Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Chris Schott at J.P. Morgan, and it's my pleasure to be introducing EQRx today at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference. From the company, we have this, the company CEO, Melanie Nallicheri. We're gonna turn over to Melanie for a presentation. After that, we'll go to a Q&A session. Folks can submit questions through the portal if they wanna ask that, and we just ask them live in the room as well. With that, happy New Year, looking forward to the comments. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, J.P. Morgan, for giving us the opportunity to present today. I know it's late on a Wednesday, so thank you very much for everybody who is here and who has been here for probably three or four days, and for those listening in virtually. 2023 is going to be an important year for EQRx. We will be making forward-looking statements in the presentation and during the Q&A. I would like to refer you to our disclaimers. Think of EQRx as a systematic fast follower working to develop best-in-class therapies for patients. By leveraging what is already known and by building and using the tools that we have, we can efficiently engineer best-in-class and best-in-combination therapies today to expand possibilities for patients. That is what we've been doing at EQRx from day one, today we'll give you two examples of exactly that. Before I get into that, I would like to acknowledge that the regulatory setbacks that we experienced last year were disappointing. For those of you who have been at the conference and have listened to some of Commissioner Califf's comments, you know that, the FDA direction that has been given around the use of single-country data and data in particular from China, that's a direction that's here to stay. We just need to move on. We have decided that what happened last year is just behind us. It wasn't how we wanted to end the year, but now we're focusing on 2023. What does 23 look like for us? Four important things. First of all, we have the assets. We have best-in-class candidates in development, with best-in-class and best-in-combination potential. We'll be giving you updates on lerociclib and aumolertinib today, how we're going to develop those as mono and as combination therapies. We have multiple ex-U.S. filings in U.K. and in Europe under review, We're expecting that we are going to be a commercial stage company by 2024. We have several regulatory milestones this year, We have data readouts anticipated in the next 12 to 18 months. Importantly, we're starting this year with $1.4 billion of cash on the balance sheet. Again, for many of you who've been here during the course of the conference, it's not an easy environment for many companies to fundraise. We're very appreciative of the fact that we can start out the year with that amount of capital and fund all of our activities for the next five years to come into 2028. Let's begin with lerociclib, because we have not talked much about lerociclib. What we would like you to take away today is why lerociclib is valuable and what the core thesis is. It is a later entrant into a large category, an existing large category. Why is that interesting? Based on the data that we have in hand today, we believe that lerociclib has a differentiated potency and selectivity profile that allows it to be continuously dosed at the recommended dose, and we believe that that could translate into better and improved efficacy and benefit for patients. Think of it, perhaps a good analogy is what BeiGene did with zanubrutinib relative to ibrutinib. Continuous target coverage is ultimately going to be important, and we believe it's important in a CDK4/6 class. There's no doubt that CDK4/6 inhibitors have had life-changing benefit for patients with hormone-driven breast cancer. However, there is room for improvement. Some of the therapies that we have available today have significant GI toxicities. Some of the therapies we have available have grade 3 and 4 neutropenia. For patients, that doesn't allow continuous coverage and continuous dosing for a disease that's really an indolent disease. That's not ideal. We also see drug-drug interactions and overlapping toxicities, and that has prevented the development of CDK4/6 inhibitors as combination therapies and the development of CDK4/6 inhibitors in new indications. That has created an opportunity for the development of a next-generation CDK4/6 inhibitor. Why do we believe that lerociclib is that next generation best-in-class CDK4/6 inhibitor? The team that developed lerociclib, led by Dr. Ned Sharpless, former National Cancer Institute Director, and the team at G1 Therapeutics in North Carolina, they specifically built the company for that purpose. What they got right was the balance between selectivity and the PK profile, so that we get the dosing zone for efficacy, while at the same time sparing on the tolerability. We already have positive data from over 300 participants in 9 clinical trials. That includes a phase I to metastatic breast cancer study in the first line and second line of 110 patients, where the team at G1 Therapeutics did rigorous dose finding. In fact, it was published and presented in a poster at ESMO in 2020. At the recommended dose, 150 milligrams BID, what has been shown is that we're seeing significantly better tolerability, lower adverse events for those adverse events that are typical for this class, namely neutropenia and the GI toxicities. That translates into the ability, and in this cohort, it was 85% of patients that were continuously dosed at the recommended dose. In fact, we only had one discontinuation and very few dose reductions. What this shows is it is possible to continuously dose at the recommended dose, and that exposure should translate into improved activity in this class. That was in a small N, what we need to do now is we need to show that that data actually holds when we study it in larger patient populations. We're already doing this. We have an ongoing phase II open-label study in the first-line, second-line metastatic breast cancer setting that we are studying in 100 patients in the United States, in Europe, and in Mexico. What this study, if it shows what we expect it to show, it would really support our confidence in lerociclib as a potential best-in-class CDK4/6 inhibitor. In addition, G1 Therapeutics partner, Genor Biopharma, in Asia-Pacific, is running two phase III studies. These are randomized studies, one in the first-line, one in the second-line, metastatic breast cancer setting in over 250 patients. While we don't control those studies, that data will be available and will be out there and additive complimentary to the data we are generating, which again, together would support and continue to build the body of evidence for lerociclib as a next generation best-in-class CDK4/6 inhibitor. What could you do with this? If we're correct, if this hypothesis holds, we should be able to not only develop lerociclib in the mainstay indications of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, but we should also be able to expand into additional lines of treatment such as micrometastatic or MRD positive disease or continuation treatment. We should be able to develop lerociclib in combination regimens, whether that's with chemotherapy or for instance, with a PARP1 inhibitor or an ER PROTAC. As a reminder, we are already developing a highly selective PARP1 inhibitor and an ER PROTAC as part of our earlier pipeline. We should be able to develop lerociclib in other hormone-driven cancers such as metastatic endometrial cancer. Today, you only have therapies approved in the second line for metastatic endometrial cancer, those regimens are highly toxic. We are initiating a study in the first line, metastatic endometrial cancer setting here early in this year, where we are the first to have a pivotal randomized trial in this patient population. That is a huge unmet need, we're seeing a lot of support from the oncology community and from cooperative groups. When could we potentially get lerociclib to patients? As I mentioned, we're looking forward towards somewhere in the middle of this year, whether it's Q2, Q3, to get additional data that gives us confidence in the profile of lerociclib. If that's true. We would expect that it is possible to file lerociclib in the metastatic breast cancer indication outside of the United States in 2025. As I was mentioning to my team earlier today, I need to keep reminding myself that that's actually a year after next. In metastatic endometrial cancer, this would probably be our first filing for EQRx in the United States and outside of the United States in other geographies. Again, we are expecting that a filing in 2025 should be possible. In summary, as we are developing lerociclib and developing this body of evidence that I've been describing, we should be able to develop lerociclib across multiple tumor types, across multiple lines of treatment, both as monotherapy and as combination therapy. As additional opportunities come up for us and we want to pursue them, we will be sure to communicate those. Let's turn to aumolertinib. Of course, we've talked about aumolertinib before in multiple settings. We've shared data at medical conferences. We have data in peer review journals, including a recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, where we shared the phase III AENEAS results. That's the pivotal trial for aumolertinib. That was accompanied by an editorial that has also compared aumolertinib to osimertinib and has provided commentary on some of the recent FDA commentary on sort of studies that were created or were run outside of the United States. Aumolertinib is a third-generation EGFR inhibitor that we are starting to see really encouraging data in the real world from. Aumolertinib has been approved in China as Ameile in the first and second-line treatment of EGFR-driven non-small cell lung cancer. We recently had the opportunity to talk to some of the oncologists that are prescribing Ameile or aumolertinib. What we heard is that they're really excited about the strong efficacy profile and the better tolerability profile. In fact, specifically, some of the mentions were that they're choosing aumolertinib for the very strong data that we have in patients with brain metastases, which we will share today. They are also encouraged when they're switching patients from another EGFR inhibitor to aumolertinib, that they're seeing significant improvement in the quality of life, and that they're seeing that patients that had to discontinue treatment, for instance, because of liver toxicities or interstitial lung disease, that those patients have done really well on aumolertinib. Now again, that's anecdotal, but it gives us really great confidence in what aumolertinib can be. I want to step back. A couple of years ago, we looked at several EGFR inhibitors, and what excited us the most about aumolertinib is that aumolertinib retains the selectivity for the mutations that play a key role in EGFR-mediated non-small cell lung cancer. That includes some of the resistance mechanisms or mutations that often come up with earlier generations of EGFR inhibitors. Importantly, it spares the wild-type, meaning the non-mutated part of the gene, and that is what is usually responsible for the adverse events that we're typically seeing with this class. As a result, we have seen with aumolertinib a really much better tolerability profile. In fact, those side effects that are typical for EGFR inhibitors, rash and diarrhea that we have highlighted here, are significantly lower, and those are often the ones that impact the quality of life of patients and often lead to discontinuations. You also see here that that holds despite the fact that we have significantly longer, nearly twice as long treatment of aumolertinib here relative to the comparator arm. In addition to the tolerability, what is encouraging is the clinical benefit for patients. That clinical benefit for patients in the broad populations is 19 months of progression-free survival, which is nearly 2x what we've seen in the comparator arm. As we followed patients, I would like to draw your attention to the right hand of the slide if you're following along on the slides. As we followed patients and we looked at the subpopulations of patients with brain metastases, those 15% to 20% of that patient population that often fares significantly worse had progression-free survival of 29 months compared to eight months with a comparator. We continue to follow these patients. We will have overall survival data, which of course is also important in terms of assessing clinical benefit. With that tolerability profile and this efficacy profile, that makes aumolertinib a really important option for patients with EGFR-driven non-small cell lung cancer, both as a monotherapy option in the metastatic setting and in the earlier lines of treatment. It also opens up the possibility for combination treatment. It is pretty much an accepted notion that as we are seeing resistance to tumors in patients with EGFR-driven non-small cell lung cancer, we need to resort to combination therapies. For that you need a profile, you need a backbone therapy with a much better tolerability profile. Aumolertinib can be that backbone. In fact, we have started a phase IIIb study called TREBLE, where we are studying aumolertinib plus chemotherapy in comparison to osimertinib monotherapy and in comparison to aumolertinib monotherapy. That study will answer really two questions. The first one is, are we seeing additional clinical benefit, so significantly greater progression-free survival in the treatment with chemotherapy in the combination compared to the monotherapy treatment. We will have the direct comparison between aumolertinib and osimertinib so that we can talk about that which we know that many of the oncologists are really excited to be learning more about. We expect that in the next 18 months we will have the ability, through an interim readout, to have a first glance of what that data tells us. More to come on that. Given this data for aumolertinib, we've been able to submit aumolertinib to the MHRA in the U.K. for filing. That filing was accepted. We've also had a submission to EMA in Europe. That filing was accepted. In addition to aumolertinib, we've continued our regulatory work with sugemalimab. As a reminder, that is our checkpoint inhibitor. We have filed, and that filing was accepted by MHRA for Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. We're also expecting a submission to EMA in the first half of 2023. Europe and U.K. are a really meaningful opportunity for us. If you just look at the patient populations here, what we're describing here are the patient populations that would be applicable or important for aumolertinib, for lerociclib, and for sugemalimab in the treatment population where a treatment of sugemalimab plus chemotherapy would be indicated. What you're seeing here is we're talking about 130,000+ patients in Europe. We're also seeing significant $multi-billion spend. What we're hearing, what resonates with payers and with health systems that we're speaking with in Europe, in addition to the memorandum of understanding that we've signed with the National Health Service in the U.K., the first population health partnership for cancer therapies, we are hearing that our value proposition of high quality medicines in large categories of significant spend and cost effectiveness really resonates. 2023 is a important year for EQRx. First, we will have regulatory milestones. We're expecting that we will have approvals so that 2024 will be our first commercial year, where we will be commercial in multiple geographies. We're expecting an additional submission with EMA in Europe. We're also expecting data readouts, first, the first cut from the data from our metastatic breast cancer study with lerociclib, as well as an interim analysis from the aumolertinib TREBLE study. An important year, an event-filled year. I wanna come back to our cash position. We are very fortunate to be starting the year with $1.4 billion of cash on the balance sheet. We are going to be disciplined. We understand, of course, that there was a amount of revenue that we had hoped would come in earlier. Because of that, we're gonna be even more disciplined. We have cash runway for five years into 2028, we have the capital to support the efforts that I just described, as well as the development of an earlier stage pipeline that includes about 10 different molecules. For those, we will see our first IND filings in 2024. In summary, where's EQRx today? We have therapies with best-in-class, best-in-combination potential in large and well-defined patient populations. Our focus is the execution of our aumolertinib and lerociclib programs. We are anticipating additional submissions and approvals, making 2024 our first truly commercial year. We have a complementary early-stage pipeline, so we have the assets, and we have the capitals to support the development of those assets. With that, I wanna just thank everybody for attending the presentation today. I also wanna thank our partners, our employees and participants in our clinical trials. With that, Chris, I wanna hand it over. Great. For questions. Thank you. would love to maybe kick off with some questions on on lerociclib. I guess first of all, when I think about the market, I think you have an interesting opportunity outside of metastatic breast cancer. How do you balance, I guess on one hand, breast cancer, where you've got, you know, clear activity of CDKs, but you've got pretty entrenched competition versus some of these other indications where it seems like there's more white space to play in with what could be really kind of attractive profile of your assets. How are you kind of prioritizing this development pathways by indication? Yeah, Chris, we think that there are really three opportunities for lerociclib. We believe that in the metastatic breast cancer indication, we have an opportunity, a clear opportunity in Europe and potentially elsewhere in the world. We think that, with the data that we have in hand, plus potentially additional data, you know, the past has shown us that the path through the FDA might be more complicated. Right now, and that's why we mentioned, a potential filing in 25 outside of the United States, as the most likely path. We believe it's an end. The metastatic endometrial cancer opportunity is really an and, is to prove that we can take a CDK4/6 inhibitor into a new indication with a very significant unmet need, and that it can play there. We believe that there are additional opportunities. Again, if we're getting the data in from the study that we're running right now, we believe that that could potentially be expanded into additional indications or redefine patient populations. Then the third opportunity is really the ability to combine with other agents. We believe all three of these are of interest, and we believe that that makes lerociclib so attractive. Just so I'm clear on the U.S. side, is breast cancer not an opportunity for at least the near term for that, just given the filing pathway, I guess? Yeah. We believe that what we've seen in the conversations with the FDA, that the ability to potentially leverage some of the data that G1 Therapeutics's partner is generating, you know, in Asia-Pacific. Our data, we don't know whether that's a regulatory pathway. We certainly don't wanna bank on that. Because of what we've recently seen. If we're positively surprised, of course that's wonderful, but we're right now not banking on that. I guess one of the questions I'm turning my hands around is the ex-U.S. opportunities. I know 2024 is your first commercial year. Can you help us just envision what a commercial footprint looks like for EQRx ex-U.S.? Yeah. As you know, we have started with conversations and have an active MOU, a memorandum of understanding with the National Health Service in the U.K. for that spans several of our oncology portfolio therapies. That in addition to having the innovation breakthrough designation in the U.K., we believe positions us really well, and we expect that the NHS would support the adoption of our cancer medications. What does that mean? You need a significantly, or you can work with a significantly focused footprint and infrastructure. I mean, of course you still need some infrastructure, but we do not expect a large sales force. Out in Europe, outside of the U.K., we expect that there will be geographies, and in fact we've been having positive conversations with payers and health systems where a similar model will be possible. However, what we will do is we will pursue a model where we get pull through from payers and health systems. In that case, we can have a lower, you know, a much more constrained footprint, a much more efficient infrastructure build. We still of course have to create the awareness with physicians and ensure that the clinical data is appreciated. That's how we're thinking about it, but we do think about it in a, in a very different way than most companies would. That also in some ways, we believe de-risks it because you don't have to make those massive investments that often companies had to make and feel that Europe is actually quite complex. Can I also just so I'm clear on the ex-U.S. side, as you think about pricing, is the pricing more on a branded model or are you still sticking to the, I think, the original vision of kind of a big delta where we could have some savings? I know the U.S. model is gonna be maybe different, but. Yeah. We are pursuing the model outside of the U.S. that we had originally. Okay. Articulated. Where we are going to see that we have real commitments from those payers and those health systems. Okay. That's when we will do it. Of course, we need to remember, pricing in Europe in general is lower than what we're seeing in the U.S.. I would absolutely not assume that the price reductions that we would be going into Europe with are as large as some of the numbers that we had previously quoted for the United States. Okay. Okay, great. Thank you for clarification there. The company ended 2022 with $1.4 billion in cash. You talk about this runway to 2028. Can you help me think about how that capital gets spent? How much of this is R&D dollars developing the pipeline? How much of this is commercial expense, just kind of building infrastructure, getting ready to commercialize and just sort of get a sense of like how much can you do with that capital to develop these assets? Yeah. Our priority is very on our most advanced and most promising clinical therapies and the development, and that's where we are seeing most of our spend. As I mentioned a moment ago, right now we're not building any kind of large commercial infrastructure in the U.S. In Europe, we're building a very efficient footprint. Okay. I think you talked about some early-stage pipeline assets. Is that just, you know, can move us forward at a fairly inexpensive cost? Is that how to think about those or? Actually, we. Actually, we don't think so. Okay. The early-stage pipeline, as a reminder, we have about half a dozen collaborations with leading drug engineering companies, Exscientia, AbCellera, Relay, just to mention a few. What we're doing with those is we are working in partnership to develop new molecules from scratch against pre-specified targets. Those are targets where we have the understanding of what a best-in-class or even a first-in-class molecule could look like. It's a partnership, and so in many ways, the way I would look at it is it's actually a very capital efficient way of developing sort of the second wave of our therapies. Okay. Can I come back to the combination opportunities with lerociclib and aumolertinib? Just elaborate a bit more of how, you know, what you're most excited about as you think about combinations? Yeah. Let's start with lerociclib. Lerociclib, again, because of the fact that we do not see the drug-drug interactions that we've seen with other CDK4/6 inhibitors, because we are not seeing these overlapping toxicities, and because we can continuously dose lerociclib, if that actually holds true, the ability to combine with another agent and the fact that we've done so much dose exploration work, unlike others, should allow us to really hone in on areas where we could not go before with CDK4/6 inhibitors. That could be additional types of tumors. That could also be different lines of therapy or better treatment options in the mainstay indication of, you know, metastatic or earlier stage breast cancer. That's how we're thinking about it for lerociclib. For aumolertinib, the story isn't actually that different in terms of aumolertinib also has the potential to be a backbone therapy because of its advantageous adverse event profile. They are much lower. When you combine, you will get the clinical benefit of the combination. That's the theory behind the TREBLE study, right? To get the benefit, the clinical benefit of the combination without really amplifying the toxicities in such a way that it's just not manageable for patients. We believe that that is where the world is going as our understanding also of the underlying mutations, the resistance mutations evolves and our technology is getting better and better at detecting those and really describing those patient populations. We think aumolertinib has significant potential to be that backbone for our, you know, for us to study in combinations, but also for others to use aumolertinib in combination with their agents. When can we think about that combination work, kind of moving forward? Would you wanna kind of de-risk the first set and that, and this is kind of maybe more, you know, 2025 and beyond? Or just help me envision that a bit. As I mentioned, if we are seeing what we're expecting to see from the TREBLE study and from some of the interim analysis, that could be really telling. In that case, that would allow us to announce additional combination therapy options. Again, whether we run those ourselves or whether others pick those up, some of those could be with a MET bispecific, for instance. You know, we already talked about chemo. There could be a combination with a fourth-generation EGFR inhibitor. We think that there are actually significant opportunities out there and, of course, other companies that are also really interested in going into those directions. Great. Just bigger picture question, the fast follower model that you've kind of evolved to, should I think of that as the go-forward model for the company? I think, with the original pivot and strategy, I think it was talking about these initial assets, that's where you're going. As you kind of think more about the model, is that as we think about additional assets going forward, will they continue to follow that fast follower or more maybe branded pricing type of model, at least on the U.S. side? The theory and what we believe is a really good business proposition, you know, of fast following is essentially you're learning from the past. You are leveraging the tools of today, and you're using that to efficiently engineer a molecule that can be better than what you previously had. That's how we're thinking about fast following. Now, fast following needs to be exactly that. It needs to be fast following. It can't be slow following. Sure. We've always, from the very get-go, when we built EQRx, we've believed that that is a really compelling proposition. Now, in some cases, because you asked the question around how does that relate to pricing, in some cases, that may actually take you into truly new territory where we may be the first-in-class, you know, molecule or option in a certain indication. You'd price to value, and that's essentially the message that we wanted to put out there. I also just wanna be clear, when we got the feedback from the FDA last year, we didn't believe that that was scientifically or clinically the right answer. We didn't think that that was the right answer from a patient point of view. As we heard from Commissioner Califf, that's the direction of the FDA. That's spilled milk. We just need to look forward. Our decision was simply to say, we gotta adapt, we gotta adapt in the United States. Outside of the United States, Europe, U.K., other geographies, there is still a real desire to get access to innovative therapies, but also ensure that it is sustainable for those payers in the long term. We believe that it's really a question of what's the data? What does the data tell us? You know, it's probably a little bit too early exactly what the pricing is going to be. It could be a hybrid model just kinda varies by product and geography. As it does for any company, right? I mean, it's really dependent on what the market condition at that time is. What I think that we need to remember, if you set pricing aside, what we wanted to convey today is lerociclib and aumolertinib really are high-quality medicines with really significant potential that can be best in class, best in combination potential. I think there was a lot of focus on our desire to disrupt the business model, and at some pace, in some cases perhaps we haven't spent enough focus on what these could really mean for patients. I wanted to bring us back to what can these really mean for patients. Great. Well, I think we're just out of time. Really appreciate the comments today. Look forward to the progress this year. Thank you very much, Chris. Thank you.