Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Inventiva Full Year 2025 Financial Report webcast and conference call. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one and one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one and one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to speakers today, David Nikodem, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Good morning. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining Inventiva's full year 2025 financial results and business update. Our press release was issued yesterday evening, and this webcast and slides will be available in the investor section on our website following the call. Joining us on the call today are Andrew Obenshain, Chief Executive Officer, Jean Volatier, Chief Financial Officer, and Dr. Jason Campagna, Chief Medical Officer and President of R&D. I would like to remind everyone that statements made during today's conference call and during the Q&A session may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Please refer to slide two of the slides and our SEC and AMF filings for a discussion of associated risks. These statements reflect our views as of today and should not be relied upon as representing our views at any later date. With that, I will now turn it over to Andrew, starting on slide three. Andrew? Thank you, David. Good morning, good afternoon to everyone, and thank you for joining us. Since joining Inventiva six months ago, I've been struck by the depth of scientific conviction behind lanifibranor and the dedication of this team. Today, every resource, every decision, and every member of this team is now aligned behind a single objective: advancing lanifibranor towards approval for patients with MASH. Let me start with our main focus, our global phase III clinical trial, NATiV3. Enrollment was completed in April 2025 and represented a landmark operational milestone for this company. Today, we are updating the expected timing of our top-line readout to Q4 2026, reflecting the disciplined sequencing of our clinical and biostatistical milestones. We believe that the data from the NATiV3 trial, if positive, has the potential to carry weight with regulators, physicians, and most importantly, with patients. We believe we are running this program with the rigor and precision all stakeholders deserve. On our pipeline and organizational focus, in the first half of 2025, we made the strategic decision to concentrate all of Inventiva's resources on lanifibranor and MASH. As part of this plan, in Q4 2025, we sold our global rights to odiparcil to Biosil, and we may receive up to $90 million in potential regulatory and commercial milestone payments, as well as potential high single-digit royalties on future net sales if approved. While this transaction frees up our internal resources to fully focus on lanifibranor, we are pleased that odiparcil has found a new home where its development can continue, potentially offering patients with MPS VI an opportunity for treatment. At the same time, we strengthened our leadership team to align with the level this opportunity demands. Jason Campagna joined as CMO and President of R&D. Martine Zimmermann joined as a new EVP and Head of Quality and Regulatory Affairs. Nazira Amra joined as our Chief Commercial Strategy Officer. We are building towards launch in a lean and targeted way, advancing our readout and NDA preparations while laying the early groundwork for commercialization in anticipation of potential approval of lanifibranor. The opportunity is real. MASH has been underdiagnosed and undertreated for too long, but that is changing. More patients are being identified, more are being diagnosed and entering care. Awareness is growing, screening is improving, and metabolic disease is finally getting the attention it deserves. The numbers tell that story clearly. There are an estimated 18 million people in the U.S. living with MASH, but only around 10% have been diagnosed, and that number has grown by 25% compared to 2024 estimates. Among those diagnosed with clinically actionable F2 or F3 disease, only around 40% are currently under the care of a treating physician. While diagnosis rates are improving and the market is evolving, far too many patients with significant fibrosis remain without the care they need and face a real risk of progression to cirrhosis and liver failure. If our NATiV3 trial can replicate the 18% fibrosis improvement seen in phase II, we believe lanifibranor could be well-positioned as a potential best-in-disease oral therapy with significant commercial impact. Ultimately, our goal is to make a meaningful difference for patients, and that is what drives everything we are doing. I will now turn the floor over to Jason, who will give a brief update on lanifibranor, our differentiated oral antifibrotic and a potential new treatment option that we believe addresses the remaining unmet medical needs in MASH. Thank you, Andrew. Good morning and good afternoon, everyone. Let me start by reminding you of the mechanism of action and the development pathway of lanifibranor. Lanifibranor is a small molecule designed to induce antifibrotic, anti-inflammatory, and beneficial vascular and metabolic changes by activating all three PPAR isoforms, alpha, delta, and gamma, in a balanced manner. This broad mechanism of action is designed to target the hepatic and extrahepatic drivers of MASH simultaneously and in one oral therapy. Lanifibranor was the first asset to achieve statistically significant improvement in the composite endpoint of both fibrosis improvement and MASH resolution in our phase II-B NATIVE trial after just 24 weeks of treatment with a favorable safety and tolerability profile. On the basis of these results from our phase II-B, the FDA granted lanifibranor both breakthrough therapy and fast track designations. NATiV3, our pivotal phase III clinical trial, was designed to confirm and extend those findings in a larger, more diverse global population over 72 weeks, and is intended to provide the data to enable successful marketing authorization in the United States and Europe. NATiV3 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH and stages F2 or F3 fibrosis, the core of the MASH treatment population, those with significant disease burden and a high risk of progression to cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver-related mortality. We specifically chose a clinically meaningful primary endpoint for NATiV3, fibrosis improvement and MASH resolution. At six months in our phase II-B, the 1,200 mg dose of lanifibranor showed a 24% treatment effect. NATiV3 was also deliberately designed to mirror the patient population of our positive phase II-B and the real world as it exists today. A meaningful proportion of our patients have type 2 diabetes and other metabolic comorbidities, and a number are on background GLP-1 and/or SGLT2 inhibitor therapies, mirroring the patients physicians actually see in their clinics, which we believe will ensure that we generate clinically meaningful data to support both NDA and MAA submission. In April 2025, we completed enrollment, exceeding our original targets with over 1,000 patients in the main cohort and additional 410 patients with MASH and fibrosis stages F1 through F4 in an exploratory cohort. We anticipate sharing the top-line results of our pivotal phase III trial in Q4 of this calendar year, a moment I believe will be significant for this field and for the patients who need new treatment options. I will now turn the floor over to Jean for our financial review. Thank you, Jason. Good morning and good afternoon, everyone. Yesterday evening, we issued our press release with our full financial results for the year ending December 31, 2025. I will focus on the highlights. As of December 31, 2025, we held EUR 230.9 million, close to EUR 231 million in combined cash equivalents, and short-term deposits. This position was built by two significant financing events in 2025. First, the execution of the second tranche of our 2024 structured financing in May, generating approximately EUR 108 million in net proceeds. Second, our U.S. registered public offering in November, generating approximately EUR 139.4 million in net proceeds. We estimate that we are funded beyond our anticipated NATiV3 readout. Based on our current operating plan and cost structure, we estimate that our cash runway extends to the middle of Q1 2027 and to the middle of Q3 2027, assuming the full exercise of our tranche three warrants, which could generate up to an additional EUR 116 million. We confirm this way the cash guidance provided earlier. Our R&D expenses for the full year were EUR 87 million, primarily reflecting our pipeline prioritization and, to a lesser extent, the completion of NATiV3 enrollment in April 2025. Marketing and business development spend increased to EUR 5 million, primarily due to expenses related to a planned pre-commercial investment as we prepare for potential launch of lanifibranor, if approved. G&A expenses of EUR 47.9 million include approximately EUR 20.3 million of non-cash share-based compensation tied to the governance and organizational transition we implemented this past year. I will now turn the floor back to Andrew for closing remarks. Thank you, Jean. Inventiva enters 2026 well-funded, operationally focused, and ready for a consequential chapter in this company's history. NATiV3 is fully enrolled. We've built a leadership team with deep medical, regulatory, and commercial expertise, and our regulatory and commercial readiness work is progressing in parallel. Our anticipated top-line readout in the fourth quarter of this year represents a genuine inflection point, not just for Inventiva, but for the millions of patients living with MASH who still have no adequate treatment options. We are truly executing with the discipline and urgency this moment demands. Thank you for joining us today, and we will now open the floor for questions. Operators, please go ahead and provide instructions for the Q&A session. Thank you. To ask a question, you will need to press star one and one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one and one again. Please, may we ask you that you limit yourself to one question each. We will now take our first question. Our first question for today comes from the line of Seamus Fernandez from Guggenheim. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks, guys. Just a few quick questions. First, can you update us on how the performance of the trial has been in terms of dropouts? I know that there were some requirements from the tranches that were coming in that were successfully completed, but just wanted to get a sense of where the dropout rate was, you know, as you were kind of wrapping up enrollment. Second question is, can you help us understand how you're thinking about the performance of the 800 versus the 1200 milligram dose, in terms of both weight gain and then ultimately on fibrosis? Is the sort of change from a you know more typical 12-month endpoint to the 18-month endpoint geared to kind of have the 800 mg dose catch up to the 1200 but also manage the you know potential tolerability or weight gain issues? The last question is just you know what you're seeing in terms of the overall market interest. You know, Madrigal continues to see very strong uptake you know in the U.S. How are you thinking about the opportunity to you know compete with Madrigal? What do you think is the threshold necessary? Andrew, you mentioned 18%. Just interested to know if you think 18% is the threshold where the impact is going to be substantial or is that more reference to the powering of the study? Thanks. Morning, Seamus. Thanks for the questions. I'm actually gonna take your third one first and then hand the first two over to Jason. Yes, just to be really direct, we think that if we replicate the phase II trial and have an 18% effect on the fibrosis, we have an excellent drug. That is the clearing efficacy that we need for in order to have a very attractive market opportunity. We continue to see a lot of market growth thanks to the entry of, you know, the two approvals and a lot of awareness around MASH. And there still continues to be unmet need, especially we see in that F3 diabetic patient population, where we think there'll be a very good entry point for lanifibranor. At 18% of fibrosis effect with our HbA1c lowering, we have a very good profile for that. Let me then turn the question over to Jason first on the drop-offs and what we've last discussed publicly there, and then the second question about the 800 catching up to the 1200 dose. Hey, Seamus. Let's take the first one. You are correct. As part of the structured financing from 2024, there were covenants in there around the release of follow-on tranches that the early termination rate for the trial needed to be below 30%. That number was selected because the original powering analysis when the trial was built allowed for up to a 30% dropout rate. That was the metric that was used, and we had disclosed publicly at the time of both the first and the second tranche release, which would have been in April 2025, that we were below that threshold. I think now that we're tightening the guidance to Q4 of this calendar year, I think we are able to confirm we are well within that range and feeling quite good about where we've landed and are reaffirming that the trial is well powered to detect the primary endpoint with the size of the trial that we have and the early terminations that we've seen. The second question you asked about the two doses, I think you're landing sort of in the right mixture of elements that are important to us. We agree with you that in theory, with additional time, just because of the way PPARs work and the biology of the liver, that 800 mg dose will have time to sort of catch up to the 1200. It was already quite a good dose back in NATIVE, as you recall. Six months is relatively thin for a PPAR, which is a transcriptional modulator to sort of do its work. The idea that you could see a deeper effect with that 800 dose at 18 months is very reasonable. I think where you're landing around the potential dose responsiveness of the tolerability concerns, that is also very important to us. Take weight gain, which you mentioned. Weight gain is a traditional PPAR gamma mediated fluid retention event, and we know that fluid retention is highly likely to be dose dependent just from what's been shown with other PPAR agonists and our own data from NATIVE. We think that potential to have really strong efficacy with both doses, which we were able to show in NATIVE, but may have a different tolerability profile at the lower dose, could be meaningful for patients. It's our hope that both will be positive, and we'll have that opportunity to discuss that with regulators. Great. Thanks so much. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Yasmeen Rahimi from Piper Sandler. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Dominic on for Yas. Congrats on the great quarter, and thank you for taking our questions. The first one, we know that NATiV3 is a very large dataset. As we're getting closer to top-line data in Q4, what are some of the quality control, I guess, protocols going on in the background to analyze the biopsy samples? And what procedures are in place to ensure timely and thoughtful assessment of these biopsies? And then our second question is, can you just talk or help us understand, I guess, how, if you had any recent safety monitoring committee, and are you seeing anything on a blinded basis on the safety profile? Any color there would be helpful. Thank you. Good morning, Dominic. Two questions. Let me actually take the second one first. I'm gonna hand the first one over to Jason. Just on safety monitoring, there are periodic monitoring committee meetings every six months. You would know if they had said anything. Other than that, we really can't say anything about those meetings. Go ahead, Jason, on the biopsy. Yeah. Thanks, Andrew. Dominic, quality control and biopsy. Let me start by saying that the team we have here is outstanding. The clinical operation, the clinical development team have been immersed in the world of NASH clinical trials for the better part of a decade. This is something that they know well, and we carry that expertise forward. You could think of quality control of biopsy around three issues. Are we hurting the patient? Meaning at the bedside, are we doing the right things? Second, are we capturing the biopsy according to standard practice? That's the length of the biopsy, the overall quality of the core, if you will. There's measurements and things that sort of go in to say check or not check. We have reviewed all of those and continued to do so right up until when we get to last patient, last visit later this year. Lastly, finally, when the slides are sectioned prior to going off and being read, there's a quality control step there that looks at what actually gets made onto the slide. Afterwards, at that point, we are obviously blinded to all of that information, but there is a quality check in terms of are the reviewers, the readers staying on time and on track reading biopsies in the paired manner that's specified both in the protocol and the analysis plan. I like the teams that we have in front of it, and more importantly, I think that they're doing exactly the right work to keep us on track. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question for today comes from the line of Ritu Baral from TD Cowen. Please go ahead. Good morning, guys. Thanks for taking the question. I want to drill down a little bit more upon final powering. You guys disclosed the over 1000 final patient number. I think it's 1009, and the 90% powering. What's the effect size that that powering is for on the primary combined endpoint? And what are your expectations for potential movement around placebo of that, I think it was 7% at the six-month, you know, the final primary endpoint? And then I have a follow-up on market expectations around that F3 diabetic population that was mentioned. Great. Thank you, Ritu. Jason, why don't you go ahead and answer that question? Hi, Ritu. Good morning. On the first one, you know, we are not guiding to the actual effect size, but I can reiterate for you and for everyone what we have been saying. First, we are with a sample size of over 1,000 patients. We are powered to over 90% on a primary endpoint of the composite fibrosis improvement one stage or more MASH resolution. That one has a higher placebo response than we showed in NATIVE, which as you know, was 7%. Two, a smaller treatment effect than we showed in NATIVE at the 1,200 milligram dose. That means the overall effect size that we are powered to is smaller. A much more conservative view than the actual data that we showed in the phase II program. I think we just talked earlier with Seamus that alongside our comfort with the early termination rates we have, we feel very good that the trial is structurally sound and that will give us an answer to the question one way or the other. You know, did lanifibranor work first at the 1,200 mg dose? The testing is hierarchical. We can't get to the 800 unless you went on the 1,200. But that is the core question. We think the trial is well set up to deliver an answer to that question that is well powered and highly confident. I think to your second question around placebo response, the individual endpoints of fibrosis alone, I think everybody on the call knows this, fibrosis alone improvement or MASH resolution alone can be quite noisy. It's not clear after all these years of study why that is, but we do know that they're noisy. On the other hand, the composite endpoint, the primary endpoint of NATiV3, are with us and other sponsors, have shown that that endpoint is much less prone to placebo response. That makes sense, Ritu, biologically, right? You have in one patient, they may, on a placebo response, move their fibrosis stage by one point or more. The idea that they can also resolve their MASH spontaneously, what that 7% tells you is that in the wild, in the real world, that's incredibly uncommon, and that makes total sense with the actual way that patients walk in. It is unusual if you leave them sort of sitting alone without treatment, that both of those things will get better on their own. The placebo response there actually reflects, we believe, the underlying biology, and it should remain very low. We've seen it by precedent, and it's our expectation for the trial that we're running. Very helpful. Andrew, question on how you guys in your own market research is viewing that F3 diabetic population. Do you have an approximate patient number? How is the diagnosis rate in that population changing versus the overall MASH population given the ADA focus on MASH and its messaging to diabetologists? Yeah. Thanks for the question, Ritu. In terms of size, there's about 375,000 patients total F2, F3, in treatment or care right now, the largest segment is. Or one of the largest segments is that F3 diabetic patient population, being 55%-65% of the patients are diabetic, and about it splits roughly 50/50 in our market research between F2, F3. That patient population is quite a large patient population overall. In terms of growth, we don't have the granularity down to that segment. However, I would just note anecdotally that F4 is one of the fastest-growing segments. I think the diagnosis rates are increasing quite a bit, overall for F2, F3, F4, just due to the number of entrants into the market. They are growing at minimally proportionate with the market, in that segment. To that point, Andrew, can you tell us of the 410 expansion cohort patients, how many are F4? Do you know at this point? I'll pass that question. Yeah. Confirming you're talking about the exploratory cohort, correct? Yeah. Exploratory cohort, yes. We do have F4s in that cohort. They would have screen failed in that case by histology, potentially other lab values for the actual main cohort in NATIVE. They represent a sort of range of F4 from. They're all compensated by definition, meaning they've had no clinical outcome events, decompensation events. Their range of severity with portal hypertension can be from none to evidence of clinically significant. That data set is going to be quite interesting to us. We're not yet guiding on when we'll have an opportunity to get those data out. It's unclear right now if we'll have them at topline per se, or in the weeks that follow it in one way or another. I think as we get closer to topline data, we should be guiding on that more tightly. Got it. Looking forward to that. Thanks for taking all the questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question today comes from the line of Thomas Smith from Leerink Partners. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions, and congrats on all the progress. Just wanted to follow up on that F4 population. I know you're capturing some of those patients in the exploratory cohort. Can you just expand a little bit on what you hope to learn from that exploratory cohort and how you're thinking about planning for the outcome study in F4 pending the NATiV3 data and perhaps how you're thinking about perhaps how some of those plans could change. We know we're going to get F4 outcomes data for Rezdiffra also in 2027. Some interesting timing around that data set relative to when you're planning on starting this F4 outcome study. Thanks so much. Thanks for the question, Tom. Jason, go ahead. Tom, good morning. There's a lot there. Let me make sure I get it all for you. One, just in general, what are we expecting to learn from that cirrhotic population in the exploratory cohort? First, above all else, safety of lanifibranor in that population. Clearly, right, if you're going to bring in a new therapeutic into a more, let's say, just sicker population, you want to obviously have safety headroom to do that. The approximately 75 patients we have in that cohort, safety above all else. Second, it's not that, as you know, that cohort is not tracked systematically for efficacy. That being said, we do anticipate having data of things on like LFTs, transaminases, and other things that would point directionally towards whether the drug is biologically active. Really a pharmacology question, very important. We have done ad hoc impairment studies with the drug, but looking at it in the real world in a clinical trial would be incredibly helpful. I think lastly, it will give us a sense in our own hands of how those patients progress over time to later-stage disease. You can read about it, you can model it, you can look at other people's trial, but in your own trial, we will see how many of those patients go on to actually have liver-related or other events. That will be incredibly helpful as we think about powering and sizing of an outcome-driven trial, which is what we're, you know, right now calling NATiV4, for lack of a better term. Make sure that that gets your question, Tom, on the value of that cohort to us. Yep, that's helpful. Great. Look, you note the Madrigal data coming, and then yet we acknowledge that. We agree. I think our view is that positive data, if Madrigal were to show it, would only be helpful for the field, period, full stop. The idea that we have now finally shown that the surrogate endpoint does correlate with clinical outcomes would be an enormous win for the field. Look no further than what happened in the cardio renal division with proteinuria in the last six years. You know, proteinuria was issued as a surrogate in 2019. Now you have five or coming six approved therapeutics for IgAN. That's an enormous win for patients. We expect something like that would, I hope, happen here. Clearly, that would influence our thinking about how we think about populations and the ones that are most likely to develop liver-related outcomes because we'd want to get more of them since we know that the sort of door is open to show that the histology will map to clinical outcomes. Very helpful. Thanks for taking the questions. Thank you. We are now going to take our next question, and our next question comes from the line of Michael Yee from UBS. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning. I have 32 questions myself. First question is on weight gain. Can you remind or confirm the view that, based on the phase II also, I think what you've sort of said in the ongoing phase III, that there is some initial weight gain, but that it plateaus and that you don't really see anything beyond a modest increase in some patients, at least in the phase II, and that that plateaus, and that was initially seen in the phase III and therefore no concerns. The second question is there any view that either because of other drugs or because of longer time duration of 18 months versus six months here that that could actually come down in some of those patients or at least come back down to baseline? Is that possible? The third question is around getting the regulators comfortable with that what I guess fluid retention effect in some patients, and that there would be presumably no at least initial cardiac imbalance in any of the arms that you see and would you be able to talk about no imbalance in any cardiovascular events numerically or any SAEs of that nature in when you disclose the data in the fourth quarter? Thanks, guys. Thank you for the question, Mike. You were a little soft, so I'm just gonna repeat some of it. There's a question about does weight gain indeed plateau, and number one, if in the phase II. Number two, is there a chance that that weight gain would actually go down in the phase III, either due to concomitant medications or longer treatment? Number three, some of the weight gain is if the weight gain is due to fluid, is there any concerns about a cardiac imbalance in the trial? For those three questions, I'll hand it over to Jason. Yeah. Mike, good to talk to you again. Good morning. We have previously said, and we'll reaffirm it here, that the data that we have previously shown from the blinded look at NATiV3 back in September 2024, and that we also disclosed at that time the FASST clinical trial in systemic scleroderma, which was a one-year trial with treatment of lanifibranor, same doses in NATiV3, 800, 1200 milligrams, that the weight, the fluid retention weight gain does appear to plateau. I think we don't have any additional information to guide on that publicly, but I think that's what we've seen in both of the clinical trials so far. I think second, do we expect the weight to come down? Well, it's well possible. I think there are a couple of factors at play. Take the LEGEND study, for example. We show that when patients are given SGLT2 inhibition in parallel with lanifibranor, that there's almost no weight gain at all. There are many patients in the trial that are on SGLT2 inhibition. I do not have the number for you off the top of my head. We know that patients can be started on those therapeutics for management of diabetes or any other reason. It is entirely possible and reasonable to believe that if patients are getting SGLT2 inhibitors or other diuretics to manage blood pressure, et cetera, that the fluid retention could be blunted or resolved so that the final landing spot, if you will, for any patient might be lower than the peak weight gain that they had in the trial. I think we'll see what the data show. Last thing in terms of regulators, I think, I can't speak for the FDA, but I can only speak to what I've read, of everything they've put out. The fluid retention is a known phenomenon with PPAR gamma agonism. The thing about lanifibranor is it was designed to be different than other PPAR gammas, and we'll see what the data show. Our view is that it is a very different type of PPAR agonist. But that being said, the PPAR gamma is a known effect. It is on target. It is not idiosyncratic in any way. FDA has shown with labeling and other work that they are comfortable with fluid retention. I think you're hitting on the right point, the cardiac, and as we've talked about and guided publicly, over the years, we are not seeing congestive heart failure as a clinical issue in our program. It doesn't mean that we don't follow it, and it doesn't mean that you're thinking about how fluid retention may lead to that. That's certainly in the PPAR labels today, the gamma agonist. It is just not something that we are generally seeing in our program, but we will be paying careful attention to it, and it's a dialogue we'll have with FDA. Super helpful. Thank you, guys. Very good. Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star one and one on your telephone. In the interest of time, we kindly ask to limit yourself to one question each. Our next question comes from the line of Ellie Merle from Barclays. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Jasmine on for Ellie. Thank you for taking our question. Just kind of a follow-up to Ritu's question. You talked about the overlap of MASH and type 2 diabetes as a segment where lanifibranor can be particularly attractive. Mm-hmm. Do you have a specific bar for what competitive data would look like in this population? And then specifically, how many type 2 diabetes patients do you think have undiagnosed MASH? And how do you plan to work to increase the diagnosis in this population and unlock that segment? Thank you. Hi. Hi, Jasmine. I'll take those two questions. First of all, just the diabetes and overlap with MASH, it is enormous, right? I think there's about 18 million patients in the U.S. with undiagnosed MASH. At least half of those or more have diabetes. That is obviously way more than that 375 under the treat or care. The way we see the market evolving is we've seen since about 2004, that market's grown about 20%. It's really quite robust growth, and we do anticipate that to grow nicely. We, as a company, probably will not be pushing diagnosis, at least initially. There are enough patients coming in that we can focus on the existing patients being diagnosed. That would obviously. Maybe a later marketing strategy would be to actually increase diagnosis. Your first question. I'm sorry, I forgot your first question already. What was that first question? Just if you have like a specific bar in that population for what competitive data looks like? Yeah. In terms of competitive data, the way we look at this is that the differentiated profile that we have is we work both on the liver and we're extrahepatic. We work on the body, and we work on the liver. We have direct anti-fibrotic effects. Again, as I said that, you know, an 18% effect size, if we duplicated that in the phase III trial, we feel like a very competitive drug. The other thing we'll be looking at is HbA1c lowering, which was on average across the whole patient population, diabetic and nondiabetic in the phase II, was just over half a point. That would be an approvable diabetes medication years ago. That combination of HbA1c lowering, combined with triglyceride lowering, HDL raising, and the fibrosis effect, we think has an extremely attractive profile for that diabetic F3 patient. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of One second. Lucy Codrington from Jefferies. Please go ahead. Hi there. Thank you for taking my question. Just one left, please. Regarding the confirmatory trial, just wanted to confirm, do you have an understanding with the FDA in terms of what underway means when it comes to granting accelerated approval? Is it enough just to have started that trial? Does this need to be by the time you file or by the time you get to approval? Related to that, is starting that trial included in that mid-3Q cash runway with the third tranche of warrants? Thank you. Yes, it is included. Starting that trial is included in the cash runway of that mid-Q3 runway. Jason, you wanna talk about what's necessary. Yeah. For the trial? Lucy, I think you have the broad brushstrokes of it right, but just something on the language. Accelerated approval is only at the time of the review. What we're looking to get is conditional approval under Subpart H, which is you get marketing authorization, and then the trial, as you note, confirms your surrogate, and then you get full approval. Whether accelerated is only a question of how long it takes the FDA to actually review the file. With that, just trying to make sure that we're all clear on that. You have the broad brushstrokes, right? The individual rules are discussed with each sponsor at the time of the pre-NDA meeting and then during the mid-cycle review. The general framework is you need to have most of the trial structurally in place, protocol approved, at the time you are filing the drug, and it needs to be moving on. The definition of moving is going to be something FDA will define for us. We will be prepared. We'll have our CROs selected, the protocol is approved. May even have sites open. All of that is in the future, but at the time we file, we will meet the FDA position of trial meaningfully underway. At the mid-cycle review, you need to show continued progress on that, so they will check again. That may be a much more detailed look around enrollment curves, site activation curves, et cetera. Again, each sponsor has their own detailed agreement with FDA on that, and it is our plan, of course, not only to have those conversations, but to make sure that we're meeting those requirements so that when we are offered, if we're fortunate enough to make it there, and we are offered, the conditional approval, that trial will be well underway at that point. Got it. Thank you, and thank you for clarifying on the terminology. Thank you. Our next question for today comes from the line of Annabel Samimy from Stifel. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Jayed on for Annabel. Congrats on the progress and thank you for taking my questions. Just two from me. The first one is around the use of background GLP-1 in the trial. What are your expectations on the potential impact of having that background GLP-1 use on lanifibranor effect size for those patients? My second question is around the AIM-MASH tool that was newly FDA qualified as a supportive tool to help with histological assessment. Do you have any plans to maybe leverage that to control or minimize variability? Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for the questions on the impact on the lanifibranor effect size based on background GLP-1 and then the trial. Go ahead, Jason. Yeah. In confirming, we do have, and we've previously shared that we have about 14% or so of the population in NATiV3, that's across both cohorts, that have background GLP-1 use at the time of randomization. That could be semaglutide, older drugs, liraglutide, dulaglutide, et cetera, so it's not only limited to the modern GLP-1. I think its effect on treatment response should be minimal and that should. It will sound tongue in cheek, it's not intended to be. It's because when you enter the clinical trial, independent of what drugs you're on, whether you've lost weight by any other measure independent of a GLP-1, you're entering the trial because you have F2, F3 disease with active MASH. So whatever it is, one, those drugs are not doing it for you or your lifestyle modifications. Second, that the doses that we're using are really the diabetic doses. They are not anticipated to have much of an effect at all. We've certainly seen that in the clinical trial data. I think to the second question about the tools, are you talking about PathAI specifically or just more general non-invasives? Yeah, no, it's the PathAI tool. Yeah. It's an interesting idea, right? Looking at it really simply, what PathAI lets you do is substitute one human pathologist for a digital pathologist, and then you need a second pathologist to read. It's still the same idea, two plus one consensus. In this case, one of the two is PathAI. It's interesting. It's not something that in NATiV3 we anticipate taking much advantage of, but it is something we're thinking very closely about for NATiV4, potentially even using that as the in the exploratory cohort presently for NATiV3, to see how we may be able to pull more data out of those patients that happen to have a biopsy. Got it. Thank you so much for the answers. Thank you. Our next question for today comes from the line of Rami Katkhuda from LifeSci Capital. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions as well. I guess, can you remind us of lanifibranor's FC and F2 versus F3 patients in the phase II study and how those differences may impact the expectations for NATiV3, just given the higher proportion of F3 patients enrolled? Good morning, Rami. Go ahead, Jason. Rami, just to qualify, you want the proportion of patients in NATIVE2 or the responses of the F2, F3? The responses, please, between the phase II's and phase III's. The sample sizes are simply too small to break out. What we have done, we think the analysis that's more helpful, it's in our corporate materials, is that when you strip away the F1s in that trial, you get down to about 188 F2, F3 across all three arms. You can see that the effect size actually slightly goes up. What we guide to is that it remains unchanged. The drug seems to work equally well in more advanced fibrosis than patients with earlier disease. You're not getting much of a free ride on those F1s if you will. Second, when we look at NATiV3, as Andrew talked about earlier, this is a contemporary MASH market. The majority of patients showing up in clinics today that have F3 disease will have diabetes. We think that aligns pretty well with the outside world, and we're pretty comfortable with what we've seen from our Nature publication back in 2024, that the drug not only works equally well in earlier and late stage disease, but the adiponectin levels actually go up equally well across all cohorts. It's that adiponectin that's really driving, we think, well correlated with the clinical response. We like where we're landing with NATiV3 and the likelihood of efficacy in both those F2 and F3 patients. As a reminder, we're stratified by fibrosis stage and diabetes in NATiV3. We have to cut those data a number of different ways to sort of get where you're headed with your question. Makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Srikripa Devarakonda from Truist Securities. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Anna on for Srikripa. Thanks so much for taking our questions. Two questions from us. First, looking ahead a little bit in terms of the MASH guidelines, would you expect an update on the MASH guidelines this year, and how are you thinking about getting Lani into the MASH guidelines? Then second question, in terms of cash, what kind of needs to happen for you to have access to that third tranche? Is it based on kind of phase III success only? And are you looking at any other non-dilutive sources of funding, such as partnerships? Thank you. Morning, Anna. Thanks for the questions. On the MASH guidelines, I think we wanna wait. We need to get data first before we have any conversations about putting lanifibranor into the MASH guidelines. On cash, the tranche three is a positive endpoint. We hit a positive endpoint in our trial, and then those 77 million shares at EUR 50 become exercisable, and the investors have 45 days to exercise them. That's how that mechanically works. Positive trial equals quickly cash coming in, so long as the stock price stays above EUR 50. We are always looking for ways to increase our cash runway. We're obviously in a very strong cash position right now. In terms of partnerships, right now our plan is to commercialize lanifibranor ourselves. Going forward, we think that there's plenty of access to capital either in the equity markets, or other kind of capital sources that we don't necessarily need to partner lanifibranor. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. We are going to take our next question, and our next question comes from the line of Sushila Hernandez from Van Lanschot Kempen. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you for taking my question. Could you elaborate on your regulatory and commercial infrastructure? What steps are you taking to act with speed once the data is here, also considering your cash runway? Thank you. Yes. Sushila Hernandez, good question, and morning. Yeah, we are being very careful stewards of our capital right now before data. The regulatory team is fully staffed, and I would include the quality team in that too, because that's necessary to make a really good filing with the FDA. We've invested. We've increased the size of that team and the talent on that team in the course of this year. From a commercial standpoint, really focused on strategic commercial execution. Being led by Nazira Amra, really focused on market access and market research. I'm gonna include in the broad commercialization medical affairs there. The strategic roles that will really set us up for success in the future. We will not staff up aggressively in commercial until we have positive data. That's clear. Thank you. Thank you. This concludes today's question and answer session. I will now hand the call back to Andrew Obenshain, CEO of Inventiva, for closing remarks. Thank you so much. Thank you everyone for joining the call this morning. We certainly have an exciting remainder of the year coming up from, for Inventiva, and we look forward to engaging with you all as we go forward. Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now all disconnect.