Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the next session with Avadel. I'm Ami Fadia, Biotech Analyst here at Needham. It's my pleasure to be hosting Greg Divis, CEO of the company, and Tom McHugh, who's the CFO. Greg and Tom, thank you so much for being here today with us, and thanks to all our listeners as well. Maybe if I could just ask Greg to kick us off with some opening remarks, and we'll then dive into some questions. Great. First of all, good afternoon. Thank you, Ami. We're certainly delighted to be here with you today and to share the progress we've made with LUMRYZ, in particular in Q1 and our priorities for 2025. Maybe just quickly before we get started, just a quick reminder, our remarks today may include some forward-looking statements. To the extent that's the case, we just refer you to our most recent 10-K and subsequent SEC filings just to understand the risk associated with those statements. Maybe a quick summary. Since launching 21 months ago, we've had a lot of substantial milestones, from launching in kind of record time within four weeks to, as of 12/31, having 2,500 patients on LUMRYZ, which is nearly three times more than our nearest competitor during that same time period. The rapid market adoption of LUMRYZ really underscores its clinical value proposition that we hear routinely from physicians and patients and the benefit of the Once-at-Bedtime dosing of LUMRYZ. From a launch perspective, we certainly continue to refine our commercial strategy, and we're focusing now on 2025 really in accelerating patient growth and improving persistency. Because of that, we've increased our investments around patient support. We've expanded our sales force. We've enhanced our engagement with healthcare providers. We're really pleased with what we've seen in the early part of this year so far. We've seen improvements in patient demand. We've seen improvements in patient retention, which really aligns and confirms that our focus and our commercial strategy is certainly on point and aligned with patient needs. All of that is being represented by our key patient metrics. All are tracking ahead of where we were in Q4 and certainly tracking at or above our internal expectations. We are excited about how the year has started off. We see a lot of opportunity to continue to grow throughout the balance of 2025. We believe in LUMRYZ's transformative possibilities, both for patients and for the company in totality. Okay. Thank you, Greg. Maybe just to get us started, and tariffs is top of mind for everybody listening. I wanted to maybe see if you could address any details about your supply chain for LUMRYZ and how a potential tariff environment could impact the cost of goods. Yeah, thanks, Ami. That is certainly the question of the day. For us, and with the most recent announcements regarding tariffs, it does not impact LUMRYZ with these most recent announcements. For us, again, with our supply chain, we've made quite a few investments over the past three years to create redundancy in our supply chain. The fact is that most of the, I'll say, the components that go into the manufacture of LUMRYZ are U.S.-based. We have two API suppliers, as an example, both of whom are U.S.-based. We have a domestic manufacturer. We also have a manufacturer in Europe. For us, if we needed to, quite frankly, all of LUMRYZ could be manufactured in the U.S. the way we've set up our supply chain. Okay. All right. Another quick question that we get is, where's the IP based for LUMRYZ? Yeah, the IP is based in Ireland, but important to note that none of the manufacturing of LUMRYZ occurs in Ireland. Okay. All right. That's helpful. Maybe let's talk about some of the sort of dynamics with regards to LUMRYZ. Over the past few months, particularly starting with kind of the third quarter earnings call, you talked about a shift in the mix of patients, which also impacted the discontinuation rates that we've been seeing. That seems to have become an important topic in investor conversations. Can you talk about kind of what's driving that shift and whether this was something that completely surprised you, or was that something that you kind of expected as well? Yeah, Ami, the fact that there's a change in the mix of patients is not a surprise. There's always been a mix of patients for LUMRYZ since the day we launched. To your point, we did see that mix start to shift more heavily towards, I'll just call them non-switch patients in the second half of last year. We've done a lot of after-action review and analysis of this. Why did that occur? I think it comes down to a matter of focus and strategic execution. For, I'd say, the first 18 months of launch, the focus of the commercial organization was on driving patient demand. Whether it was a new to oxybate patient or whether it was a switch patient, the focus was on driving patient demand. We also thought that this was an opportunity for us as we head into 2025 to continue to improve that mix versus what we experienced in Q4. Where about a third of the starts on LUMRYZ came from switch patients. The investments we made across our sales force, the investments we made across our field support teams has yielded the improvements we hoped it would, which was to improve that mix. As we are evaluating the trends in the first quarter of 2025, switch patients is one of the metrics we evaluate. We've seen an improvement in that mix coming off of Q4 and certainly in line with our internal expectations. That's good to hear. Can you sort of maybe drill a little bit deeper into kind of why that sort of mix of patients that was switch patients maybe started to peak or slow down in the back half of last year? What specifically have you all done to really increase that mix this year? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think from that perspective, what we saw was a focus in kind of a core group of prescribers who adopted relatively quickly, and we had really high penetration across those early adopters. We were less consistent in our call and our execution on the broader group of the prescriber base that represented nearly 75% or so of the market opportunity. What we have, some of the changes we've made, was we've expanded our sales force. We've changed our direction around physician reach and call plan execution. We've modified our incentive plan to make sure that the appropriate incentive plan is designed to drive the sort of behavior and the sort of patient demand that we think is ideal for LUMRYZ at this stage in its launch. Those are the sorts of things we've deployed from a top-of-the-funnel perspective to really drive the demand and see improvements across that aspect of our launch. As Tom noted, and as we've shared over the last few weeks, we've seen really good positive momentum across those metrics. Okay. Now, let's sort of talk about the sales guidance for this year. It's $240 million-$260 million. What does sort of the low end of the guidance range assume in terms of the number of new patient ads and the discontinuation rates that you expect to see relative to what you had seen in the back half of last year? Yeah. As we've put in place guidance, the range of 240-260. At the lower end of the range, Ami, we certainly have to evaluate the trends we were seeing in the second half of last year. At the low end of the guidance, we've assumed 800 net patient adds during the course of the year. We assumed overweighting in terms of new to oxybate patients versus switch patients, which come with different dynamics in terms of revenue and discontinuation rates. We put in place assumptions that are based in no small part on the trends we saw in the second half of last year. As we moved into the year, and listen, we're certainly encouraged by the early trends we're seeing now in Q1. To put it in context, how do you get to the upper end of the range of 260? It's really modest improvements, is the way I would characterize it. The easiest way to maybe express that is that another 200-250 patients on therapy would clearly move us to the upper end of that range. Without any change in the mix? That's right. Without any necessarily change in mix. We're working on across a lot of fronts to improve all metrics. Again, we're pleased with what we've seen so far in Q1. Just sort of remind me where the discontinuation rates are for LUMRYZ for switch patients relative to what we've seen with the oxybates historically. We know that new to oxybate certainly have a higher discontinuation rate, but I'm just trying to understand for LUMRYZ for switch patients, where is it currently? Yeah. I mean, the discontinuation rate for switch patients is very nominal. It is very low, especially early on in the treatment experience where the highest rates of discontinuation in totality occur. Most of the DCs that we've seen numerically have occurred over 60% within the first 90 days. I would say in a switch patient, it is a very low, very, very low number that have discontinued during that period of time. As such, another important reason why there are focus and emphasis for the company, because obviously, if we can continue to improve the growth of switch patients, those patients are stickier. They obviously convert at a higher dose. From a revenue standpoint, are higher revenue-generating patients early on in the treatment. Obviously, a new- to- oxybate or previously treated ultimately grows to a similar value over time, for sure, from that standpoint. As Tom noted, in particular, where we've expanded our sales force execution, we've seen nice improvements in switch uptake. Okay. Can you give us some more color on kind of where the switch patients are coming from? Are they switching from Xywav, or are you seeing patients switch from Xyrem or generic Xyrem? Yeah. I think since launch and even most recently, we've seen it come from all patient types from that standpoint. We've gotten a healthy percentage of patients from all from Xyrem or Xywav or the authorized generic. From our viewpoint, we've seen consistency in that regard across all patient types most recently. It's something where we continue to focus on. As we noted, we've continued to see that begin to improve this quarter as well, along with a lot of all of our other metrics. When we think about the new to oxybate patients or the non-switch patients, where are you sort of driving that patient volume from? Maybe help us sort of understand, are these kind of physicians that you've been focused on, the 25% that have always been a big focus, or is it sort of the broader physician group? Yeah. The majority of our new to oxybate patients really since launch have come from existing oxybate prescribers, right? That's been our earliest adopters. They've represented approximately 60% of our total volume, for sure. The majority of patient starts have come from within these early adopters, high-volume oxybate targets. That being said, about 15% of all of our patient starts, Ami, have come from physicians who have previously never written an oxybate before. For us, that's a very promising data point because it accentuates the fact that LUMRYZ isn't just competing in the oxybate market. It is and has the opportunity to continue to grow the oxybate market. Much of that early, if you will, demand from physicians who have never written an oxybate before has really been organic. It hasn't been as a result of us prospecting and calling on physicians trying to generate demand. It happened organically by the physician and by the patient who wanted to go on LUMRYZ, which has opened up a very clear window in terms of the patient type and the physician type who could be candidates for us to expand that market even more so, which is something that's part and parcel to our current sales force execution as well. Yeah, we're really pleased. We've seen our prescriber base continue to grow in Q1. From that perspective, we've seen more enrollments come in in Q1, and we're getting it across the universe of prescribers. I just want to kind of try to quantify what it means when you have sort of indicated that you've sort of increased the number of your commercial team across the sales representatives, nurse, and reimbursement managers. What does that mean in terms of the coverage that you're able to achieve in terms of the types of physicians that are being targeted? You mentioned earlier that previously, or at least last year, the focus was on that kind of 25% of the prescriber base. What does this expansion help you target? Yeah. There are three components to that expansion. Our sales force expansion really allows us now where when you think about the size of our sales force at just a little over 50, and the average representative has anywhere from 90-110 priority targets, we can reach over 5,000 physicians in their respective offices with that reach and that footprint, recognizing that probably 25-30 of those targets are really the highest volume targets. The balance are really spread out fairly diffusely from that perspective. It gives us the opportunity to reach all of them with the sort of frequency that we've lined out and targeted. As we've expanded our focus across the universe in Q1, we've seen that group of what I would characterize as dabblers, our marginal historical prescribers of LUMRYZ, or even those who haven't prescribed at all in Q1 with some commercial focus, really be a major source of our growth in Q1 from that perspective, which has been really great to see. When we translate that to our field support teams, where we've doubled our field reimbursement and field support teams, that allows them to take on, to reduce their caseload and spend more time in the office, which gives us a chance to be in front of all of those priority offices as well in person with processing and generating patients who've been enrolled into our program to pull them through faster. We have seen that happen in Q1 as well, where we have seen an increase in our patient starts. We have seen them come through the process quicker. To us, that is directly correlated to more resources and more focus on that team in terms of what they are charged to do and their ability to be out in front of customers as well. Okay. Now, you've indicated that you believe LUMRYZ can reach sort of peak revenue potential of $4 billion. Can you take us through kind of the bridge from where we are today and what would need to happen in order to be able to achieve that? Yeah. I guess to achieve that, we would need about 8,000 reimbursed patients on therapy just based on pricing assumptions. That would get us to $1 billion of revenue. The path to get there, let's start with where we exited the fourth quarter of 2024. We had over 1,800 reimbursed patients on therapy at that point in time. We were almost 25% of the way there, 18 months into launch. The path to get the, I'll say, the remaining 6,200, right? It's really important to understand the three patient segments that we refer to, which in total, about 50,000 patients, we think are good candidates for LUMRYZ. I have to characterize that as probably over the next five years. Today, we estimate there's about 14,000 patients who are currently treated with the twice nightly. That remains a robust opportunity for us. It's a very dynamic market. It remains an opportunity to continue to get switch business. The other patient segment that we talk about is patients who had previously tried and discontinued a twice nightly oxybate. We estimate that over the last three years, about 15,000 patients have tried and discontinued. For us, it's a very real patient segment. For our starts, about one out of every four patient starts comes from that segment. The third segment, to round out the difference, is the annual starts. These are new to oxybate patients, never exposed to an oxybate. It's about 4,000-5,000 patients per year that represent that segment. Again, over five years, that's 20,000-25,000 patients. For us to get to 8,000 reimbursed patients on therapy, that's why it's important to understand these three patient segments. Because quite frankly, I could paint a scenario for you where all we get is new to oxybate patients that continue to get the previously tried and discontinued, and we get 8,000 patients that way. It is not our strategy, of course. All patients are important. We believe we will continue to source patients from all three patient segments. We can get there a lot of different ways. Yeah. I think the only thing I would add to that is it's just an important consideration that where we're sourcing patients and where we're, for lack of a better word, competing for patients, LUMRYZ has its own unique market opportunity, of which 90% by and large is exclusive to LUMRYZ, whether it's those 14,000 or so currently twice nightly treated patients or the 15,000 or so previously treated and discontinued, which is a pool of patients that continues to grow every month, every year, every quarter, every year from that perspective, which are really exclusive to LUMRYZ. We feel very confident that the market opportunity is very robust to continue to grow quarter over quarter sequentially for a long period of time. Yeah. It's a large market, Ami. We're learning more about it, of course, every day that goes on. It's a very large market opportunity for oxybates. Aside from where we know the patients are today, to one of Greg's earlier comments, we're also extending the prescriber base. So it's not a we have what we have today. We think the market's going to continue to grow and expand. And we have our own proof points of that, particularly with the new prescribers who come in who have never written a prescription before for an oxybate. Now, these patients who were previously discontinued patients, it sounds like they would have discontinued over a year prior to today. Where are these patients being treated? Are they treated by both oxybate and non-oxybate re-enrolled physicians? What drives them back to explore another treatment option? How often are they going back to see the physicians that gives you the opportunity to tap into those patients? Yeah. Based upon the data we can see, Ami, well over 90-95% of patients who were previously on an oxybate and stop are still under care by that same physician who they were previously treated on. So they're still being seen by a sleep specialist from that perspective and being managed accordingly. The frequency of patient visits, I would say on average, based upon this data we can see, is anywhere from four to six months, every four to six months. Obviously, if you're newly being seen, maybe you see more frequently. If you're a little bit more mature, maybe you see less frequently. But on average, it's likely four to six months. And if you're on an oxybate, you're getting some sort of engagement with your office at least every six months because of the need to do the refill, right? Yeah. Okay. Understood. Okay. Let's shift gears to idiopathic hypersomnia. You're waiting for a court decision on the injunction hearing that was done in February. What is your confidence level around winning it, and what's the basis for that? Maybe talk to us about some of the scenarios with regards to the outcomes with that hearing and how that would impact your path to regulatory filing. Yeah. Ami, our confidence level is very high that the injunction is overturned and we're able to proceed forward with seeking approval of LUMRYZ for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia. That's one of the key questions that's pending. We expect a decision to occur during this quarter. As you noted, the appeals hearing was on February 7th. It's probably plus or minus 90 days from that date is the guidance we've received on when to expect a decision. It puts us squarely into Q2. Whether it takes 90 days to get a decision or it takes nine months to get a decision, either one of those time frames puts us well ahead of when we'd be prepared to file an NDA in any event. The Phase III trial is ongoing. We expect enrollment to be completed by the end of this year and data readout early part of next year, which, the timing of the decision, not that it's irrelevant, of course. We want it done sooner than later, but whenever that decision comes, it should be well ahead of when we're prepared to file an NDA. Yeah. With regards to the Phase III trial, perhaps talk about how the enrollment is ongoing, where are the sites, and just based on some of the surprises that we've seen in the IH space, how have you sort of thought about managing the risk around the study? Yeah. I mean, enrollment is tracking according to our plan. As we've noted, we would expect to complete enrollment in the second half of this year and top line data, as Tom noted earlier, early next year. In terms of how we've chosen to go about this, we certainly studied the prior trials and their respective sites. Of course, we have our own experience with a large number of domestic sites for our LUMRYZ pivotal trial in narcolepsy, as well as our open label extension in RESTORE. For us, we've really tried to prioritize the robust experience research sites. Some of those come from community and private sites. Some of those are academic research-based sites. We feel really good about the cohort of sites we have. We're continuing to add more sites as we go through. Some of these academic centers take a little longer to get through the contracting period with their centers. We continue to add more sites from that perspective. From a management perspective or for lack of terms, a probability of success perspective, we remain highly confident in LUMRYZ's prospects in IH, right? Especially given the historical data of the first-generation products in terms of their pivotal study in IH. You consider that similar analysis of the statistically significant data for LUMRYZ in narcolepsy and how that translates relative to the first-generation oxybates, their studies in narcolepsy. It gives us a very high degree of confidence that LUMRYZ, all things being equal, has a high probability of clinical success in this study, recognizing that you still have to run the study, and you have to run that study very well, which is obviously what we're focused on and believe our team is doing today. Can you comment on just the market opportunity there relative to the opportunity in narcolepsy? Yeah. It's different, right? For sure. It's an emerging diagnosis from my perspective over the last number of years. It certainly is talked about a lot more when you're out talking to physicians. From a pure diagnosis perspective, we know in narcolepsy, there's 150,000-160,000 patients diagnosed and maybe 120,000-130,000 actively being treated. In IH, it's 42,000 who are diagnosed and under care, of which 30,000 or so are uniquely IH patients and 12,000 have had both an NT2 diagnosis as well as an IH diagnosis from that perspective. In that case, 40,000 patients is a fairly robust orphan-sized condition from that perspective with only one FDA-approved treatment today, right? Whose penetration is under 10% of that market. I will say, because we talk to a lot of physicians all the time and we're out meeting with them, there's a lot of discussion that they bring up to us about IH and when will we get an approval and what's the status of the study. When you ask them why they're interested in, their answer is very clear. They believe the LUMRYZ clinical value proposition and eliminating the forced awaking in the middle of the night for IH is, in some people's mind, arguably even more valuable for IH patients than it is for narcolepsy patients, predominantly because IH patients, as we all know, struggle with waking up, right, versus struggle with staying awake that you see with people with narcolepsy. From that perspective, we think the value proposition is very clear. We're excited to be in a position to run the studies and continue to navigate the other things we need to navigate toward to be in a position to potentially prepare for an NDA filing at some point in the future. Now, I want to talk about the direction to have this space. That's obviously a question that I'm sure you get a lot. How are you thinking about that class impacting the oxybate market in the next couple of years? I think the common sort of view, commonly had view is that the oxybates do help with nighttime sleep. How well is that understood amongst the physician community? Is there something that you're doing in terms of thinking about sort of solidifying that or building awareness around that that could help prepare for the entry of a new class? Yeah. Maybe some general comments first. There's clearly a lot of investor sentiment and excitement about the prospects of orexin receptor agonists, which we totally understand and get. What we're most interested in is what are clinicians and prescribers thinking, right? We want to both interview kind of the thought leaders in this space and have a regular dialogue with them, but we also want to match that up with large research cohorts of physicians where we interview them as well and get a broader sense, which is what we've done and what we will continue to do. Certainly, from a physician perspective, there's excitement about a new mechanism of action treating a serious sleep disorder, and particularly with the profound daytime benefit. I think when you talk to physicians, it's a little less clear in terms of what they think the benefits or the implications may or may not be on the nighttime from that perspective. Because of that, physicians, I think, very clearly believe there's a role for oxybates in particular because of its benefit to the night. That is something that physicians who use oxybates clearly understand and have a great appreciation for. Some of the insights we've gained in a recent research project with well over 100 physicians has told us the following, right? One is that narcolepsy, as we know, is a polypharmacy treatment. Today, prescribers don't think orexin receptor agonists are going to change that. Orexin receptor agonists may change the total patient pool and how patients are treated and the amount of patients who are treated. What we hear from physicians as well is that from their view, the role of oxybates and where they're used and the impact of oxybates in the nighttime and on sleep architecture is something that they believe will still play an important role and a relevant role as they do today. Again, which is something that's very well understood by the clinician community, especially those who use oxybates. For us, it's important we continue to learn and do more research and gain more insight as we go forward. Most importantly for us is to make sure that as these things emerge, that LUMRYZ and the LUMRYZ family is well positioned as an oxybate of choice for those who are deemed to be oxybate-eligible in the marketplace today and into the future. Now, aside from the orexins, there is another change that's expected in the market at the end of this year where it's possible that additional generic versions of Xyrem may enter the market. How do you see that impacting the overall market, the pricing dynamics, and particularly LUMRYZ? Yeah. Maybe at a high level, our view today is, and again, I think our understanding is consistent with yours, that there could potentially be, if you will, multi-source generics, for lack of a better word, or more than just the authorized generic in the marketplace as early as January 2026, potentially. We do not see the entry of that having a material impact on LUMRYZ pricing or on the branded oxybates overall. We have seen almost zero impact of an authorized generic on branded oxybates at all from that standpoint. They have really only kind of gotten business from within the business, so to speak, if you will, and switched the obvious switch from Xyrem to the authorized generic, right? From our perspective, we are highly confident that LUMRYZ's growth potential does not end in the presence of additional generic entrants, right? In part because, as we talked about, the unique patient population that is uniquely and in many cases solely to the benefit of LUMRYZ, because we have 90% of our market that isn't really beholden to just the new-to-oxybate patient start. It is switches. It's previously treated who discontinued. These are unique segments to LUMRYZ. Because of that, we believe in it, even in the presence of multi-source generics, the opportunity to continue to grow, LUMRYZ will still be there, right? It's important for us to stay close to it. I think over time, and as we get through the balance of this year, I think the first rounds of indication we may see or hear is what do payers tell us, right? As they're seeking to make formulary decisions for 2026, is there a request for a contract that has changed from where we are today, right, from that perspective? I think we'll get those insights as we go through the summer. It'll give us a sense of what may or may not happen. I think from our viewpoint, even in the presence of multi-source generics who may be a preferred for new-to-oxybate patients or you have to step through a multi-source generic for new-to-oxybate patients for some plans, we think we're well positioned to capture that as a switch patient with LUMRYZ as we are doing today. Now, beyond LUMRYZ, you've talked about a new formulation that you're pursuing, which potentially could be a low-sodium once nightly. Any update or latest thoughts that you can provide on that? Yeah. It has been and continues to be a work in progress. Although our launch with LUMRYZ is in narcolepsy as our primary focus, our lifecycle management efforts, whether it be IH or this, are important for extending the runway, the franchise, and being able to add more potential patients who could benefit from our innovation. Alternate formulations are important in that regard as well. We've learned a lot. Over the last 12-plus months, we've been able to narrow, if you will, the scope of kind of the pathways we think give us the opportunity to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish, which is a bioequivalent form of LUMRYZ in a once-nightly no or low-sodium product. Because of that, if you will, the development work that we continue to proceed on is not as broad because we've learned a lot. We can narrow down kind of the opportunities that we believe give us the path to the best chance to solve it with our partners. That is what we are doing now. We are very focused in that regard. We believe if we are successful, it certainly further enhances our position and our ability to serve more patients. We would expect to continue to provide updates on that as we get through this year. Okay. Perhaps before, maybe one important just question I want to get out of the way is, as we think about litigations just beyond sort of the one in IH that we talked about, can you just highlight what are the key litigations that are in play and when we might get the next sort of milestone or get through the next milestone on those? Yeah. I mean, I think the other, I'll say, two significant pending items aside from the injunction IH that we previously discussed, there's probably two other significant decisions we expect to hear about this year. One of them is the royalty rate on sale of LUMRYZ. You may recall last year, there was a jury trial, and a royalty of about 3.5% was awarded to Jazz. What's left to decide now is for the judge to determine what, if any, royalty would apply to ongoing sales of LUMRYZ. What the jury had decided was past damages. The judge has to decide a royalty rate on a go-forward basis. That decision, I would just have to say, we expect it to come this year. All the briefings were done last fall. We're just waiting for the judge to make a decision at this point. To be clear, while this matter is pending and we would certainly intend to appeal it, there is no cash impact to the company. We are accruing at a rate for royalty, but this is going to go on for a little bit longer. No cash is being paid at this point for royalty. The other item of significance is the antitrust trial, which we've sued Jazz for antitrust. It is a five-day jury trial. It is scheduled to begin November 3rd. It will wrap up November 7th. We expect that the jury is going to make a pretty quick decision coming out of that. I do not think they are going to deliberate over this for months. Some decision on that could come as early as the Friday that the jury trial concludes or maybe a little bit of the following week. Sorry, I was on mute. Okay. Maybe the last question for me is just recapping for investors where you are with kind of the current profitability of the company given the number of patients on LUMRYZ. Sort of just balance sheets have become even more important in sort of today's world. Maybe it's a good reminder for investors. Yeah. We'll start with the balance sheet and our capital structure and cash flow. We reported about $73 million in cash as of December 31st. We were cash flow positive during the fourth quarter. We've guided to being cash flow positive in the range of $20 million-$40 million for 2025. I think from a balance sheet standpoint and our ability to fund our operations, we will be able to do that with cash on hand and continued sales of LUMRYZ. That includes, obviously, the continuing launch of LUMRYZ as well as the Phase III study going on in idiopathic hypersomnia. Your question around profitability, if I start with EBITDA, if you will, we were EBITDA positive both Q3 and Q4 of last year. We did not quite get to the level of GAAP profitability, the difference being primarily stock-based compensation. We're rapidly approaching that point of being profitable on a sustainable basis during 2025. Okay. All right. I guess I covered everything I wanted to. Yeah, go ahead. If I may, maybe I'll just end with a couple of comments if that's okay. One is building on what Tom just shared, which is 2025 for us is a year of growth, but it's also a year where we turn sustainably cash flow positive. We're pleased with the results we saw in early Q1. Q1, in terms of the progress and the growth we've seen over Q4, our expectations will continue to grow throughout the balance of this year. We think we're well positioned in a year with a lot of really positive catalysts for us, whether it's our growth in our launch metrics, whether it's finishing enrollment in our IH trial, whether it is turning cash flow positive, or whether it's positive results in legal-related matters. We think this is the year where we're well positioned with a lot of catalysts that we think can continue to transform the company from that perspective. In the world we're in today with tariffs and whatnot, we think we're well positioned, as Tom noted in the beginning, from a supply chain perspective, which we started working on three years ago more as a defensive strategy to make sure we're well secured from supply chain domestically. That has put us in a good spot as we sit here today as well. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and share updates and look forward to continuing to provide updates as we get through the balance of this year and, of course, in our Q1 call and likely in early May. Okay. Thanks both for taking the time to do this. Thanks to all our listeners for joining. Thanks, Ami. Thank you.