The Larimar Therapeutics Investor Event. At this time, all attendees are in a listen-only mode. A live question and answer session will follow the formal presentations. To our covering analysts, please use the raise hand feature to be added to the queue. As a reminder, this call is being recorded and a replay will be available on the Larimar website following the conclusion of the event. I will now turn the call over to Alexandra Folias of LifeSci Advisors. Please go ahead, Alex. Thank you, Wilson. Thank you all for participating in today's conference call. Before we start, I would like to point out that there is a slide deck that accompanies today's presentation. It can be viewed using the webcast link provided on the investors page of the Larimar Therapeutics website. Also posted on this webpage is a news release issued earlier today. Before passing it off to company management for prepared remarks, I would like to remind everyone that some of the information disclosed on this conference call contains forward-looking st atements that are based on the company's beliefs and assum ptions, and on information currently available to management. These sta tements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the company's plans and ability to develop and commercialize nomlabofusp, the timing of its clinical trials and BLA submission, interactions and filings with the FDA, and the potential for accelerated approval and time to launch. Other matters regarding the company's business strategies, use of capital and financial position, and other risks described in the filings made by the company with the Securities and Exchange Commission, available at www.sec.gov. These statements are based on facts and factors currently known by the company about which it cannot be certain, and as a result, may not prove to be accurate. The company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements except as required by law. Speaking on today's call will be Dr. Carol Ben-Maimon, President and CEO of Larimar Therapeutics. In addition, Larimar CMO, Dr. Rusty Clayton, CDO Dr. Gopi Shankar, CFO Mr. Mike Celano, and key opinion leader Dr. Marshall Summar, CEO of Uncommon Cures, will be available during the question and answer session following the prepared remarks. I will now turn the call over to Carol. Thanks, Alex. Good morning, everyone. Today is a pivotal day for Larimar. Most importantly for the Friedreich's ataxia community. I'm very excited to share that with the submission of the first module, we have officially initiated our rolling BLA, seeking accelerated approval of nomlabofusp for the treatment of Friedreich's ataxia. We are doing so alongside positive longer-term data from our ongoing open-label study. As we proceed with this presentation, I think you will find some of the data novel and incredibly interesting. Before I begin the formal presentation, I would like to welcome Dr. Marshall Summar. Dr. Summar is the CEO of Uncommon Cures, one of our largest sites and the largest site to enroll pediatric patients. Dr. Summar has 40 years of clinical experience treating rare disease. He built the world's first rare disease center of excellence in partnership with the National Organization for Rare Disorders, or NORD, at Children's National in Washington, D.C. He has been involved in over 220 clinical trials studying rare diseases. He was chairman of the board of NORD for several years. Thank you, Dr. Summar, for being here today. Thank you for all your contributions to those suffering from rare diseases. With that, I would like to begin today's presentation. First, as the data from the nomlabofusp clinical program expands and matures, the results continue to reaffirm the disease-modifying potential of nomlabofusp. We must always keep in mind that nomlabofusp is the first potential therapeutic to target the root cause of Friedreich's ataxia, frataxin deficiency. Skin frataxin levels increase following nomlabofusp treatment. Elevated levels at one year that are comparable to those in asymptomatic carriers. Importantly, these increases are associated with disease improvement across key clinical outcome measures. 13 participants in the open-label study have now completed a year of dosing and assessments. As we further characterize the safety profile of nomlabofusp, it continues to be generally well-tolerated with long-term dosing and anaphylaxis rates consistent with those we saw in September 2025. We will review this data in more depth shortly. Second, following the receipt of minutes from a multidisciplinary type B pre-BLA meeting, the FDA confirmed that our existing data package is sufficient to support a BLA submission seeking accelerated approval. The FDA reaffirmed their willingness to consider frataxin as a novel surrogate endpoint. Approval will be a matter of review. The FDA agreed to receive the submission in a rolling format, which allows us to submit each module as it is completed. Importantly, it is because of our fast track and breakthrough designations that we are eligible to request a rolling submission. We are pleased to share that we have submitted the first module with the remaining modules expected in the second half of this year. This is a tremendous milestone for us as a company. We believe for the FA community. We plan to provide the next update on our BLA submission once the submission is complete. Third, we are on the cusp of starting our confirmatory global phase III study, with dosing of the first patient in the U.S. expected in the third quarter. Note that the patient population of this study differs from our open-label study, as only ambulatory patients will be eligible to enroll. On the financial side, we ended the first quarter with $200 million in cash as of March 31, which we expect provides runway into the second quarter of 2027. We also expect to be eligible for a priority review voucher at the time of approval. With that backdrop, let me provide more detail on the program. A comprehensive data package was submitted to the FDA as part of our briefing package prior to our multidisciplinary type B pre-BLA meeting. Importantly, the FDA confirmed that the existing data package appears sufficient for a BLA submission seeking accelerated approval, and that approval will be a matter of review. In addition to reaffirming its willingness to consider skin frataxin as a novel surrogate endpoint, FDA agreed that our exposure response analysis linking nomlabofusp exposure to clinical outcomes is the type of data that could support the planned BLA, and that prospectively collected exploratory gene expression and lipid biomarkers may provide additional support for the novel surrogate endpoint and mechanism of action of nomlabofusp beyond tissue frataxin concentrations. Lastly, the FDA agreed to a rolling submission, and as I mentioned earlier, we have submitted the first module with the remaining modules expected in the second half of this year. Across our development program, 76 participants have been enrolled, and 66 have received at least one dose of nomlabofusp. To date, more than 10,000 doses of nomlabofusp have been administered in the open label study alone. Given that FA is a rare disease, these numbers collectively represent a robust data set. In the open label study, specifically, 43 participants had been dosed as of this month. 32 had prior exposure to nomlabofusp in an earlier study, and 11 had no prior exposure, a distinction that I will discuss later. Of the 43 participants dosed, 22 remain active and 21 have discontinued. This will also be discussed later in the presentation. Our longest treated participants are now beyond 800 days of daily dosing, which is over two years. We also have approximately 11 additional adults and adolescents in screening, with dosing planned over the next couple of months. For our open label study update, we are pleased to share that we now have 13 participants who have completed one year of dosing. Seven who have completed 18 months of dosing, and three who have completed two years. First, nomlabofusp administration is indeed increasing skin frataxin levels, and those levels are sustained over time. Importantly, they are achieving levels comparable to asymptomatic carriers, with 82% reaching these levels at six months, 100% at one year, and 100% maintained at 18 months. As you may remember, the data to support the use of skin frataxin as a novel surrogate endpoint and the correlation to affected tissues has been published in peer-reviewed journals and has been submitted to the FDA. Second, the increases in skin frataxin are resulting in improvement in key clinical outcomes. Nomlabofusp treatment led to a 2.6 point mFARS advantage over the FACOMS reference group at one year. That widened to a 4.6 point advantage at 18 months. Third, the safety profile of nomlabofusp is well-characterized. Long-term daily dosing of nomlabofusp remains generally well-tolerated in participants taking it for up to 800 days or two years. The most common adverse events continue to be mild to moderate injection site reactions that decrease over time and do not lead to study discontinuation. We have had 10 cases of anaphylaxis, nine of them with exposure to nomlabofusp in a prior study. It is becoming more and more clear that exposure to nomlabofusp followed by discontinuation for long periods of time greater than three to four months, then restarting therapy, increases the risk of anaphylaxis. Collectively, these findings deepen our understanding of the clinical profile of nomlabofusp. As you will hear more today, support the potential of nomlabofusp to be the first disease-modifying therapy for a broad spectrum of patients, including adults and children with FA. FA affects approximately 20,000 patients globally, including roughly 5,000 in the U.S., with a meaningful concentration of patients in Europe. About 70% of patients present before the age of 14. It is caused by a genetic defect on both alleles that prevents production of the critical mitochondrial protein frataxin, resulting in lower tissue frataxin levels. On average, most patients with FA only produce about 20%-40% of the frataxin levels seen in homozygous healthy people. Not having enough frataxin leads to a myriad of debilitating symptoms, including unsteady posture and frequent falling. Symptoms are progressive, typically causing patients to be wheelchair-bound 7-10 years after the initial diagnosis. T he symptoms of FA include loss of musculoskeletal function, blindness, deafness, an inability to speak clearly, and diabetes. Unfortunately, patients with FA have a life expectancy of only 30-50 years, with the most common cause of death being heart disease. nomlabofusp is a recombinant fusion protein designed to directly address the root cause of the disease, frataxin deficiency. We do this by attaching a cell-penetrating peptide to the frataxin molecule, allowing the delivery of the protein across the cell membrane and into the mitochondria. With the exception of the cell-penetrating peptide, the sequence of nomlabofusp is identical to the sequence of endogenous frataxin. Throughout the world, nomlabofusp has earned a strong set of designations intended to expedite development. In the U.S., these include breakthrough therapy designation, participation in the START pilot program, orphan drug designation, fast track, and rare pediatric disease designations. Recall that breakthrough therapy designation was granted in February of this year for the treatment of adults and children with FA, based on preliminary clinical evidence of substantial improvement over available treatment on a clinically significant endpoint. Importantly, outside the U.S., we also have secured a substantial set of designations, including orphan drug and PRIME designations in the EU, and the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway, or ILAP, in the U.K., reflecting the same level of interest in nomlabofusp from regulators around the world as we have seen in the U.S. With that overview, now let's get into the data. Our ongoing open label study is currently evaluating the long-term safety and tolerability, the pharmacokinetics, key clinical outcome measures, and the ability of nomlabofusp to increase tissue frataxin levels over longer periods of time following daily administration of 50 milligrams nomlabofusp. The clinical outcome measures are compared to a matched reference population from the FACOMS database, a longitudinal natural history study that includes patients with confirmed FA diagnosis. The comparison of clinical outcomes to an external control is intended to support the accelerated approval and a finding that frataxin is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit. The study has been expanded to include adults, adolescents, and children two to 11 years of age who have not participated in a prior nomlabofusp study. To give you context on the patient population, you can see from the participant baseline characteristics and demographics that this is a substantially more severe population compared to many other FA trials. The mean baseline mFARS total score is approximately 55, representing participants with severe disease. Approximately half of the participants are non-ambulatory. As of the March data lock, we have 41 subjects in this data set, with two additional patients dosed after the data lock. Of note, you may remember that in last September's data set, there were eight participants at one year. As of March, we have 13 participants at one year. These five additional participants have a lower age of onset and a higher mean FARS score of 60 compared to 51 in the eight participants from September, indicating more severe neurologic impairment in this participant group. Daily nomlabofusp increased skin frataxin levels, which reached steady state by about three months and were sustained over time. On the left, you can see the absolute levels of skin frataxin, and on the right is the change from baseline. The dotted line marks frataxin levels that are 50% of the levels found in healthy volunteers, which is similar to the levels found in asymptomatic carriers. It is worth noting that we measured frataxin levels from both skin and buccal cells, but are focusing on skin following FDA recommendations, since it is less variable than buccal cells and also correlates well with the tissues that matter most in this disease. This slide shows the absolute levels of frataxin in the lower table. The top table shows that 82% of participants at six months and 100% at one year achieved frataxin levels above 50%, the level in asymptomatic carriers. This was maintained in the three participants assessed at 18 months. In other words, frataxin levels go up and they stay up over time. Now to safety. With additional participants and longer-term follow-up, we have a well-characterized safety profile. More than 10,000 doses have been administered in the open-label study, and long-term dosing with nomlabofusp continues to be generally well-tolerated up to 800 days or two years. 13 adults have been on treatment for one year, seven for 18 months, and three for over two years. The most common adverse events continue to be local injection site reactions that are mild to moderate, tend to decrease in frequency over time, and have not led to any withdrawals from the study. In total, 21 participants have discontinued from the open-label study. 10 for anaphylaxis, three for generalized urticaria, which by the way, has not occurred since the implementation of an antihistamine regimen, and eight who withdrew from the study, including three due to other adverse events. Of the 10 who experienced anaphylaxis, nine had exposure to nomlabofusp in a prior study, and one did not have prior exposure. Anaphylaxis has typically occurred during the first three months of dosing. These participants return to their usual state of health after standard treatment with no further sequelae. It is important to note that in the open-label study to date, 11 participants had no exposure to nomlabofusp, and only one of these 11 experienced anaphylaxis, suggesting that there is a much lower incidence of anaphylaxis in participants without prior exposure to the drug. Let's turn to the clinical outcome measures. Since the open-label study is a single arm, we compared our participants against a matched natural history reference group, as well as used the participants as their own controls. From the FACOMS data set, we identified 362 patients whose baseline characteristics, age at symptom onset, baseline mFARS, FARS-ADL, and Nine Hole Peg Test fall within the range of our open-label study participants. Importantly, our methodology for constructing this reference group incorporated the FDA's review and recommendations. Encouragingly, with more participants and long-term follow-up, we are consistently observing improvements across key clinical outcome measures, which are associated with increased frataxin levels. As I mentioned earlier, for mFARS, which is a commonly used 93-point scale that assesses progression in patients with FA and has been used as the primary outcome measure in other clinical trials, we observed a one-point improvement at one year and a 2.3-point improvement at 18 months for treated participants in the open-label study, relative to a 1.6-point worsening in the FACOMS reference population. The 2.3-point worsening at 18 months is a calculated data point based on the rate of change in mFARS over a three-year period. When you look at the difference between the FACOMS and the nomlabofusp treated group, you get a 2.6-point advantage at one year and a 4.6-point advantage over the FACOMS reference group at 18 months. Similarly, directional improvements were observed in the other three clinical outcomes measured against the FACOMS reference population at one year. The Nine Hole Peg Test, measuring fine motor coordination, specifically appropriate in this population, had a 15.6-second improvement versus a 6.1-second worsening in the FACOMS population. This is a particularly important measure in a population of patients who do not have the use of their lower limbs. Strikingly, among the participants who have reached one year, one of six non-ambulatory participants at baseline became ambulatory after one year of dosing. None of the seven ambulatory participants progressed to a non-ambulatory status at one year. In a population this advanced, we are very encouraged to see these benefits in clinical outcomes. Given the advanced state of disease for the majority of participants in the open-label study, we are very excited to see consistent directional improvements across key clinical outcome measures. We believe this is the first time any intervention has shown both increased frataxin levels in patients with Friedreich's ataxia to this extent and demonstrated improvement in multiple clinical outcome measures over time. Here we are comparing the mean change from baseline for mFARS following mFARS treatment to the FACOMS reference group. The FACOMS reference group is the gray curve and shows disease worsening that progresses over time. In comparison, the nomlabofusp treated participants show an improvement that appears to continue over time. Importantly, we are seeing a 2.6-point difference in mean mFARS score for the nomlabofusp treated participants compared to a FACOMS reference group at one year and a calculated 4.6-point difference at 18 months. Although there are only seven participants at 18 months, we are very encouraged to see this kind of disease modification and look forward to seeing the two-year data. This is the data I was referring to in my introduction. Remember, all 13 of these participants were in a prior study that occurred on average two and a half years ago. Hence, we have the baseline from that study and the baseline in the same patient from the open-label study. On these graphs, the dotted lines are the changes over time when these patients were not in trial. The graph at the top left represents the frataxin levels. The frataxin levels, as you can see, do not change when the patient is not receiving nomlabofusp. Once they begin participation in the open-label study, the frataxin levels rise. The other three graphs present outcomes over time for mFARS, FARS-ADL, and Nine Hole Peg Test. You can see that the patients worsen between studies with no treatment, and then improve once they start nomlabofusp. This is very important data as it allows for the patients to act as their own controls. We think this is very exciting, but the story gets even more interesting. This slide shows the same data, the frataxin in the top left, and the three clinical outcomes in the other graphs. Now we break the patient population into three categories based on disease duration. The red line is patients with less than 12 and a half years since disease onset. The green are those with 12 and a half up to 25 years since disease onset, and the purple are those who had disease onset over 25 years or more before entry into the open-label study. Again, you see the patients worsen between studies on no drug, and improve once they initiate nomlabofusp. These findings reinforce the importance of considering multiple clinical outcome measures when assessing the impact of an intervention on disease progression. Particularly in the nomlabofusp program, which includes patients of all ages and at all stages of disease. This slide shows the four clinical outcome measures. Each graph shows the overall participant population at one year on the left. The three other sets of bars represent the breakdown by duration of disease. The blue bars represent those who have improved with one year of nomlabofusp treatment, and the gray bars represent those who have worsened. As you can see on the left-hand side of each graph, a majority of participants improve for all durations and for all outcomes. Of note, the majority of participants improve with treatment in a disease that you would only expect to see worsening. This is an incredibly important result. Looking ahead, our global confirmatory phase III is a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with one-to-one randomization between 50 milligram nomlabofusp and placebo, evaluating 18 months of treatment. We are studying ambulatory patients, a less severe population than the open-label study, and will focus on patients who are two to 40 years of age, with about two-thirds of the participants under the age of 21. We are targeting roughly 100 to 150 patients and plan to have sites in the U.S., EU, U.K., and Canada, and Australia. The primary outcome measures are upright stability in the U.S. and mFARS in the EU, reflecting feedback from both the FDA and EMA, both of which have reviewed the protocol. We have an exciting 12 months ahead of us. We have initiated our rolling BLA and submitted the first module. We expect to dose the first patient in the global phase III trial in the third quarter of this year. We expect to complete the rolling BLA submission with submission of the remaining modules in the second half of this year. If approved, we are targeting a U.S. launch in mid-2027. Beyond the U.S., we intend to pursue development in the EU, U.K., Canada, and Australia throughout 2027 and 2028, including initiation of our phase III activities in Europe. As you heard today, nomlabofusp has the encouraging potential to be the first disease-modifying therapy that addresses the root cause of FA. Nomlabofusp is poised to help shape the treatment landscape across children, adolescents, and adults with FA, and we plan to pursue a broad label. Given that nomlabofusp is designed to address the underlying frataxin deficiency driving FA, we believe it has the potential to be a first-line therapy. Our clinical data continues to reinforce that all patients can benefit from nomlabofusp treatment, with potential for the greatest responses in patients with earlier intervention. Before I conclude, I want to thank our clinical trial participants and their families. Addressing the unmet needs of people living with FA remains our central source of inspiration, and I really commend their bravery and dedication. I also want to thank the FDA for its engagement throughout this process, our employees, partners, investigators, and the patient advocates at the Friedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance, all of whom have helped bring nomlabofusp to this exciting point. With that, I would like to move on to today's Q&A session. Again, we are also pleased to welcome Dr. Marshall Summar, CEO of Uncommon Cures, past Founding Director of the Children's National Rare Disease Institute, and Margaret O'Malley, Chair of Genetic Medicine at Children's National Hospital. We will now open the line for questions. Wilson? Thank you, Carol. At this time, we'll be conducting a live Q&A session. To our covering analysts, please use the raise hand feature to be added to the queue. Please hold for a brief moment while we pull for questions. Our first question comes from Delma Caiati with Guggenheim. Please go ahead, Delma. Hi. Good morning, everybody, thank you for taking our questions. Hi, Delma. Congratulations to the team. Hi, Carol. Thank you. Congratulations for the data. Thank you. Maybe I have a question for Dr. Summar, if I may. Based on your clinical experience, how do you frame the overall benefit risk profile of the drug in the context of a disease like FA? Specifically on the anaphylaxis signal, do you view this risk as manageable in routine clinical prac tice with the current mitigation strategy? Good morning. Thanks. That's a great question, actually, and one I'm not surprised by. From the risk-benefit strategy, given the lethal nature of this disease, it certainly falls within my experience. That would be a very favorable risk-benefit from that standpoint. The other thing too, of course, everyone uses the word anaphylaxis, and they always think of it in the extreme. There are mild forms of anaphylaxis. Some require a visit to the ER, some do not. Having participated in a num ber of recombinant enzyme studies over the years, and mostly in the lysosomal field, I certainly wouldn't view this as excessive or anything along those lines. I also was part of the PALYNZIQ, which is BioMarin's PKU therapy trial, and there we saw more common anaphylaxis in those patients. These are manageable issues that you can use moving forward. When you look at the number of doses administered to these patients, to me, it really does fall within those acceptable parameters from that standpoint. We always just make sure we train the patients well. Of note, actually, though, we get called by the families who had anaphylaxis, which unfortunately meant they had to leave the study. For those patients, actually, people really want to get back on the drug. There were some of our patients that were showing really nice improvement. I think it's a manageable issue. I think, like I said, given the nature of this disease, it's one that the patients are accepting of as well, too. Thank you. That's really helpful. Thank you for your questions, Delma. Our next question comes from Myles Minter with William Blair. Please go ahead, Myles. Thanks everyone for taking the questions, congrats on the data. Maybe just start with Dr. Summar and then one for the company. Dr. Summar, I was wondering whether you can just comment on sort of patient interest in enrolling in the open label study and as we prep up for a phase III for the company, just family and caregivers wanting to put patients into the trial. I ask because there is a 50% dropout rate here from the data for various reasons. If I look back at what the updates were, I think in September through to March, they added two patients. From March through to this quarter, they've added another two. There's 11 patients in the pipe to start therapy. How do you kind of conceptualize real-world interest in nomlabofusp, just given the safety profile? That's the first one. For the company, at the Type B Meeting, did the FDA ask about the number of patients that they'd like to see on the revised treatment protocol? That's the one where you do the test dose, the 25 and then the 50, and the antihistamine pretreatment. Did they specify a number of patients they'd want to see on that protocol to get more comfortable with that potential anaphylaxis risk? Thank you very much. I'll let Dr. Summar start first, and then we'll follow up. That's another good question. Just kind of as a benchmark for this, when we started doing the more intense study last year, we had an enrollment portal where I think we had over 30 patients come in on that. That portal filled within 45 minutes of patients who wanted to be part of the study. I actually think the slowing of the recruitment has to do more with technical issues, getting new sites open. Company's been very good about wanting to try to have patients go closer to home. Of course, as you know, opening up academic sites always takes longer. From that standpoint, I don't really think that the anaphylaxis has put off a lot of patients, not from talking to the community. Realize, too, that I'm heavily involved with Ron Bartek and FARA, I also kind of hear what they're thinking, what's going on there. Once again, like I said, the risk-benefit seems to be very positive from that standpoint, and it's certainly, of the things being developed around Friedreich's ataxia is definitely the most advanced program and one that really cuts to the baseline issue. From our standpoint, we've had good success with patients coming in. I think the numbers being small probably is really just kind of one of those time things you see getting things open, stuff like that. I haven't seen reluctance on the patient part. Myles, I'll give you some color on that as well, and then answer your second question. We have had no problem recruiting patients. Unfortunately, the patients who have had anaphylaxis can't come in, and even some of those patients, and Dr. Summar can speak to that because he's told me this, want to come back in the trial, they just can't. The issue for timing really relates to the fact that we had to amend the protocol for the new regimen. As Dr. Summar alluded to, when you're working with academic sites, it's not just amending the protocol, it means it has to go to the academic IRBs, which can take months to get through, sometimes up to six months. We did not want to enroll new patients on the old regimen. We wanted to make sure everybody was starting on the new regimen. There was a delay for more than a couple of months, where we just could not enroll patients. We've been up and running in the last couple of months. I'll just let people remember that we had 39 patients in the data set, in September. We now have 41, and we have two who have started dosing but are not actually in the data set because of the data cutoff. Patients are starting to come in the trial. We have the 11 now that are in the queue, and they will dose over the next several months, and we'll continue to be enrolling. At some point we'll probably stop, but right now the goal is to get patients in who have not been exposed to the drug, as we really believe that that's the key. The drug is not intended to be stopped for long periods of time. We know that you can stop for a day, a week, a month, very safely. It is not intended to be stopped for long periods of time. That's the goal here. To answer your second question, the FDA has not asked for additional information or amendment on, it didn't even come up, the revised regimen. When we've asked them specifically do they need more information on anaphylaxis, they very clearly said no. They have enough to characterize the drug. I'll just add one quick thing to that, having spent 40 years in academics. Carol's being a little bit generous to those of us who used to do that. It can take a year or more, depending on what's going on with protocols and things like that. Also, the number of calls my staff get, for patients who want to restart or join the study, they've been robust. Makes sense. Congrats on the data. Thanks for the questions. Appreciate it. Thanks, Myles. Thank you for your questions, Myles. Our next question comes from Tess Romero with JP Morgan. Please go ahead, Tess. Tess, you may be on mute. Carol and team, can you hear me? Yep, now we can. Okay, great. Thanks so much for taking our question. Just to double-click a little bit here, what was the tenor of the Type B meeting that you had with the FDA and the minutes that you received? Any other kind of further granularity you'd give us on the topics that you covered? For Dr. Summar, thanks so much for being here as well. Where do you think the discontinuation rate may ultimately come out for a profile like this in the real world? Thanks so much. The tenor was very Look, I'm going to be perfectly frank. I'll give you the details. We actually got the preliminary comments from the FDA, and they were so clear and so non-controversial. They basically said that we should, obviously in legalese words, that we had enough data to submit the BLA. It was a very long set of preliminary comments, mostly focused on what we need to make sure we have in the BLA, in particular with the CMC. Even as detailed as to give us the tables, what the tables should look like. I'm being very frank, we actually did not meet with them because the preliminary comments were so clear, and what happens when you don't meet with them is the comments actually become your minutes. Based on those comments, we have a clear direction from the FDA of what the BLA needs to look like and what needs to be contained in it. We have communicated with them since. We got the rolling submission communication from them. We've had other communications with them. They are totally supportive of submitting the application. They make it very clear that approval will be a matter of review, and we will have to show a benefit risk assessment that makes sense for an approval. I'll tackle the question that was directed at me. This is Marshall Summar. I actually don't think the dropout rate will be significant, or frankly, it will be very minimal given the nature of the disease. Some of the gaps that I think kind of result in sort of an immune priming for these patients did not occur because patients didn't want to be in the study, things like that. I think once you are actually available to the patient community, and I really want to applaud the company for going ahead and doing the pediatric group, because otherwise, I think if you had just an adult-only approval, you'd get a lot of off-label use. I would not anticipate dropout or really any compliance issues given that this is the only game in town right now and the nature of the improvement. Thanks so much. Thank you for your questions, Tess. Our next question comes from Joseph Schwartz. Please go ahead, Joseph. Great. Thanks so much for taking my question. I was wondering, first, if you could just walk us through how many patients anaphylaxed or had anaphylactoid reactions to test dose versus the 25 and 50 milligram doses so we can understand how successful the modified dosing regimen is. Do you expect the label to recommend that patients begin dosing in the clinic? When do you envision that they might be able to, if at all, transition to at-home dosing? Do you think that a REMS will be included on the label? What kind of recommendations will you be making to the FDA when it comes to those issues? Thanks. Thanks, Joe. Good to talk to you. We do not have enough data to really know anything about the modified dosing. My personal opinion is that it's not going to have much of an impact at all. That's an opinion. I don't have the data yet. The reason for that is that I think this is very much related to taking the drug, stopping for six, eight, 10 months, and then restarting it. The patients who were in the older studies, as you saw from the data we presented where we showed the baselines, were off the drug for two and a half years, some as long as three to four years, and then it was reintroduced. I think that's what this is all about. I think what will be in the label is that you shouldn't stop your drug for long periods of time and then restart because you have an increased risk. That doesn't mean you can't restart if you've stopped, because we have many patients who did receive drug in the early studies, had the same length of time hiatus, are in the open label study, and have not had anaphylaxis. The risk increases. It doesn't mean that you can't restart your drug. I think that's an important differentiation. People can restart drug. We know from our own data that people who take a month or two break, they don't have the same increased risk that if you're out over three or four years. I'm much more optimistic that as we get more naive patients in who have not participated in or who have not been exposed, that that will be the best way not to have more an increased incidence of anaphylaxis. Your second question is, I do believe that we will require people to take their first dose in a doctor's office and be observed for several hours. I think that's the right thing to do. I think it's a mild inconvenience to patients, but I think it's important just to make sure there isn't, whether we anticipate an allergic reaction or not, that there's just nothing else that goes on. I think it's important also so that we can ensure that they know how to inject themselves. They know how to draw up the drug, and that they can be observed as they do that. I think those are important learnings. People don't inherently know how to give themselves an injection or a caregiver to give them an injection. I think that will be in the label, but I think it'll be the first dose, and then subsequent doses will be at home. I think there will be something in the label that says that if you do stop for greater than a certain period of time, your first dose when you restart should also be in the doctor's office. With regard to REMS, we have not had those conversations with the agency yet. They need to see the data. They need to look at the risk benefit. There are a lot of drugs out there that have anaphylaxis or have black box warnings for those things, but don't have REMS or h ad a REMS. They don't have a REMS after people get comfortable using the drug. My first inclination is that we will have our first dose in the doctor's office. We will not have subsequent doses in the doctor's office, and I don't know about a REMS yet. Dr. Summar. Yeah, I wanted to add something to that. Which is, there are also some opportunities to look at desensitization that's been used in some of the other enzymatic therapies where patients have had reactions. Even those patients who have had a bad anaphylaxis, or at least anaphylaxis, are not going to be clinically significant. There are actually going to be methods and opportunities to try to work them back into the program as well. Yeah. Thank you for that. Dr. Summar and I, and the company as a whole, and Dr. Clayton as well, have talked about, as we move forward and get more resources, starting to initiate some of those protocols. Thank you. Thank you for your questions, Joe. Our next question comes from Samantha Semenkow with Citi. Please go ahead, Samantha. Hi, good morning, thanks very much for taking the questions. I had two for Dr. Summar, if I may. If nomlabofusp were to receive FDA accelerated approval, I'm wondering how you would approach using it in your center. Specifically, what percentage of your patients would you consider potential candidates for the drug? Then, this has been a discussion, but just to put a finer point on it, given the rates of anaphylaxis appears to be meaningfully lower for naive patients versus those that take a treatment holiday, I'm just wondering how that impacts your thoughts on prescribing and managing patients, particularly given some might require a treatment holiday at some point during their time on therapy. Thanks very much. All right. First off, what I should clarify is I do not practice clinical anymore. I run a clinical research program at this point in time for rare diseases. I would not have new patients coming in to see me on a regular clinical basis. Having said that, however, if I were still in practice, I would see no problem with actually prescribing this. The nicest thing is, since we will have pediatric data, there's a concept known as point of maximal impact when you're treating rare disease. Frankly, in the pediatric population, you want to actually be treating the disease before the symptomatology has progressed. Some of the damage in Friedreich's ataxia is going to be permanent. You would really like to treat those patients before there's evidence for that. Our molecular testing can certainly be helpful, subsequent siblings, things like that, because as you know, many of the patients aren't diagnosed until they're somewhat symptomatic. I would want to treat as early as possible for this patient population. In general, I'll go back to my experience in lysosomal, which goes back to the 1990s. Very rarely do patients take big drug holidays with this type of therapy, mainly because the ramifications are pretty serious for them. Particularly in these families where they've seen the progression of the disease and stuff, they're not going to do that. I do think, though, it's pretty easy to bring the patients in, observe them. If we do have a good desensitization protocol, use that if a patient has been off for a while and is going to restart. Nothing that's, I think, extraordinary or too out of the ordinary for this sort of thing. Thanks, Dr. Summar. Thank you for your question, Samantha. Our next question comes from Laura Chico with Wedbush. Please go ahead, Laura. Thank you very much, and good morning. I guess one clarifying question on the final modules for the rolling BLA submission. I apologize if I missed this earlier. I know that the completion timing is expected in the second half of 2026. Is there any additional clarity you can provide just with the status on those? I guess, what would drive that either closer towards the beginning part of second half versus the latter part? Any clarity on that front? Then, I guess, just with respect to the mid 2027 launch timing, is there still the assumption that priority review would be granted? Thank you. Yep. The modules will be going in throughout the second half. I don't want to give more clarity right now, Laura, until we get a better feel for how they're going to be completed. Obviously, we want to complete them as early as we can and as soon as we can. As we collect data, I'm not talking about clinical data, this is the data that will go into the BLA. Obviously, we're continuing to collect safety, and we're continuing to enroll patients, the data cut that you're seeing now is the data that's going to go into the BLA. We are finishing up, as we've talked about publicly, the CMC section. Want to make sure it's perfect. We see people all the time get CRLs, I want to do the work now so that we don't get a CRL. We'll save a lot of time taking a month or two now, taking our time, rather than waiting then ending up with a CRL. We'll be able to give more clarity as the year progresses, and we will. I don't want to give everybody a blow by blow, because it's just going to be confusing for everybody and not helpful. Once the final, the remaining modules are in, we will make an announcement. What was your second question? Oh, about launch. About priority review time. Yeah. We do expect to get priority review. I think I'd be very surprised given the process we've gone through with the FDA if we did not. We are eligible for sure. With a breakthrough and rare pediatric, I can't imagine that we wouldn't get priority review. Thank you. Thank you for your questions, Laura. Our next question comes from Jonathan Wolleben with Citizens. Please go ahead, John. Hey, thanks for taking the question and the update today. Just wondering, Dr. Summar, if you've had experience with SKYCLARYS as well, and if so, could you talk us through the different responses you're seeing with these drugs? Then Carol, you guys noted an association between frataxin and the clinical outcomes. Wondering if you're able to flesh that out a little bit more with some details. Thanks. I'll let Dr. Summar go first. All right. The experience I have, just from talking to the community is, the other drug, SKYCLARYS, it's really more of a try to prevent deterioration, trying to hold steady, which it is not tremendously effective at. If you think about it, you're not addressing a root problem. You're really addressing mitochondrial instability or dysfunction, which is more of a generic thing from that standpoint. Really, it's kind of apples and oranges. You're comparing different things. I think from the standpoint of actually going straight at the protein makes a lot more sense and frankly would replace it pretty quickly. I'm not really sure there'd be much of a need for th e other as this moves forward. Does that answer your question, Jonathan? Yeah. Sorry, was on mute. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Your second question was? I meant to write it down, Jonathan, I didn't. The association between frataxin and the clinical data. Yeah. We do see correlations. Obviously, these are small numbers, but we showed you some of what we're seeing when we gave you the four graphs with the frataxin levels on the left, and then you can see how the patients respond over time. There are correlations. People may not have picked up on it because I know there was a lot of information provided, but the agency has multiple times highlighted gene expression and lipid profiles. In particular, in the pre-BLA mi nutes, they again brought up that those two outcomes, if correlated with frataxin, which they are, we already have most of that data, can add value to supporting frataxin as a novel surrogate endpoint clinically likely to produce a clinical benefit. They have picked up on some of these other, I don't want to call them biomarkers, but other chemical outcomes that we can look at, such as gene expression and lipids. There seems to be a correlation between frataxin and clinical outcomes, but in particular, some of these other outcomes and chemical outcomes that we can look at, and look at in more patients. You don't have to be out one year to see those kinds of changes. Thank you for your question. Thanks, Carol. Thank you for your questions, John. Our next question comes from Francois Brisebois with LifeSci Capital. Please go ahead, Frank. Okay. Thanks for the question. I was just wondering on that chart, maybe for Dr. Summar here, when you look at the FARS-ADL, the mFARS, the Nine Hole Peg Test data, is there a hierarchy here in terms of those readouts of what is more interesting from a physician's perspective? Sure. Would you mind bringing that slide back up, please? I don't think we can. Yeah, we can. We have. Yeah, we can. There you go. No, keep this one. Is this the one you're talking about? In other words, which one would I pay most att ention? No, the one. This one. Yeah. It's a mix of this one and the next one. Just like. Right. It's both What is mostly. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. There's a couple of things that really stand out to me. Nine-Hole Peg, which most people discount, particularly as these patients have more aggressive disease, and they start to lose their ability to walk and mobility. Nine-Hole Peg is one of those things that you see towards the end and would actually still have room for improvement. That one, oddly enough, I rank fairly high. The other one, interestingly enough, is activities of daily living, the FARS-ADL. One of the things people forget about that is everybody thinks it's just a survey, so what does it matter? The elements that are in there actually require a lot of complex underlying skill sets. It's almost, in some ways, a good composite for what's going on with those patients. The mFARS, obviously, that's become such a good standard and obviously been around for a while. It's been well-developed. Of course, it's the follow-on to the FARS, and it's a refinement of that from that standpoint. If I had to look at it, I'd say particularly for these more severe patients, Nine-Hole Peg, and then the mFARS and the ADL would be the ones I'd look at next. I think if you're looking at a pre-symptomatic group or a group early in symptomatology, I would say ADL and mFARS would then start to climb up in my hierarchy. With the more severe patients, Nine-Hole Peg's a goo d one. Okay. Does that answer your question? Absolutely. Maybe, Carol, if I can ask that you talked about the difference from the September update last time at N of 8 to N of 13. I was just wondering, I think you mentioned that there are more severe impairments here with these patients, just wondering how to read into that impact on the delta seen between namla and the FACOMS on the mFARS. I think that's an important question, Frank, that's why we did the next slide, which was break it out by disease duration. The patients who came in, the additional five into the one-year time point, had a mFARS score of 60 versus 51, which is a real difference, especially because as you get further up in the scale, the change is harder to necessarily measure. I think the take-home message here is really you need to look at multiple different outcomes. mFARS is a very good tool, but it has its limitations, as Dr. Summar just said. In different populations, some of these outcome measures may be more sensitive or less sensitive. I think looking at the overall data set. Not focusing on any one particular data point, but looking at the overall data set and the trends is really important. In an earlier stage, Dr. Summar, correct me if I'm wrong, in an earlier population that has less disease, they may not improve all that much because they don't have as much disease or they don't have as much of a way to go. On the other hand, they may actually improve more on certain outcome measures where they're still struggling because they are symptomatic. If you want to comment, that would be helpful. Yeah, let me comment on that real quick. I think let's take a look at that mFARS graph up there. I like this. While this is the number of years of disease duration, it probably has a little bit of a correlation to age as well, too. Notice the purple line for those who have disease longer than 25 years. Probably the disease has burned its course, so to speak. There's not going to be a lot of room for improvement in those patients. Interestingly enough, in both the less than 25 and the under 12.5, you can see those patients are just starting to deteriorate because their scores have been going up over that 2.5 gap here, and they're stabilizing and actually showing improvement from that standpoint. I think one thing to keep in mind too, once you do get approval here, we're starting to use this in patients who are either pre-symptomatic or early symptomatic. You may not see a lot of move. That's actually a great thing, because if they're starting off with minimal disease, that's where you want to keep them. If they're starting off with almost no symptomatology, you wouldn't. You really wouldn't see much change in these different measures here because they really wouldn't have had a chance to become more symptomatic from that standpoint. Just keep that in mind. I still wish that, FARA, when they had done this, had reversed the scale so that low was not as good and high was bad. There you go. It's counterintuitive when you look at it graphically, but that ship's sailed. Yeah. The other thing I would comment on is if you look at the Nine Hole Peg on this slide, you do see improvement in that population. You also see it with ADLs. That's why I was trying to drive home that mFARS is useful, but you may need to look at different measures in different populations, or at least look at all measures in the different populations. To Dr. Summar's point, you expect these patients to get worse. You don't expect them to get better. The fact that they're flat is even an improvement. No change in this population is still a good thing, quite honestly. I don't know, Dr. Summar, if you want to comment on that. Honestly, I would have considered a win if it was flat. The fact that we are seeing improvement in these was rather surprising to me. I think probably what it means is there are cells left that are not functioning properly, but are still alive. If you actually restore a frataxin, those cells become healthier and may actually show improvement in some of these functional areas. We used to think that with this sort of condition, once you'd lost ability, it was gone. I think there's a reserve of cells that actually you're seeing perform better. That's why I think we're seeing the improvements here. It's certainly not a placebo effect, not with over those time periods. I found that very encouraging. Like I said, I would have considered a win if we'd seen that purple line on the top where it was just flat and the patients didn't get worse. Excellent. That was super helpful. Thank you. You can also see in that chart, the Nine Hole Peg, those error bars are only getting tighter as well on the red line there. Yeah. All right. Thank you so much. That was very helpful. Thank you, Frank. Our next question comes from Catherine Novack with JonesTrading. Please go ahead, Catherine. Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Just wondering if we can get a little bit more detail on the, you've mentioned the ambulation status for some of the patients. For the patient who did become ambulatory, how long had they been non-ambulatory prior to starting nomlabofusp? Is it common for ambulation status to reverse during this time frame? Do you have any frataxin expression analysis to suggest that any of these changes or preservation of ambulation status might be drug-related? Thank you. Yep. It's a pretty interesting question. I want to make it clear. This person didn't get up and run a marathon. Okay. They went from being completely wheelchair-bound to being able to walk with significant assistance. The way the scale works, because this is just a change in a scale, the patient was what is called five. They were bedridden or completely wheelchair-bound, they went to one level less, which is still severely affected with severe ataxia. I don't want to imply that the person got up and just ran away. That's not the case. That said, nobody who was ambulatory deteriorated also. That's an important point as well. I don't want to make more out of this than it is. It's an interesting data point that we obviously have, and it's an important data point, because if you can get somebody who's bedridden up and a little bit mobile, it allows them to at least potentially sit at the dinner table with their family. Again, I don't want to make more of it than a data point. I do think it is an interesting and important observation. All of the patients, 100% of the patients at one year are above the level of asymptomatic carrier. It doesn't really seem to matter whether you're at 60% or 75%, you should be okay. I can't really say that there'll be a correlation. That patient obviously had significant increases in frataxin, and I don't know how long they were wheelchair-bound. We don't collect that information. Carol, can I make a comment on that? Sure. Yeah. With a lot of these different replacement type therapies we do, there's sort of a threshold effect. Once you've sort of stabilized mitochondrial function, once you have resulted so that the cell's either stable or doing regular housekeeping things as opposed to always fighting deterioration, you seem to reach that. Those are always hard points to pick out and can be individual based on genetics and other things that are going on. I suspect that might be the case here. There's probably a threshold effect. Thanks. Thank you for your questions, Catherine. Our final question comes from Chris Chen with Baird. Please go ahead, Chris. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Just one for the team first, just regarding the 11 patients in the queue for the open-label study. I apologize if you might've mentioned this, but can you provide just some more color on how close they are to enrolling, and/or where they are in that process? Then just one for Dr. Summar. You touched on SKYCLARYS a little bit already, but just regarding nomlabofusp's potential approval and usage, do you see any contraindications regarding its use in patients switching from SKYCLARYS? Thank you. Dr. Summar. Carol, you want me to go first, or you want to go first? Yep, you go first. Yeah, I wouldn't see any contraindication to switching on that. In fact, if a patient, for instance, decided to stay on SKYCLARYS, I really wouldn't see it interfering with the therapy or anything like that. Happy mitochondria are happy mitochondria, and if this actually has any potentiation, that's fine. I really wouldn't see an issue with switching from one to the o ther. Chris, I can tell you, we have patients, as you know, who are in the study who are on OMAV, and the safety profile, it seems fine. The big issue, obviously, is going to be third-party payers and convincing them to pay for two expensive drugs. There doesn't seem to be any issue from the standpoint of safety. Go ahead, Dr. Summar. No, sorry, my thing just went on by accident. That's on me. Okay. With regard to the queue, there are these 11 people. That means by saying that they are in screening, they have all signed informed consent. Obviously, not all of them will necessarily pass screening. We do have screen failures intermittently. If they do pass screening, and qualify for the study, they should be dosing over the next couple of months or so. Screening period is about four weeks, a month. I think it's a little longer, Rusty, isn't it? Like maybe six weeks. Six weeks. Yeah, sorry. It's six weeks. Depending upon where they are in the screening process, assuming, again, they pass screening, they'll be dosing in the next couple of months. Great. Super helpful. Thank you. Thank you for your questions, Chris, and to all of our analysts. I'll now turn it back to Carol to close out the call. Thank you everybody for participating in the call. We really appreciate it. We're very, very excited about this data, and we look forward to the next 12 months, and hopefully over the next period of time, we'll be talking more and more about the commercialization process. Thank you for your time, and thank you for your questions. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's presentation. Thank you once again for your participation. You may now disconnect.