container system. What I would highlight, another highlight for me at least at this ADA, was also that Roche presented phase II data from CT-388, which, as we have kind of also assessed in our diligence when we partnered up, suggest that it's a very good GLP-1/GIP. Yeah. From a combination point of view, of course, it adds a lot of hope for us to be able to deliver something very special here. Yeah. On the point of sort of the combination, Lilly were obviously quite vocal in their kind of confidence in laurylintide at ADA as well, and talked to kind of having potentially the biggest development in their company with multiple combinations. How do you think about competitiveness of petrelintide, firstly as a monotherapy relative to laurylintide, and then obviously the combination, given that they've already started, or they're ahead in development with the tirzepatide combination? For the monotherapy, we feel extremely comfortable because of all the things we have discussed here. It's not about winning the numbers games. It's about delivering a product that can give patients the weight loss they're looking for in the most benign way, and that we think that profile is what we see with petrelintide. We're actually super happy to see that Lilly is also moving forward with a monotherapy, because then we can be two companies who are going to build a new category. It's not a small task to build a new category, and we personally believe that amylin is going to become a larger category for weight management because of that first line and that opportunity to actually have people to stay on therapy. When it comes to combination therapies, I actually also think we have the two strongest combinations. Who would not like to combine the most tolerable amylin product with the most potentially efficacious GLP-1/GIP product? As we approach development of the combination product, we have to be very smart about what we do here. As people probably are aware of that an obese individual who also have type 2 diabetes, that could be a natural place for an amylin GLP-1, because GLP-1 is very strong on HbA1c, amylin less so. Amylin is very strong on weight loss in diabetes patients, GLP-1 less so. That's a natural opportunity that people are aware of. The other thing, when you think about combination therapies going forward, it's good practice for medical doctors to only combine things that work. Yeah. We already know for the GLP-1s, there are 15% of patients who don't get any benefit, you don't want them in your combination study. Yeah. We need to be very smart as we start to think about what is the right product profile and who are the patients we're going to develop the combination, if it's focused on highest weight loss. It also has to be patients who actually want to have a 30% weight loss that you enroll in your studies, and not general people living with obesity, because most are going for that 10%-15%. This is where you will see a lot of change in the clinical trial conduct in the coming years, and in the marketplace. As we start to have choices, we're going to move beyond that dose to the maximum tolerated dose. That is something you normally would do in oncology- Yeah not in chronic diseases, towards minimum effective doses and then combinations that can help people individualize their weight loss journeys. On timelines. Excuse me. The combination phase II starting this summer, the monotherapy phase III starting second half of the year. What is sort of timelines for readouts of those trials? Ultimately, what is your base case for launch? Yeah. We have not committed to that, and in the honor of the partnership, I will not be more, you can say, clear on timelines except to say that we are, as companies, hyper-focused on speed to market, and then of course, continue to invest to expand the label. Okay. How do you execute around that in terms of hyper-focus on speed to market? Is there anything that you can do in the phase III? Is it rapid recruitment or is it sort of- It's of course making sure, number one, and it's of course focusing on recruitment, but still making sure you get the right patients and enroll from the right centers. It's focused on getting to market with enough to get to market and then expand the label from there. Yeah. Okay. You haven't given us a timeline for launch, but when you launch in the market, what are your expectations for pricing within obesity? It's too early to come because it's so dynamic as we all have witnessed in the past period. I'm not, as some have described it, I've seen companies trying price points where patients are ready to contribute to paying. We have almost half of the people being on treatment today, they're paying themselves. Yeah. You kind of try to put your price where, and that's back to if you're out of pocket, it's back to what is the value that the patient feels that they get out? That's value-based pricing, just as you would do in consumer goods. Yeah. When it comes to the traditional channels, it's again back to value, but that's of course more on what value do society see and so on. We need to see the dynamics of the market. Then I just, again, have to say, as you launch a new category, that will carry its own pricing dynamics compared to existing categories. That's what we always see in other disease areas as well. I cannot come and be more specific on pricing, but I think the key opportunity to unlock the value and where petrelintide will really host the potential to unlock the value is to get patients to stay on therapy. Yeah. Then you also capture more value from each patient. Okay. Then the ZUPREME-2 data set should be expected second half of this year, right? Yeah. What are your expectations for what we should see there, or what is the profile that you're hoping to see? The general notion from, I think everyone who works on amylin is that amylin may provide the same degree of weight loss in patients, in obese individuals who live with type 2 diabetes as in those who don't have type 2 diabetes. With GLP-1s in general, you see 30% less weight loss in patients living with type 2 diabetes. Of course, I look forward to see if the profile of the weight loss is similar to what we observed in patients who did not have diabetes. Okay. Of course, I guess the tolerability, you expect still a placebo-like- That we would hope to see, yeah. Just maybe in the last few minutes, just thinking about some of the commercials on the obesity side of things. We've obviously seen a very strong launch from the first oral GLP-1. How do you think about relevance of the injectable opportunity in the context of that launch? It's clear, to me at least, that all GLP-1s do not address the biggest shortcoming, which is the experience of having lost your appetite. That is what we hear from patients is the biggest issue. Doing, I guess what we're seeing right now is it may be expanding the number of patients who decide to get on a weight loss medication. With a focus on a novel category as we are doing with petrelintide, it's actually an opportunity for us because there will be more patients who have been exposed to a GLP-1 and have experienced those side effects that most actually decide it's not for them. Yep. We have more patients who have tried a GLP-1 and decided never again, than we have patients on a GLP-1. If anything, it will just expand the number of patients who have been exposed to a GLP-1 and can come and claim to their healthcare providers, "I tried it. I don't want to do another GLP-1. I want to try this novel modality," when petrelintide hopefully launches into the marketplace. Yeah. Okay. Do you have a kind of internal estimate or expectation as to what the split may be between injectables and orals long term in obesity? No. No. Okay. It's too early to say, and it's this fine compromise, the dilemma around, yes, oral sounds simple, but we also know that compliance is very bad on orals in general, versus an injectable every week. Once you've taken the first shot, actually many people find it more convenient to be on injectable. It's very difficult to predict where this market will go with all the things that are changes. I have no question there will be a place also for the orals. For the injectables. Let's remember, we are so early into the treatment. We are four years into treatment of what I consider the biggest healthcare challenge of our time, we are treating so few patients, there'll be plenty of room for growth for a lot of different opportunities. Okay. Maybe just to touch on capital allocation. You obviously have very healthy financials post the deal with Roche, you did announce a buyback with earnings earlier this year. Could you just talk through the rationale for the buyback and the timing? Absolutely. We have a clear set of priorities when it comes to our capital allocation. Number one is petrelintide maximizing the opportunity, investing as much as we can into petrelintide monotherapy, also the combination product with CT-388, secure the strongest launch possible. Number two is to expand our research focus. We're actually going to spend five times as much in research in the coming five years as we did in the prior five years, $800 million. That is our second priority, including expanding a research footprint into Boston, Massachusetts. We had excess capital decided to pay some back to investors in our share buyback program. Okay. I guess the fact that you think you have or have excess capital, does that mean that the petrelintide development program is pretty much underpinned by the cash that you have? We have a clear path to profitability. That was a firm point for me when we did this deal. I didn't want to be in a situation where I could not fund my half of the party. Okay. Maybe in the last second, anything in the broader pipeline that you would highlight beyond, maybe even beyond obesity that may be underappreciated? Yeah. We have two rare disease assets, one which we are going to resubmit to FDA later this year, could be on the market next year, another one which is currently enrolling in phase III. Those two programs could, of course, add significant value as we mature. They're not going to be the key focus for the company. Yeah. The early pipeline, how we mature that one, including a phase I asset in a broad autoimmune opportunity. These are some of the new value opportunities that we love to talk more about in the future as well. Okay. Brilliant. I look forward to hearing that. I think we're just at time. Thank you very much, Adam. Thank you.