Thank you for standing by. My name is Jordan, and I'll be your conference operator today. At this time, I'd like to Welcome everyone to the Oruka Therapeutics presentation of interim EVERLAST-B data. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question during this time, simply press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. If you'd like to withdraw your question, press star one again. Thank you. I would now like to turn the call over to Alan Lada. Please go ahead. Thanks, operator, and good morning, everyone. During this call, we'll be making forward-looking statements related to our current expectations and plans for the company and our clinical program. These statements represent our views as of this call and are subject to risks and uncertainties, including the possibility that final or longer-term results may differ from the interim data presented today, regulatory feedback regarding our planned clinical trials, and other risks covered in our SEC filings. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing our views as of any date in the future. Please review the disclaimers in today's presentations and our SEC filings carefully. I'll now hand the call over to our CEO, Lawrence Klein. Thank you all for joining us this morning as we share interim results from EVERLAST-B, our phase IIb dose-ranging study of ORKA-001 in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. When we presented data from EVERLAST-A earlier this year, we showed an efficacy profile that we thought could be a major advance for psoriasis treatment. Today, we're very pleased to share that our candidate showed highly similar results in a second independent study while also generating the dose-ranging data needed to support moving this program forward into phase III studies. I'll start with a brief overview and the headline findings. Then our Chief Medical Officer, Joana Goncalves, will walk through the study and the results. I'll come back to discuss what these data mean for 001 and our development plans, and then we'll open it up for questions. Before getting started, I want to thank the patients, investigators, and study teams who have made this work possible. At Oruka, our mission is to advance the standard of care in psoriatic disease. We think combining very high rates of disease clearance with much less frequent dosing can improve the treatment experience dramatically for patients. Our pipeline is anchored on two co-lead programs targeting IL-23p19 and IL-17AF, mechanisms that we believe will remain the gold standard in psoriatic disease treatment and that are each suited for complementary segments of the patient population. With our IL-23p19 inhibitor, ORKA-001, we envision a regimen with once to twice per year dosing and the potential for rates of response that exceed existing options. We'll share data today from that program that increasingly elucidates this profile. ORKA-002 is our extended half-life IL-17AF antibody with potential for twice-yearly dosing in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and quarterly dosing in hidradenitis suppurativa. ORKA-002 is now in phase II in both psoriasis and HS, with the first psoriasis results expected in the first quarter of next year. We are encouraged by the continued success and adoption of the first approved IL-17AF inhibitor, BIMZELX, and believe that a long-acting option in the IL-17 class could be something very new and beneficial for patients. In addition, our pipeline now also includes ORKA-004, an extended half-life TL1A antibody that creates opportunities for combinations with both of our co-lead programs. Following healthy volunteer studies, we plan to initiate our first phase II combination study with ORKA-004 sometime next year. Today, the focus will be on EVERLAST-B and the week 16 results from that study with 001. The headline result for today is that the 600 milligram dose delivered 61% PASI 100 and 86% PASI 90 at week 16. Those results are highly consistent with EVERLAST-A. We now have two studies showing complete skin clearance in more than six out of 10 patients and an extremely high rate of PASI 90 or near clearance with a favorable safety profile consistent with the IL-23p19 class. The body of safety evidence continues to grow, and we have now dosed over 250 subjects and accumulated over 100 patient years of experience with ORKA-001, increasing our confidence in the profile we have observed. EVERLAST-B also gives us the dose-ranging evidence we set out to generate. The 600 milligram dose produced the highest rate of complete clearance, and we plan to advance that dose into phase III in the first half of 2027. Our vision remains an annual maintenance regimen with a six-monthly option. The next important test of that goal is the week 52 EVERLAST-A readout coming in December. Taken together, we think today's data are a substantial step forward for the program. With that, I will hand it over to Jo to walk through the results. Thanks, Lawrence. EVERLAST-B is a randomized, placebo-controlled phase II-B study designed to support phase III dose selection and further evaluate ORKA-001 efficacy and safety in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. The study was conducted at 36 experienced sites across the U.S., Canada, Germany, and Spain. Fewer than 30% of the sites overlapped with EVERLAST-A. This provides an opportunity to evaluate the same high-dose regimen in a new group of sites with a broader geographic footprint and in the context of a dose-ranging study. As in EVERLAST-A, the eligibility criteria were closely aligned with prior IL-23. Participants were adults with a PASI score of at least 12, at least 10% body surface area involvement, and an IGA score of at least 3. Prior exposure to an IL-23p19 inhibitor was not permitted. These criteria allow us to study a population similar to those enrolled in the clinical development programs for established psoriasis therapies. The study enrolled 187 participants, randomized in an equal ratio across three active regimens and placebo. The high-dose group received 600 milligrams at week zero and week four, the same induction regimen evaluated in EVERLAST-A. The middle dose group received 300 milligrams at those same time points, and the low-dose group received 37.5 milligrams at week zero only. All doses were administered subcutaneously. We deliberately studied a broad range of doses to understand the relationship between dose and clinical response. The primary endpoint was PASI 100 at week 16, which represents completely clear skin. We continue to believe that complete skin clearance is the most meaningful goal for patients and dermatologists, and it is particularly useful in distinguishing the performance of highly effective treatments. Beyond induction, EVERLAST-B will also provide information on durability. Participants who achieve PASI 100 at week 28 are re-randomized equally to annual 600 milligram maintenance or to a group that receives no further dose until disease recurrence. Participants who have not achieved PASI 100 at week 28 receive 300 milligrams every 6 months. The placebo group then crosses over to active treatment at week 16, with annual maintenance planned as part of the open-label extension. This design allows us to assess how long clearance persists after induction and also allows us to gather additional evidence on annual maintenance dosing, on dosing every six months for those who may need more frequent dosing, and on periods without further treatment. Today, we'll focus on the week 16 induction results. Baseline characteristics were broadly balanced across the treatment groups and typical of moderate to severe psoriasis populations. Disease severity was also comparable to EVERLAST-A, though it is worth noting that the participants in the 600 milligram dose group in EVERLAST-B were on average 9 kilograms or 20 pounds heavier than the comparable group in EVERLAST-A and had a higher incidence of prior biologic use. Seeing similar results in these two patient populations increases our confidence that the efficacy results with the high dose are reproducible across different baseline characteristics. Turning to the primary endpoint, the high-dose group achieved the highest rate of complete skin clearance, with 61% of participants reaching PASI 100 at week 16. In the mid-dose group, 44% reached PASI 100, and 43% in the low-dose group, while no participants on placebo reached PASI 100. IGA 0, which also represents completely clear skin, was identical to PASI 100 across the groups, supporting the robustness of the assessments in this study. For PASI 90, both the high and mid-dose groups achieved response rates in the mid to high 80s, while the low-dose group was 70%. None of the participants in the placebo group reached PASI 90. IGA 0/1 response rates were similar to those for PASI 90 across groups. The high response rates across endpoints observed with the 600 mg dose, together with the consistent results from EVERLAST-A and the safety findings, which I will review shortly, support our plan to take the 600 mg dose forward into phase III. The pattern of response for the 600 mg dose shows remarkable consistency from EVERLAST-A to EVERLAST-B. As you can see in the slide, overlaying the response curves from the two studies, the trajectories track very closely through week 16 for both PASI 100 and PASI 90. That consistency is especially encouraging given the limited site overlap and the addition of European sites in EVERLAST-B, and it gives us confidence in the efficacy profile we have observed. We also see similar results across other measures, including IGA 0/1, responses in the mid-80s, and PASI 75 responses in the mid-90s in both studies. In each case, the response rates in EVERLAST-B were within a couple of percentage points of those in EVERLAST-A. The alignment across these endpoints further establishes the reproducibility of ORKA-001's efficacy profile as we move towards phase III studies. In terms of safety, ORKA-001 was well-tolerated, with findings consistent with the IL-23p19 class. In the pooled ORKA treatment group, rates of treatment emergent adverse events, severe treatment emergent adverse events, and serious events were comparable to placebo, and none of the SAEs were considered treatment-related. Notably, no dose-dependent trends were observed. The most frequently reported adverse events in participants receiving ORKA-001 were upper respiratory tract infections and headaches, occurring at rates comparable to those observed in studies of approved IL-23 inhibitors. There were no injection site reactions in any of the ORKA-001 groups. As a reminder, we saw zero injection site reactions in EVERLAST-A as well. Overall, these results support the favorable safety and tolerability of ORKA-001 that we have seen to date. The 600 mg dose demonstrated the best benefit-risk profile, and we therefore plan to advance it into phase III. The next major ORKA-001 update will be the week 52 data from EVERLAST-A in December. Those results will help us assess how well the response persists over a full year and further support the potential for annual dosing. Pending discussions and alignment with regulators, we plan to initiate Phase III in the first half of 2027 using the 600 mg dose. We plan to release additional results from EVERLAST-B in the second half of 2027, once participants have completed week 52 of the ongoing two-year study. We are very encouraged by the consistency of the results across these studies and by the opportunity to bring this profile into a pivotal Phase III program. I will hand it back to Lawrence to discuss what we believe this could mean for Oruka. Thanks, Jo. Across EVERLAST-A and EVERLAST-B, more than 100 participants have now received the 600 mg induction regimen in two independent studies with highly consistent results. Pooling those results gives us approximately 63% PASI 100 and 84% PASI 90 at week 16. That is a remarkable level of efficacy for an IL-23 inhibitor, essentially the highest level of efficacy ever seen in this indication. The dose ranging results give us a clearer basis for moving forward with 600 mg as our chosen phase III dose. For Oruka, the importance of today's readout is the confidence it adds in the ORKA-001 profile as we prepare for phase III and the next assessment of long-term durability. Putting the results in context, this slide shows the EVERLAST studies alongside relevant trials for other IL-23 inhibitors, SKYRIZI, TREMFYA, and the recently approved daily oral ICOTYDE. While we acknowledge the limitations of cross-trial comparison, what stands out is that both EVERLAST studies show an efficacy profile above the historical experience with prior IL-23 inhibitors and among the highest response rates observed for any mechanism in psoriasis. On complete skin clearance, the separation from SKYRIZI and TREMFYA is roughly 20 percentage points. We also see a substantial difference on PASI 90. Compared with the daily oral option shown here, roughly twice as many patients achieved complete clearance at week 16. This is unprecedented efficacy for an IL-23 mechanism, particularly when it comes with the potential for once or twice yearly administration. It is becoming increasingly clear that ORKA-001 could offer a very compelling trifecta of disease control, safety, and convenience. Our body of experience with ORKA-001 continues to grow. We have now reproduced very high rates of complete clearance in two independent studies. On the tolerability side, we've observed a profile consistent with the IL-23p19 class and no injection site reactions across several hundred administrations. We have also seen no apparent impact of anti-drug antibodies on PK efficacy or safety. The approximately 100-day half-life we've observed in healthy volunteers supports the potential for annual dosing. The clinical durability data are the next piece of that assessment, and December's readout will be our first look at direct evidence for annual dosing potential. We're preparing to move quickly into phase III with the aim of bringing this treatment option to patients as efficiently as we can. New and improved biologics in psoriasis have repeatedly become highly successful commercial products. Successive improvements in efficacy and dosing have created multiple franchises with annual sales of $5 billion-$10 billion or more. The products on this chart illustrate just how much value has been created by improving treatment for people with psoriatic conditions. With ORKA-001, we think there's an opportunity for a substantial further advance. We've seen the potential for higher clearance rates than the leading IL-23 therapies, and we are working towards a maintenance schedule as infrequent as once per year. We believe patients would find that profile extremely attractive. We also think it could be compelling for physicians who want to maximize disease control while reducing the burden of ongoing treatment. If we can deliver that combination, we believe that 001 could have a category-winning profile in a very large market. Now bringing it back to the full picture for Oruka, we have several important milestones coming in close succession. The Week 52 EVERLAST-A data are expected in December, followed by phase III initiation in the first half of next year. In addition, we will see the first phase II results for ORKA-002 in psoriasis in the first quarter of 2027. ORKA-002 is also progressing in HS, and we continue to see substantial potential for that program across multiple indications. Finally, we expect ORKA-004 to enter phase I around year-end, with combination studies expected to begin in 2027. Our cash balance of more than $1 billion at the end of Q2 is expected to provide runway through an ORKA-001 BLA filing, allowing us to pursue these plans from a strong financial position. We are very pleased with what EVERLAST-B has shown us thus far. We have reproduced a highly differentiated efficacy profile, added to the safety experience, and generated the dose-ranging data to support the next stage of development. Thank you again to everyone participating in our studies, and to all of you for joining us today. With that, I will hand it back to the operator, and we would be happy to take your questions. Your first question comes from the line of Yatin Suneja from Guggenheim Securities. Your line is live. Hey guys. Let me add my congratulations. Very good results, clear applications of the data from two studies now. A couple questions from me, if I may. First one is regarding, obviously there is a lot of focus on the 52-week data. I would love for you to maybe articulate a little bit about how should we think about the 52-week data going forward. The second question is more around your phase III program. Given that the profile of ORKA-001 looks clearly superior, not only on convenience but on efficacy, close to 20 point better, is there a potential for doing some form of, or conducting some form of a head-to-head study, whether it is TREMFYA or SKYRIZI? How do you think about that? Obviously, the data look as good as an IL-17. How does it change your conviction or view on your second asset, ORKA-002? Thank you. Thanks, Yatin. So three parts there. We will go through each of them. I think with the 52-week data, today, we are thrilled with these 16-week results and the reproducibility across two independent studies. I think it is really fantastic and speaks to a really important part of the differentiation we think we can provide with ORKA-001, really unprecedented activity in an IL-23 mechanism. We are excited that fairly soon now we will get some clinical data to suggest just how many patients can do well on a once annual regimen. I think with the PK we have observed, we have quite a high degree of confidence that this can be a once per year administered medication for at least some percentage of patients. The question will be, can it really be a once a year for essentially everyone with a six-month option just to provide the flexibility, or is it more of a once a year with a six-month option for people who need it type of profile? When we look at the 52-week data, the arm from EVERLAST-A, now that is going to provide the clearest evidence of that is the group that were clear at week 28 and then go forward with no additional dosing. There is benchmark data that you can look at to sort of say, what is perfect maintenance in that group, which is around we think around 80% maintenance of those PASI 100s, and then what is a range where you might have a once per year regimen with a six-month option. We are very excited to be approaching that readout and really at that point, I think have a very full picture of all three legs of the stool of differentiation that we could provide with this asset. On your second question, in terms of phase III, that is something we are working on right now, and we are obviously going to engage with regulators to finalize phase III plans. Choice of comparator is a very important aspect of that, and we plan to have an active comparator in that study. It is of course with results like these, really exciting to think about potentially running it head-to-head against a leading IL-23p19 inhibitor. There are, of course, multiple different aspects that go into that decision, and it is really about maximizing the benefit and risk you are taking in a phase III study. So it may not make sense to do something like that in phase III. But that's something that we're working through, and we'll share more detail on that once we've discussed with regulatory authorities. On your third question, in terms of ORKA-001 and ORKA-002, I think what we've seen here is efficacy that's essentially at the ceiling that's been reached in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Considering the amount of development that's been done in this disease, that's pretty remarkable in the type of profile we have. It really is on par, we think, with BIMZELX, which has sort of set that ceiling. It's, of course, a very different profile, an IL-23p19 versus an IL-17A/F, play different roles in the indication space. We love the opportunity to have potentially both ORKA-001 and ORKA-002 available in psoriatic disease. We think they ideally fit complementary portions of the patient population, where IL-17s play their best role in individuals with concurrent psoriatic arthritis, which is a sizable segment of the population, 25%-30% of people with moderate to severe skin disease. So we continue to see a fantastic opportunity for both of these product candidates in the psoriatic disease space, and we think it could be a huge strength to potentially have the best biologic for any patient with psoriatic disease. That's what we're trying to create. Amazing. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of David Risinger from Leerink Partners. Your line is live. Thanks very much. Let me add my congrats on the results. I guess it would be helpful to just get a little bit more color on a couple of the things that were already discussed. Specifically, Lawrence, if you could talk about the range of possibilities for the 52-week results. Then second, I heard your comments on potentially having an active comparator in phase III, but I thought that you previously said that that wasn't necessary and was unlikely. If you could provide some more color on that as well, that would be great. Sure. Thanks, David. I'll take the second part first. I don't think we've ever said it would. I think we've always said we'd have an active comparator. I think it's just a question of what that active comparator would be. I don't think we've ever, we haven't locked down our phase III designs. We need to discuss with regulators. I think the decision there would be, do you run head-to-head against another IL-23p19, or do you run head-to-head against something that's, for instance, going to be biosimilar on the timeline that we intend to launch? I think there's different puts and takes in how you think about the benefit in terms of access and adoption versus risk of always having some amount of unpredictability in a head-to-head study like that and also the size and cost changes with how you'd have to power things. That's something we're working through and won't be too long before we share all the details on those designs in the future. In terms of 52-week, I think we've been pretty clear on kind of viewing it as two categories, where you could say if we see close to 80% maintenance in that no-dose arm of the PASI 100 and minimal disease in people who do see some fluctuation, that could be perfect maintenance, essentially. That's on par with a frequently dosed maintenance regimen, what you see. That could be a once-a-year product for basically everyone. We still would want a six-month option on the label, we've always said that, because this is a preference-driven market, and having flexibility, we think, would be beneficial. We do believe that there's a very meaningful window south of that, where you would have a once-a-year product, a once-a-year medication, which keep in mind, there's never been a once-annually dosed medication for a chronic immune disease. We think that would be incredible to even have something like that available for the first time in an indication space like this. But a profile where you'd say this is a once-a-year product, and then if you do need 6-monthly maintenance, we have that available in order to maintain your desired level of response. We think there's a window, call it 50 up to that 80% maintenance, where you'd state the majority of people will do great on a once-annual maintenance. Keep in mind, PASI 100, clear skin, extremely high bar for efficacy. Many patients, very happy with responses even in the kind of PASI 90 range. We think of it as those two categories. If it is south of that, it is probably a twice-a-year dose regimen. But I think we have always said, based on the PK that we see, we would be surprised to be in that category at this point. Got it. Super helpful. Well, congrats again on the results this morning, and we will look forward to the additional update soon. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Tyler Van Buren from TD Cowen. Your line is live. Hi, this is Sam on for Tyler. Congrats on the data, and thanks for taking our question. I was wondering if you could just provide some additional color on the low-dose efficacy you saw. Were you surprised to see it achieved comparable efficacy to the 300 mg dose, or is that what you expected based on either trial IL-23 data or modeling of the exposure-response relationship? Thank you. Sure. Thanks, Sam. Yeah, I think if you haven't looked at a lot of prior IL-23 data, the 37.5 mg response could look surprising. I think if you look back at some prior dose-ranging evidence, there's clearly this dynamic where a small amount of IL-23 inhibitor can lead to pretty significant responses. But then to drive the optimal response, you need much higher exposures. We point to, for instance, the SKYRIZI phase II, they tested 18 mg delivered once, and that, of course, has a much shorter half-life than 001. If you compare those on an exposure basis, we're about four times higher. That low dose of SKYRIZI reached 15%-20% PASI 100 and 50% on PASI 90. The fact that at four times higher than that, we're seeing the efficacy we see here, is in the range of what we thought was possible for that dose. Part of the reason we went that low to give a higher degree of confidence it would separate from our desired phase III dose. Do you have the next question? Your next question comes from the line of Alex Thompson from Stifel. Your line is live. Hi. Yeah. This is Patrick Culliton. Thanks for taking the question and congrats on the data. I guess, just on the phase III, 600 mg is the take-forward dose. Are there any expectations to test the single-dose arm? And maybe what would you expect from a single 600 mg dose? Thanks. Sure. Thanks for the question. Yeah, no, I think we would always qualify by saying it's our desired dose right now is the 600 week zero, week four. We've got to have those discussions with regulators and align on path forward. But I think we believe this data set is highly supportive of that decision. We like the 0/4 regimen. We think it's an opportunity, and we've done a lot of market research on this. We think it provides an opportunity at that one-month mark to check in with the physician and see how just the responses are starting out. We do see pretty significant responses at the week four mark in a lot of patients. So we've always liked that as an induction regimen. I think all current or the vast majority of current regimens are dosed that way, and there's a lot of familiarity with it. We don't have any plans to pursue a single dose. Next question. The next question comes from the line of Yasmeen Rahimi from Piper Sandler. Your line is live. Hello, this is Kishan on for Yas. Congrats on the outstanding data. Just had a quick question about how should we think about the expectations for EVERLAST-B going into the second half of 2027. Thank you. Yeah. So, 52-week data, second half of next year. We've got a lot of exciting stuff between now and then that we'll be focused on. But I think there'll be some similarities to what we're seeing with EVERLAST-A when we go out to that year mark. So this one, again, separates into two different arms. So if subjects have PASI 100 at Week 28, we have a no-dose arm, and then we have a one-year maintenance arm, whereas in EVERLAST-A, it's a six-month maintenance arm. So at the 52-week mark, you'll have a lot of subjects that haven't received a dose for a year, and I think that'll be exciting to see how responses deepen and then sustain in that population. So that'll be the primary thing we'd be looking at at that point. Great. Thanks so much. Next question. The next question comes from the line of Michael Yee from UBS. Your line is live. Great. Thank you. Maybe two questions since we have pretty much reviewed the strong data in psoriasis today. Maybe two different questions. On the IL-17AF data, your second asset with some exciting data coming up in Q1. The range of the competitors, they may have a range of PASI data. Can you just comment on your expectations for similar PASI efficacy, similar tolerability, and would you comment in your disclosure around any psoriatic arthritis data that you might have in that readout in Q1? That is the first question. The second question is more strategic. Previously, I think this summer, you previously had a very nice disclosure around the change in the licensing agreement with Paragon, allowing you to also do IBD in the future, and I think your other related company also sort of amended their licensing agreements. Can you just remind us, as that was due to various business development topics that had come up and sort of the rationale around that, given that your efficacy looks super strong here. Naturally, the question is, well, what does that mean in other indications? Thank you. Sure. Thanks, Mike. Yes, so excited to first quarter of next year is the plan to release data from ORCA-SURGE, which is our phase II study, with ORKA-002 in psoriasis. I think it is interesting what we have seen here with ORKA-001. Efficacy looks very similar to BIMZELX in terms of week 16, low 60s PASI 100, mid-80s PASI 90. Leads us to wonder whether that is sort of the ceiling you can reach by inhibiting the IL-23, IL-17 axis. That sort of fits with what we have seen with BIMZELX. If you look at the exposure response, it looks like they are sort of maxing that out at their current dosing. So it could be that sort of complete shutdown of the pathway, what you tend to see. There is some variation in the BIMZELX data. Our phase II has three different dose arms, fairly well-matched to the BIMZELX phase II dose-ranging data. It is around 160-subject study, so 40 patients per arm. I think generally what we are looking for in the efficacy profile is to see something that looks similar to the BIMZELX activity. Of course, in a study that size, you might see some variation from arm to arm, but we are expecting an overall picture that looks consistent. Do not have expectations for higher efficacy, because as I said, there does not seem to be room in the exposure-response relationship there. We think that a long-acting entrant into the IL-17 class could be extremely impactful. On tolerability side, again, we'd expect to see something in the range of what they've seen on. I think oral candidiasis is probably the event that will get the most attention, but just overall, we'd expect to see a tolerability profile fairly consistent with that. Maybe at the end, I'll let Jo comment on whether there's any psoriatic arthritis assessment in that. On the TL1A amendment, that was a deal that we struck together with Paragon and Spyre to essentially open up potential use of ORKA-001 for us in any indication, including IBD. That was sort of a long-term desire, I think for both companies, to have access to all indication rights eventually for that candidate. We don't have any near-term plans to start an IBD study, and in fact, in that agreement, we're restricted from doing that until, at the earliest, the middle of 2028. But excited to have that opportunity longer term. We are branching out now with our HS study with ORKA-002 which started earlier this year. Then do intend to branch out beyond that as well with combinations with ORKA-004 and the breadth that our pipeline could offer. I'll come back then to ask Jo to comment on whether there's a psoriatic arthritis assessment in the ORCA-SURGE study. Yeah. We're just looking at baseline PSA and not really following in the phase IIs. That's certainly something that we'll continue to explore in the phase IIIs and do a little bit more in the phase III program. These studies are too small to look at that. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Roger Song from Jefferies. Your line is live. Great. Congrats for the data, and thank you for taking the question. Given the timing of the phase III start first half next year, and then you will have data from EVERLAST-B, 52 weeks, second half. Just curious, what kind of data will make you to further enhance the phase III design, if anything, you can incorporate that based on the EVERLAST-B 52-week data? Thank you. Maybe I will ask Jo to take that one as well. Thanks. Okay. We have all the data. I am just going to pause and see if we can see what that is up to. Okay. All right. Let me try again. There is an echo at the- Roger, do you mind going on mute quickly? Yeah, already mute. Okay, let me try again. There still seems to be a bit of an echo. Jo, I can take it if- Okay. Yeah. Is that better? Okay, sorry about that. Importantly, I think the data that we required for the phase III program was the dose selection, and that is what EVERLAST-B has provided us with. We believe we have a strong case in taking the 600 mg as our proposed dose. With that, we are actively in preparation for our end of phase, and look forward to phase III in the first half of next year. Your next question comes from the line of Sam Slutsky from LifeSci Capital. Your line is live. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions, and congrats on reproducing the phase IIa data. A couple for me. I guess as we think about phase III maintenance and getting both the six-month and 12-month dosing regimen potentially on label, would that dosing strength be the same in maintenance, or would they differ? A reminder on plans for in-clinic versus at-home use commercially and the commercial benefits of having both options. Just real quick on ORKA-002, just how you are thinking about the speed of indication expansion, given BIMZELX seems to do great on the launch across indications. Thanks. Sure. Thanks, Sam. Yes, we definitely want a phase III design that could allow us to get both annual and twice-a-year dosing on the label. We think we have an efficient plan to do that, but that is one of the key aspects of the design that we want to discuss with the FDA, and then we will share more details on what that plan looks like once we have that engagement and alignment. In terms of in-office versus at home, that is another one where we think there is an opportunity to potentially offer both of those options, and we think there is clearly a desire, opportunity for in-office administration, medical benefit access to psoriatic disease medications that is apparent in the market. Todd Edwards just joined us as our Chief Commercial Officer a little earlier this year, has a lot of experience in this field, and he's digging into those opportunities and helping us understand how we maximize the potential of ORKA-001 across potentially both of those channels. More to come on that, but we definitely do see an opportunity for both of those channels. On ORKA-002 indication expansion, that's something we're excited to be already embarking on with the HS study. I think we view PSO, PSA, and HS as the top three indications that we would certainly want on label eventually for ORKA-002. I think PSO and HS make sense as the first two to go after, because I think people understand that there's activity in PSA if you show the PSO results. But we would want to seek that label eventually as well. There's some other indications we could think about exploring beyond those three, but for now, those would be the focus. Got it. Thanks. Your next question comes from the line of Julian Harrison from BTIG. Your line is live. Hi, good morning. Congrats on these data, and thank you for taking the questions. A few from me. First, I am wondering if you saw any relationship between efficacy and patient weight in the 600 mg arm of EVERLAST-B. Second, you had more biologic-experienced patients in B versus A, but still had a pretty resilient top-line efficacy result. Have you had a chance to look at the naïve versus experienced subgroup efficacy in EVERLAST-B yet? Is there anything notable there? Then finally, I know this is a call focused on ORKA-001 in psoriasis, but I am curious if you have any reflections on ORKA-002's potential as a monotherapy in hidradenitis following an IL-1 phase III data set shared last week. Sure. Jo, do you want to take those on subgroup and then I will speak on HS? Yeah. Thank you, Julian. I think first of all, we were really pleased that the patients that we enrolled in this study are very consistent with patients in moderate to severe psoriasis. There is always a little bit of variability across the groups, and we looked at the different subgroups, and there was really nothing there. I think importantly, when you look at historical data in psoriasis studies, baseline characteristics really do not play an impact on the outcome and the efficacy. As you saw in the 600 mg, I think this is a really nice bit of evidence to demonstrate that. When we look at EVERLAST-A, as you pointed out, the weight was a little lower, 10 kg lower, and the prior biologic use was less compared to EVERLAST-B. Despite that, the efficacy was replicated in A and B. That really gives us a lot of confidence that what we have seen here is a true effect of the drug and that these baseline characteristics really do not have an impact on the outcome. On IL-17, ORKA-002 in HS, we think there's a huge opportunity. We're watching, obviously, what BIMZELX is doing. It's incredible. I think there's only a few clinical TL1A inhibitors out there and really nothing long-acting in the IL-17 class. We get fantastic feedback for a quarterly-dosed option. I think 17-AF remains the leading target in that indication. We don't see that changing in the near future. We do think it's an indication that's going to support multiple different mechanisms of action, and it's going to grow considerably here as there are more treatment options available for patients, and it's a really exciting time for that field. We do think the TL1A data is probably the next best relative to 17-AF, and less experience obviously with it, but exciting data there recently. So excited to have ORKA-004 coming as well and look at potential combinations down the road. We see a huge opportunity with ORKA-002 monotherapy in psoriatic disease, absolutely in patients with concurrent psoriatic arthritis and then in HS. So very excited about that program. That concludes the question and answer session. I would now like to turn the call back to Lawrence Klein for closing remarks. Okay. Well, thanks everyone for joining us today. Exciting day for the company, and hope you all have a great rest of your day, and we'll see you again soon for more data from Oruka. This concludes today's meeting. You may now disconnect.