Good morning. My name is John and I'll be your conference operator today. At this time I would like to welcome everyone to the Amylyx Pharmaceuticals Second Quarter Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. After today's presentation there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question please press star on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question please press star two. Please limit your questions to one question with one follow-up. If you would like to add additional questions you may rejoin the queue. Please be advised that this call is being recorded at the company's request. I would now like to turn the call over to Lindsey Allen Vice President Investor Relations and Communications. Please go ahead ma'am. Good morning and thank you all for joining us today to discuss our Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Business Update. With me on the call today are Josh Cohen and Justin Klee our Co-CEOs Dr. Camille Bedrosian our Chief Medical Officer and Jim Frates our Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin I would like to remind everyone that any statements we make or information presented on this call that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements that are based on our current beliefs plans and expectations and are made pursuant to the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements include but are not limited to our expectations with respect to Avexitide AMX0035 and AMX0114 statements regarding regulatory and clinical developments the impact thereof and the expected timing thereof and statements regarding our cash runway. Actual events and results could differ materially from those expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place any undue reliance on these forward-looking statements and Amylyx disclaims any obligation to update such statements unless required by law. Now I will turn the call over to Justin. Good morning and thank you all for joining us. During the first half of 2025 we made meaningful progress across our clinical programs. Our lead asset Avexitide is an investigational GLP-1 receptor antagonist with FDA breakthrough therapy designation being evaluated for the treatment of post-bariatric hypoglycemia or PBH. In April we dosed our first participant in the pivotal phase III LUCIDITY trial studying Avexitide in PBH following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery. We continue to expect a complete recruitment by year-end. We have been pleased by the level of engagement from the clinical trial sites. Just a few weeks ago we hosted an educational investor event at ENDO featuring a panel of KOLs all experts in treating PBH including investigators involved in the trial. Camille will share a few remarks on ENDO shortly. If you were not able to attend or listen live I encourage you to listen to the replay available in the presentation section of our website. Importantly we are preparing to be launch-ready and if approved we anticipate a commercial launch of Avexitide in 2027. We have been focused on the initial steps for building the commercial organization and collecting insights on the market which includes learning from people living with PBH and mapping out early disease education and market access strategies. We are encouraged by the potential of GLP-1 receptor antagonism as a therapeutic approach beginning with Avexitide in PBH and potentially extending to other rare diseases where this mechanism may be relevant. Reflecting our conviction in this target last December we initiated a research collaboration with Gubra a global leader in long-acting peptide drug development. We are pleased with the progress we are making to develop a novel long-acting GLP-1 receptor antagonist. Initial efforts with Gubra are already showing proof of concept with new molecules demonstrating promising potency values both in vitro and in vivo and extended in vivo half-lives. We are excited about this collaboration and will share more as timelines toward IND-enabling studies become clearer. Turning to the rest of our pipeline AMX0035 is an oral small molecule therapy designed to target endoplasmic reticulum or ER stress and mitochondrial dysfunction. We are studying AMX0035 in progressive supranuclear palsy or PSP and Wolfram syndrome. PSP is a rare progressive and fatal neurodegenerative disorder that affects an estimated 23,000 people in the U.S. and has no currently approved treatments. We expect top-line data from the phase II-B portion of the phase II-B/3 ORION trial this quarter which will inform a go/no-go decision on whether we move into the phase III program. Wolfram syndrome is a rare progressive monogenic prototypical stress disorder with no approved treatments that we estimate affects approximately 3,000 people in the U.S. alone. Earlier this quarter we presented long-term week 48 data which demonstrated that treatment with AMX0035 led to sustained stabilization or improvement over time in the study's clinical measures. These results and discussions with the FDA are informing the design of a phase III trial of AMX0035 and Wolfram syndrome and we expect to provide an update on the program this year. Now turning to AMX0114 our investigational antisense oligonucleotide targeting Calpain-2 for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS. We continue to expect early cohort data from our phase I LUMINA trial of AMX0114 this year. AMX0114 is designed to inhibit Calpain-2 to prevent the breakdown of Axon which are the long fibers that carry signals from neurons to muscles. In preclinical studies AMX0114 demonstrated improved neuronal survival and reductions in extracellular neurofilament light chain or NfL a key biomarker of neurodegeneration across multiple disease models. In June the FDA granted Fast Track designation to AMX0114 which provides us with the opportunity for more frequent interactions with the FDA and could allow for an expedited review process. Our pipeline progress reflects the focus and executional rigor of our team. As we look ahead to the second half of the year and into 2026 we're encouraged by the strength of our position and the momentum we're building across all of our programs. Now I'll turn the call over to Camille. Thanks Justin. Touching briefly on the upcoming phase II-B data readout in PSP. PSP is a tauopathy characterized by the accumulation of tau protein in the brain. Unlike other investigational agents that have targeted extracellular tau protein or are focused on downstream effects AMX0035 is both brain and cell penetrant. Notably in our phase II Alzheimer's trial AMX0035 demonstrated significant reductions in tau protein and cerebrospinal fluid. With these characteristics we believe AMX0035 may offer a differentiated and potentially disease-modifying approach in PSP. We have set a high bar for AMX0035 in PSP. Based on natural history data and feedback from clinical experts we believe a clear slowing of disease progression of at least 20% on the PSP rating scale could signal meaningful clinical activity. We plan to base our decision-making for advancing to the phase III portion of the trial on the totality of the data and the potential for clinically meaningful outcomes for those living with PSP. Now let's focus on Avexitide our lead program. Post-bariatric hypoglycemia is characterized by recurrent hypoglycemic events which can impose a significant and lasting burden on a person's quality of life. The condition often impairs the individual's ability to perform basic activities of daily living. There are currently no FDA-approved treatments. The pathophysiology of PBH is believed to be primarily driven by altered nutrient transit after bariatric surgery which leads to exaggerated secretion of glucagon-like peptide 1 or GLP-1. In individuals with PBH postprandial GLP-1 levels can be more than tenfold higher than normal triggering excessive insulin release and subsequent hypoglycemia. Avexitide is our investigational first-in-class GLP-1 receptor antagonist which has been granted FDA breakthrough therapy designation. It is designed to inhibit GLP-1 receptor activity thereby reducing insulin secretion and stabilizing blood glucose levels. At ENDO 2025 we presented new exploratory analyses from the phase II PREVENT trial in PBH following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery and the phase II-B clinical trial in PBH following a variety of upper GI surgeries including Roux-en-Y gastric bypass sleeve gastrectomy esophagectomyq nissen fundoplication and gastrectomy. These data show that Avexitide 90 milligrams once daily which is the dose being evaluated in the pivotal phase III LUCIDITY trial led to a 64% least squares mean reduction in the composite rate of level 2 and level 3 hypoglycemic events from baseline in people with PBH with a p value of 0.0031. Importantly more than half of participants receiving this dose experienced no level 2 or level 3 hypoglycemic events during the treatment period. Consistent reductions in the composite rate of level 2 and level 3 events were also seen with other Avexitide doses studied in the phase II and II-B trials. Avexitide was generally well tolerated with a favorable safety profile replicated across the clinical trials. We also presented new pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data at the ENDO conference demonstrating continuous pharmacological activity of the 90- milligram once daily dose for a full 24-hour period. These findings build on a consistent body of data from five clinical trials of Avexitide in PBH. When we designed our pivotal phase III LUCIDITY trial the goal was to be as consistent as possible with the previous successful phase II study which directly informed the dose endpoints surgical subtype and inclusion criteria. As a reminder LUCIDITY is a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of approximately 75 participants with PBH following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery. LUCIDITY is evaluating the FDA-agreed-upon primary endpoint of reduction in the composite of level 2 and level 3 hypoglycemic events through week 16. In addition to the analyses Amylyx presented expert PBH clinicians and researchers shared new data and research findings at ENDO 2025. For example Dr. Colleen Craig and her colleagues at Stanford presented a U.S. prevalence model for PBH which they have been working on for the past five years including an assessment of prevalence and incidence based on surgical subtype. Dr. Craig and team used historical census data going back to 1993 and found that there were approximately 1.3 million Roux-en-Y and 1.6 million sleeve gastrectomy surgeries during this time. Using life expectancy estimates and disease state modeling they found that nearly 400,000 people in the U.S. who previously underwent bariatric surgery experienced clinically important hypoglycemia defined as glucose less than 54 mgs per deciliter or three or more PBH symptoms. Of these approximately 167,000 people experienced recurrent events that are intense enough to require medical attention which is a population considered to have medically important PBH. Further breaking down these numbers approximately 119,000 had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and approximately 48,000 had sleeve gastrectomy. These estimates reinforce our projections which are based on published literature and claims-based analyses and underscore both the urgency of the unmet need and the significant opportunity for Avexitide to make a meaningful impact for people living with PBH. From a clinical and mechanistic standpoint we remain highly encouraged by the therapeutic potential of GLP-1 receptor antagonism. We view LUCIDITY as just the beginning for Avexitide. Hypoglycemia does not just occur after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery but after several other types of major upper GI surgeries which may be conducted for weight loss gastric or esophageal cancer removal or severe gastroesophageal reflux disease. Additionally GLP-1 receptor antagonism may be important in several other rare diseases. We continue to work through plans to evaluate Avexitide in these additional areas. First and foremost our focus is on LUCIDITY. We are pleased by our continued progress on the Avexitide program and the growing recognition of PBH as a serious underserved condition. We look forward to top-line data from LUCIDITY expected in the first half of 2026. With that I'll turn it over to Jim to discuss the financial highlights from the quarter. Jim? Thanks Camille. We ended the second quarter with a cash position of $180.8 million compared to $204.1 million at the end of the first quarter. We believe we have the necessary cash to deliver our planned clinical milestones which include top-line data from the phase III LUCIDITY trial of Avexitide expected in the first half of next year top-line data from the phase II-B portion of the ORION trial in PSP expected this quarter and early cohort data from our LUMINA trial of AMX0114 in ALS expected by the end of the year. In addition our cash supports early commercial preparations for the potential first-to-market launch of Avexitide. Turning now to our results for the quarter total operating expenses for the quarter were $42.9 million down 43% from the same period in 2024. Research and development expenses were $27.2 million compared to $23.3 million in Q2 2024 primarily due to an increase in spending on Avexitide and AMX0035 for the treatment of PSP. The increase was partially offset by a decrease in spending on AMX0035 for the treatment of ALS. Selling general and administrative expenses were $15.6 million compared to $21.6 million in Q2 2024 primarily due to a decrease in payroll and personnel-related costs and a decrease in consulting professional and other services. We recognized $7.4 million of non-cash stock-based compensation expense for the quarter compared to $9.6 million of non-cash stock-based compensation expense in Q2 2024. With our current cash balance we believe we're well positioned to execute on our clinical milestones. We expect our cash runway to last through the end of 2026. With that I'll turn the call over to Josh. Thanks Jim. In closing I'd like to take a moment to highlight what continues to inspire us. The experience of people living with PBH is often underappreciated but it's central to understanding our work. As Camille described today PBH is a serious and life-altering condition. People living with PBH often experience frequent unpredictable hypoglycemic events that can severely limit their independence and quality of life. Many live with constant anxiety around meals social isolation and an inability to perform basic daily activities. These patient experiences are not outliers. They reflect a broader underserved patient population that we continue to learn about and which motivates us to move with urgency and precision. As we look ahead we're increasingly confident in the strategic value of antagonizing the GLP-1 pathway and the potential to help many patients in need. We look forward to keeping you updated on our progress across our pipeline. Now I would like to open the call up for questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen we'll now begin the question- and -answer session. To ask a question please press star one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question please press star two. Please limit your question to one question with one follow-up. If you have additional questions you may rejoin the queue. At this time we'll pause momentarily to assemble our roster. Thank you for waiting. We now have our first question and this comes from Seamus Fernandez from Guggenheim. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks so much for the question. Really the question that I have is more on the understanding of the market opportunity. There's a lot of confusion I think in the marketplace in terms of how the moderate-to-severe patient population actually is broken up. What would be a kind of clinically relevant result for this patient population? I know your event provided a lot of information along those lines but I think it would be helpful to just know what you believe the sort of truly severe kind of baseline population for a rapid potential uptake of Avexitide would be? Just a separate very quick follow-up question is just the pace of enrollment in your phase III. Just hoping you might be able to give us a little bit of a sense. Your confidence in recruiting that study seems quite high. Just wondering how we should anticipate that enrollment to proceed given the timing of the phase III data in the first half of next year. Thanks so much. Thanks Seamus. Maybe going one by one starting on the market we've continued to learn and continue to dive in. We actually updated our slide and our deck as well so you can see a little bit more information there on the market as well. I think as we've continued to learn about hypoglycemia even a single hypoglycemic event can be very dramatic for patients. It could be a moment where they fracture a bone could be a moment where they fall down stairs or potentially crash a car and it's traumatic for individuals. Also just to try to prevent or reduce the rate of those hypoglycemic events patients are forced to live a very limited life both in terms of their diet being on a very restrictive diet where they have very very few carbs and aren't able to eat are only able to eat very very small meals but also just from a sense of fear in terms of feeling like at any point they might fall into this hypoglycemia. We think that this population in general is very eager for treatments and for potential benefits. Breaking down a little bit Dr. Craig did present recently at ENDO some information on prevalence as well. She estimated overall a prevalence of about 160,000 of what she called medically important PBH which was defined by people that were seeking medical care for their PBH. She further subsetted that down to about 30,000 patients that was what she called critical PBH which were people who were potentially going to an ER or a hospital for an inpatient visit to manage their PBH. I think we're still working a little bit on maybe your follow-up question of exactly who gets on drug first what is the very first segment that we might tackle in the market. That's work we're still doing commercially but I think overall we do believe that there are approximately 160,000 patients who may ultimately benefit over time as we continue educating and building the market. You also asked about the pace of enrollment in the clinical trial. We expect to complete enrollment by the end of the year with data in the first half of 2026. We're making good progress towards that goal. We reiterated that goal today as well. Thanks so much. Thank you. The next question comes from Joseph Thome from TD Cowen. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi there. Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. Maybe the first one on the phase III LUCIDITY trial design just because this treatment period is a little bit longer than the other the phase IIs. I guess can you just remind us what you have in place to prevent patients from self-liberalizing their diet or maybe how that can be tracked? Just a quick follow-up on the PSP program. What's going to be the most important determinant in deciding to move that forward? Is it just going to be a certain level of improvement on the PSPRS or are there any other secondary endpoints or safety measures that you're going to be looking at before you decide to make that step? Thank you so much. Sure. Thank you. Regarding the LUCIDITY trial we actually have great training initially with the site and through them with the participants regarding the dietary modifications and dietary following. Everyone is already on medical nutrition therapy beginning with the run-in period and participants are asked to continue doing whatever they were doing during run-in throughout the trial. This is double-checked throughout the study. Individuals in the study also respond to questionnaires attesting to their dietary habits and the diet piece is reinforced throughout the study. Maybe I might just add there as well you know this is also you know consistent. In fact if anything even more close management as what was in the phase II and phase II-B. Just as Camille said at every interaction with the site at every visit patients are you know reminded kind of retrained on the appropriate diet for people with post-bariatric hypoglycemia. There was some dietary training in the phase II and phase II-B. This is even more significant. As a reminder the phase II and phase II-B showed you know quite significant you know results on the hypoglycemic endpoints that we're also looking at here. Maybe I'll pass back to Camille on PSP. Sure. Yeah. Just one more point about this. The participants as we've learned from the PIs in the study are highly motivated. They do identify and follow the instructions based on their motivation. That was observed in phase II-B. With regard to the PSP program as we remarked earlier we are looking at a clinical endpoint the progression rate as measured by the PSPRS as well as biomarker and imaging data. All those elements will go into our go/no-go decision for PSP. Also as a reminder we are setting a high bar as noted earlier. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from Michael DiFiore from Evercore. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi guys. Thanks so much for taking my questions. Two for me. One on the PBH market. What's the potential for payers to force step edits on these non-approved therapies such as diazoxide and octreotide? I mean recognizing that most of these patients will probably have been already on them especially the severely affected patients. For newly diagnosed patients potential for step therapy edits. I have a follow-up. Thank you. Sure. I'm happy to start with that one. We don't anticipate that. One there's not really any solid clinical evidence that those therapies are effective in PBH. That wouldn't be the case. Payers wouldn't turn to that given the lack of clinical evidence for benefit. I'll also add as we've spoken to physicians and as we've spoken to patients with this disease there's very minimal satisfaction with those therapies both in terms of patients continuing to have significant amounts of events even when on those therapies as well as a number of side effects that they experience when taking them. That's very helpful. My second question is on the PSP trial. As we headed into the interim analysis for this trial how should we think about the variation in treatment duration across patients given that all patients will have been treated for 24 weeks but I think you mentioned before that some patients will have been treated for much longer. I guess what I'm asking is what is the potential for these longer duration patients to really derive the signal versus the ones who are just treated for 24 weeks? Thank you. Thank you Mike. All participants will have completed 24 weeks of treatment and that's the analysis that we'll be doing. You are correct. We will also look at data through 52 weeks for those who have progressed and advanced through 52 weeks. All the data will be taken into account not one or another driving more or less our go/no-go decision. Okay. Basically the interim will just be at the 24-week endpoint for everybody. That'll be the analysis? Yes that will be the analysis. We will also understand what longer-term treatment does for these participants as well. Yeah. We'll use all available data in the analysis. You know I think as Camille mentioned at least everyone will have crossed that week 24 time point. If there are important differences between week 24 and you know going out to the full duration time point we'll definitely explore those and share those as well. Got it. Thanks so much. Thank you. The next question comes from Geoff Mecham from Citi. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hey guys. Good morning. This is Jarwe on for Geoff. Just a couple of quick questions from us. Again on the PBH market opportunity the lack of an ICD-10 code has made it a little challenging to pinpoint an exact prevalence number. To that effect you mentioned current efforts underway to get a better understanding of the market opportunity. As you talk to additional payers and additional KOLs what do you think would be the easiest path forward to demonstrate the need for a therapy and the benefit that Avexitide could bring when you think about the need for educating the broader marketplace? A second question real quick on PSP. How would you characterize the patient community and its awareness of the phase II HELIOS trial and the ongoing Orion study? Thanks. Sure. Maybe starting on the ICD-10 code I'd say stay tuned there. It's definitely an area of active work towards having an ICD-10 code in this condition. We've also done a good amount of claims work. While there isn't an ICD-10 code we've been able to analyze the claims looking at those patients who have had bariatric surgery who go on to have hypoglycemic events. We've tried to eliminate other possible causes for those hypoglycemic events such as various diabetic medications and otherwise that might be causative for that hypoglycemia. When we've done that analysis we do get very similar numbers to both what Dr. Craig's analysis comes up with as well as what our analysis from the literature comes up with as well. You also asked about the need for therapy and education. I will say as we've spoken to adult endocrinologists it really isn't hard to hear messages about just how significant the need is. A number of endocrinologists have described this as our most fragile patient population. We've heard I definitely encourage too for all listening to kind of go through the ENDO presentation as well. In that there were a couple patient stories including a couple patients who found their symptoms so severe they ultimately decided to have their pancreas fully removed just to kind of prevent these ups and downs of blood sugar. Having your pancreas fully removed has a lot of downstream consequences but that was the kind of risk-benefit analysis they made because of how severe PBH was and how significantly it was affecting their life. It really has not been hard to find a number of physicians who have sizable groups of patients who are experiencing kind of consistent and progressive events as well. Maybe I'll pass over to Camille to talk a little bit about the patient community as you were saying in PSP. I think you asked about potentially Wolfram as well or I can touch on it either way. Yeah. Thank you. Yes. Just as a reminder there are no approved treatments for progressive supranuclear palsy and it is a devastating disease that is ultimately fatal. There isn't even the possibility of treatment for these individuals unfortunately. The patient community is very supportive and enthusiastic about the possibilities as are we. We do see this and appreciate the sense of urgency to identify a treatment that will favorably impact these individuals. Having said that we do understand also from the patient community as well as the investigator and treating community that a clinically meaningful improvement in or improvement in progression rate relative to placebo is about 20% in the PSPRS the clinical rating scale. That is one of the measures that we're using to make our go/no-go decision. We do want to be sure that AMX0035 could provide a very meaningful benefit to these patients. Just briefly I think you asked about Helios and Wolfram as well. Across all of the patient communities we serve both our work and continued awareness from the community has driven more and more interest more and more patients getting aware of these conditions. In Wolfram one of the things we've heard from Dr. Urano is that ever since we started Helios he's had more and more referrals more and more patients coming to him with Wolfram syndrome. You may have seen there was actually just a Washington Post article that described one patient's experience with Wolfram syndrome. I think it is indicative of this something in the Washington Post. Overall we believe there's about 3,000 people in the United States who have Wolfram syndrome. I'd also just mention as well that we are one of the first phase IIIs to be conducted in the condition. It really is quite an opportunity to bring excitement and awareness to the space. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Corinne Johnson from Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Morning guys. Maybe one from us. I think in the FD data you see that Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery contributes a bit more significantly to the prevalence of the patient population and that does align I think to your phase III design. How should we think about that from both like a label perspective and also with respect to trends in bariatric surgery approaches and sort of how that contributes to the incidence or prevalence of PBH from here? Thanks. Yeah. Great question. Yes in our phase III study most of the past studies with Avexitide enrolled people with Roux-en-Y as a background. The phase II-B did actually enroll people who had multiple surgical types and the effect looked very similar across all those surgical types. Going into phase III we wanted to go in a population where we had the absolute most confidence the absolute most data. That's why we ran it in the Roux-en-Y population. Ultimately label and indication will be determined later by the FDA. We do believe we will have arguments to make. We do believe pathophysiology is similar across these surgery types. If we have to generate additional data that's something that we think we can do very efficiently. From a trends in surgery perspective it's actually been interesting to hear. If you go back to kind of the early days of bariatric surgery Roux-en-Y was the dominant surgery. Really in the early 2010s VSG passed it in terms of the incident surgeries that were happening. That was mainly due to a lot of messages that were coming out that VSG might be the potentially safer surgery. Over the 2010s and even more recently longer-term outcome studies have come out that in fact it doesn't appear that VSG is really safer than Roux-en-Y. Roux-en-Y causes more significant weight loss. If you look at the last maybe three or four years you see Roux-en-Y starting to take some share back from VSG. I'll say anecdotally when we've spoken to surgeons especially in this era of weight management and otherwise we have heard continued excitement towards Roux-en-Y including because it causes deeper and longer-lasting weight loss ultimately with in their view a similar side effect profile. I'd say it's hard to know exactly what the future may hold but at least from our conversations we think Roux-en-Y is continuing to maybe take some share back as well. Maybe just reiterating initially we believe our drug there's no reason our drug shouldn't work across all these surgeries and our phase II-B supports that as well. That's definitely our ultimate plan for this to be a drug that spans across surgeries. Thank you. The next question comes from Marc Goodman from Leerink Partners. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Yes. Good morning. Can you talk about where these patients are? Like you know are there centers of excellence? What kind of infrastructure would you need to build to reach these patients? Secondly just Camille if you could talk about the powering of phase III LUCIDITY trial and what assumptions you have for the placebo reduction of levels two and three. Thanks. Sure. Starting with where are the patients? We've spoken to many different clinical sites and physician sites. Primarily the call point seems to be adult endocrinologists who are most often caring for these patients. We've spoken to adult endocrinologists who have over 100 patients sometimes hundreds of patients under their care. We've spoken to ones that have tens and we've spoken to ones that have a handful. It does seem that different endocrinologists proportionately have different numbers of these patients as well. There are a number of KOLs who have kind of arisen in this space. I'd maybe remind as well that bariatric surgery started becoming popular in the U.S. in the early 2000s. This is a somewhat newer phenomenon too. There is a sense that there are a number of sites that have become KOLs recently and there are a number of ones that are kind of rising KOLs if you want to put it that way who are realizing that they have a pretty sizable patient pool and kind of becoming I guess you could say kind of tomorrow's experts in this space as well. Overall we think that there's a significant pool of identified patients who are at major academic centers that will definitely be really important early in our launch but also quite an opportunity to continue building and growing the market over the long term as we keep educating and expanding out to the broader pools of physicians as well. Maybe I'll pass over to Camille for the powering of the phase III study. Sure. Thank you. Thanks Mark. Just as a reminder LUCIDITY is approximately 75 participants and we expect to complete recruitment by the end of this year just to let you know. As is usual for Amylyx we are conservative in our powering assumptions for LUCIDITY. If we see similar results to the phase IIB trial of Avexitide with the same 90- milligram once daily dose of approximately 53% reduction in level 2 and 66% reduction in level 3 both highly statistically significant we have substantially more than 90% power to detect an effect over placebo. If the effect is approximately 35% reduction versus placebo we still have 90% power to detect a difference. Very well powered for detecting clinically meaningful improvement under even the most conservative assumptions. Thanks. Thank you. The next question comes from Ananda Ghosh from H.C. Wainwright & Co. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi. Thanks guys. Two questions from me on Avexitide. Based on the endo discussion it looks like educating PCPs on early diagnosis is a factor that needs to be considered as well as already discussed the PBH codes. It might be helpful to understand how you are thinking about these issues as you approach that phase during the Avexitide development. The second question is as you speak with the KOLs what has been the definition of clinical significance looks like for PBH? Absolutely. Maybe starting we definitely see this as an endocrine-centered launch. Yes ultimately PCPs do probably refer and help triage the patients to the endocrinologists. Our anticipation is that this will be a targeted launch where we're focused on the endocrinologists particularly with our personal promotion efforts as well. Those endocrinologists already have quite a significant number of patients as well. There's quite a lot of opportunity in that as well. In terms of clinical significance the question I actually got asked directly at the endo present at the endo discussion as well. The physician's response and what we've heard as we've spoken to KOLs is even one significant hypoglycemic event is a clinically meaningful change. Any one hypoglycemic event could be the moment where somebody fractures a bone crashes a car or has basically a permanent change in their life based on the downstream consequences of that event. Even reducing the risk or preventing one event was viewed as clinically meaningful by the KOLs we spoke to. Great. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Tim Anderson from Bank of America. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. This is Susan on for Tim. Thanks for taking our questions. My question is on the clinical trial timelines for LUCIDITY. Given that LUCIDITY's primary endpoint is event-driven can you talk about the risk that the trial might be delayed due to the lack of events accrued? Just as a follow-up can you talk a little bit more about the assumptions underlying the first half 2026 timeline that you've reiterated? Thank you. Sure. I'll pass that over to Camille. Sure. Actually we don't believe there will be so I'll begin again. This is an interesting question. What we saw in the phase II and phase II-B studies were that the event rates from the run-in period were reduced substantially as we noted from the data and the results 53% reduction in level 2 events 66% reduction in level 3. As we described during the ENDO presentation ENDO conference on our poster with the composite we also saw a 64% reduction in the composite of level 2 and level 3. Those results are a framework against which we've planned and are basing our LUCIDITY trial. We don't anticipate event rates having an impact. Yeah. Maybe just adding to reiterate our timelines you know we anticipate completing recruitment by the end of the year with data in the first half of 2026. The event rate doesn't actually drive when recruitment completes. We track all patients for events and ultimately when the last patient's in that kind of starts them towards completing the 16-week study. From every angle we're making good progress against our goals for that. We reiterated today as well our anticipation of completing enrollment by the end of the year with data in the first half of 2026. Thank you. Yes the next question comes from Greg Silvanouve from Mizuho Securities. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi. This is Sam on for Greg. Thanks for taking our question and congrats on the progress. Maybe two from me. First do you anticipate any issues with compliance for Avexitide given the daily injection? Do you think that would potentially limit the population in terms of severity of the disease of who would potentially take it? I'm just curious what the overall feedback has been from the physician community from the recent endo conference if there's any feedback whether positive or negative. Thank you. Yeah. Maybe I'm happy to start and then maybe pass to you know Camille to add a little bit at the end as well. Starting on the compliance the study is still ongoing of course but if you look back through the past Avexitide trials compliance was nearly 100% through those past trials. We've seen very great compliance with this drug in the past. We've also done market research about injections in this patient population. By and large we've heard very little concerns from patients about the daily injectable including comments from the patients such as they're often doing fingersticks and describing that a fingerstick actually hurts more. Your fingers are quite sensitive that a fingerstick can hurt more than a subcutaneous injection and otherwise. Some of these patients are doing 10 20 fingersticks a day. The other thing is the efficacy is a big aspect too. Hypoglycemic events are really quite traumatic. Patients describe that often even just psychologically it can take them several hours before they feel kind of back to normal after a hypoglycemic event occurs. That's kind of what they're balancing in the equation as well. The idea of a quick daily injectable seems far outweighed by the ability to potentially reduce the incidence of having those events or otherwise again from our market research. From endo and the physician community we've just kind of continued to hear great outreach. We've had a number of different physicians ask if they can be part of the study. We've had a number of them refer patients that they may have to potentially be in the study as well. We get pretty constant outreach and excitement from patients as well including requesting compassionate use and otherwise. I think endo just drove that even further because it was maybe another moment of putting a spotlight on PBH. Probably said a lot but Camille I don't know if there's any additions you want to make. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Thank you Josh. Thanks. Yes. I do have a couple of points. First regarding the compliance and injections I just reiterate the efficacy is most important for these individuals. With regard to the study in particular we've heard from the PIs that their participants or potential participants are highly motivated and very very much want to participate in the study and do the best possible in the study including the injections on a daily basis. With regard to endo notably as well there has been quite an exponential uptick in the information about PBH during this year's endo relative to last year in 2024. Clearly the awareness is increasing. More to come for sure. As well we heard from a number of endos there that if they have people and many do have patients who have PBH they reiterate how fragile these individuals are. All very exciting and very very positive. Helpful color thanks so much. Thank you. The next question comes from Chris Chen from Baird. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. I had one on diagnosis rates kind of diagnosis protocols for PBH. The Society for Endocrinology came out with new guidelines I think it was last year in the hopes of standardizing diagnosis of PBH. What have you heard from conversations with providers about the potential impact those more standardized diagnosis guidelines might have? I do have a follow-up. Yeah. Maybe happy to start there. I think maybe broadly characterize the general diagnosis for PBH is you know in very simple terms once somebody has a bariatric surgery confirming that they have hypoglycemia you know persistent hypoglycemia and that there's not another explanatory cause you can basically sum up the diagnostic you know guidelines as that. It's actually a relatively easy diagnosis to make once a physician suspects it. I think that's the most important thing that a physician you know maybe has a patient in front of them who's having things like dizziness maybe has had some events of syncope you know of loss of consciousness events of confusion or slurred speech or otherwise and you know to put the dots together that they've had a bariatric surgery and that you know glucose and blood sugar might be at you know might be the culprit for what they're experiencing. It's actually quite you know a straightforward diagnosis to make you know once one suspects it. I think by and large going with that as well we have seen kind of a continued uptick in kind of awareness and understanding of this disease. We did hear from a couple of endocrinologists who are you know interested in the PBH space that they were really excited that this year for the first time on the annual you know endo boards where you have to get kind of recertified as an endocrinologist that there were questions on PBH. You know PBH is kind of also now in the endocrinology textbook you know as well. I do think there's you know things like the guidelines also you know as you called out too. There's a number of different initiatives that are going that you know kind of continue to build the awareness and the you know suspicion you know when a patient has these types of symptoms and they've had bariatric surgery that PBH might be at play. Great. Very helpful. I know you can't go too deep into details on the LUCIDITY trial but just wondering if you can offer just some color on anything you're hearing on durability of effect outside of 28 days and what gives you confidence that you'll continue to see that durability of effect through the 16 weeks. Yeah. I'd say we try to make sure not to you know analyze a factor of efficacy early in a study. It is a blinded study but I will say we are happy that we do have patients that have gone out beyond the 28 days of the past studies and are certainly continuing on therapy as well. I will just add that we don't anticipate any tachyphylaxis based on the mechanism of Avexitide. Helpful. Thank you so much. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll turn the call back over to Mr. Josh Cohen. Please go ahead sir. Thank you. Thank you everyone for joining us today. Really appreciate the questions. If you have follow-up questions please reach out and we're happy to find time. Thank you all. Have a great day. Thanks everybody. Thank you. This concludes our conference call for today. Thank you all for participating. You may now disconnect.