First of all, I'd like to thank Anupam for the very kind invitation to speak today. I'd like to thank the entire JP Morgan team for our longstanding relationship. I'd like to thank all of you, actually, for coming and showing your interest in RAPT Therapeutics. So I was told I should share this. This is a disclaimer for forward-looking statements. I will not read through this. So just by way of introduction, RAPT Therapeutics is focused on developing transformative therapies for high-value inflammatory disorders. Our lead asset, called Ozureprobart, is a novel next-generation Omalizumab biobetter anti-IgE designed for less frequent dosing and greater compliance, with the potential for broader efficacy than Omalizumab. We believe that Ozureprobart has the potential to transform the treatment of food allergy as well as other allergic disorders, including chronic spontaneous urticaria or CSU, both of which are estimated to be greater than $40 billion and greater than $5 billion market opportunities in the United States. Late last year, we reported data from a phase 2 study in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, demonstrating 16-week durability, supporting a best-in-class profile across multiple allergic disorders. In addition, we have multiple milestones anticipated over the next couple of years. Our phase 2b food allergy study was recently initiated, with top-line data expected in the first half of 2027. In addition, due to the very positive phase 2 results in chronic spontaneous urticaria, RAPT plans to initiate its own phase 3 study in CSU before the end of this year. The company is well-funded, with cash runway projected through multiple clinical milestones, including the phase 2b food allergy readout. 2025 was a transformational year for the company. From the clinical development standpoint, we received FDA clearance for the IND for Ozureprobart and initiated the phase 2b clinical trial in food allergy. We also reported data from our partner in China, JU, showing positive phase 2 data supporting 16-week durability and a best-in-class profile. We're also very excited to introduce new board members, Lori Lyons-Williams, an executive with significant commercialization experience as our board chair, and also expanded our board of directors, adding Scott Braunstein, MD, as well as Ashley Dombkowski, who's actually sitting in the audience here, two industry veterans with extensive experience in drug development. We also added significant talent to our team, including Jessica Savage, an industry vet who trained under Bob Wood, one of the luminaries in food allergy research. We completed a $265 million follow-on offering to extend the cash runway to mid-2028. We've also expanded our pipeline with the selection of our next-generation CCR4 antagonist. This is the RAPT Therapeutics pipeline. RAPT is focused on the development of Ozureprobart in CSU, which has just completed phase 2, as well as food allergy, and that phase 2 is ongoing. Our outstanding partner in China, JU, is planning to initiate phase 3 studies in CSU this year and completed an asthma study in phase 2, which should enable initiation of phase 3 asthma development this year as well. Let's move to our lead program, Ozureprobart. By way of introduction, this is the mechanism of action of Ozureprobart. IgE is a key driver of allergic reactions and is responsible for many different allergic disorders, including food allergy, chronic urticaria, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis. Upon allergen challenge, antigen-presenting cells result in the activation of Th2 cells, which stimulate B cells to produce allergen-specific IgE. This IgE then binds to receptors on the cell surface of mast cells and basophils, which, upon re-challenge, results in the activation of those cells, leading to allergic reactions and potentially life-threatening anaphylaxis. Ozureprobart works in two ways. The first is that it binds to IgE and prevents its binding to the Fc epsilon receptor I. But in addition to that, it can actually remove IgE that's already bound to the Fc epsilon receptor I. We believe both of these mechanisms are required for full clinical benefit. This strategy of targeting IgE has shown to be highly effective in reducing allergic reactions to multiple food allergens, which has led to a very broad label. This is the result from the OUtMATCH phase 3 study. This is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study of Omalizumab across multiple allergens, demonstrating that Omalizumab can elicit a very high response rate in protecting patients against exposure to these various allergens. You can see here across the primary endpoint, there was a 67% response rate in the patients who reached the threshold for desensitization against peanut allergy versus only 7% in the control. And you can see these results extend to other allergens, including cashew, egg, milk, walnut, hazelnut, and wheat. Based on these data, along with excellent safety, Omalizumab was granted a broad label for all food allergens for patients one year and above. Omalizumab is also the standard care in chronic spontaneous urticaria due to its optimal balance of efficacy as well as excellent safety. Here you can see the urticaria assessment score over seven weeks, the placebo-adjusted change at week 12 across multiple phase 3 trials. What you can see here is that omalizumab elicits a very high response rate on the UAS-7 score change from baseline relative to other mechanisms, including dupilumab, remibrutinib, and rilzabrutinib. Barzolvolimab also shows a high response rate, but may be limited due to some safety concerns. Where does Ozureprobart come in? Ozureprobart is a next-generation anti-IgE biobetter antibody with several potential advantages over omalizumab. Ozureprobart was designed using omalizumab as a template. It was engineered with a longer half-life via the YTE mutation, as well as additional changes in the variable domain to enhance potency and improve drug-like properties. What's essential for the engineering of this molecule is that it shares the same epitope as Omalazumab, and we think this is critical in conveying maximal clinical benefit. In addition, the changes made to this molecule convey with it strong IP. There's composition of matter that has a loss of exclusivity out to at least 2041 without additional patent term extensions or any other formulation patents. So how do these changes translate clinically? Based on our projections, we believe that in contrast to Omalazumab, which is dosed every two or every four weeks, Ozureprobart can be dosed every eight or every twelve weeks. This translates into four-six injections per year for Ozureprobart, compared to 13-26 injections per year of Omalazumab. Keep in mind that this is not a single injection. Many patients taking OMA require up to four injections. So the shot burden essentially is very, very high. But there's another really key advantage here, and this is based on Ozureprobart's higher potency and better PK. And that is the ability to address patients with high IgE and/or high weight. These are roughly 25% of food allergy patients that fall in this category and are ineligible by label for Omalazumab therapy. Based on our projections, we believe we can address these patients and completely address this very high medical need. In CSU, 20%-30% of patients require updosing for full clinical benefit. And due to Ozu's higher potency and PK, we believe we can limit the need for dose adjustment in this population. Finally, we have the opportunity to address the very complex dosing table for Omalazumab, and you'll see that bear out in the next couple of slides. One important point here is that based on our market research, in food allergy, over 60% of patients are actually treated every two weeks. So that's a very high burden for most food allergy patients. How does this translate commercially? We have performed an extensive amount of market research with prescribers, patients, and particularly payers with this target product profile of similar efficacy and safety to Omalazumab, but with much less frequent dosing. The payers immediately understand the value proposition of Ozureprobart. The less burdensome dosing to patients translates into improved compliance, which should lead to better patient outcomes, and that should either be better efficacy in the case of CSU or reduced anaphylactic reactions in visits in the case of food allergy. In addition, they recognize the broader efficacy of Ozureprobart to treat high-weight, high-IgE patients and also limit updosing. What this actually translates to is a price premium above the branded omalizumab due to these differentiated features. So let's talk about Ozureprobart in food allergy. This is a relatively new therapeutic area, so I'm going to take some time to explain this new indication. There is a massive opportunity in the U.S. and across the globe in developing new therapies for patients with food allergy. There are approximately 17 million diagnosed patients in the United States, and 3.5 million of those are children. This puts the prevalence number on the same scale as atopic dermatitis, another very commercially successful indication. Different than atopic dermatitis, though, is that this is potentially life-threatening and results in high economic burden. 3.4 million patients have visited the ER at least once in the past year due to a food allergy-related event. If you put this in the context of other diseases that have been commercially successful, I think you can all see that food allergy is a new and important indication for therapeutic development. Finally, this is an indication that places high socioeconomic and quality of life burden both on patients and their families, with approximately $33 billion expended each year on direct healthcare costs. So this is clearly a problem, and unfortunately, until the approval of omalizumab, it was relegated to fairly old therapies. The standard of care prior to omalizumab was oral immunotherapy. This is an approach where you actually give escalating doses of the food that the patient is allergic to to tolerize the immune response. There are several issues with this approach. The first is that it addresses only a single allergen, in this case shown here, peanut, requires burdensome titration, and often leads to adverse events itself, including anaphylactic reactions. It is also not a cure for most patients and requires daily maintenance to be effective. Omalazumab, which was just approved in February of 2024, has revolutionized the treatment of food allergy. It has several advantages over OIT, including the ability to address multiple allergens outside of peanut, along with a good tolerability and safety record. In fact, in a head-to-head study in the OutMatch trial, Omalazumab was shown to have at least as good efficacy, numerically superior, but with fewer AEs and better compliance. Based on these attributes, there has been extremely rapid uptake in a very short period of time of Omalazumab, with over 85,000 food allergy patients taking Omalazumab in the first year and a half after launch. To put this in perspective, Omalazumab is outpacing other very successful launches in the IgE space, including Dupilumab in atopic dermatitis, as well as Skyrizi in plaque psoriasis. This speaks to the incredibly high unmet medical need in this indication. So this is a very complex slide here, but I think it speaks to two major points. The first key point is that based on the data that's been generated to date, along with our modeling using well-established models that have been published by Roche and Novartis, we believe we can address most food allergy patients with Q12 week dosing compared to Omalazumab's every two-week or every four-week dosing. On the left shows you the Omalazumab dosing table. This is a very complex table based on weight, which is shown on the X-axis, and escalating IgE, which is shown on the Y-axis. Based on the patient's weight and IgE, they're assigned a dose level and a dose frequency. There are eight different dose strengths of Omalazumab, and based on that, they're either given a Q2 or Q4 week dose. Another really important point about this table is that you can see that the high IgE and high weight patients are excluded from the Omalazumab label, mainly because Omalazumab is not able to achieve the appropriate level of target engagement in that population. In addition, patients that have a very high IgE off the table, which is at the bottom of the table here, are also ineligible. 25% of food allergy patients are excluded from the label due to high weight and high IgE, representing a population of completely unmet medical need. When we've modeled Ozureprobart across the same patient categories, up to 600 milligrams, we can cover not only all of the OMA-eligible patient population with Q12 week dosing, but also a large fraction of the OMA-ineligible patient population, with the highest IgE and highest weight patients may require every eight-week dosing. In either case, this is a massive step change for patients with food allergy. We're very excited that we initiated PRESTIGE. This is the food allergy phase 2b trial, late October. This is a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of Ozureprobart monotherapy in adolescents and adults with greater than or at least one documented food allergy confirmed by skin prick laboratory testing, as well as oral food challenge. Roughly 100 patients will be enrolled in this study, allocated two to two to one in an Ozureprobart Q8 week arm, Ozureprobart Q12 week arm versus placebo. There's a 24-week duration of treatment upon which then there's a second food challenge to look at the threshold change, and that will be the primary endpoint for the first part of this study. We then plan to initiate part two, which includes a 24-week extension period, as well as a placebo crossover, followed by a third food challenge to look at efficacy over a 48-week period, as well as to look at the effects of patients who switch from placebo to active drug. The primary endpoint is very much similar to the OUtMATCH study, which the phase 3 study uses as the basis for approval for omalizumab, which is a pre-specified threshold change after oral food challenge. We are activating sites in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, and actually, it's important to point out that omalizumab is not approved in food allergy outside the United States. Top-line data is expected in the first half of 2027, and I'm happy to report that the ramp of this study, while early, has met our expectations, and we are very much on track for delivery of top-line data in this timeframe. I wanted to dive a little bit more into the trial populations and powering assumptions of PRESTIGE. Of the 100 patients that we're targeting to enroll, 75 of those patients will be omalizumab eligible, meaning that they'll fall under the category based on their IgE and weight. This is the primary analysis population with the goal to demonstrate statistically significant efficacy on par with omalizumab. This is power to detect a 50% placebo-adjusted effect size at 90% confidence. We're also, though, very interested in exploring the omalizumab ineligible patient population, and we've actually separated this population into a subgroup. This is a 25-patient-plus subgroup. We have the ability to increase that to 40 patients. It is not powered, but the goal is to demonstrate trends of efficacy in this population. Because these patients have no option, really, we think the bar for success is lower, and that's why we're looking for any trends of efficacy, which we think would be quite exciting, so let's move from food allergy to chronic spontaneous urticaria. We were very excited last year to report results from JU's phase 2 study in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria. These results showed that both the Q8 week and Q12 week arm demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to Omalazumab that was dosed every four weeks, and in fact, both Ozureprobart arms showed numerically superior efficacy to Omalazumab on both the UAS-7 score as well as the complete response score, or UAS-7 equals 0 score, across all time points reported. Notable was that the Q12 week arm, which is represented by a single dose, demonstrated numerically superior efficacy to Omalazumab out to week 16. This is quite notable because the single 300 milligram dose of Ozureprobart was essentially equivalent to four doses of Omalazumab, speaking to the durability of this modified agent. Ozureprobart was well tolerated with no drug-related SAEs or discontinuations and no AEs of special interest, including anaphylaxis. We plan to present additional efficacy and safety data from the study along with our partners, JU, at a future medical conference. These positive data we believe support moving directly to pivotal phase 3 studies. JU and RAPT plan to approach regulatory authorities this year in our respective territories, and both companies are planning to initiate our phase 3 trials this year. Overall, the data support a best-in-class profile across multiple indications, including CSU, food allergy, and other allergic disorders. Let's dive into the data in a little bit more detail. This is the design of the phase 2 trial performed by JU in China. This is a randomized double-blind active control study of Ozureprobart in adult patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria that were inadequately controlled by H1 antihistamines. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline, the UAS-7 score at weeks 8, 12, and 16, and the secondary endpoints reported were the UAS-7 equals 0 or complete response, the ISS-7, and the HSS-7 score. Additional endpoints will be presented at a future medical meeting. 135 patients were enrolled in this study, allocated one to one to one with roughly 45 patients per arm, and this study was enrolled entirely in China. The Q8 week arm of Ozureprobart of 300 milligram was dosed at week 0 and week 8. The Q12 week arm was represented by a single dose at week 0, but there were no additional doses, including at week 12 in this arm, whereas the Omalazumab arm incorporated four doses at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12. Top-line data was reported after this part of the study, and there's an additional 16-week follow-up part of the study off of drug, which will be reported at a future medical meeting. This is the subject disposition. There were 170 patients screened, 137 patients randomized. I think the key point here was that there was a very low discontinuation rate with completers above 90% in every arm, and the reasons for discontinuations were expected, including withdrawal of consent, non-compliance, and for personal reasons, but not related to AEs. This is important to share with you. These are the key demographics and baseline characteristics of the study. I think what's important to point out here is that the mean UAS-7 score at baseline was 29, roughly across arms, representing a severe patient population, and all other parameters were well balanced among groups. In addition, roughly 10% of patients had prior exposure to Omalazumab. These patients were required to have a four-month washout and also could not have discontinued Omalazumab due to efficacy reasons or due to AEs. These baseline characteristics are very similar to studies run in Western countries, and you can see here that the translatability across Asian and Western trials is very strong, particularly for this mechanism of action. So let's show some of the efficacy data from this study. Both Ozureprobart Q8 week, as well as the single dose of Ozureprobart, shown here as Q12 week, showed rapid reductions in the UAS-7 score from baseline. At week 12, you can see that both arms showed a roughly 22-point change on the UAS-7 score, which was numerically superior to Omalazumab at 18.5. The level of efficacy continued to extend, and even the single dose in the red bar here showed continued numerical superiority to Omalazumab. To put this in perspective, Omalazumab typically shows a roughly 18-20-point change at week 12. So the performance of Omalazumab was very similar to studies run in the U.S. as well as other European countries. Looking at the UAS-7 equals 0, this is the patients who achieved complete response, meaning no hives and no itch score. You can see that there was a roughly 32% change at week 8. At week 12, you began to see separation between the Ozureprobart arms and Omalazumab, with 37%-39% of patients achieving a complete response versus 24% of Omalazumab patients. What was very exciting and interesting was that this level of efficacy continued, with now 43%-46% of patients achieving a complete response relative to 33% of patients on Omalazumab. These results compare very favorably to historical data and suggest that there's potential for numerical superiority in this population. This is the safety summary. Ozureprobart was well tolerated with no drug-related SAEs or discontinuations and no AEs of special interest. The TEAEs were well balanced across groups, and there were no new safety findings beyond what was expected from Omalazumab. So this is the milestone slide. We're very excited over the next couple of years. The PRESTIGE food allergy phase 2b study is ramping up, and we are on track to deliver top-line data in the first half of 2027. In addition, we're generating additional PKPD data from the CSU trial ahead of initiating our phase 3 trial in chronic spontaneous urticaria. Our partner, JU, is planning to present data from their asthma study and then initiate phase 3 trials in CSU and in asthma in their territories before the end of the year. So with that, I'd like to thank the absolutely amazing team at RAPT. I'd like to thank our partners, including JU, for their support and the amazing collaboration that we have with them, and for the investigators and patients that are participating on our studies. So with that, I'd like to thank you all and open up for Q&A. Thanks, Brian. I'll ask the first couple of questions, but there will be an opportunity for folks in the audience to get their questions in too. Just raise your hand and you'll get a mic. So Brian, just wanted to ask where you are on site initiation and what will be kind of the geographic breakdown of the phase 2b food allergy study? Yeah, it's a really good question. So we're planning to open sites in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. Just to give you a little bit of color there, in the OUTMATCH study, there were 12 sites that were run from this COFAR group. I think what's very exciting is that all of those sites are participating in our trial, which is great to see. We've also opened sites outside of the U.S., really for the reason that the launch of Omalazumab in food allergy has gone probably better than anyone expected. And so because Omalazumab is not approved outside the U.S., we think there's going to be potentially a greater pool of patients available for clinical trials there. So it's still hard to predict the breakdown in terms of enrollment. We definitely expect to have omalizumab-eligible patients in the U.S., but as a mitigation measure, as a backstop, we have sites planned in Australia and in Canada to make sure we have enough eligible patients. The ineligible patients, there's a very high unmet need. We don't think there's going to be a large problem enrolling those patients. You reiterated your guidance for top-line data from the phase 2b in the first half of 2027. How should we think about, you mentioned in your comments that enrollment's going well, but how should we think about this enrollment curve as you come in initiating sites and things of that nature? Yeah, I think what we can say now is that the level of investigator interest and patient interest is high, and that's translating well into the accrual curve. As you know, typically these things tend to ramp up over time as more and more sites get online, but we're very much tracking with what our projections would suggest to get to that first half of 2027. Of course, we may try to translate that investigator interest if there are additional sites that wish to participate. We're going to be very open to that to accelerate enrollment. Questions from the audience? Hi. You shared very nicely the data in CSU with the sort of one dose equivalent being almost the equivalent of four doses of omalizumab. In food allergy, I guess the levels of IgE are higher. So how confident are you that you can extrapolate that dosing paradigm from CSU to food allergy? Yeah, that's a really good question. So in urticaria, as you know, it's a flat dose of 300 milligram every four weeks. And that was largely based on the overall goal for Omalazumab to target this level of free IgE that's been consistently to show efficacy across multiple indications. It's a sort of magic 25 nanogram per mL target. The 300 milligram Q4 week dose regimen we know is probably not without some issues, right? We know that roughly 20%-30% of patients on that dose do end up in the real world getting updosed due to inadequate efficacy. And I think that speaks to the fact that that one size doesn't quite fit all. In contrast, in food allergy, there's that dosing table, which was really designed to titrate each patient individually based on their IgE level as well as body weight. I think that has led to the very high response rates that you saw in the OUTMATCH study. I think that's the advantage of having that dosing table, which is now you can properly address patients even with very high levels. The issue with OMA, of course, is that the potency in PK is limited. So they're not able to address every patient, whereas OZU, we think, can. All that being said, though, I think there are probably ways to simplify the dosing table. This is certainly something that the FDA is thinking about quite a bit. So can we reduce the number of categories? Right now, it's like over 300. It's something more manageable. Or even switch to weight-based dosing and eliminate the need to measure baseline IG. I think those are all possible. Our plan is to gather the data from the phase 2b study, look at every covariate, and see if we can come up with something that is a lot more manageable for phase 3. Additional questions from the audience? In the back? Thanks for your presentation. Congrats on the progress. Can you comment on the disruption from an MOA standpoint? You mentioned disruption of existing binding of IgE to Fc epsilon receptor I. Is that a differentiation from omalizumab in your view? And if so, what are the clinical implications of that disruption? Thank you. Yeah, it's a really important question. So just to be transparent, Omalazumab also disrupts that complex, and it's not a surprise because Ozureprobart actually shares the identical epitope with Omalazumab. We think the advantage of this is that there's much less risk and a very high probability of technical success because we're essentially mimicking the same mechanism of action that's been well proven across multiple indications. In contrast, we know that other attempts at making next-generation IgE have failed, partly because we believe they used a non-overlapping or a non-identical epitope to Omalazumab, so we think that this molecule was designed in a way that enhances drug-like properties, potency and efficacy, while providing the highest probability of technical success. One of the key questions that we get a lot is just the translatability of China-specific data in CSU to not just CSU global study, but also FA global study. Yeah, I think Omalizumab, I think, has shown, particularly for this epitope, that the translatability between Chinese patients and Western patients is quite good. We saw that in the CSU study where the baseline characteristic and the performance of Omalizumab was nearly identical to what's been seen historically for those studies. In addition, when you look at the labeling of Omalizumab across different territories, including in China, the dosing, safety, and PKPD are nearly identical across labels, so we've heard from the regulators that I think there's significant appreciation that this is a translatable mechanism across age, sex, and also ethnicity. In fact, we were able to move directly from a healthy volunteer study that JU performed directly going into phase 2b study in food allergy, so I think the FDA certainly has recognized that translatability there, and we would expect that to translate also to CSU. Any final questions from the audience? All right. Thank you, Brian. Thank you all.