Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Autolus Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results Conference call. At this time, all participants are on a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there'll be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you'll need to press *11 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press *11 again. Please be advised today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Amanda Cray, Executive Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you, Kevin. Good morning or good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us on today's call. With me, our Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Christian Itin, and Chief Financial Officer, Rob Dolski. I'd like to remind you that during today's call, we will make statements related to our business that are forward-looking under federal securities laws and the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These may include, but are not limited to, statements regarding status of the ongoing commercial launch of Aucatzyl, Autolus manufacturing, sales, and marketing plans for Aucatzyl, the market potential for Aucatzyl, and the status of clinical trials, development, and/or regulatory timelines and market opportunities for Obe-cel and our other product candidates. These statements are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations and reflect our views only as of today. We assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. For a discussion of the material risks and uncertainties that could affect our actual results, please refer to the risks identified in today's press release and in our SEC filings, both available on the Investors section of our website. On slide three, you'll see the agenda for today's call. As usual, Christian will provide an overview of our operational highlights. Rob will then discuss the financial results, and Christian will conclude with upcoming milestones and closing remarks. We'll then take questions. With that, I'll turn it over to Christian. Thank you, Amanda, and moving to slide four. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for joining us for the second quarter call. We had an excellent second quarter with good momentum in our launch of Aucatzyl. In the second quarter, we generated $20.9 million in product sales, bringing the first six months of the launch to $29.9 million. The product profile resonates very well with treating physicians, and there is a clear unmet medical need. Our supply chain has proven to be robust, reliable, and delivering consistent quality to our customers. We continue to expand our center presence with now 46 centers authorized for use of Aucatzyl and 90% of total U.S. medical lives covered. We are well on track to achieve our year-end objective of reaching 60+ authorized centers. As of July 1, we have permanent HCPCS code effective following a positive CMS decision on April 1. The decision by CMS of a split reimbursement based on the infusion of product was a deviation of precedent. The impact was twofold: a change in revenue recognition for the company and an adjustment of the administrative processes at the medical centers. The adjustments were made during the second quarter and did slow patient enrollment at those centers. We expect the impact on patients treated to be resolved by Q4. Moving to slide number five, we are very pleased with the progress of our regulatory filings. In April, we received conditional marketing authorization in the U.K. and in July from the European Commission. We're working on market access in the U.K. and are interacting with NICE. In the EU, we are looking at a country-by-country evaluation. While we aim to get Aucatzyl to as many patients as possible, as a small company with limited resources, we also have to be disciplined and make sure to only launch where market access is economically viable. At this stage, we do not expect EU sales in 2025 and 2026. Meanwhile, we continue to engage with physicians and study groups, like the German ALL study group, to enable ISTs in Europe. In addition, we are broadening our real-world experience in the U.S. with Obe-cel, which may provide additional support for our market access conversations elsewhere. Moving to slide number six, the FELIX data continued to mature very favorably. At EHA, we presented an update with 32.8 months of median follow-up. Importantly, 38% of the responding patients remain in remission without any subsequent treatment. On slide seven, consistent with this finding, we see median duration of response reach 42.6 months. Slide eight then looks at the overall survival, which shows a plateau forming at around 40% with most patients beyond two years of observation. A long-term outcome, together with the favorable safety profile, is a strong foundation to build on. Where next with Obe-cel is summarized on slide nine. Our development focus is on expanding the Obe-cel beyond adult patients with relapsed refractory ALL. We made good progress with our pediatric study PY1. We expect the phase I experience to be presented by the year end and are expanding the study from a phase I to a phase I II study with an intent to expand the age range for our current label. Encouragingly, several of the physicians treating commercial patients expressed an interest in exploring Obe-cel in frontline consolidation settings, and we expect to see several ISTs active in 2026. We are also excited about our progress in autoimmune diseases. Building on the encouraging initial experience in SLE, we are starting up a phase II lupus nephritis study with registrational intent. In addition, our phase I study in progressive multiple sclerosis is open for enrollment now. With that, I'm handing over to Rob for the financial results for the second quarter 2025. Rob. Thanks, Christian. Good morning or good afternoon to everyone. It's my pleasure to review our financial results for the second quarter 2025. In the second quarter, net product revenue for the three months ending June 30, 2025 was $20.9 million, compared with $9 million in the first quarter. As Christian noted, we continue to be encouraged by Aucatzyl's uptake and strong momentum in the U.S. Cost of sales in the second quarter totaled $24.4 million. This amount includes the cost of all commercial products delivered to the authorized treatment centers, including products delivered but not yet administered to patients. As a reminder, the sales value of these products not yet recorded as product revenue in the P&L is reflected as deferred revenue on the balance sheet. Our deferred revenue balance at the end of Q2 was $2.1 million. Additionally, cost of sales includes any canceled orders in the period, our patient access program product, third-party royalties for certain technologies, as well as idle capacity. This dynamic will drive cost of sales to be higher at the beginning of the launch, as we've experienced, versus what we would consider our ultimate target. Our expectation is to see improvement as volumes increase and as we improve efficiencies in our own manufacturing operations. Moving on to research and development, these expenses decreased to $27.4 million for the three months ending June 30, 2025. That's compared to $36.6 million during the same period in 2024. This change was primarily driven by the commercial manufacturing-related employee and infrastructure costs that have shifted out of R&D expense into our cost of sales and inventory. Our selling, general, and administrative expenses increased to $30.3 million for the three months ending June 30, 2025, compared to $21.9 million in the same period in 2024. This increase was primarily due to salaries and other employee-related costs driven by increased headcount supporting our commercialization activities. Our loss from operations for the three months ending June 30, 2025 was $61.2 million as compared to $58.9 million for the same period in 2024. During the quarter, we also recorded $12.1 million in net interest income and expense. This is primarily driven by a one-time non-cash adjustment to the liability related to the valuation of future royalties and milestones associated with the Blackstone and Biontech agreements. The valuation assessment incorporated the revised commercial assumptions already discussed by Christian with respect to the EU launch. Finally, net loss was $47.9 million for the three months ending June 30, 2025, reduced from a loss of $58.3 million for the same period in 2024. Our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities at Q2 2025 total $454.3 million as compared to $588 million at the end of December 2024. This decrease was primarily driven by net cash use in operating activities and also impacted by a delayed cash receipt of approximately $21.7 million in R&D tax credit that we've expected from the U.K. HMRC, which was expected to be received during the six months ending June 30, but has been delayed. We continue to believe that with our current cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities, we are well capitalized to drive the launch and commercialization of Obe-cel and to obtain data in the lupus nephritis pivotal trial as well as the progressive multiple sclerosis phase I study. I'll now hand back to Christian to wrap things up with a brief outlook on expected milestones for the rest of the year. Christian. Thanks a lot, Rob. This gets me to kind of the outlook for the remainder of the year. The two data releases that we're planning, the first one is the updated data from IO phase I in STFS, which we expect to provide the update at the ACR meeting at the end of October. We're aiming to provide a review of the phase I data of our pediatric ALL experience towards the end of the year. When we look at the clinical trial conduct, we expect first patients to be dosed for our lupus nephritis phase II study, our MS phase I study, and the AUTO8 study in amyloidosis, which is also expected to dose the first patient in the second half of the year. A lot of progress, and I think driving towards a very attractive dynamic on the launch, but also driving hard towards an expanded use of Obe-cel beyond the relapsed refractory adult ALL opportunity. With that, I think we're in a great spot for the second half of the year. We're happy for you to actually join us for the Q&A session. Thank you. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. If you have a question or a comment at this time, please press *11 on your telephone. If your question has been answered and you wish to move yourself from the queue, please press *11 again. We'll pause for a moment while we compile our Q&A roster. Our first question comes from James Shin with Deutsche Bank. Your line is open. Good morning, guys. Thank you for the question. First question is for Christian on the Germany launch. Was this originally a green light, call it, but flipped to hold based on pricing and reimbursement changes from, say, the MSN undercurrent? I guess the second one for Rob is, you know, once the split reimbursement is, I guess, absorbed or embedded by the hospitals, is enrollment and sales expected to accelerate? What's the recognition pattern or cadence thereafter? Thank you. Thanks a lot for joining, James. What I think is important to understand in terms of the market access process in Europe in general is that the methodologies that are being used for market access are designed to use data from randomized controlled studies. That has been a challenge, I think, for many of the CAR-T programs and cell and gene therapy programs in general, which are based typically or placed in rare diseases and initially typically based on single-arm studies. That is a methodological challenge that we do have across the board and across all of the assessing agencies and bodies. That is, I think, the first observation. There is a disjointedness and with that, an element of a judgment call required. The second is clearly that we have to make sure that we are navigating the various processes such that we do get to an outcome that is economically reasonable for us and doable for us. What we have seen in the past is that, for certain products, we are launched below their actual production prices, which obviously is not a good precedent and does not really, I think, support a sustained business. As a consequence, we have seen a substantial proportion of cell and gene therapy products actually not being launched in Europe. There is something like 8 out of 18 that were not launched. That is the backdrop. We are going to do this very methodically, going to go through country by country and are navigating that. What is important to understand as well is obviously in the current environment that there is a number of countries that actually do publish the actual negotiated prices. You were pointing to MFN, and you can imagine that also creates a possible tension that may or may not be helpful in the process. We are going to take a very disciplined approach. We are going to engage with the respective countries, and we are going to work through the process. We also will certainly make sure that we are going to get to the right outcomes before launching, which is why we are putting to a longer timeline before we realize any sales in Europe. With that, I am handing over to Rob. Yeah. Hi, James. Your question on the revenue recognition. Just to maybe clarify the specifics here. We moved from the first quarter where all recognized was recognized on the first administration of Obe-cel to a 50/50 split between the first administration and the second administration. At the time, we also called out that, obviously, this is only for a portion of patients, CMS outpatients. The time between those two time points was, per the label, about 10 days plus or minus two days. I think in the field we've seen about nine days thus far. The specific implementation of the revenue recognition change, we said at the time, was going to have a very little impact. We kind of see that as this quarter has even played out. The adjustments that Christian referred to, certainly that the centers had to make more on the administrative side, and then in turn, impacting some of the registrations that were happening in that timeframe. We really expect those to resolve themselves on kind of a full quarter basis by Q4. We will see some of that certainly in Q2 and probably early in Q3. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Matt Phipps with William Blair. Your line is open. Hi. Thanks for taking my question and all the updates today. I guess, Rob, quickly then, what happens if a patient only gets the first infusion? I realize this doesn't happen very often, but is there just an eventual time where you can recognize the rest of that? Just thinking ahead, I'm sure no guidance here, but do you think you can become, you can gross profit positive, you know, sometime by the end of this year or next year? Just wondering if how we think about kind of that getting over that fixed cost and getting to kind of capacity levels where you think we at least get to a gross profit level? Thank you. Thanks for joining, Matt. I'll take the first question and hand over to Rob. When you have the first infusion and only the first infusion, which is actually extremely rare, because obviously the only reason why that second infusion wouldn't happen is the patient would have an adverse event reaction that wouldn't allow you to actually do the second dose. You remember from our clinical experience, that is exceedingly rare. In fact, we do see this very, very rarely in the commercial setting. If that happens, then only the first infusion will be recognized. If the second is not administered, that will not be recognized. With that, I'm handing over to Rob to address the fixed cost questions. Yeah, Matt. On the gross margin front, certainly we saw, as you looked, quarter to quarter from Q4, even last year, where we had to recognize some idle capacity costs. Into Q1 and Q2, certainly trending the right way in terms of that number getting closer to break even. It's really a volume story for this year. What we've been very focused on is making sure the product is available. We want to really make sure there's no limitations to the launch. We do expect, as certainly the second half of the year will play out, and we continue to see volume increases, that that'll continue moving in the right direction. No specific timing in terms of guidance on when something will flip, but we certainly expect in the second half to continue in that direction. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Gil Blum with Needham & Company. Your line is open. Good morning, everyone. Congrats on a strong quarter. Maybe a quick question here as it relates to kind of how is the product being received by the community in the U.S. Do you have some anecdotal feedback and maybe already some level of reorders and have a follow-up? Thanks a lot for joining, Gil. The reception has been very, very positive. What we're seeing is, and what we have pointed out in the past, is obviously that the safety profile and the manageability was really something that was immediately experienceable. That's been incredibly helpful, and we believe is one of the key reasons also why we had early, very early on, we started to see actually reorders at the centers for the product. That actually is developing very nicely across the centers that are active, commercially active at this point. This looks very positive, and I think has a very nice reinforcing impact. I think is in line with, frankly, our prior experience. What we now see, obviously, as we go to the middle of the year, is that we start, obviously, the physicians start to see the outcome, not just the immediate manageability of the product, but also the outcome in their patients. We think that's going to be sort of a second push as we go into the second part of the year. Certainly, the FELIX data that we update, that we presented at EHA, strongly, I think, point in that direction with the long-term plateau that we're seeing in the data and the survival data. Obviously, a lot of the patients not requiring additional therapy, which is obviously resonating very well. We're really pleased with what we're seeing, the dynamic and the feedback we're getting from the product, the experience, but also the experience, obviously, that the centers have with our commercial team and the reliability on the supply side, on the production side, which I think are really important to sort of actually be a real partner, frankly, for these physicians and patients in this space. Thank you for that. Can you provide any additional color regarding your negotiations with NICE? The process is obviously a very regulated process where there's obviously a query for quite a substantial amount of information and health economic assessments that we sort of provide and provide the data behind that. It is a process that actually involves, to quite an extent, the treating physicians with experience with the product and experience with the indication, but also the patients themselves, which do actually have a voice in this process. There is a dynamic there where the company provides information, but we're actually not actively negotiating in that process, in that particular interaction with NICE. It's a process that's actually within that body with obviously information requested from us, but then also support from the physician and patient community. This is ongoing. We went through a first step. There is a second step now that we're running through. We'll need to see where we get to. There are additional different paths that you can take from there on forward. We're in the midst of this. This is also a time point where it's very difficult to sort of give a view on where it may go. We'll need to see kind of how it develops. Overall, very strong support from the physicians and the patients for the product, which is obviously consistent with the experience that we had with Obe-cel or Aucatzyl in the U.K.. Obviously, many of the patients that we have treated in our clinical trials were U.K. patients. There is a strong amount of experience, also firsthand experience available, which we believe is helpful. Thank you for taking our questions. Thanks a lot, Gil. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Asthika Goonewardene with Truist. Your line is open. Hey, guys. Good morning. I'll echo my congrats on the strong Aucatzyl launch here that's panning out. A couple of quick financial questions and operational questions, then I got something more bigger picture. You’ve added about a dozen or so ATCs since your Q1 earnings. Can you maybe walk us through the plan for bringing on more centers by year end? Is there sort of like a training period as you bring on a new center that would make us kind of think about how productive these centers are as they come on? The other quick financial question is, can you quantify the impact of out-of-spec products in your calls? Okay. I'll take the ATC question first and then hand off to Rob on the OES question. We did add, obviously, you're correct, we added about 12 ATCs that are now active. We're going to continue, obviously, to add to the end of the year. We expect to be at 60+ by the end of the year. That progresses very nicely. When we look at the centers, the way that we have weighted the centers was to really look at those centers that have larger patient flows and often actually already have experience very early on and then kept adding to that. You start actually with what you think the centers are that will have a relatively high patient flow and then gradually actually fill out the network of centers to make sure that patients have a good reach and also wouldn't have too much of a distance to access the therapy. That's kind of what we're in. At this point in time, we keep on expanding into geographies that we haven't been present in, which we believe is important to make sure we're serving the breadth of the U.S. very well. We're making good progress on that. With that, also, I think we have an ability to make sure that the therapy actually becomes truly accessible for the vast majority of patients in the U.S. When you look at the ATC locator, you see we have a very significant amount of centers, basically almost in a U-shaped form, from Chicago all the way up through the Midwest down to the South and back up again to way up to the West. There are clearly additional centers that we're opening up in between to make sure that we actually have a very good distribution there. That's the way we look at that. A clear focus is to make sure that there is access in a reasonable distance. With that, I think having an attractive network of clinics available for the patients to access. With that, I think Rob, just to follow up on the OES question and potential impact overall. Yep, sure. Thanks, Asthika, for the question. Let me first comment. When you think about out-of-spec and kind of financially where things land, there's actually two places where this can go. It's important to understand what drives that. In certain situations, we do have an out-of-spec protocol that the site can choose to put the patient onto. If the patient does receive the dose, even though it's out-of-spec under that out-of-spec protocol, it actually lands in our R&D expense. What lands in cost of sales is out-of-spec product that is not administered under that protocol effectively, like a scrap charge that goes through our cost of sales. It's very hard to predict where patients will land in those two buckets. It's fair to say that our experience to date overall in terms of our out-of-spec rates have been very in line with the FELIX study. We've said in the past that that's going to land somewhere between a 5% - 10% range in terms of the experience and to date what we've seen in the commercial launch. Great. Thanks, guys. Just a bit of a quick question on Europe here on the European rollout. If you decide to launch in a specific country, let's say in the U.K., would you expect patients to travel from neighboring countries to receive therapy? Have you seen this happening with other CAR-Ts launches in Europe? Maybe you can talk a little bit about the profile of Aucatzyl that might permit this to take place. It's a really good question and something we've been looking into. First of all, what we're seeing from a U.K. perspective is that there is a certain amount of medical tourism towards the U.K. for patients to get access. Typically, that medical tourism is coming from outside the EU to the U.K., but there is a level of that. When we look within the EU, what we do see is that there are cross-border treatments that we certainly would see in a lot of the, particularly the border regions where the infrastructure may not be evenly distributed across the border. Some of you know that I'm a Swiss national. I grew up close to Basel, which is very close to Germany and France, literally bordering on both countries. It's quite typical that if there are complex cases, children with complex issues or adults with complex issues, that they might actually be coming from the surrounding areas within Germany or France into the university hospital in Basel across the border to be treated there. There are also movements the other way if the specialty actually is on the other side of the border. That actually does happen. It is probably at this point difficult to quantify, but it clearly is not unusual to actually see that. To what extent that would be applicable for patients with acute leukemia, I do not know. What we do know, and this is my old experience developing Blincyto, we had patients from quite a wide range of countries and certainly during clinical trials to access trials in Germany and looking for treatment in Germany. We also see that on the, there's also some of that on the commercial side as well. It is very much, I think it's a possibility. I think it's an area we're looking more into. Obviously, this has a lot to do with the nature of the insurance and the payers set up and obviously getting clearance from the payers, which typically for certain emergencies that's clearly happening. We're looking into to what extent and what breadth this would be applicable here as well. It is not unusual to see complex therapies to be accessed across the border. Thanks, guys. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Kelly Shee with Jefferies. Your line is open. Congrats on the progress and thanks for taking my questions. As you're now expanding to 46 treatment centers across the U.S., I'm curious if you could share learnings. If the early adopters and also with the reordering comes from also a high volume center of Takata, are you actually seeing a different pattern? For Germany and the U.K., when could we anticipate the first revenue recording and also have a falloff? Thanks. Okay. Very good. Thanks for joining, Kelly. You're right. It's very interesting when we look at our centers in the U.S. and we look at the use pattern across the centers. We have a range of centers that have quite exceeded our expectations in terms of the patients that they treated. Part of that expectation on our side was actually prior knowledge of the level of use of CAR-T in this indication in the past. Clearly, that looks changed in a good number of centers. That's been very encouraging. We're also seeing centers where there are multiple physicians actually administering the product, which is another key metric that we're looking at. Not only have one physician at a center prescribe, but actually getting the use of the product more broadly distributed across all of the prescribing physicians for this indication. That's a dynamic we're following very carefully. I think it's one of the key areas that we're going to be focusing on for our centers. It's important to understand that most of the patients are in fact being, or expect that most of the patients with the relapsed refractory disease are going to be treated at those, give or take, 60 centers that we're targeting now. That gives you clearly a very significant opportunity to focus from a commercial perspective and really build on the relationships, the connections, the experience at the center to actually keep expanding the use so that we are sort of getting to a place where the patients that are eligible for the therapy and can benefit from the therapy actually get access to it. The dynamic I think we're seeing is very remarkable. Repeat use is one of the key things we're looking at. We're seeing a very nice adoption of repeat use across all our centers. We're really monitoring that very carefully and supporting that process. This has been very, I think, very interesting. The high volume centers have been phenomenal to see kind of the level of engagement and patient flow that resulted from that. We're clearly building on that. We're going to take the learnings from those centers also into the other centers. With regards to the U.K. and Germany, obviously those are two different processes from a patient access perspective. We're in the midst of the current process in the U.K.. I hope that over the next few months we can actually get to a resolution there. If positive, we would expect to be able to launch in the probably early part, end of this year, early part of next year. It is contingent on obviously getting a reasonable outcome that is economically viable for us. That is kind of what we're working towards. In Germany, we certainly want to sort of have more engagement on the physician, the patient side, but also with the respective regulatory bodies in Germany. At the same time, we're looking for more data to also become available over time from the experience, the real-world experience in the U.S., which we hope would also actually be supportive for these conversations. At this point, we're not guiding to sales in Germany because it ultimately is dependent on where we're going to end up in those negotiations. We're also looking at other European countries and we may change the order of access within Europe based on where we are and what we know at this point. Super helpful. Thanks so much. For autoimmune, curious for the ACR presentation in Q4, what other data points could be included beyond what has been presented in the past? Could you share some additional color? Do you have other ongoing translational studies to tell us more on a B cell dynamic or maybe some correlation to patient baseline characteristics to guide future development in the autoimmune space? Thank you. Yeah, very good questions. Thanks, Kelly. With regards to the data at ACR, obviously the key update will be related to the longer follow-up of the six patients that we had reported on at the R&D event earlier in Q2. I think that will give us a good idea of kind of how the product overall actually is performing because we're going to have six plus months of follow-up with all the patients. I think that will be, I think, probably the key part of the follow-up. We actually did enroll more patients on the study, so there is also going to be earlier data from those patients that will be included. I think that's obviously one of the key areas. We've been looking very carefully at a lot of different parameters for these patients to develop a good understanding of the pharmacodynamics, both of the product, but also in how we're impacting potential, you know, disease stations, et cetera. Those are our data sets that we're also pulling together and we're going to be looking at. We're looking at a range of, obviously, I've been evaluating a range of indications. Obviously, the first one that we sort of decided to move on is lupus nephritis. That's clearly where we're going to double down on. I mentioned the fact that we're obviously opening that study and we're making really good progress there and expect to have patients treated still this year. That gives us, I think, will give us a very nice momentum in that study, also considering it's a very compact study, will give us a shot to also, frankly, be first in class in that indication. Secondly, we're obviously very interested in seeing the performance of the product in the progressive MS patients. There's going to be also a lot of analyses that will be done in those patients, translational type of analyses to understand the impact of the mechanism of action, et cetera, in addition to obviously the actual clinical readouts and the imaging readouts that we're going to be taking from those patients. There's quite a lot going on there. There's also obviously additional work that we're doing to look into additional indication options. For now, very much focused on the indications I just went through. Thank you. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Simon Baker with Rothschild & Co Redburn. Thank you for taking my questions too, if I may, please. Firstly, Christian, just going back to the European launch outlook. For, shall we say, traditional drug launches, there's a fairly established routine of going Germany first because you can set your price and then it gets adjusted and then work your way through the countries, ultimately receiving towards the end reimbursement in France. Clearly, that's not the same in cell therapy. I wonder if you could just highlight any areas where there is a markedly different process of seeking reimbursement, which affects the order of countries in which you will seek to launch. Secondly, going back to the U.K., at the same time that NICE was saying no to Aucatzyl, the MHRA introduced the world's first framework for point-of-care manufacture of cell therapies, including CAR-T. I just wanted to get your perspectives on the pertinence of that to Autolus and if any other regulators in the world are looking at similar approaches. Thanks so much. Yeah, good question. The first one is around kind of sequence of launch in Europe. You're correct. For many of more traditional therapies, the sequence of launch tends to be Germany, the least traditionally, be it Germany, and then you kind of, you know, walk through kind of a series of countries to sort of ultimately get the majority of them. That started to actually change somewhat. Obviously, Germany is still the single biggest market. In terms of market access, not necessarily the most attractive country in Europe. I think that's, and we're talking sort of pre the current administration. That's certainly been true. When we look at the current administration, I think there are a few things to keep in mind. First of all, the most favorite nation process obviously is one that actually references prices in various territories. There are two types of prices that tend to be quoted. One is a list price. The other one is a discounted price. Different countries actually deal with that in different ways. Some countries publish list prices, but not negotiated prices. Some countries publish negotiated prices. You can imagine in the current environment where there's a lot of uncertainty around what processes are, frankly, what are the rules, what's going to be applicable, and so on and so forth. That creates, I think, a lot of questions for, frankly, all pharmaceutical companies looking at launching in Europe because depending on where you are, what you agreed to, et cetera, you may actually have a discrepancy to the U.S. price, at which point you might actually be having an exposure that may or may not be reasonable to take. That's one generally across the board, I think, something that I think every pharmaceutical company needs to look at, needs to think about because it's a very significant level of uncertainty and a very unclear set of rules that ultimately may apply or may not apply. That's sort of one area to look at. The second part is that, and this has been one of the real challenges in the cell and gene therapy space, is that the methodology to actually calculate the prices and sort of provide market access at has been designed for very different types of products and very different types of clinical data. When you look at the cell and gene therapy space, most of the indications we're developing in are very high medical need settings, in smaller indications, and we're going for very high treatment effects. The reason what that does is it allows us to actually develop, and which is what all regulators agree with, to develop with single-arm clinical trials for approval and demonstrating very clear-cut clinical benefit and risk-benefit profile in those indications. We see that across the board. There's a huge disconnect between the view that we have with the regulators and the methodology that we're seeing for market access, which are all based on classical randomized controlled studies that also assume you can do a direct comparison to a similar product. Quite often, that's typically obviously difficult. You haven't seen CAR-T therapies that are being compared in a single trial. We're not going to see that going forward. That's not actually doable. What's then happening is your next best thing is you've got to kind of compare against some form of standard of care, which varies widely in what that actually is considered to be. In the absence of an actual direct comparison and randomized controlled data to your product, it creates a situation that the model doesn't actually allow you to quantify because the model can't handle the data. As a consequence, you get a benefit, which is acknowledged, but it cannot be quantified. Hence, it's called a non-quantifiable benefit, which is an oxymoron in English. It kind of works in German where some of those concepts came from. The problem that that creates is a very significant disconnect that actually the system's not set up to value that. On top of that, you have, not in the U.K., but for most of Europe, a disconnect between how healthcare actually and healthcare costs are looked at. You have obviously a very significant component that are infrastructure related. These are your hospitals, your staffing, your basic operation, etc., which is a huge chunk of the cost in any healthcare system. In most European countries, that is covered by taxes. It's opaque, not actually transparent, not visible to the public what that actually costs. What then actually is sort of going into the assessment is, in essence, what's left over. That's mostly the therapeutic cost and the diagnostic cost and some very specific procedures. That's actually what's carried by the payers. That disconnect is very, very significant and creates a problem because if you want to have a full value assessment, you cannot actually properly do that because obviously a big chunk, as an example of a one-off therapy that gives you a curative outcome, as a hypothetical example, has a huge impact on your infrastructure bit and not using, not actually utilizing that infrastructure. That's not covered. That's not part of the model. Hence, we do have a huge disconnect in the view of value. That is where the fundamental disconnect is in the various systems. That is sort of why this is more of an actual process to go through and why it leads to quite different types of outcomes and different assessments. Those are, I think, a few points there to consider, which are just very different, significant differences in the underlying methodology and the way that, frankly, healthcare is being paid for. Great. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Yan an Zhu with Wells Fargo. Hi. This is Jeff on for Yanan and thanks for taking our questions. For the Aucatzyl launch in the U.S., can you provide any detail on how many patients were treated in the second quarter and year to date? The second question on the longer-term SLE readout at ACR in late October. It was mentioned that additional patients have been enrolled beyond the initial six. How many patients do you anticipate including in the readout? I believe there were a total of 12 to be dosed in phase I. Have all 12 been treated and were any of them adolescent? Thanks. Yeah, very good question. First of all, we have not guided on the number of patients, but you can actually backtrack the numbers, I think, reasonably well from knowing the cost of the therapy. We haven't given a detailed number there. I think you get very close just by backtracking. The second is related to the number of SLE patients. We obviously continue to dose patients. We had a small cohort at an elevated dose level of 100 million cells, and we have expanded the trial to include three adolescent patients. We do not expect, given the timing for the data cut, to actually have adolescent patients in the analysis. The focus will be on the adult patients, and we'll sort of give an up-to-date view on the experience with the 50 million and probably initial experience on 100 million. Got it. Thank you very much. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Max Dahl with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Hi. This is Max for Rajan Sharma. Thank you for taking my question. First one is, could you comment on what proportion of your centers are now operational and enrolling patients? How should we think about the revenue momentum and trajectory? Is the growth between 1Q and 2Q a good run rate for the full year? The second question is about the lupus phase II trial. Could you talk us through when we could see data from this trial and what you see as the bar for success? Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for joining, Max. The momentum obviously we're seeing has been very positive first half of the year. As we indicated, we do see an impact from the resolution of the CMS decision on the pricing because it had an impact on the centers to sort of adjust their actual internal policy and procedures. During that process, some of the centers were actually not enrolling patients or had to slow down enrollment of patients. That has an impact because that obviously then, you know, ripples goes through given the time it takes to then manufacture, release, and actually ultimately treat the patient. We're expecting to have an impact in the current quarter. We expect to be outside of any impact related to the CMS decision in the fourth quarter. That's kind of where we are. We obviously have a very good first half. I think we had a very good second quarter. We think we're going to actually overall have a very positive continuation in the second half of the year. We're not going to, at this point, give you sort of more guidance than that. With regards to the centers that are active, out of the 46 centers you see on the access page, the vast majority of those patients actually have treated, obviously, their patients. There are some very new ones that are actually starting now to actually be ready and are ready to actually receive patients. Those are in the process of actually getting their first patient. The vast majority of the centers that you see on the ATC locator actually have been already treating patients. Many of them actually have treated multiple patients. The question related to the lupus nephritis study and when to expect data, I think that is premature at this point in time. We have indicated, I think, the regulatory hurdle that the trial is basically designed to sort of take. As we discussed in the Q&A session at the R&D event, there's obviously a regulatory hurdle, but there was also an expectation that we're probably going to exceed or would like to set that level to be exceeded. In terms of data, that is too early to tell. We're starting the study up. We haven't enrolled a single patient at this point. We expect to have enrolled patients by the end of the year. This is premature to actually give guidance on the timeline for enrollment and data. Thank you. I'm not showing any further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the call back to Christian for any further remarks. First of all, thanks a lot for joining. Obviously, great quarter. We're keeping you updated, obviously, as we go through the third quarter here. We're very pleased with the dynamic we're seeing and the reception of the product. We keep pushing, and we certainly keep pushing our clinical trials and are looking forward to sort of looking for ways to actually make the product available to a larger number of patients beyond Adult ALL. We'll obviously show first data in that regard towards the end of the year, both on the SLE side as well as the pediatric ALL side. With that, I'd like to thank you for joining and wish you a great summer. Thank you. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This does conclude today's presentation. You may now disconnect and have a wonderful day.