Great. Thanks everyone and welcome to our Investor Day. This is the first time we've hosted one of these investor days in 5 years, so we thought it was particularly timely for us to do it, given the recent approval of DAXXIFY in aesthetics and more recently in therapeutics, and where we are in our commercial journey. So we're really excited today to share with you where we are on the journey, why we have conviction and confidence in both our strategy and opportunity for success that we have going forward. And before I jump into the agenda and everything, I'd also like to welcome Valérie Taupin, our... The CEO and founder of Teoxane, and we're very fortunate to be in partnership with Valérie and the RHA line of fillers. So thanks Valérie for making the trip from Europe over here and for being such a supportive shareholder as well. In terms of the program that we're going to cover, we'll start out with the overall aesthetics market. We have an opportunity to have an esteemed group of clinicians here who are going to go through a Q&A session, so you can ask them questions along the way. Then we'll take a brief break. We'll then go into the therapeutics opportunity and map for you how we see the therapeutics opportunity unfolding, talk about some of our future growth opportunities, financial overview, and then ultimately closing. Before we get into the meat of the presentation, we need to put up our forward-looking statement, as we're going to make some comments about the future that may or may not ultimately line up exactly as we see it today, and so wanted to put that forward. So let me start with a little bit of a high-level overview. So we've set out to disrupt large, established, and growing markets in aesthetics and therapeutics with our innovative approach on the product side. And if you look at really what anchors that, it's Daxxify. We believe that that really is the, you know, the primary pillar that we're going to build on, along with RHA and some of the other assets that we'll continue to bring into play over time. But we're competing in the US market place, both in aesthetics and therapeutics, with $5 billion of market opportunity that we believe, you know, creates a really unique opportunity for us. If you look at the journey of Revance, often in the case of breakthrough innovation, it doesn't start in an obvious form or fashion. And so the company started back in 2002, trying to leverage what at the time were sort of novel peptide technologies and trying to marry those with biologics, all with the goal of trying to figure out a more efficient and effective way to deliver things into the body. And after trying a different variety of candidates, they ultimately settled on a peptide formulation and a toxin, figuring that that was going to be the best way to enter the market. The company then started working initially on a topical formulation, and so as you can imagine, trying to get things through the skin is even more challenging when you inject something into the body. And so that really allowed the company to refine the peptide approach and sort of how to partner it with the toxin. That journey, while it revealed a lot of learnings along the way, ended up being a little bit more challenging than expected from a regulatory standpoint and from a clinical outcome in terms of what the FDA was going to require to see. And the company then made the step to actually go to an injectable toxin. And the innovative efforts and the peptide and the uniqueness of the peptide ultimately is what's allowed us to deliver on this very differentiated clinical profile. With now sort of line of sight of Daxi coming into the marketplace, we focused on some strategic partnerships, the partnership with TEOXANE to secure the rights to the RHA line of fillers here in the US, along with the partnership with Viatris and Fosun for the rights to China. We then kicked off and commercialized the RHA line of fillers in September of 2020, which began our commercial journey, and then that has been sort of further buttressed now with the approval of DAXI in both aesthetics and therapeutics. My clicker's not working. Oh, there we go. Yeah. So with all that in place, we have a real clear vision for our strategy, and it's really underpinned by three things: innovative products. So we're coming into the market really with a commitment to bringing innovation versus just trying to compete in a similar fashion to the others. Our strategy also relies on putting the provider at the center of everything that we think about and that we do. So from a no-advertised pricing policy to some of the different initiatives, how can we be a better partner and work with the practices to try and either enhance profitability, patient outcomes, experience? And if you look at the investment that we've made here in Nashville in terms of training and education, we're very committed to making sure that we're surrounding our products with the right training and education as well. We feel great about the pipeline that we have in terms of not just what we have in front of us today in the form of Daxi and aesthetics and therapeutics, but if we look at the growth opportunities that we have going forward in terms of therapeutics, international expansion, unlocking the partnerships that we have, and as we continue to evolve and grow, the build-out of our supply chain, which will give us more financial flexibility. With all of that, you know, let me talk a little bit about our opportunity in terms of the pathway to unlocking the blockbuster opportunity in the US market and beyond. '23 was really a pivotal year for us from a commercialization standpoint with the approval of Daxxify for aesthetics. This is our first full year of commercialization. We've continued to grow and feel very pleased about how we're doing in the marketplace with the RHA line of fillers, which I'll talk about a little bit later. We also received our approval in cervical dystonia, which marks our entrance into the overall therapeutics category. We've expanded our contract manufacturing relationships, which will give us more flexibility from an overall volume standpoint. We expanded our sales force by almost 50% in the US, going from 100 to 150. We also fortified our balance sheet, raising about $100 million in ATM proceeds and added another $50 million in debt from our partnership with Ethereum. So we feel very well positioned from a capital standpoint to execute on all of our different initiatives, and Toby will talk a little bit later about the financial forecast and the impact and sort of what we feel from a, an achievement standpoint we can do based on how we're positioned. In 2024, we expect to have a full commercial launch with Cervical Dystonia, and, you know, learn a little bit more about the overall performance of our product in the broader therapeutics category. We anticipate through our partner, Fosun, that we'll receive approvals in both aesthetics and therapeutics in China, and we will start our journey down the international expansion pathway as well. And then as we move it out over time, we'll continue to expand internationally. We'll continue to build out sort of the therapeutic pipeline. We'll also continue to expand our contract manufacturing relationship, and through our partnership with Viatris, we would expect our biosimilar to BOTOX program to come online in the future as well. So let me talk more specifically about the US aesthetics market, where we are in that journey, and particularly on the Revance side of it. So from an overall landscape standpoint, we really like how we're positioned in the US facial injectables market. It's a $3.9 billion market, and it's got some very attractive characteristics about it. It's still thinly penetrated from a true potential opportunity market penetration, and there's a lot of tailwinds there in terms of younger people engaging in treatments. People that, you know, as they live longer want to retain the best versions of themselves, want things that are non-invasive, and that they don't look done. They're the number 1 and number 2 most performed minimally invasive procedures. They've had strong historic growth, CAGRs, and are projected to continue to grow nicely if you look forward. We also like it from a manufacturing perspective, 'cause there's high barriers to entry to get into these categories due to the regulatory side of things, and historically been very resilient to macroeconomic factors. Let me talk a little bit about that. So this is a survey that was done this summer by Beauty Engine that looked at, you know, asking consumers: If you had to cut back on spend, where would you cut back first? What you'll find is that only 25% of consumers would actually cut back on some of their aesthetic treatments. I think this is borne out in prior economic downturns, where aesthetics, and particularly these recurring procedures that people get used to, end up being very highly desirable and things that consumers are willing to make trade-offs in their budget to continue to pursue them. When we, when we were going down the journey of, you know, getting the approval for DAXXIFY and looking at how we were gonna compete effectively in the U.S. facial injectables market, we felt very strongly that for us to achieve this sort of growth that we wanted, that we needed really three key elements to enter the market successfully. 1 is a toxin, 1 is a filler and 1 is an engagement strategy that would allow us to offer loyalty and practice partnership. And so we feel like we've come into the market with really leading offerings across all of these, and so I'll go into those a little bit more deeply. So first, on the neurotoxin side, let me talk a little bit about where we are in the launch, and ultimately, the DAXXIFY difference. So I talked a little bit about the journey, where we started as kind of really a peptide company and how we wanted to deliver different biologics, but a little bit more about the actual formulation of DAXXIFY itself. So it's, it's really stabilized by a proprietary 35 amino acid stabilizing peptide, which is the backbone of what, what we do. And based on a lot of the bench work that we've done and the clinical work that we've done, this ultimately yields a much more efficient way to deliver toxin into the body. And we've seen that in terms of more affinity to the cell membranes. We get more SNAP-25 cleavage, which ultimately drives, you know, efficacy and duration, and, and we're able to really target it into the tissues. And in terms of the, the performance profile, all of the, the work that we did early on around the, the performance of the product, what we continued to hear from consumers was that duration was the number one unmet need. And this is just another refreshed survey that was done this summer as well, that continued to say that for, for consumers, duration continues to be the number one thing that they... Position, the uniqueness of the peptide, and ultimately, how it delivers in the real world. If you drill down a little bit deeper and you look at sort of how does this compare with other competitor toxins, first off, if you look at it, we take this 900 kilodalton complex, we strip away the accessory proteins, and we end up with a 150-kilodalton starting point. We then stabilize that with our peptide, and what's interesting is that, you know, our 40 units, we still deliver the same amount of core active ingredient as BOTOX with their 20 units. And so with the same amount of core active ingredient, we're able to get a lot of the benefits that I'll talk a little bit more about as I move forward. Interestingly, we, you know, we're the only ones that have a peptide formulation. We don't use any human serum albumin, we don't use any animal proteins or components, and we're also manufactured here in the US When you look at the performance profile of the product, we sometimes get questions around... You know, with aesthetics, sometimes endpoints can be a little more squishy. You know, does the duration, is it replicated in other areas? And we feel great that we're not only seeing this duration profile play out in our aesthetics trials, but also in the therapeutics trials. And in, like, cervical dystonia, when you're injecting seven different muscles, the fact that we're able to see this consistency of duration and performance gives us conviction and confidence in terms of the overall performance profile of the product.... So let me take a step back now and talk a little bit about the launch of DAXXIFY, how it's gone, what's the feedback, and our strategy overall. So if you look at the timeline, we received approval roughly about a year ago, and as we articulated to the street, our plan was to go in a very sort of measured and controlled fashion. So on approval, we trained a group of faculty members that were gonna work with to preview early launch group, in order to generate experience. We knew coming into a very established category with a product with a different performance profile, and frankly, only clinical trial data, that we were gonna learn some things that were gonna help us optimize the launch, all with the goal of driving long-term success. So we set out with this very, measured and thoughtful rollout strategy, where in the preview program in December, we trained roughly 400 injectors or so that went out and started using the product more broadly. And based on the duration profile of the product with median duration around six months, we heard from a lot of them that, "I'm gonna use it early, and then I'm gonna wanna wait to see what that duration signal looks like." So through that experience, we got a lot of really good feedback that we incorporated into our messaging and our positioning, armed our sales force with it, and then we went into the full commercial launch in March of this year. And so in March of this year, we rolled it out, and that group went through a similar process where they had early experience with it and then looking for that duration signal. And so through that whole journey and that process, we were gathering real-world feedback, and now that we're about a year into launch, we feel we've got a pretty good body of feedback that is allowing us to sort of make modifications and tweaks to our strategy. But the one thing I want to point out is, despite what was a very measured strategy and controlled rollout, this has still been the most successful neuromodulator launch since BOTOX Cosmetic. And so if you look at how we're performing, even with a very targeted strategy and a measured approach, this has been the most successful launch. What's also interesting, if you look at kind of where are we taking share from and, and how are practices incorporating and using it, what we have found, and this is a survey that we did in August through KLA Advisors, they surveyed about 225 injectors and asked them, you know, "In the last three months, what's been your usage prior to DAXXIFY and then since DAXXIFY?" And what we're seeing is that it's interesting, we're taking share from all of the different players, and so we feel really good that this product resonates in, you know, all the different practices based on whatever they're using. So what else did we learn from some of these real-world findings, and, and what are our customers telling us? First off, they're very happy with the performance of the product. This is a critical one for us because when you come into the market and you only have clinical trial data, you wanna make sure that actually people are really happy with the product. We've heard that, you know, over 80% of both the injectors and the patients are very happy with the performance of the product. So for us, we know the product works, we know that it's delivering incremental value, and we continue to feel really good about that. The second thing is that we've heard from folks is, listen, we're seeing a duration profile that's very consistent with the clinical trial data that's been put out there. Median duration of 6 months, some get less, some get more. Just like with conventional toxins, you'll find patients that have different duration responses to existing products that are also on the market. And so they're saying we're seeing very much similar real-world feedback in terms of the performance of the product. Also, since we only have a glabellar lines indication and we're coming into the market, we weren't sure in the fact that we can't promote it outside of glabellar lines, were these injectors going to use the product more broadly, or were they gonna stick with glabellar lines? And we were very encouraged to hear in the survey as well, that injectors have really kind of embraced this and figured out, and have become comfortable using the product broadly, the same way that they do with, with all of the other toxins that are out there. There were two sort of, I would say, you know, really pleasant findings as well, that have come through pretty, pretty clearly from the discussions that we've had. One is what appears to be a faster early onset of action, and I know that when we bring our panel of clinicians up, they can speak to this as well. But the fact that it kicks in quickly is perceived to be a big benefit. When you look at sort of the overall duration profile of a product, what sometimes get lost a little bit is that early part, which speaks also to duration and frankly, them getting the results that they want. And the second one is this comment around skin smoothness, skin texture, glow, a really good look. And so we did a quantitative image analysis, where we found that 90% of patients achieved improvement in their skin texture. And so we feel like these were two aspects of the product that we didn't fully appreciate in the clinical trials. As a matter of fact, when we actually did the market research and asked the injectors, you know, what are the top three reasons that they prefer DAXXIFY, we heard duration still at the top, but not too far behind was both this sort of onset of effect and the skin quality. And we put a quote up there that, you know, from one of the partners, was that, "Hey, listen, DAXXIFY works faster, lasts longer, and skin looks better." We're also very focused on a few other practice integration pieces. You know, was the reconstitution going to be a barrier? What we've heard pretty universally is that, you know, the community's experienced enough, they'd figured it out, and so that hasn't really been a big impediment. We do find that, just like with other products, where injectors differ a little bit from what's on label, that they figure out what works for them, but this has been fairly straightforward, and people have figured this out. Number two, on Glabellar Lines, that the injection for Glabellar Lines is very consistent with what they do. Some have figured out ways to tweak and optimize, just like they do with all products, but that also has not been a huge barrier. Another one that's come up is the importance of proper dosing. What's often the case with new products is clinicians will go a little bit more conservatively. They might start a little bit lower and in order to make sure that they have confidence in the product. Since our dosing for glabellar lines compared to a BOTOX is 2-to-1, it's not uncommon for injectors to start with maybe a little less dosing and then work their way up. And obviously, there's a strong correlation between the dose and the performance of the product, and so, you know, we, we have good discussions with them about patient expectations based on how they dose and where they go from there. And then, you know, we have heard that, while I don't think this is a major driver, that patients certainly like the kind of the vegan toxin or whatever, the fact that we don't have any animal proteins or human serum albumin in our product, and that it's made in the US And so at a high level, we feel very good that the product's a great product. It works, and most of the people that we talk to say, "Listen, I think it's a better product." And we think that that's really anchored by the formulation, which delivers, you know, extended duration of effect, rapid onset of action, really good skin quality, and it does so with really good efficacy and a really good safety profile. So let me talk about some of the other feedback that we've received that we've incorporated into our launch strategy, all with the goal of taking more meaningful share. And that really comes down to this alignment between price and the product expectations, and the importance of that interplay to unlocking meaningful adoption. So in practices where we find there's good alignment between the price and the expectations, DAXXIFY's become the top share of wallet. And some of those success factors are setting the right expectations, making sure that there's alignment between price and ultimately the outcome, and then favorable economics, so that the practice feels like they're getting rewarded on the economic side. The patient feels like they're getting value for the performance of the product relative to the price. When there's misalignment, hurdles to deeper adoption exist, and that comes when the price starts to elevate beyond a certain level, consumer expectations start to go up, and that directly aligns with sort of the no movement. So in a consumer's mind, if I'm paying that much more and it's a better product, then, you know, I don't want to see movement. So expectations get a little bit uncorrelated from the normal performance of a product, and particularly one with longer duration. It also leads to a more involved switch discussion. And so I talked about our provider-centric strategy, where engaging these practices and arming them with the right information often leads to a discussion between the injector and the patient about, "Hey, this new product that lasts longer," and with elevated price, that discussion can take longer and can create sort of challenges from the broader adoption. And then ultimately, consumer price sensitivity. For some consumers, there's limits to how much they can ultimately pay. And so now we've got the benefit of real-world experience, whereas in the past, when we launched, we had clinical trial data. And we've been hearing that the product is a great product. It delivers, it works, it lasts longer, its skin quality, early onset, and, you know, we feel that that helps reinforce our conviction and some of the strategy changes that we're making to go to broad-based adoption. And I was talking with a plastic surgeon recently, who now has a lot of experience with the product, who's saying: "Listen, patients love it, staff loves it. If you could price it more competitively with BOTOX, I believe I could switch over at 50% of my patients." And so with all that information, we're continuing to evolve our strategy with the sole goal of taking meaningful share gain. I mean, that's our long-term goal here. And so as of September first, we kicked off a pricing strategy change, where we're positioning the product to be competitively more in line with BOTOX. What that means is, you know, we have different tiers of pricing. At the lower end of our tier, which we still have these tiers, a little less than a 20% discount at that end of the tier. All this is designed to make switching to DAXXIFY easier for both patients and for the injectors, so that they can align, the patients can experience the benefit of the product, where price doesn't become a major determinant in that. Then it provides ultimately for the practices the flexibility to figure out what economics work best for them. Do they want to price it at parity and let the patients ultimately, you know, get the benefit? Do they want to charge a premium, and how does that ultimately work? And again, we'll get into some more meaningful pricing discussions as we go a little bit further into this. And then ultimately, like I said before, it's a way for the performance profile of the product to be fully realized without being encumbered by price. So where are we at, and what's been the execution on the strategy? And so we rolled this out September first, and part of that strategy is we are currently reengaging those accounts that we already onboarded with the product. Why are we doing that? Well, we're doing that because these are practices that have been trained, that's seen the benefits of the product, have happy patients, and who have given us feedback that this is a strategy. Our focus right now is really on going back and reengaging with these accounts versus going out and yet opening more and more. Now, we will certainly open some new accounts. That's our primary focus, and we're partnering with those practices to talk about, okay, now with this adjusted pricing strategy, what is that path now to treat a large number of patients and become a more meaningful share player in those accounts? Those discussions are taking place, and we're working our way through that. In terms of the early insights, what I would say is, based on all the discussions that we had with the clinical community and the feedback that we've received, universally, we're hearing, "This is a great strategy. We think it makes a ton of sense. We would love to offer it to more of our patients, and this removes kind of one of those hurdles and the barriers." And while it's really early, if we look at the first week of September versus the first week of June, so both the third months in the quarter, we've seen an increase of orders the first week versus the first week of over 50%. And we've also seen in this first week, an increase of over 60% of reorders. So accounts that have already ordered more than two times, those accounts reordered. So I know these are very early numbers, but they continue to be directionally in line with what we would have expected based on the patient—on the practice feedback that we've received about ultimately the pricing. And so, you know, this early confidence is what gives us the conviction that we can really go after a meaningful share adoption going forward. Based on the recent rollout of the pricing and our focus on going back around to these accounts and re-engaging them and making sure that we've got the right strategy to convert a large number of patients, combined with seasonality, we expect our Q3 revenue, product revenue to be around Q2 2023 levels. So in summary, you know, we feel really good about the launch strategy. It's provided us with the real-world learnings that we were looking to get in the marketplace, and based on all of that, we're really pleased with a lot of the things that we weren't sure whether or not were gonna be issues from a reconstitution, where they're gonna use the product. We've been very encouraged with the early onset of action and the skin quality that we're seeing. And with some of the recent pricing adjustments that we made, we feel really good about our ability to drive meaningful long-term growth over time. So we feel great about our foundation for long-term success. Let me now shift over to the RHA Collection and talk a little bit about where we are with the RHA Collection of fillers, overview and the progress. So again, currently, we have four different SKUs in the marketplace. The RHA line of fillers is the first and only FDA-approved line of fillers that has a claim around the treatment of dynamic wrinkles and folds, and that's important because it really speaks to the construction and the differentiation of the product. If you look at the sort of the lightest of the gels, the RHA Redensity allows for, you know, really good smoothing around the lip area, the perioral rhytids. 2 and 3 are sort of, you know, very balanced fillers that can treat a variety of different things, and then RHA 4 on the other side provides more lift. But really, what underpins the technology is the way that it's manufactured. If you look at natural HA, they have these long strands, and the way that ultimately TEOXANE has engineered the product, it's designed to mimic the natural expressions and facial movement of the face. And it's also designed to be long-lasting. Really natural HA, they have these long... So if I go into that, really, what that speaks to is the fact that they're able to preserve a much longer HA chain than all the competitors, and almost up to five times longer than the HA chain. So let's kinda think of, like, the Golden Gate Bridge, this long span that can move, versus the Bay Bridge, which is very rigid. And so that these natural long chains move more naturally with facial expression. The long chains as well provide the duration side of it, and so we really continue to hear from the market, you know, how great these products are and how happy they are with them. And so, if you look at how we're doing in the marketplace, again, we've had a very measured and thoughtful approach. But within three years of market launch, and we launched in the middle of the pandemic, and we launched also without the benefit of a neurotoxin. But in three years, we've been able to garner about 9% share in the U.S. market based on revenue. Cumulatively, we've delivered over $250 million of revenue. And if you look at a Guidepoint survey, it's the number one brand in terms of year-over-year growth, number one in terms of profitability for the practice, and number one relationship with the sales rep. We think that speaks to the fact that when we're coming into these accounts, we're not just coming in with a product and price; we're coming in with, you know, innovation and talking to them about how this might be able to add and help sort of further give them optionality with their patients to get the best outcomes. On the commercial execution side of it, historically, we've added roughly 500 new accounts per quarter when we only had the RHA line of fillers in there. But I think that speaks to the commercial strategy that we put in place, our ability to execute. We now have over 6,000 accounts that we have relationships with, and again, I come back to the success that we've been able to drive still in dealing with a targeted number of overall aesthetic accounts that are in the marketplace. So we feel great about the RHA line of filler. As we now get deeper into the market with DAXXIFY, our ability to pair these brands and to continue to be a valued partner, we think will continue to increase. So with that, I'm gonna ask Dustin to come up and talk about loyalty and practice partnership. Thanks Mark and good morning. As Mark was talking about, so much of our strategy is built on the innovation of our products, and we've got amazing products. But in our space, you've got to do more than just have great products. We've got to partner with our customers and develop value adds that allow them to continue to grow with us. Our loyalty and practice partnership principles and priorities are fairly simple. Number 1, we want to enhance the customer experience at every single touch point. We've got to be easy to do business with. Number 2, we're gonna deliver a loyalty program to customers and consumers in addition to portfolio pricing. The word loyalty often is synonymous with coupons, and while that can be a strategy and is part of a strategy, it's really more about how do you deliver the overall value that drives market share growth and also stickiness when competitors try new things and new coupons and other activities. And then lastly, we'll continue to leverage our data and digital capabilities to enhance engagement, and engagements with our customers, with our sales force, and the entire organization. How do we be more nimble, more efficient than the others to continue to accomplish more? Our loyalty and customer engagement initiatives include a wide range of offerings, and this will continue to ebb and flow over the next few years. As you'll hear later on today, each practice is quite different. We've got to explore different ideas on how do we partner with them to drive the growth that they need that's important to their practice and also helps continue to drive our portfolio. As part of our current offering, we have payment processing. Why do we have payment processing? Well, first, loyalty programs, in a sense, are really complicated to build and expensive.... In 2022, we had an opportunity to purchase HintMD as a foundation for how we look at loyalty, digital, and overall engagement. The HintMD platform had payments, and with payments, it gave us a variety of options. It gave us in-market data directly at the transactional level. It gave us an opportunity to take advantage of revenue in the practice as it relates to credit card processing fees. It built our tech talent and our digital capabilities and ultimately allowed us to try memberships, which we know helps continue to drive stickiness in practices. And overall, helped us accelerate our digital capabilities and better understand the practice and how it works beyond just product engagement. Despite our success with OPUL and our significant progress, the costs and operational resources required for a payments business no longer align with our capital allocation priorities. What that means is today we'll be exiting the OPUL payments business by the end of Q1 of 2024. We'll cease all related R&D spend while exploring strategic alternatives for that business. The 2023 projected loss from our services segment is approximately $25 million. Preliminary and estimated non-cash impairment charges from goodwill and other assets will be between $80 and 100 million, which will increase our 2023 GAAP operating expense, and Toby will go into a bit details of that in a little bit. We'll have a reduction in our 2023 non-GAAP operating expense guidance by $5 million. What we are gonna do is continue to leverage our technical architecture and our digital capabilities, execute on our loyalty and practice partnership initiative. Overall, we feel really confident about our continued ability to grow the aesthetics portfolio. Mark reviewed our learnings to date that validate the innovation of DAXXIFY and our continued launch strategy. It's clear launch optimizations are underway for us to maximize share take over time. We have competitive products, and they're supported by the continued success of our entire organization and our future innovations to come. Our growing loyalty and partnership capabilities will help support long-term success, growth of market share, and overall stickiness as new competitive entrants come into the market. But it's now time to hear from our customers and the voice of the customer. Please play the video. Please welcome our senior faculty and joining me on stage, Jessica Fye, for the question and answer session. All right. Good morning. I know we've been eagerly waiting for this. So we're gonna kick off the DAXXIFY panel today, and we're gonna be discussing this with our faculty who's been using it over the last year. We've divided this into three different sections. We're gonna talk about product performance, practice integration, and then pricing and profitability. As this is intended for an investor audience, our clinicians are allowed to use the product in any way they deem fit for their consumers, then the providers. So we'll be discussing some real-world scenarios of where DAXXIFY is used today. So let's kick it off. I have some questions that are prepared, and then we'll open it up for the audience. So let's just start. We'll go down the line, introduce yourself, what toxins you've been predominantly using in your practice, and how long you've been using DAXXIFY. I'm Ruth Tedaldi. I met you all yesterday. I was a pediatrician, and then I did a second residency in dermatology. Started doing pediatric dermatology, and then about 15 years ago, converted my practice to completely cosmetic dermatology, except for a lot of the 70-year-olds who still come and have me do their skin check. So I was an Allergan person for a long time, and I use a lot of Xeomin. I also did the Dysport clinical trials. I did Xeomin clinical trials. I've done a lot of clinical trials. And I was part of the December launch, and I didn't, as I said last night, didn't expect to be as gung ho because I've actually been turned off by a lot of the aesthetic launches recently. They're a little too glitzy for me, but this one really spoke to me on so many levels, and in my practice, it's been a definite game changer. Great. Dr. Lafkas? Hi Michael Lafkas, Southern California. I'm an injection physician for 19 years now. I've been an entirely BOTOX-only account for 19 years. This is the first toxin that has passed the cost performance benefits needed to surpass BOTOX performance. And I've probably now at around 20 to 25% integration in my practice, and it continues to grow. We've been very happy with its performance. I launched with the preview in December, and it continues to generate momentum and market share. Haley Wood, nurse practitioner. I have a practice about 20 miles south of Nashville in Franklin, Tennessee. I was here last night. You saw me inject those beautiful lips last night. Mm-hmm. I was 1 of the first ones to use Daxxify. I have also probably one of the first ones to integrate RHA into my practice fully. And that's been a 3-year process, but I've been really it's been a journey, but it's been a worthwhile journey from a profit point of view. I also am intimately involved with training across the country. I've trained for every major company in the business, and I exclusively training for Revance right now. I'm Adair Blackledge, Blackledge Face Center. I'm a facial plastic surgeon in Jackson, Mississippi. And I have been predominantly Allergan and, Evolus provider in the past and I would say I started using, DAXXIFY in the initial rollout. And I would say that our experience has been that of all the new toxins I've added to our center over the past 23 years, this has, without a doubt, been the most positive experience from a patient standpoint. Our patients, have appreciated... it's funny, initially, I thought the duration of the product would be what patients would like, but it's actually been the onset. Because we forget that, you know, when, when Amazon can deliver something to your house in less than 24 hours, guess what? People expect now toxins to kick in in 24 to 48 hours, and this is the first toxin that I've seen that starts taking effect in less than two days in the majority of my patients. That's been the game changer. It hasn't been the 6month. It's been the fact that patients are walking in saying: "I want the toxin that kicks in really fast," and I know immediately what they're talking about. Great. So Dr. Tedaldi, I'm gonna ask you the first question: What makes DAXXIFY a significant or exciting addition to the toxin category? As I said last night, it's all about patient relationship for me. It's about my ability to bring to my patient what they're asking for. I feel very confident. They trust my confidence in the product. I'm all about skincare. I have talked to Mark and Dustin many times because I actually developed a skincare company called RegimenPro, where we try to teach other physicians, mostly dermatologists, how to dispense. And with DAXXIFY... And that has been 7 years of a lot of work and doctors, as you know, are really difficult to jump ship and do something a little differently. But it's all about skincare for me, and so that's the entry point in terms of my relationship. And DAXXIFY combines the effects of a neuromodulator with enhanced skin quality. For me, why would I do or have anything else if I'm going to get an injection? Mm-hmm. That's something I convey to my patients, and they're really thrilled with it. Dr. Lafkas, any additional comments on that? Definitely, safety profile goes without saying, but outcomes and the nuances we've talked about, risks, brow ptosis are low. We were very surprised about that when we tested it. A more natural look to the brows, more natural look around the lateral canthal lines were very surprising additional benefits, but the duration for me is extremely important. If I can take, you know, just... We're seeing typically 60 to 70% average longer duration for our clients. The product overall for my patients right now is actually, on an annualized basis, probably 5% cheaper, but they visit me 2.4 times a year rather than 4 times a year. So that frees up 40% of my time, and on average, I make twice the profit in 15 minutes compared to a BOTOX injection. So it's the financial metrics are there. Since the incentive is there for the patient, the incentive is there for the doctor, and that's what's really exciting for us. Great. So Haley, you've had the product just about a year. Mm-hmm. What has been your clinical experience with duration of DAXXIFY? Yeah. So for a year, you know, we've had to play, and it's been a journey, playing with dosage, reconstitution, and then every patient's different. So it's been a learning curve, for sure, along with pricing. But it's... You know, when we talked about stickiness in the practice, this provides another stickiness to our practice because patients, they love it. And so I always want to give patients something that they love, they wanna keep coming back for. And like you said, I love the opportunity that it opens up more openings in my practice, so that I can see more new patients, increase my revenue numbers. And, yeah, I mean, we haven't had a new toxin in the market for almost... I mean, a great toxin for-- I mean, BOTOX came out, what, 20 years ago? So this is just another new toxin that patients are like: "Yeah, I wanna try that new toxin. I've heard great things about it." We've done a lot on social media around it to promote it, talk about the duration and the quality of skin, and patients are coming to us because of that. And so, yeah, it's been exciting. And the delivery that you guys gave in the beginning, like, it was science-based. It wasn't about the glitz and the glamour that we see on stage all the time. It wasn't about, a shiny new box. It was, like, science-based, and there's not very many companies who are doing that, so I felt really secure about the science going into this, like, bringing this into my practice. Great. So, Dr. Blackledge, let's start with you. How do you align patient expectations with DAXXIFY? I think that I talk a lot about a longer-lasting toxin. I've actually gotten away from specific numbers for the exact same reason that I don't talk to patients about how long a facelift's going to last. There's absolutely no way that I can predict how long one of my facelifts is going to last, and I don't know of another plastic surgeon in the country that goes into consultation and says, "You know what? Your facelift is going to last 10 years." Because I have no idea what kind of stressors, what kind of aging factors. In Mississippi, I have no idea if they're even sleeping in a tanning bed. I mean, it's, you know, you don't know. And so I don't talk about specific numbers, "This toxin is going to last this long. Mm-hmm. What I've done that has worked just beautifully is I give the patients the option of a long-lasting toxin or short-acting toxin. Mm-hmm. And so that's what I do. And so I'm a long-lasting toxin, I say, "You know what? If you would like to do a long-lasting toxin, we'll do that. If you want to do a short-acting toxin, we will do that." And that way, it gives the patient the option of deciding how they want to spend their money. And when I talk to them about long-lasting toxin, I say, "You know what? In my hands right now, this toxin lasts twice as long as anything else that I have in my center. Mm. What about you Dr. Tedaldi? Well, I'm sitting here thinking, I never try to figure out how much my patients are going to spend in terms of their budget, because as soon as I think I've figured that out, I'm wrong. We're not talking about thousands of dollars, we're talking about hundreds of dollars. And most women, and now men, as you can see, especially the artsy guy, are willing to spend more money for a better outcome. There's no question about that. And so when we're talking about better outcome, we're talking about all of these soft things that we talk about: movement, with no lines, but some movement, better skin quality. We're talking all of these things that have become much more important to our patients, who are now consumers. They come in and Dr. Google told them to do this. So we spend the first 2 minutes saying, "But Dr. Google doesn't really understand what DAXXIFY is." We explain a bit to them. It takes a little bit more time, and that is a turnoff to any physician. Anything that's going to take more time is a negative, but what they don't realize is that the positive of the stick and the positive of the relationship and the positive, of course, on the benefit to the patient, which is first and foremost, is definitely there. Great. So Haley I have a question for you. There's always a product adoption curve- Mm-hmm When it comes to a new product and a launch. What have been those key learnings since using and some key points of differentiation? Well, for sure, the frontalis. I mean, the glabella sticks. We know that for sure. But, you know, I always say, 'cause I do a ton of trainings, and I say the first 4 months you adopt DAXXIFY in your practice, it's a bear. It can be. And so it's a bear because we know that there are some patients who aren't gonna last as long, and so those are the ones you're hearing from. It's just like, surgeons or dermatologists who are really difficult, they're the ones you're gonna hear from first. And then, but the people that you're not, they're super happy. They're sleeping for the first 4 months 'cause they're happy. They're not calling the practice complaining about it. You're gonna hear from them about 5 to 5.5 months. So that's the curve. That's, that's what we've learned this first year, is that the first 4 months you adopt this product, don't give up. There's a learning curve behind the dosing. You gotta learn the reconstitution, you gotta learn the pricing point behind it. Once you get past that, and you get to that 5. 5 month mark, then you hear from the patients who are super happy with it. So that's been the journey for me, is knowing that you're gonna have some patients who, you know, they, they may wanna go back to their toxin, but you've gotta take the photography, you've gotta go back, you gotta prove, like, is it actually not lasting as they say? They're comparing it all in the Frontalis, and that's where I think this toxin has had a really hard way to go, is all foreheads are gonna wear off faster than the frown. There's no doubt about it, with any toxin you use. And so I think this toxin's had an unfair... I just, it's been unfair for you guys. It's been a hard row. Thank you for acknowledging that. Yeah. It's been super hard for you guys. But can- But on the front ends, too, like, trying to, like, go to bat for you guys. Well- I don't even know if you were breathing when BOTOX was first launched. However, we launched it with a glabellar indication only, and that's all we did because we were afraid to put it anywhere else. Yeah. Our patients certainly weren't going to let us put it anywhere else. Mm-hmm. That's the easiest place to treat. For years and years, everybody thought, "Okay, BOTOX is great because this is what happens." We all know that the harder parts to treat are everywhere else. Yeah. It's not really... It's a learning curve. It's the same learning curve that we go through with the other toxins. Yeah. It's just that we're seeing those patients back earlier. Yeah. If we photograph them and see them at three months, and then photograph our DAXXIFY patients and see them at 3 months, they look much better. Yeah. Period. Actually, I'm gonna- I think we went through this with RHA too. It's taken us, like, 2 to 3 years to get RHA where it is today. Yeah. It just, it just takes a while. Yeah. And actually, Dr. Blackledge and I have had extensive conversations about the Frontalis area. How do you optimize? You know what? I think you, I think that the first thing you do is you set expectations. I think, second of all, you're confident in your approach to the Frontalis, and it's about not being scared to inject the Frontalis. I think the last thing is to realize that you know what? Every toxin that's come out has had problems with the Frontalis. This is absolutely nothing new. Mm-hmm. And we've seen it with every toxin. I compare it, you know, with my son. He wanted to be a Major League Baseball player and you don't start out by trying to teach him how to hit a curve ball. You know, we start with just a fast ball, something simple. And so a lot of... I feel like a lot of newer injectors are starting with the frontalis. I tell injectors: "Hey, start with the, with the glabellar. Start with- Mm. You know, T-ball, and start with the glabella. We know it's going to work. We know we're going to get 6 months. And then, as you get more confident in your technique and your approach, then branch off into the frontalis." I'm at a point now where I'm using anywhere from 30 to 35 units in 7 to 8 injection points in the frontalis, and right now, I'm getting on average... I do all my own injections. I don't have injectors, so I know what my patients are saying, and right now, I'm getting on average about 5 months duration in the frontalis, which is brand new to me because I've never, with any other product, gotten more than 3 months in the frontalis. Great. So Dr. Lapos why switch a patient to DAXXIFY? You've been a BOTOX-only account for 19 years. Why do you choose it? Yeah, and then just to be clear, BOTOX has gotten phenomenal results all these years. It's an amazing product with high satisfaction rates, and now, you know, we don't take switching toxins lightly. I've tested all the other ones I said. None of them had the satisfaction rates of DAXXIFY, and on the cost performance, if I don't move them to this product, and I delay this launch, I worry that as my competitors get a hold of it, they'll slowly steal my clients. And this is one of those products that I suspect that in the next two years, if you do not move to it, you will lose clients to practices that do offer it. Feel very strongly about that. What about you? Pretty much the same. I think it's, I have nothing bad to say about any of the products. I feel like I can create whatever I need to, but I think that the 360 of what my patient feels, having DAXXIFY and a lot of skincare and a lot of injectables and done in a very metered way for a supernatural look, is really right up the DAXXIFY line of what we're providing. Yeah. I love that you said last night you have 25 women that work for you, and they all choose DAXI when they could choose any other toxins. It's true, yeah. Yeah. So Haley, how do you typically introduce new products to patients in your, in your practice? How do they get integrated? We do a lot of social media presence. We do a lot of education on videos, but typically, when we bring a new product into our practice, we'll start with like... It depends. If it's a filler, we'll do 10 patients; if it's a toxin, we'll do 20 patients or more, and we just see how it goes. We just kinda give it like, you know, use those few patients to see how the first few months go, but we didn't have to do that with DAXI. I mean, as soon as we did the first 10 patients... Because, you know, there is a, there's a waiting curve. You have to wait to see, okay, you're gonna inject it today, but filler, you see the results immediately, right? Toxin, it takes a while to see the result. So we had to wait for the kick in, but the kick in was, like you said, it's so fast. Like, if I get mine on Friday, by Sunday night, I'm golden. And so patients love that. Their skin quality was amazing. So it was really a really fast onboarding because I don't change my technique at all with the toxin, so that was really easy. We learned the reconstitution very easily, so it was really quick adoption. It's just learning the, the dosing curve, you know? But typically, we'll do 20 patients and watch, but this one we just flew out with. It was super easy to integrate. What about you, Dr. Blackledge? You know, we, the first thing I did was I injected all of our employees, and I have 32 ladies that work with me, and my average employee has been with me for 18 years. We don't have a lot of turnover. It's more of a family. So I didn't... Obviously, I didn't wait 6 months to see if they liked it. What happened was, it kicked in so fast. Mm-hmm ... that of my 32 employees now, 31 of the 32 choose DAXXIFY. The only reason that the one does not is because she's related to the BOTOX rep. And so... that's kind of an unfair advantage. Disclaimer. But anyway, so as soon as it started kicking in, that's how—when I would go in to see a new patient and talk to them about a product, the first thing that I would do is I would just tell them what my own employees were choosing, and that made it easy because my patients know... When you have employees that have been with you for an average of 18 years, those patients have seen the same faces, plus the fact that they know them, and my employees, with an average duration of 18 years, have seen a lot of toxins come and go and they know their toxins. They're professional toxin patients. And so when they choose a toxin, they're basing it off of- Mm ... not just how they look, but how they feel. I think that' thing that we haven't talked about quite yet here today, and that's the lightness that you feel- Yeah ... with DAXXIFY. Some of these toxins make you feel really heavy and DAXI, I don't know if you guys, but- Mm-hmm ... it's a very light feeling. It's indescribable, but your brows don't feel heavy. You feel a... It's a very much of a lighter-feeling toxin. I think you could basically go into every office and have the injectors treat the members of their staff and their family members. Mm-hmm. And that would be your launch. Mm. That's all you have to do, basically. Sounds like we're the number one for staff. So Dr. Tedaldi, have you found an ideal candidate to treat with DAXXIFY? Has there been a certain patient type? So my least favorite patient is the 53 year-old female. The 53 year-old female is the most difficult patient to treat because she still feels like she's 30, and she's looking at lines, and she wants every single one removed. So that's a lot of psychology, a lot of talking. Yep. I have a lot of 20 year-olds and who have a crease. That's ideal. That's the ideal patient. It bothers them. As a pediatrician, I was horrified that I was treating them, but really. Like, just like Accutane, it made- Mm ... a huge difference in their life. I have 90 year-old women who come to look better because they feel good. So I don't think there is a perfect patient. I think the 53 year-old is the least perfect patient. Something to look forward to. Anybody else have an ideal candidate? Our ideal, our low-hanging fruit and the clients that I started with when we started injecting were the clients that were not getting more than 3 months duration out of BOTOX. So anyone who's starting to wear off by 2.5 months were the ones that we hand-selected, and those are the ones we launched with. And they were an easy sell because they were already asking for a longer duration. They had asked me to do more units. I had upped their units, and we were still not getting. We had gotten to the point where doing more units was getting an aesthetic we didn't like, and so they were an easy transition, and they were all extremely satisfied with the duration of the DAXXIFY, especially in the glabellar area. Great. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that is a low-hanging fruit. It's super easy. I'm all new, all new patients. All new patients all start on DAXI. They get to... Every 6 months, it's just easier. It opens up my schedule. The expectations are set, so the... A new patient for me is always on DAXI. Mm-hmm. I think also that the younger generation, the 20s, that to me has been my favorite patient as it relates to DAXXIFY. The best part about it is that's the fastest-growing group of toxin patients as well. The reason I love that patient is because they come in, and they get results, quicker results, and that group, that 23 that 24 year-old patient, they don't wait for anything. I mean, they don't... You know, they're used to self checkouts and Amazon delivery in 24 hours, and so when they get a toxin that kicks in in 48 hours, they're the happiest patients. My 50 year-olds are used to waiting 5 to 7 days, but this younger age group, I mean, they're the easiest patients in the world, to convert to DAXXIFY. Mm-hmm. The best part about it is it's the fastest-growing group. Mm-hmm. And men, because men are so needle-phobic. Mm. Men are great patients for DAXXIFY. Mm-hmm. They do it less. They do it less. Yeah. I wouldn't say that all men are needle-phobic. I do find there's a lot of plastic surgeons. Right ... who do not do toxins and fillers, but we know this one does. So, Dr. Lafkas, any challenges to adopting DAXXIFY in your practice? Have you done anything different with dose ranging? We have the frontalis has been the one where we have to kind of make little adjustments, but you know, it took us probably about 4 to 5 months to perfect the frontalis pattern, and now I've modified my pattern. 20% of my clients got remapped. 20 to 25% are getting a slight different recipe in the injection pattern. But once you get it, the satisfaction rates are there. We didn't give up on any of them, and right now, I'm at around a 90% satisfaction rate. So one out, one out of 10 chooses to stick to BOTOX, but I'm... 90% of them are moving to DAXXIFY. You know, so this is a 4 to 6 months learning curve, and so you're gonna see, like, little sweeps of new entrants, and it's gonna have the... I think they all are gonna have to go through that 6-month adoption cycle. Yeah. And then Dr. Jedalji, how do you optimize outcomes with a new product, and why ongoing education and training is so important? It's, it's something that we launched with for DAXXIFY. That was really important to us to get the science, as Haley talked about, education and training before they got the product. So what do you do for, for your product launches in your practice? Well, I think the most important thing is seeing the patient back and letting the patient know that you're in this together, and you are gonna make them happy with their injection, whether it means coming back once or twice. And we had, in the beginning, patients come back twice, as you were saying, in terms of really getting the method. And I think... I don't think that's new to DAXXIFY. It's just that it's lasting longer, and so you wanna look great longer. I mean, we all have patients, their child is getting married. They have a wedding. They have a bar mitzvah. They have something that's happening, and you want them to look perfect, so those photos that they have forever are perfect as well. And so what that does, though, and what most physicians and providers are not as cognizant of, is it solidifies your relationship. You care enough to have them come back. You care enough to make it perfect. You know, that's my name on that patient, and there's nothing that makes me feel better than the patient is really happy and looks great. Mm-hmm. Haley, we've done a ton of training for us. Why do you think that's so important to continue? Oh, because you have to, like... Because you have to meet them where they are, and that's where, like, the Zoom a Gurus, which are a brilliant platform, it's 30 minutes with an expert. And so I can be after work in clinic, and I have a 30-minute call with someone in LA or someone in... who doesn't get a train. Like, let's say someone that's in-... Idaho who can't get anywhere for a training. They can have a conversation with a guru and say, "What's working in your practice?" And so that's where education and communication is so critical because you don't want them to give up. You wanna say: Hey, I'm gonna meet you where you are. You're having issues with this? I've had issues with this, too. I'm working through it. Let's talk about your pricing. So yeah, you, that platform, I think your launches have gone really well as far as, like, what you did here, what you're doing on Zoom the Gurus, those DAXXIFY roundtable conversations. From that sparks a lot of DMs in my Instagram saying: What are you doing for pricing? 'Cause they want - they need that. Mm-hmm. It's important to have that ongoing. Great. And so we've talked a lot about upper facial lines. I'll start with you, Dr. Blackledge. What are other treatment areas where DAXXIFY's delivered improved efficacy? Have you used it in other areas besides the upper face? Sure. Once I got comfortable with the upper face, I've moved into the neck. I think that the neck is obviously one of the more underutilized areas because there are very few patients... It's the one area that in 20-somethings, they have tech neck. In 50-somethings, they have sagging neck, and so it covers everything from 20 to 80, and so that's where I'm using DAXXIFY probably as much now as I am in the upper face. Because every patient that walks in, that 20-something may not have forehead wrinkles, but they're going to have tech neck. Every one of them are constantly looking down, and so they have the horizontal lines. And then the 60 year-old comes in with the vertical bands, and so I'm using DAXXIFY in the neck probably as much as I'm using it in the forehead now, and it has worked in my hands as well or even better than in the forehead. The reason being is because patients are a little more forgiving in the neck. If they even get 50% improvement in their neck, they're so pleased. Whereas in, you know, in across the glabella and the frontalis, if they see any little movement, a lot of patients are quick to come back in, but if they see any improvement in the neck, they're really, really happy. What about you, Haley? Lip flip, all day long. So lip flip for me, it's lower face. I thought about this last night. We should get a mobile unit and go to all, like, University of Alabama on Sorority Row and do, like, a full, like, Saturday before game day. Yeah, yeah. We can knock it out. But lip flip for me, because younger patients are coming in, they may not wanna do filler, but they want that everted lip look, and Botox originally will last usually, it's gone by the time they check out. But it's so the result lasts maybe 4 to 6 weeks, but with DAXXIFY, it is a hands-down, all the time, 3 months. And so that's been a great intro for me on new patients. Like, "I don't know if I wanna do something a little bit more expensive." I'm like: "Let's just start with lip flip." It's $150. They'll get a 3 month longevity out of it. It's literally takes 5 minutes to do, and then they're converted onto DAXXIFY because it's lasting in their upper lip area. So that's been a really great new opportunity for me. What about you, Dr. Lafkas? I'm injecting the entire face, so it hasn't... I have not been deterred from injecting any parts of the face, forehead and neck. What about you? I also am, but I also think my college kids that came back for hyperhidrosis this spring and got through the entire summer was really impressive. Yeah. Yeah. All right, let's move on to pricing and profitability. So, Dr. Lafkas, I'm gonna start with you. How do you price DAXXIFY to make it profitable for your practice, and how does that compare to BOTOX? Okay, so, I'm not sure how versed, I assume the audience here is versed on BOTOX pricing. My price for BOTOX was $12 a unit, or right around that price point, and we've priced DAXXIFY as Revance recommended, which is 25% less per unit, so $9 per unit. But remember, we're doubling the unit count, so the price comes out, if you take 9 times 2, you're about $18 a unit equivalent, so 50% more than BOTOX treatments, and I'm getting typically 60 to 70% more duration. So that's where the value proposition comes to the patient. They're paying 50% more, but getting 60 to 70% more duration. And at that profit point, with the new pricing of DAXXIFY that was announced recently at $275 a unit, that's a significant profit share increase for the injector in the practice. Great. What about you, Dr. Blackledge? You know what? I'm doing the exact same. That's funny because our units are priced the exact same, which I kinda considered that in Mississippi, we'd be a little bit cheaper. But we're doing the exact same, and with you know, with the new pricing that came out. In fact, I met with our local rep a couple of weeks ago, and she told me about the new pricing. And we in Mississippi have never been accused of being real smart, but we have tons of common sense. And when you look at that pricing, and I had my CFO come in and look at it, it's a no-brainer. It is an absolute no-brainer because when I looked at our projections as far as how many units we order over the course of a year, it's going to be a significant change in our overall numbers. I will tell you something else. You know that DAXXIFY is doing something right when you start getting texts from competitors wanting to know how to get in touch with the local rep. And that's something that you. Because I appreciated how you guys rolled it out. You found certain injectors that you felt confident in, and found just a select group. Because you want a toxin, you want it to get a good response because of the product, and not because it's being used by inexperienced injectors, so I appreciated that. So not everyone in my area had exposure to it. And as soon as you guys rolled out the new pricing, that very day, I got at least 10 texts from my competitors, because we have all good relationships, saying, "Hey, how do you get in touch with Lori?" And I knew what they were doing. They had heard about the new pricing. They knew that it was a product that worked, and all of a sudden, they want to get in touch with the rep. So at that point, I knew, you know what? This is going to be- this is gonna be a game changer for this company. Great. Haley, I know you've had a lot of experience with pricing over the year. Yeah. I've changed my pricing three times, and I don't do that. I mean, I don't change pricing on fillers. I mean, we may go up on filler over the years. But yeah, in the very beginning, when we launched this in September, we went with really high pricing, and I went and I changed it. So historically, toxins were priced by the unit, so were $1,350 a unit. And I wanted to do this different, so I wanted to make DAXXIFY in a different category, so I did it by area. And I love the notion of area-based pricing. I still love that, but I think I had priced it too high. Then it was the holiday season. Patients weren't prepared for a $1,300 bill, that they weren't sure if their toxin was gonna last longer. So I had a hard time in the beginning converting that. So then I went over to intro pricing. I fought Brian Bullock on intro pricing, and when I adopted intro pricing, so I dropped the price down, a little bit, and that was easier to adopt. But now I know my sweet spot. My sweet spot's $1,000. And so now I'm looking at more of a unit-based pricing in my mind, but still communicating with the patient area-based. So I tell a patient, "For about $1,000, we're gonna do your entire upper face, and that's $8 a unit." So about 20 to 25% premium versus the $6.5 that I did in the beginning. Yeah, and I'm happy with this. So now with the new pricing, my profit's gonna be about, my return on investment is gonna be about 300%. This past year, it's been about 230%, but that's the learning curve. Mm-hmm. That was my learning curve. Yeah. I still made great on ROI. What about you, Dr. Tedaldi? I'm not a unit pricer because I guess I'm a closet Marxist, so I want to be able to charge the people that can afford it more, and the people that can't afford it less, and that's basically what I do. Love it. Okay, so Dr. Blackledge, with the new pricing, have any adjustments or strategy changes been made as it relates to the patient or how you see the patient walking in? I don't. The only thing that I would say that I'm actually doing with new pricing is I'm actually using DAXXIFY to make it economically friendly for every patient. I'm actually using it in place of some of our shorter-acting toxins as well. In other words, let's say we use 40. It takes 40 units for the glabella to get a true 6 month duration. I'm using it also as a 20 unit and giving patients a 3 month duration. And so that way, patients are being able to choose the product. They're being able to choose what kind of duration they're wanting because in my mind, you know what? If I and that they've gotten with everything they've used in the past. But here's the perk: They get the skin care change. They get the glow. They may not be paying for the duration. If they want the duration, then we go up in the number of units. But even at going down on the number of units, so that they just get what they've been getting with previous toxins, they're still getting a perk of a skin glow that they have not gotten with toxins in the past. So that's really what I've done in the past. I would say, oh, two to three months, it's been really, really popular. Mm-hmm ... is backing it down as well and making it so that the patient gets to decide how long they want their toxin to last. Mm-hmm. That's great. Dr. Lapkus, have you had any experience there? Yeah, we've recently launched a lower dose of DAXXIFY just to, for clients who are perfectly happy with their BOTOX and who get longer duration of BOTOX just to trial it, with the pricing- with the lower units because the, the equivalent of BOTOX, they're usually saving about 5 to 10%. Our goal with that, with those patients, is maybe a 5 to 10% lower price point that lasts the same or maybe even 10% longer duration. Not the 60 to 70% longer duration, but now you get slightly longer duration at a lower price point. Great. A question for all of you: With DAXXIFY priced more competitively with other toxins, do you think that will help convert more patients or those who might have been hesitant prior? Do you think that will convince them to try DAXXIFY today? 100%. I mean, I remember having that conversation with you back in December, that there's no question that, not only the, the patients, but the doctors, I mean, people that are buying the product- Mm-hmm ... because they have this sense about how much—what their actual profitability is, and I think very few of them know the actual number of their profitability. But because they're either in buying groups or because someone's telling them, this is how—this is how profitable this is for you- Mm-hmm ... that they listen to those people. But I think once they try it, once they have it in their hands, once they see the result, it's a combination of the doctor and the patient being happier. Yeah. What about you? ... Now the cost performance is there, so I don't get a lot of pushback. If I recommend it, if I tell them I'm using it, our split-face trial results kinda spoke for themselves. So, we don't get pushback. There's no hesitation. They migrate fairly quick when we recommend it. Look at his forehead, I mean! This was just on Friday, actually. Got that Daxi glow. Yeah. What about you, Haley? Well, now I'm allowing new patients to try it for the same price they would try BOTOX. Mm-hmm. So there's nothing lost. You know, they're... If they've been a BOTOX patient for years, they can try this for the same price, and they love that. I know my profit margins will be great. They were great before the price change, but now they'll be even better. Mm-hmm. So, the conversion should be a lot easier now that they're not losing any money by trying it. Mm-hmm. And Dr. Blackledge? I think you've removed the only roadblock. Mm-hmm. It's, in my opinion, it's that simple because the economics of it were the only thing. That was the only thing that you guys were getting, you know, from competitors. That was the only thing that they were hammering you guys on. And so now you've removed the roadblock, in my opinion. I think it's gonna be a real game changer. I don't know if your investors are aware of how complicated the relationship is for the offices buying product when they can buy toxin alone versus toxin and filler. It is the most complicated equation, and if you think you can figure it out, I promise, even you can't figure it out. Because you're on a tier, and you have no idea which products go into that tier. If you buy it on a Tuesday after four o'clock versus Monday, it is the most complicated thing. And there are a lot of problems with the Allergan fillers now, which people are not emphasizing, which I have basically been on many, many committees to discuss with Vycross, which is one of the platforms of the Allergan fillers, and there have been a lot of what we call late-onset nodules. And so a lot of doctors are now looking for fillers that do not have Vycross technology. And so I think that, like Haley, who completely converted, I'm almost there. I'm getting there. Yes. Uh, We'll get you there. Yeah, you will get me there. But, it's definitely something that you have now, a filler with a toxin- Mm-hmm ... that makes a huge difference because a lot of us could not just buy a toxin without buying our filler and getting the discount on both. It was just too expensive. Yeah. So my last question before we open it up to the audience is just talking about consumer loyalty programs. There's Alle, it's obviously very popular. How much of an impact do they have on switching patients, and do you think it's a barrier for us, or we should start to go down that path to have more cons- I'm sorry to be so vocal about this, but I was the person in the back row who basically said: "Are you kidding me? Is that like a Dunkin' Donuts card that you're giving?" When they introduced Alle. And my husband has lots of Dunkin' Donuts cards. Yeah. So he looked at me saying: "Are you kidding me? Why would you not?" Because he thinks I always choose the most expensive thing, which is probably true. But Alle made a monster difference, and so I think in my practice... I may not have been wanting to be involved with it, but all of my patients were coming in because they could do skincare, they could do filler, they could do- Mm-hmm ... their toxin all together, and they watch those points. I mean, the wealthiest women come in with little bags of cash. You don't realize how private they are about what they're spending. And so to have a program where you are getting points, and it allows you- Mm-hmm ... some freedom of spending is really important. What about you? There's no doubt that the Alle program was a significant boost to our industry, and what Jason Gilmore and the Allergan guys have done at Data Labs was phenomenal. So we're hoping that Revance kinda falls in that space. As long as there's no administrative burden on you. Yes. What about you, Haley? It's a double-edged sword. I mean, for patients, they love it. For providers, I think we hate it. From a practice owner position, I hate it, only because you got to check to make... You got your front desk staff who are looking up their points, applying it to the account, applying it to OPUL, whatever their... It's a mess. And so honestly, like, it's the patients but the- we do it because the patients ask for it. They've been accustomed 'cause Allergan started it. Patients are used to it was called Brilliant Distinctions, now it's called Alle, and Galderma has one called Aspire. It's just a lot to deal with. So... And then, when they do like a Juvéderm day, then they buy all these gift cards through their app, and then we have to, like, talk the patients out of using that product. So it's, you know, it's, it's consumer wonderful because the patients love it, but from a provider point of view, it's, it's not the easiest to deal with. Yep. Dr. Blackledge? You know, I think that, I think the thing about it is, the loyalty programs only create patients, they're loyal to the product- Mm-hmm ... and not to the practice. Mm-hmm. And so in other words, Alle gives patients loyalty points to go get their BOTOX anywhere that they want. Mm-hmm. Yet, I'm the one that has to provide, you know, have to hire someone extra just to provide, you know, just to work through the Alle points. And so what we did is we made a loyalty-specific program to Blackledge Face Center. So that's why Alle has really not even phased our practice. Looking at growth of practices, it has not... Compared to national averages, it's never hurt us. We still carry SkinMedica, because what I do is when patients come in that have Alle points, I allow that we do something where they will get an RHA, and yet they're able to apply their Alle points toward a SkinMedica product. And that way, they consider that... They're like: "Oh, my goodness! I'm getting something for free with my injectable, plus I'm getting my Blackledge Face Center points." That's what I think we all underestimate, is that all of these loyalty programs, they just drive patients to get the product. Mm-hmm. They don't drive us, drive them into our specific practice, and so that's why I feel so strongly about loyalty programs that are practice-specific. Mm-hmm. Granted, it creates a little more, you know, work for the physician themselves, but that's part of it. Yeah. There are 2 sides to that story because the loyalty programs where the company, has... What was it? The Juvéderm card that they sold. I didn't even know about it. Nobody in my office knew about it. And patients who are loyal to you, and that's what the stick value is, of the way you approach the patient and treat the patient- Mm-hmm. Those patients are all buying cards and coming in, and you have nothing to do with it. So it's about having the right person answering the phone. It's about having the right face in your office. It's about, from the second you announce who your practice is, without it being you. Mm-hmm ... so that you don't have to do it, having someone- Mm-hmm ... represent you who can do it well. Great. So let's open it up for questions. Anybody have...? Yep, first question. Thank you very much. At least some of you... Seems that some of you have changed your pricing to your patients, since the DAXXIFY launch. Do you intend to change that pricing again once you reach higher adoption? And this is Navann Ty from BNP Paribas. Thank you. Who'd like to take it? I did what Haley did, and I went down, and I went right back up. So yes- Yeah, I don't see how... I mean, I'm. If anything, I'll go up. I mean, we go up on fillers. We go up on, you know, our prices. I haven't gone up on my prices in a long time. I don't see... After 3 changes, I think I'm done. Anybody else? I agree. Yeah. Hi, Annabel Samimy from Stifel. So, Dr. Blackledge, you mentioned that you don't mention duration to your patients. It's not six months. It could be five months. It could be ten months. So you don't mention it. So when you approach a patient, how do you make that pharmacoeconomic argument or that value argument to your patient if you're not giving them a duration? Dr. Lafkas, you seem to have a formula set up, and you know exactly what your numbers are. But how are all these... First of all, how do you set that price for the patient, so they can really realize in hard numbers what that value is? And then, I guess, going back on the prior question, are all these numbers that you've put out there, and savings, and calculations that you made prior to this recent price change, or does that incorporate the new price change? Thanks. The way that I approach it is I literally, I just... And this isn't something that I've just done with DAXXIFY. I did it with Jeuveau. I did it with Dysport. I've just never been one of those that says, "This is a toxin that's going to last 3 months or 6 months," because I think that once you've been doing it, maybe as long as some of us have, you realize what happens when you make promises of exact duration. And so what I do right now is I say, "You know what? This is a... This product lasts twice as long as anything else that I have at my practice. And so you're getting, you're getting a product that lasts 100% longer, but it's only 50% more." And so that's the economics behind how I explain it to patients. I think that because there are also areas, specifics of this product, that you can't put a price tag on or that we haven't been able to, the skin change. The only way I know how to describe this is to have an existing patient tell you about it, but the feeling of the toxin, I think every one of us on this stage would tell you how discouraging it is when a patient comes in, and they look amazing, yet they say, "My brows feel heavy." And you're like: "Uh, but they look great," you know? And with this toxin, there's not a heavy feeling. It's a light feeling, almost to the point it's almost like a facelift that doesn't look like they've had a facelift. That's the look that we're all going for now. It's, it's not the toxin of 10 years ago. And so that's how I explain it to patients, is that you're, you're paying for increased duration, shorter onset, skin change, and the feeling. So you're getting 4 for the price of 1. As to your second question about the pricing, it was a 75 to 80% profit increase based on previous pricing. It's now up to a 100% profit increase for me. Good morning. Thanks for the great panel. It doesn't sound like you've encountered much pricing sensitivity with the premium pricing of DAXXIFY, but curious, I think you've all said you're seeing younger patients now, if that cohort has more price sensitivity? And then secondly, have any of you used the OPUL platform, and how... what was your experience with it? The younger patients, mostly in my practice, their parents are paying for it, so it's not as big of an issue. But I think it is an issue for the thirty-somethings who are a little more independent. ... but I think when they realize it's going to last that much longer, and I haven't seen the literature, I haven't seen the data, but my guess is that the younger you are, and I'm just taking this from my other neuromodulators, the younger you are, the more, the longer lasting the product will be as well. And that just has to do with muscle kinetics. I did not use OPUL. I was very interested in OPUL, but I also was somewhat critical of the fact that most of my patients don't want the shock value of: I'm gonna spend $10,000 this year on my face. So that was something in terms of doing, paying up front for it. But I do think the credit card savings was something very significant to a lot of practices. I'll take it. I did not use the OPUL platform, and as far as younger patients, they typically need fewer units, so my younger clients typically would use 30 to 40% fewer units than my mean number of units, and my older clients can use 20 to 30% more units than my mean. So for them, that's not much pushback, especially if I get them the longer duration. Mm-hmm. They will save money over the course of the year. I definitely see a lot of young patients in my practice, and on average, we knew most of our patients were spending $2,000 a year on toxins. So the ones I showed you yesterday, they're getting, like, the 6, 7, 8 month duration, so they're spending less than $2,000 a year. They're super happy about it. They're busy. They just like the fact that they're getting something new, they're getting toxin, and that they're just coming in, like, maybe 1, 1.5 times a year. So it's worked out really well for the young patients. I do use OPUL, and we use it for credit card processing, and we've had success with it. I'll tell you, I'm, like, entrenched on the back end, so it's a double check for me. So every day I check my OPUL transactions against my, transactions in PatientNow, my EMR, to make sure they line up, so it's a double check for me, which I, I love. Nice. I think the younger patients, simply because they're not getting as many units, price just hasn't been a factor for them. But I actually never... I've never changed my DAXXIFY pricing since it launched. For whatever reason, our patients have just valued the duration, and so I never had to go down to encourage them to jump on board. And I think that younger patient has never known the price of BOTOX or Jeuveau, and so they actually expect to pay this. Mm-hmm. It's what they've always paid. It's the novel part of us using a product that's new, really appeals to a younger generation. I mean, my kids said to me, "Are you really using AOL still?" I mean, it's like, let's try something new, and there's something that's very appealing about that, especially in the field of aesthetics. Question over there. Hi, Stacy Ku from TD Cowen. So with the pricing update, how should we think about potential patient adoption and how it might change now or in a few years? So stated differently, what percentage of your DAXXIFY-treated patients are happy with the DAXXIFY profile and duration as we think about a target population? So who can you capture? I don't... You know, I think that-- I don't think it's going to change the, the patient capture rate because the patients are happy. The numbers are there. I mean, when you've got over 90% of your patients are already pleased with it, I think that you... I think what you're going to capture is, you're gonna capture the providers. That's what you're about to capture is because when you see, this new pricing, it's- Mm ... it's going to be really hard for providers now to find a reason not to use DAXXIFY. That's 100%. It was not the patient. We all that had it and bought it and used it were very happy, but the providers that were not buying it, that was the kind of conundrum for me. Why? Why were they not trying it? I'll give you some more numbers really quick, 'cause I know you guys like numbers. I typically go through 10,000 units of BOTOX a month, right? And now with this product, if I transition all those 10,000, let's just say I do a 1.7 to 1 ratio, so now you're at 17,000. They just dropped my price by a little over 55 cents a unit off of a previously really good value proposition. So 55 cents additional profit on 17,000 units, it's $9,000 more profit for me a month, $100,000 a year, to just spell it out nice and clearly. Hi, David Amsellem from Piper Sandler. So, you know, this is sort of a high-level question. You know, Botox is such a big part of our cultural lexicon, and with that in mind, when you talk to your patients, what is the extent to which they, I guess, for lack of a better term, are, I guess, demand Botox or loyal to Botox and have a bias towards all things Botox? And is that something you find yourself pushing up against when you talk about DAXXIFY? Thank you. Once in a while, I have a patient who wants to see the hologram on the bottle. They want to see that it's BOTOX, and they look for it, but that's very rare in my office. My patients are much more interested in what my medical assistant says, which is, "Do you wanna try the new BOTOX?" Yeah, it's become a, you know, staple word in our vocabulary, but I think that's why Revance called it DAXXIFY, 'cause we can say, "Were you BOTOXed?" We can say, "You were DAXXIFIED." You can't say it for the other one. I think that it's becoming much more. Our patient population is becoming much more aware of the rising gold standard. I don't see much of a pushback in that regard, right? When a new filler comes out that's superior, they don't stay loyal to old generation filler. So remember when the collagens first were around, then we got the first HAs. They didn't have any loyalty. They just wanted: "Give me the, give me the product with the one-year duration," right? That was a rapid shift back in the 2005 timeframe. I've had a little bit of it. Patients, I mean, I've had them for 17 years. They've had but they've had more exposure to BOTOX than they have had fillers because they're getting the BOTOX every 3 or 4 times a year, so they hear it over and over again. That's what they're accustomed to. It's what they love. Patients who are early adopters, they take on DAXI hands-on. Not, not hard at all to switch them over. But there are, yeah, there are some patients who just don't want to switch to something that they love and they're familiar with, especially your older patients. They don't really want to change. Newer patients will. I think it's also... I think it's one of those things where it all has to do with how you present it. You know, I talked about a long-lasting Botox and then the shorter-acting Botox. And so, so many times now, I feel like providers use Botox almost as a generic term- Mm-hmm ... versus a specific term. It's, it's kind of like in the South, when we say we want a Coke, that doesn't mean we may... We may, we may mean Pepsi, we may mean Diet Dew, but we all know what we—what we're talking about. You know, I feel like that I can't even remember the last time that a patient actually looked at me and said, "Now, is this actually BOTOX?" Because they actually t- I think they trust their provider more so than they trust the product. If you're p- if you're injectors that have been doing it long enough, that you have a patient base that's loyal to you. Great. Thank you. Chris Shibutani from Goldman Sachs. 2 questions, if I may. A lot of us are in the job of trying to predict the future, so I'm gonna task you with perhaps speculating a bit on this. The first question, obviously, since the pricing move that was made by Revance to the providers, what have you seen and what do you expect the competitors, in particular, Botox to do? Perhaps speaking from your past experience, would they try to match or diminish or blunt this relative opportunity going forward? And the second question, as we think about the future, a couple of years out, there's potential for biosimilars that Revance will have. And it's been interesting to hear the dialogue about, you know, Botox as a brand, sort of generic is kind of used in its many interpretations and definitions. When a biosimilar comes along, what impact do you think that will have on the market in terms of your expectations for what the price might be, and what you think the consumers will think about using a biosimilar? Well, our colleagues are definitely gonna buy more product. There's no question. They're gonna try it. I think the blockade for them was that it was so expensive, and once they try it, they will have a different experience. So in terms of trying to predict any future, there's no question in my mind that more people will be using it, and that's not necessarily great news for us because we have become the people in our community that have used it first, and we'll probably bank on that a little bit. The biosimilars, I mean, we have a lot of biosimilars already, and in my head, I can put the other 4 toxins very similarly in one category, and I separate DAXXIFY. So, yeah, I'm sure it'll come. I'm sure there will be something, and then they'll go through the same learning curve, switching from BOTOX to the others. It's still got the lion's share of the market. So my guess is that DAXXIFY will have the lion's share of the longer-acting market. Sorry, do you expect Allergan to counter in terms of- Say- Do you expect Allergan to counter based upon this pricing? No, they're too smug. I don't think they'll counter. That does help us to use a higher dose, which is not the same. That's clearly not the same. Yeah. The studies have been done and they can't prove that they have a longer-lasting something that's going to last as long. And so I don't think that they can counter from that standpoint. They're going to attack because they've already attacked, and it's like we talked about last night. I mean, the number of attacks on this company, for somebody that's been in this 23 years, I've watched. It's been unprecedented. And that's how I knew initially that I wanted this toxin in my hands, is because I saw so much attack from the other companies. I mean, typically, you just don't see these kind of attacks from other companies in this field until something comes along that is a game changer. I think with the new pricing, I will. I can't imagine that this toxin will. I think it's going to be amazing, how much the share of the market that this toxin is about to take. I think that in somewhere as small as where I'm from, the number of texts I'm already getting from competitors asking about it, wanting in on it, because that's been the only thing that's held it back. As far as biosimilars, you know, once you get someone with 5 to 6 months duration, and then now you're telling them to go back to 3 months duration, it's not gonna happen. That's... once again, go back to the days of the collagens that lasted 3 to 4 months, maybe 5 months in the nasolabial folds, and then we got HA's that took us to 1 year. Trying to convert people back to getting a collagen filler and get half the duration, there—you're not gonna get that. Also, the slide that Mark showed about the actual number of units that were active units of the neuromodulators, where he compared them, I don't know if it was as obvious to all of you because that science is not your forte, maybe for some. Yeah. The actual number of active units was the same between BOTOX and DAXXIFY. Yeah, so it's the cost per unit, you know, results, and it's gonna be, I think, very difficult for Allergan to counter the, the advantage that DAXXIFY has. I think this is our last question. And all the other- Thank you. Last question. Tim Lugo from William Blair. I think all of you mentioned your colleagues who haven't yet tried it or incorporated it into their practice, and it sounds like price was the main barrier. Can you dig into that? When we talk about price, I assume that just refers to practice economics and how the parity pricing really changes your individual practice economics, because it sounds like you've all been making it work so far. Is this new price only going to enhance your personal practice economics and then those of your colleagues? I think it's price matched with the patient expectations. I'll say from a nursing point of view, most nurses, I would say most of my colleagues who have not adopted Daxi, have not adopted Daxi because they are Allergan loyal. Either they are trainers for Allergan, and they are in, like, contract-based. So they don't... And Allergan can be a bully, and so they don't want to lose their training opportunity. But now that the price is different, they may have a different opportunity to say, "Okay, I'm gonna... I've got some money to make here." And so they may be more willing to take this on and learn it, from that point of view. It was price that was a blockade for our colleagues to try it, but also, a lot of them participate or have been bought by private equity or participate in buying groups, and so they don't really have the control anymore. And I think that that's become a real factor because I think their patients will search the better product. Yeah. This, I think this is our last question. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Hi, this is Balaji from Barclays. So I heard with interest your comment that it was the providers who were reluctant till now, and I had done a similar survey around a couple of months ago to a large number of aestheticians, and there I got the feedback that cost obviously was the biggest pushback, and that was the patient pushback. So if you can just connect these two statements and maybe qualify a bit more about how, how many providers were you seeing amongst your colleagues that were not buying it because of the price? Secondly, can you think of any other concerns that can prevent wider adoption of DAXXIFY now, apart from now that the pricing equation is resolved and sorted out? Thanks. You want to take that? Sure. So you guys are aware that there was the highest pricing for DAXXIFY was $420 a vial. It's now $275 a vial, but you have to buy a certain volume. So if you're a practice that's gonna only buy 10, 20 vials, you're gonna pay. That $420 price point does not make you that cost competitive, and your economics change significantly there. So, but once they get down to $275 a vial, the metrics dramatically shift in the favor of the injector, right? And so hopefully, you guys have. And I know you guys got a lot of spreadsheets, and I have some that I can share with you that'll make it plainly obvious. But, yes, if you're buying at $420 a vial, and you're not gonna go all in and embrace this product, you will not be as competitive, and so it doesn't make... The economic sense is not as obvious, right? The incentive is not there. But at $275 or $295 a vial or below, the economic incentive is strongly there for the injector and the patient. You're saving the patient money, and you're making more profit, and working less. All three. In terms of barriers, it was the largest clinical trial of all of the toxins. The safety profile is absolutely equal, so there really—I mean, as far as what we feel in terms of how we inject, is safety first, and then going into all the other areas, we've all, I think, feel facile enough with the fact that we have a long history with neuromodulators, that we don't feel uncomfortable with that. Great. So I think that wraps up our panel. Thank you to everybody, and we are gonna take a short break. Take a short 10-minute break. Ladies and gentlemen, the program will begin in 2 minutes. Please take your seats! Ladies and gentlemen, the program is about to begin. Please take your seats. Please welcome President of Revance, Dustin Sjuts. Well, thanks, and thanks again to the amazing panel. That was such a some great insights into the real world and get some clinician experience. So now I get the opportunity to pivot a bit into Revance Therapeutics. And we're in a very unique opportunity, because in the last one year, we've had two FDA approvals, one obviously with our glabellar lines and one with cervical dystonia, and they couldn't be more distinct business units in terms of how the customers interact and the dynamics. So we look forward to explaining a little bit about our strategy here, and today we're going to go a bit into the market landscape, specifically with therapeutics as well as cervical dystonia. We're going to talk about the unmet need, very different than aesthetics, how these patients are seeking something different. And then overall, we'll bring it home with the commercial launch strategy with Rob and the team. So if we take a look at the therapeutic landscape, more than $2.9 billion of value here, globally, with around 84% of that value being in the United States. In the United States, it breaks down to these key categories on the right, with the majority, actually more than 50%, being in movement disorders, broken down by Cervical Dystonia, spasticity, and together more than 50%, and then you've got migraine, and then overactive bladder, and then all other, below there. So specifically for Cervical Dystonia, this is a very unique opportunity for us to enter into this very large market in the United States. It's the first true innovation in 30 years, and there has not been a new botulinum toxin introduced in the therapeutic market in more than 12 years. If we take a double click into cervical dystonia specifically, this is a very painful and disabling chronic condition that causes neck muscle movements for involuntary contracture. You've got more than 60,000 patients that have been diagnosed with this disease. It affects women two times more often than men. The age, typically, the onset of this disease is between 40 and 60 and 85% of these patients are treated by bots today. This market really hasn't been challenged by new entrants. Just like we talked about earlier, all products in this space haven't provided a value to the patient, the provider, or the payer, and so they've seen very minimal impact in taking share in this market, which is largely owned by Botox, and more than 80% haven't been approved since 1989. The CD community is extremely conservative and concentrated. 70% of the CD patients are treated by 1,000 injectors. 90% of these patients, because of this disease, come back every 3 months like clockwork. The practice mindset here is start slow. They start with a low dose of neuromodulator, they adjust that patient experience, and then over time, they titrate the dose, depending on the disease, over a multitude of cycles. But it's clearly and understood here, this is not a cure. This is how do we make those patients have a better life? For these patients, the conventional bots today do not provide that symptom relief, even at the 1week mark, when they're allowed to be retreated. These patients are left to struggle across a ton of issues with this disease. The embarrassment, the shame, the disability, the pain, this is multifactorial in terms of the impact this, this disease has on their life. And let's hear from a patient to tell us about what that feels like. I'm like, "Yeah, still every day, every second, I'm upright." It has definitely made me less social. Any event that I have, I'm always calculating in my mind, where am I going to be in my schedule? Because it's a constant rollercoaster. If I could get to the point where I was just 70% better all the time, or for most of the time, that would be much more beneficial than the gradual climb up for the first three weeks after pretty decent for 3.5, 4 weeks, and then the gradual decline again. By the time I'm ready, I'm desperate. Please welcome Chief Medical Officer, Dr. David Hollander. Thank you. First, I want to express our sincere appreciation for this patient, who's brave enough to share her experiences with cervical dystonia. Experiences which underscore the challenges facing thousands of individuals living with this debilitating disease each and every day. The rollercoaster of symptoms she describes and the despair you can hear in her voice as she waits for that neurotoxin treatment is the result of a simple reality, and that reality is that product labeling across the category limits retreatment earlier than every 12 weeks, and for a vast number of patients, that is simply not adequate to bring relief throughout that treatment interval. This patient's not alone. After surveying more than 200 CD patients, Comella and colleagues created this graph, and it shows the wide fluctuations patients experience in their symptoms between treatments marked by the arrows. Usually, there's limited improvement over the first couple weeks, with some peak improvement in symptoms around week 4. But by around week 10, on average, as that toxin fades, the patients begin to feel more debilitation, are in greater pain, and then they're waiting a number of weeks for that next treatment, and even a number more weeks for that next treatment to kick in. And this cycle repeats over, and over, and over again. The need for a longer-acting neuromodulator is highlighted by the numbers behind me, where you see that 45% of CD patients would want a retreatment 10 weeks or sooner. In fact, a quarter of the patients would want to be retreated every 8 weeks simply to bring them relief, which is not satisfied during this 12-week or more, treatment interval. The unmet need is clear for a longer-acting neuromodulator, one that will deliver relief for these patients throughout that treatment interval, or quite simply, simply deliver more good days to these patients. The ASPEN cervical dystonia study consisted of two pivotal studies. One was a placebo-controlled trial where we evaluated 2 doses of DAXXIFY, 125 units and 250 units relative to placebo. The primary endpoint was at weeks 4 and 6, looking at mean change in TWSTRS score. What is TWSTRS? TWSTRS is an acronym for the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale. It's the rating scale used for most CD registration trials in recent years. It consists of three domains consisted with cervical dystonia: an overall severity of neck position as rated by the clinician, as well as scales on disability and pain as rated by the patients. At the primary endpoint, both 125 units and 250 units of DAXXIFY proved effective in relieving the symptoms of patients with cervical dystonia. The long duration we've talked about with DAXXIFY all day was seen looking at the change in mean TWSTRS score over time, where, at the end of the day, the mean duration of effect was 20 to 24 weeks for these patients with cervical dystonia. Now, a second pivotal trial was done looking at up to four doses of DAXXIFY over the course of one year. Patients were initiated on either 125 or 250 units of DAXXIFY based on the overall clinical severity or prior toxin use, and the physicians could then titrate these doses as needed for the individual patients. With repeated dosing, using an individualized treatment plan, there continued to be improvement in the patient's symptoms over the course of the study. Now, as I said, all patients were started on either 125 or 250 units. Roughly two-thirds were started on 250 units. As Dustin shared with you, in this patient base, you often titrate to optimize the dose over two to four cycles. Over the course of this study, roughly one-third ended up being titrated up to 300 units of DAXXIFY to either achieve better symptom relief or increase the duration of effect. By the numbers you see here, you see over the course of the one year, most of the patients received either two or three treatments of DAXXIFY. Now, the excellent safety profile we've heard about with DAXXIFY all year is highlighted by the table you see behind me. Overall, looking at treatment-related AEs from each cycle 1, 2, 3, and 4, you see all of these numbers remain low. The overall treatment-related AEs remained low, even with repeat dosing and even as the doses were titrated over the course of the study. Now, I highlight dysphagia and muscle weakness because those are the areas that these physicians worry about most. It's in the cervical dystonia patients that you do not want to cause dysphagia or added muscle weakness. Now, to put in context how low these rates are, we've graphed on the X-axis the rates of dysphagia of DAXXIFY in these studies relative to the reported rates of some of the other neurotoxins on the market, and you see the remarkably low rates of DAXXIFY all the way on the left. Now, we've also heard about the formulation of DAXXIFY, which delivers more neurotoxin into the neurons. And so you see on the Y-axis graph, the overall low total amounts of core neurotoxin. But these low numbers alone do not lead to the great safety margin we see here, because as you see, there's essentially a linear relationship with all the other neurotoxins in terms of as the amount of neurotoxin goes up, so do the AE rates. But DAXXIFY, again, remains towards the left, and we believe that this is likely due to the peptide as well, which anchors DAXXIFY in the neurons, in the target tissue, and does not allow spread to unwanted tissues. Now, why is any of this important? It's important because it gives the physicians confidence to titrate the doses as needed to deliver better duration of effect or better symptom control. Again, I show here TWSTRS score, and this is over time. Each color represents a new cycle of DAXXIFY, with the ultimate dose used in the red line down below. And I highlight these to show different ways physicians could approach titration. In the first patient study, you see a very nice actually benefit going from 50 to the high 20s in overall TWSTRS score, with just the first dose of 125 units of DAXXIFY. However, when titrated to 250 and 300, you see continued dramatic improvement in the overall symptoms as the physician optimizes the patient dose. Looking at a separate patient, again, you see an increase from 125 to 250, and in this case, it was done for duration, whereas the first dose basically achieved about 12 weeks of duration. You achieved more than 20 weeks of duration with that titration up to 200 units. So I've talked about the flexibility in the dose. We also have flexibility in the interval of dosing, and this is on the label. The label includes the number of treatments patients received during the course of the one-year study. As I said, most of the patients received 2 or 3 doses. Just under half ended up receiving 3 doses, about a quarter received two doses, and a little over 18% received 4 doses. This gives important information to both the payer and the physician in terms of how to estimate the dose interval. Another way of looking at the dose interval is to simply look at the first time of retreatment in OLS, when the patients could choose to be retreated. What you see behind me is essentially one-third of patients elected to be treated at around week 16, with another 20-some% electing to be treated at week 20. Again, in this particular study, patients could choose to be retreated early before their symptoms had come all the way back to baseline. And that actually is the beauty of what DAXXIFY will bring. At the end of the day, we know that the long duration of DAXXIFY will allow for many patients to experience fewer treatments over the year, but that is really not our only goal. Our goal at the end of the day is to bring better symptomatic control over the course of the year, to minimize that rollercoaster ride they're on of their symptoms going up and their symptoms going down. In the ASPEN Study, we determined that patients actually wanna be retreated with about 40 to 50% of their peak effect still on board, just as their symptoms reemerge. The key to DAXXIFY is that we know patients aren't coming in at week 8 or week 10 for that retreatment. So whether patients come in at week 12 or week 20, physicians can now treat as those symptoms reemerge and not have to wait for those symptoms to go all the way back to baseline. Here I show one more patient example, just to get a sense of what I'm talking about. Again, the different cycles are in the different colors, and you can get a sense that with the first treatment, again, a very long duration of effect, 24+ weeks. But the physician did not wait for the patient to go all the way back to baseline in this blue, blue horizontal line. The patient was retreated at the end of the blue cycle to red and at the end of the red cycle to green, just as there was an uptick in symptoms. This is really the magic of what DAXXIFY can offer the market. The ability to treat as the symptoms reemerge and not wait for those symptoms to go all the way back to baseline. So we believe that the strong, excellent safety profile of DAXXIFY will really give the physicians confidence to titrate their patients optimally. And we believe that with the long duration, patients will no longer have to wait for their symptoms to go back to baseline, and physicians will be able to retreat their patients, whether it's at week 12 or beyond, and really provide that long-lasting symptomatic relief and truly more good days for these patients. And now I'd like to hand you over to Rob Bancroft, who's our General Manager of Therapeutics, to take us through the CD launch. All right. Thank you David and thank you all for joining us today. The clinical profile that David described sets DAXXIFY up to deliver some very important benefits that all three of our customer groups really, really value. For physicians, it starts with delivering great clinical outcomes. This by nature, physicians are healers, and Dustin already mentioned that there's no cure for cervical dystonia, so their focus is about: How do I deliver the best quality of life that I can for this patient population? And we're gonna lean into, in our launch, that desire and that need with skill building, education, knowledge, and giving them the confidence that with the clinical profile of DAXXIFY, they can deliver the durable symptom relief, injection to injection, that this patient population really needs, right? Payers also value outcomes. They then wanna know that their members, their beneficiaries, are being well taken care of. So, we've been surprised at the degree to which payers have been tracking DAXXIFY. They, they know the profile, they understand the product. They've really been leaning in with our national account team and understanding our innovative formulation and the clinical performance. But we also know that the payers really value another factor, and that is they want those great outcomes to come at a compelling economic value. And what we're gonna show you is how we've priced DAXXIFY in the therapeutic space, and how that, in combination with the clinical value, has the payers now very excited about the opportunity they have to manage the costs of this category in a very different way with DAXXIFY than they've been able to do before. All right? The video speaks volumes about the, the experience that these patients are currently having, what their day-to-day life is like. Dystonia is a very difficult disease, difficult to live with physically, functionally, mentally, emotionally. All of those factors come into play. They wanna get off the rollercoaster. They're very excited about the prospects of a longer duration toxin delivering to them, as, as David very well said, more good days. Yeah? We're gonna unpack for you how we're gonna educate those physicians, or excuse me, patients, and some of the other factors that are important to them in terms of thinking about DAXXIFY as an alternative. Let's talk about how we're gonna go to market. We're gonna start with the gatekeeper, which is the physician. And the headline is: We're gonna pursue a strategy of taking a very measured approach to the launch with physicians, and there's a very straightforward reason why that's the case. We want the first experience that the broader market has with DAXXIFY to be consistently positive and successful. And so the way that we're gonna do that, very similar to what you've seen in aesthetics, very similar, similar to the approach that we took there, we're gonna start with a group of expert physicians. We're calling it the Preview Early Experience Program. These are handpicked, hand-selected physicians, and we're gonna focus with them on two objectives. The first one is to translate the clinical results from our pivotal trials into real-world use of the product to optimize clinical outcomes for patients, and that involves a number of different things. Through a series of two or three injection cycles for each of these physicians, we're gonna ask them to translate that clinical trial work into: how do you select the right patients? Right, in clinical trials, that decision is made for you. The real world is different. How do you select the right patients? How do you have the right conversation with those patients about a new alternative? And you heard that in the aesthetic panel. That's an important aspect of managing patients' interest in a new product, is how you have that conversation with them. How do you think about that starting dose? In a clinical trial, that decision is made for you. In the real world, you have, you know, a lot of choice to make there. How do you assess the response to the product? When do you bring the patient back? How do you titrate the dose? And then how do you get them onto a retreatment cadence? So the translation of our clinical trial to the real world involves a lot of different steps and, and aspects, and we're gonna work with the preview, experts to help us, you know, figure out how to package all of that, so by the time we go to the broader market in the middle of 2024, we have dispelled the ambiguities and, and, some of the mysteries, we've got that well-packaged for these physicians to pick up the needle and, and be successful right from the get-go. We started that process, as you can see. In just a couple of weeks, we've had, as of last Friday, 11 physicians have now injected more than 30 patients. The dose range is highly variable in cervical dystonia because the presentation of the disease and severity and muscle pattern are also very variable. It's one of the key reasons why we wanna engage these experts to help define what the appropriate dosing strategy is from patient to patient. And so we'll have all of that information packaged by the time we go to commercial launch. There is a chapter two to this story as well, and it has to do with smooth practice integration. On the slide that Dustin showed, it mentioned 85% Buy and Bill, which means these practices purchase the product, they take financial possession, they take physical possession. So somebody's ordering, somebody's inventorying, somebody's reconstituting, physician injects, and then somebody is billing and coding that as well for the payer. So there are a lot of different hands in the practice that touch these products. A lot of different personnel in the practice are responsible for the successful use of these products, and we're gonna work with these physicians and their practice administrators to determine what all those best practices are, so that by the time we get to this community of physicians, that part of managing DAXXIFY and incorporating it into your practice is also well elucidated. Now, not mentioned on the slide, but also an important part of what's going on during this period, is the work that our national account team and our medical affairs team are doing with payers to unlock the payer channel. So we are educating payers on the clinical profile, the economic profile, filing for our J-Code, sending our clinical dossiers to the Medicare Administrative Contractors, and getting all of those payment policies in place so that these physicians can be successful from day one. Okay, so, in terms of the payer community, I know there have been a lot of questions about how are they perceiving DAXXIFY, how are they processing their way through determining coverage policy determinations for DAXXIFY? And to get into that conversation, I wanna first lay some groundwork, and some foundations. On the left panel, you can see how cervical dystonia patients flow through the different payer channels. Most prominent is the commercial payer. 60% of lives flow through that channel. The other 40% flow through government reimbursed channels, Medicare, Federal, and also Medicaid. And then in the middle and the right-hand panel, we're focusing just on how commercial payers think about and manage this category. A couple of key aspects that I want everybody to be aware of. The first is that about two-thirds of commercial lives sit under a toxin policy that is category-based, meaning that those payers, anything they cover a bot for, they cover all of the bots for, right? And so they've made a determination that these products are essentially functionally equivalent and similarly have a similar safety profile, and so they're covering all of them in a very similar way. The other 35% you can see covered by brand, and that can mean specific to that brand's label. It could also be extended to include what that brand has shown in, as evidence in the literature. So it may be somewhat beyond the label, but it is more restrictive. And so there was a question I got last night in the reception about what is the off-label potential for DAXXIFY. And the reality is, we know that in this category, physicians for years and years have used these products for a wide variety of indications. Some of them are labeled, and some of them are not. And this payer community, two-thirds of the lives are covered under a policy that would support that use of DAXXIFY beyond the label. So that potential certainly exists. We haven't seen it yet, but based on the history and the way that physicians use the products and the way payers cover it, that potential for DAXXIFY is certainly there. Then the last aspect of how commercial payers approach coverage of these products that I want to speak to has to do with utilization management. Today, about 30% of the commercial lives live under a policy where the payer is exercising some sort of control, some sort of influence over which product providers are using. It comes in a variety of different flavors. The strongest is the step edit, where the payer requires a patient to have failed on, you know, the preferred toxin before they move on to another one, but it comes in a couple of other different flavors as well. Could be removal of the prior auth, could be a financial incentive where they pay ASP plus a higher percentage to give a direct financial incentive to the physician to use a preferred toxin. This is, as you can see, a growing trend as this, you know, payer community tries to get their arms around this growing medical benefit drug spend that they're facing as they think about oncology drugs, rare disease, cell and gene, and also this category as well. Bots, according to the 2022 Magellan Trend Report, now number 12 medical benefit drug spend. So this is very much on the radar screen and important to them, and we think that long term, that's going to be a benefit to DAXXIFY, because our economic comparison, our economic profile, compared to the market leader, is very favorable. We've made a decision to price our 100 unit vial in therapeutics at 420 units, $420, excuse me. Compared to the market leader, that's about a 34% discount. Botox is $634. On a per injection session, when we bring the dose into the economic comparison, you can see that Botox, most commonly, if you look at all the data sources, on their label, the mean dose is about 235 units. Look at other data sources, it's always in the low 2 to mid 200 range. That implies 3 vials of Botox, which translates to about $1,900 per injection session. The doses that we studied for DAXXIFY, 125 units and 250 units, imply either two vials or three vials, and you can see, on a per injection session, what that discount, that implied discount is relative to the market leader. Then, when we annualize those costs, we bring into play the reinjection frequency, which is another aspect, obviously, of the DAXXIFY profile. If we were to treat at 4 times a year, you can see what the relative economic comparison is versus BOTOX. You saw in the data from David, we don't expect that to be the norm when DAXXIFY is in the market. We expect it to look more like what you're seeing here in the middle, closer to 3 injection cycles per year relative to the average BOTOX, which is most commonly 4 injection cycles a year. You can see the differences start to get into the multiple thousands of dollars. This has been a very key part of the education process that our national account team has been involved in with payers so far, and I can tell you, the response has been very enthusiastic. When we're showing them savings per year that are up to, and perhaps even beyond 50% per year, this is representative of the type of response that we're getting across the payer spectrum. And it's important, I think, to look at some of these quotes because they imply a variety of different reactions. Here's a top regional plan that for years has had a step edit in place. So they've had very strong utilization management, controlling physicians' use of these toxins. But in light of what they're seeing in DAXXIFY, both in terms of clinical performance and in economic profile, they're signaling to us that they're going to reconsider that, which is exactly what we're looking for. This response from a larger regional plan is very representative of what we've been getting from payers. They're looking at the combination of the clinical performance and the economic package. They just don't see that today in this bot category. And so they're very, very interested in, you know, in DAXXIFY from that perspective. And then this is a large national plan, one of the largest we've spoken to. They've characterized our pricing as responsible, and they're interested in having a larger discussion, a larger strategy about how they are going to cover DAXXIFY. So that is characteristic of the kind of response that we're getting from the payer community. It does take time for them to work through their clinical teams and update their policies, and so that process is in place right now. But we think we've got good momentum, given the profile that we've shown them and the responses that we've been given. Then finally, the constituency that has the most to gain is the patient. As we said, dystonia is a difficult disease for them, and this up-and-down response they're getting on conventional toxins is something that they would really like to get away from. And so the opportunity to translate durable symptom relief, injection to injection, to give them the opportunity for more good days is very, very enticing to this population. But there are a couple of other benefits that specific subsegments of this group are also very interested in. One is the read-through on the economics of DAXXIFY. The majority of this population is responsible for a copay, 20%, and so you look at the thousands of dollars difference on the annual cost of DAXXIFY versus the market leader, that can translate into $500 to 800 of difference on an annual basis for this population, and for many of them, that's, that's a very big number and very important to them. The other is that long duration is not just more good days, it's also about potentially fewer injections. With the very concentrated physician community that treats this population, it's only about 1,000 physicians who are heavily engaged in managing cervical dystonia. A lot of these patients have to travel long distances to get to an injector. They're not just around the corner. Some of them are taking flights. It's taking all day. The prospect of fewer injections is something that's really important to that cohort of patients as well. This is a group that's very excited about DAXXIFY. They want to learn more. They want to know more. They're asking questions, and part of our go-to-market strategy will be to communicate and educate this constituency. When we pull it all together and think about the clinical profile, the economic profile, the benefits that DAXXIFY offers across these three stakeholder audiences, we believe that an appropriate ambition for us to have in this category is to ultimately be the bot of choice for Cervical Dystonia. The strategy that we're going to take to take this product to market starts with those preview physicians and distilling the clinical and practice integration pearls of wisdom, and package that into a scalable adoption journey, an optimized adoption journey, for their colleagues and for those patients to give them the confidence, the knowledge, and the skill on how to utilize DAXXIFY to deliver durable symptom relief, injection to injection, and thereby address that patient need, and to do so in a way that they're comfortable and confident that they're going to get reimbursed for that service. We don't have to go to very many physicians. It's a concentrated market, as Dustin said, only about 1,000 that we need to get to, and our ask of them is going to be very straightforward. It's to take those patients who are having symptom breakthrough before that next injection cycle, and David mentioned the Comella study. In that study, 88% of the patients reported that they had symptom breakthrough. Our ask of these 1,000 physicians is to take those patients and to put them on DAXXIFY and give them the potential and the opportunity for more good days. And we're confident that we can reach those 1,000 physicians with a relatively concentrated field organization of about 30, 30 individuals. You can see the, the different functional areas that we believe comprise that organization. And our key milestones are both preview related. They're also unlocking payer channel related in terms of the J-Code. And also commercial coverage, we feel, you know, very confident based on the responses we've been getting, about 50% or even better commercial coverage by the middle of next year when we plan to launch, and we anticipate our launch. Okay? I'm going to conclude my comments there, and I'll hand it back over to Dustin for future growth opportunities. Well, thanks, Rob. Most of the time is spent today on what we have in front of us right now. How do we execute against the strategy for the growth in aesthetics and our launch into therapeutics? I'm going to focus a few minutes on what's out in front of us. What are our future growth opportunities? Those are underpinned in three key areas: DAXXIFY international expansion, our strategic partnerships, and therapeutics pipeline expansion. So if we look at how we unlock the international markets, we had to look at our overall supply chain network, and supply has been on supply constraints. You've got regulatory needs in terms of when you can apply, and then you also have the cost of goods that Toby talked about in terms of what's that strategy that allows you to unlock, through an appropriate timeline, those international markets. We obviously started in 2010 with our wholly owned subsidiary or wholly owned manufacturing facility in Newark, California. That was designed to execute the clinical trial programs for DAXXIFY, as well as supplying launch. Then we signed in 2017 an agreement with Ajinomoto as our CMO, our first CMO. They were approved, as you know, in 2023. That unlocks the continued growth of our aesthetics launch, as well as our initial therapeutics launch. And we also have a relationship with LSNE or PCI that was signed in 2021, that then unlocks in 2025, allow us to continue to expand, giving us the supply and cost of goods that we need to enter markets that don't have the pricing that the US has. Obviously the US pricing is the highest priced neurotoxin market in the world, followed by China. Those two markets will be unlocked in these areas, and then as we get into broader markets, we'll need to continue to evaluate how that goes, and 2025 helps us with those solutions. But if we look at that international market, I just mentioned the two largest ones we've got taken care of with the United States, both on the aesthetic side and therapeutic side, China, which we'll talk about in a minute, our partnership with Fosun. And then these markets here are representative of those that have volumes in combination with pricing, and how we look at unlocking those as a priority first as we go into this next phase. Taking a look at China. China is the number 2 market in the world for neuromodulators, more than $740 million across therapeutics and aesthetics. We picked an established partner there with Fosun Pharma, that allow us to enter our first international market. We've completed our submission for glabellar lines. It was accepted in April of 2023. Also submitted cervical dystonia. It was accepted in July of 2023. So we look for anticipated approval through our partnership with Fosun in 2024 in China, and going to the next phase of unlocking that opportunity across both aesthetics and therapeutics. Viechous. With Viatris, we as well have a partnership on the first-ever biosimilar to BOTOX, which would provide access to the current 15 indications across all of aesthetics and therapeutics, and also all future indications for BOTOX therapeutic or BOTOX Cosmetic would be unlocked with small clinical program designed around biosimilar. We've made significant progress there. We obviously secured agreement with the FDA on what that path looked like. We've done analytical characterization of BOTOX to confirm its similarities. We are currently producing the biosimilar drug substance that allows us to move into clinical program, and through a partner, we've talked, they've talked about potential IND filing by the end of this year. Next, on the therapeutic side. We've got a unique opportunity to get into this market today with our first indication with cervical dystonia, which represents $345 million in market opportunity. We also have our phase 2 program. We've met with the FDA. We've had that meeting complete, and so we've got opportunities to decide what's the right time to move forward with that program, and also have had significant inbound interest on data generation activities such as IITs and others in a variety of other areas. Throughout 2024, we'll leverage the experience that we get with cervical dystonia, our understanding of the data generation opportunities, and evaluate what is next in unlocking that true potential. So with that, I'll turn it over to Toby Schilke, who our Chief Financial Officer. Toby? Thank you, Dustin. Before I begin, I'd like to take a little bit of a pause and appreciation for an individual. It takes a village to pull off a day like today, and our panelists who have taken their time out of their busy practices, the front of house staff, the back of house staff that make the magic happen in front of here. But one person in particular, who's architected this day, I have a special appreciation to Jessica Serra, our Head of IR and Corporate Communications. Thank you, Jess. It's just a treasure to work with you. You've been a great addition to the Revance family. So it's my pleasure to take us through the financial picture of Revance. Our story is underpinned by revenue growth, and that is the underpinning that we have delivered to shareholders over the past several years. If you can harken back to 2020, it was a suboptimal time to launch an injectable filler project. This was the time when we were in deep pandemic experience, and over that time, through the course of a great product, coupled by a gritty marketing and sales team, we've been able to deliver steady growth, strong, steady growth of that injectable product. That has... That product still has room to run. We still are finding new opportunities and unlocking new doors on a day-by-day basis with that filler in the profile that we've talked about today. Further, we start to compound that growth with the addition of DAXXIFY to our portfolio. So you see DAXXIFY adding on to the growth characteristics of RHA in aesthetic medicine. Not only is there cost synergies because you have one field force promoting two products, a marketing team that's that's aligned and working together for a common objective in facial injectables, but there's revenue synergies across having a product that goes for both products. And so we're excited for that, and we're excited that we still feel that with the U.S. aesthetics business, our combination of DAXXIFY and RHA lead to that blockbuster or $1 billion opportunity. Further areas that Dustin touched on to compound our growth are, in 2024, the launch of cervical dystonia, and layered through the course of the longer-term business plan, other opportunities in therapeutics, and then our partnership programs with Viatris and Fosun. So we're excited to unlock this revenue opportunity for Revance. I'd like to provide some thinking about our revenue guidance plan over the next few years, and to do that, I have to step back to go forward. So if we, if we go back to 2021, that was our first full year of RHA in the market. We got experience there. The world was still locked down from pandemic-related shutdowns, but in 2022, or last year, in 2022, we were able to get DAXXIFY approved. We started our preview program, and we started to make progress, and so we got more and more information about RHA. We got more information about DAXXIFY. This year, we have done a significant expansion of our field force for aesthetics by 50%, and we brought DAXXIFY to full commercialization out of the preview phase. So we feel that we'll be well-positioned to provide revenue guidance in the first half of 2024, with the full year of DAXXIFY launch, and with additional experience on RHA and the impact that we've had with the addition of our field force. Secondly, we've touched on sort of changes we've made on our pricing for DAXXIFY. We still feel that when we do the math, and with the supply chain that Dustin has talked about for Ajinomoto and with LSNE and PCI Pharma, we'll be in a position to offer US adjusted gross margins of over 80%. That is utilizing sort of that blended hybrid strategy, where we make drug substance in Newark and continue to make that there, and then leverage CMOs to expand and scale our fill-finish capability. The unlocking of Aji also supports international expansion with improved cost of goods that we are allowed to do for DAXXIFY. So as we work further down our P&L, we're gonna move into OpEx guidance. So as Dustin touched on, we made a hard decision these last several days to move out of our payment facilitation business in the OPUL business. With that, we have to increase our OpEx, our GAAP OpEx, by $85 to 105 million. This is primarily due to one-time impairment charges and severance costs for the people. Next, that translates, though, into non-GAAP savings of $5 million as we're stopping our research and development efforts related to OPUL. So our R&D from a non-GAAP, which translates to our total OpEx, is saved by $5 million this year in 2023. With that, with that decision about OPUL, our capital allocation priorities have come clearer into focus. Priority one is to continue the expansion of our aesthetics growth and the, and the engine that drives, near-term revenue growth. Priority two is to build upon what Rob and David had talked about in launching cervical dystonia and furthering our therapeutics franchise. Priority three is to continue to find the efficiencies and scale within our supply chain. As a consequence of doing that, we're able to grow our operating leverage. Consistently, if you look on the right-hand side, our non-GAAP OpEx, as a percentage of revenue, has continued to decrease, and showing that with increased revenue growth from RHA, increased growth from the DAXXIFY launch, finding and focusing our investments like we are doing right now, will continue to improve that trend. That entails also implies supply chain efficiencies. Lastly, before I turn the slide over, I'd like to... We're gonna double-click on an experience and sort of the experience center that you've seen and demonstrated in the last several days here in Nashville. This is one of the areas that we've taken hard business decisions to actually invest as a platform for growth in the future. So today, what you see is this lovely facility here in Nashville. It hosts 50-60 events on, on an annual basis, whether that's Salesforce training, whether that's customer events or investor days like you see today. That when you compare the costs of the running a Nashville facility and the savings you get from catering, AV, the food, and the rental space that you have to be locked in, that saves $5 to 7 million a year. And so when you correlate that to the payback that was associated to build this facility and the ongoing rent that's required to maintain this facility, that's a one-year payback. It's a pretty amazing thing for what you see here and the ability that we're able to showcase to our customers. So with that, coupled with our strong balance sheet, we had $320 million at the end of Q2 this year. We then in August, we added an additional $50 million from our note purchase agreement with our partners at Athene. And coupled with our revenue trends, the levers we had on OpEx, we expect to be positive EBITDA adjusted in 2025. And so we are excited to execute our business from a position of financial strength. As Mark talked about, we've had... We've introduced a new pricing program to unlock additional offices to open the experience for DAXXIFY. We feel that our Q3 revenue potential has the potential to be about the same levels of Q2 for our products because of the recent rollout of the pricing and because of traditional seasonality. We expect to provide guidance for our revenue in the first half of 2024, and we continue this journey of disciplined capital allocation. We've taken hard decisions about streamlining our OPUL payments business. That's freed up over $20 million of OpEx to reinvest in other areas of growth for our business and reduced our non-GAAP financial guidance for 2023. When you couple that into our long-term potential, again, it's built on the strength of DAXXIFY and our blockbuster potential for our US aesthetics portfolio. When we leverage that with our improving gross margins and sort of our balance sheet strength, we feel like we're in a really strong position to execute the opportunity we have. When you layer on those growth opportunities that Dustin alluded to, we feel like we can generate real shareholder returns. And with that, I'll turn the presentation back over to Mark to close. Great. Thanks Toby. Before we go into the Q&A session, I just wanted to wrap everything up and kind of touch on some of the key points here. So we feel really good about where we're positioned in the market. As I opened, we're in large, growing markets that are very sizable, and we're coming at it from a very differentiated place with innovation. We believe we've got the right strategy in place, as demonstrated with how we've succeeded in the RHA filler launch. We've taken a very measured approach, introducing DAXXIFY for the very first time into the market, and we think that we've been able to take all those learnings to optimize our strategy to position us for long-term, meaningful share growth and gain.... We're also super excited as we move now into the therapeutics category to be able to start unlocking that. As Toby mentioned, we're in a very strong financial position to put our heads down and go out and execute. I also feel like we've really assembled a fantastic team, and that we're going to be able to leverage a lot of the innovative tech, products that we have and the partnership that we're forging with practices to look at ways to better get leverage across both products as we roll out some of our additional engagement and loyalty strategies that we're gonna put forward. So where we sit today, we feel we're incredibly well positioned for the future. We have a very strong foundation, and we look forward to keeping all of you posted along the way. So thank you for your time, and we'll now go into the Q&A session. We want to welcome back our presenters for a question and answer session. David? Hi. Thanks Jessica. Thanks for taking my question. David Amsellem at Piper Sandler. 2 questions. First, with the revised pricing structure on DAXXIFY, does that change how you're thinking about practitioner targeting? In other words, do you target a wider audience of injectors, and that's in the aesthetic setting? Do you pivot away from the prestige strategy that you outlined at the outset of the launch? That's number one. Number 2, a therapeutics question. You mentioned how some payers cover neuromodulators as a category. How do you think about what that means regarding the potential for off-label uses of DAXXIFY outside of cervical dystonia, and what that might mean for how you're thinking about clinical trials, whether they're ones that you run or working with investigators on investigator-initiated trials? So, I know that's a lot to unpack, but I wanted to get your general thoughts there. Thank you. Great. Thanks for the questions. So I'll take the first 1 and then hand it over to the therapeutics group to hit the second 1. So on the targeting side of it, you know, as we mentioned, our, our first priority is to double back with those accounts that we've already trained, that we've already onboarded, who have experience with DAXXIFY, because we think they're the best ones to build the foundation of strength going forward. You know, if we look at our, our original launch strategy and the targeting that we had, what really underpinned what, you know, we called at the time, the prestige strategy, but was really designed to say: We want to be a good practice partner, and what that means is we're not gonna allow advertising of price. Because in the market today, the ability for some practices to advertise price only, you know, creates an environment for customers to shop just price. And so we're trying to partner with practices to say, "We're not gonna allow anybody to advertise price," so that the discussion around pricing and what product to use can really take place within the practice itself. And so to your question, does that change our strategy over time? Listen, you know, we would love as many people to experience DAXI and RHA fillers as makes sense, provided that they're comfortable with the no advertising pricing strategy. And given how that has resonated, certainly I would expect that as we go forward, we will have an ability to participate in a majority of the overall injector provider market. Having said that, if you look at how we've done with the RHA line of fillers, we're only in, and we said a little over 6,000 accounts, yet we're a 9% shareholder. So we still think that being measured and thoughtful, particularly when you have differentiated products and building from a place of strength, is really important to getting to long-term adoption. So near term, focus on those we have a relationship with. Going forward, continue to leverage the no advertising price, and then continue to engage whatever practices are comfortable with that strategy on the therapeutic side. Yeah, maybe I'll start, and I'll kick it over to David, and then talk about the IITs. But I think first, the good thing is we know bots work. Bots are used for a variety of things in the therapeutic space for 20, 30 different indications across, and only approved for 15, as we know, or roughly that. And so we believe we have a better bot. We think that providers will be able to do what they seem appropriate for their patients with our products, and we'll evaluate that over time. In terms of what we'll be able to promote, we'll be able to promote what we have as our indication and then be able to provide medical affairs support around the data that exists, that we generate, and that is out there. So it's time will tell in terms of what they do, but in this space, there's certainly utilization beyond what is within that specific indication. I'll kick it to David to talk about kind of the IITs and how we evaluate those, and Rob as well. Yeah. So we've already had a number of interests in some of the off-label use of DAXI. There's still a lot of... a lot to learn, so we will probably be supporting some of these IITs. And when I say a lot to learn, in terms of dose, in terms of treatment algorithm, so we probably would begin in an IIT realm before necessarily embarking on our own studies. But the interest already existed pre-Cervical Dystonia approval. It's only, you know, ramped up since that approval. ... Great. Thank you for taking our questions, Stacy Ku at TD Cowen. So first, wondering if you're willing to disclose some metrics. So within the 6,000 accounts, what has already been trained on DAXXIFY? So what might be the penetration of practices where you are right now and in terms of how we think about the lower-hanging fruit with the updated pricing? That's the first question, potential penetration rates. And then second, as we think about some of the KLA commentary, how long does it take for practices to really integrate DAXXIFY and optimize outcomes? So what timeframe do you think we'll see a potential acceleration of account adoption realized in sales numbers? So could this happen this year in Q4, or are we thinking more of 2025 for a potential acceleration? And I'll stop there. Sure. So the first 1, in terms of the numbers, we haven't put that information out there, but what I can say is, it's... In terms of the number of accounts for Q2 that have ordered, it's, you know, well less than half of the number of accounts that we currently have on the DAXXIFY side. So still a very manageable, thoughtful, targeted amount, and so now it's the going back and circling back up with those accounts. In terms of what does that sort of re-engagement and cycle look like to get back to the kind of share gains that we would like, I think it's a TBD. I think the question will be: for those accounts that have experience, do they have enough comfort and familiarity with the duration profile, where the price being what was communicated to be the major hurdle? Does that accelerate that, or do they need, with this new approach, to say, "Hey, let us now treat 50 patients, not just those that said duration was an issue," or whatever, and want to see how it works in a broader base? And so I think there's a little bit of a TBD. Again, all of the different sort of feedback points that we're getting since we've rolled it out, the early trends that we're seeing just in the early September, what you're hearing from the clinician panel here, we feel really good about it. And so we'll continue to keep, you know, investors posted as we have more information along that journey. But I think it's too early to say we know what that timeframe's gonna be. Tim Lugo, William Blair. Can you dig more into the overall trend of these large buying groups within the industry? It sounds like that might have been one of the levers that also pointed to the price action that was announced. Just give us a sense of the volumes that are unlocked with now parity pricing. Also, are these groups bulkier buyers? Should we expect some lumpiness when these groups do come online and do adopt DAXXIFY? Yeah, so there's no doubt that there's a growing trend for some of these roll-ups and, you know, private equity across a variety of different verticals. You know, some are more med spas, some are more plastic surgeons, some are more dermatology, which historically, you saw more in the med derm space, but less so in the pure aesthetic space. So you're definitely starting to see that. And since our strategy was a very targeted and measured strategy, a lot of these groups, in order to get access, you start with price as being kind of the offer to get in the door. And for where we were at, we were more focused with the preview launch to say: We're not ready right now to try and go after large share. We're trying to get clinical experience and feedback. So it's hard to have that engagement dialogue to say, "Let's start with price," when our whole value proposition was duration and other things like that. And so we were a little bit more reluctant at that phase to engage with them. But the reality is, they're an important part of this evolving market, and in some cases, have also a lot of thought leaders and influencers. And so we're trying to be very thoughtful around, we need to be engaging our customers where they are, and we need to make sure that we've got a, an offering that works for everybody. And so we will start to engage with some of those folks. I think that the chicken and the egg thing that we have is, as you've heard from clinicians that have experience with the product and have a lot of patients on it, it's the kind of thing where they've now seen the light, they've had the experience, and that gives confidence all the way through. Patients are now asking for it, practices feel more confident. Our pricing strategy thus far has just been, whenever you buy, you can buy at whatever price you're most comfortable with, based on volumes, and it's very simple, clear, and transparent. The market as a whole tends to be more structured on, if you want best price, you have to make bigger commitments over the course of a year. It's really hard for us to go into a practice at the beginning and say, "If you want our best price, we need 50% of your business," because that would be disingenuous. They don't have enough experience to really inform, which was why it was so important that we went out and we did the launch strategy that we did. We got the feedback, so now we have more of that. So yes, we're gonna start to engage with some of these practices. We now have enough data that where our strategy made sense there, and we're gonna try and find that right balance where everybody can win. And to your point on sort of lumpiness of revenue when you enter into large agreements, typically, revenue is recognized when the DAXXIFY or RHA is received by the practice. And if they're ordering or if they have a contract, for instance, that would-that wouldn't be super lumpy when you start to think about that over the nation. Hi there, Annabel Samimy. Can you just confirm the $420 per vial that you noted? Was that pre or post the price change? And how are you gonna handle some of the bulk purchasing from physicians, where they get a lower price with the therapeutics? Just wanna know if you're gonna do anything differently than what we are familiar with in the marketplace. And then second question, with the payers, I can't remember specifically from the label, but clearly, the other neurotoxins are on a very set schedule, every 12 weeks. Is there anything in your label that might cause a payer to restrict you to a certain timetable in the administration? Thanks. Thanks Annabelle. I'll start. So that $420 that we announced was after. That is our WAC price. That'll be our list price. Obviously, as you know, two quarters into launch, we'll then have a calculated ASP that'll be across all volumes, both in the aesthetic space as well as the therapeutic space. So we'll have a blended ASP, which is typical for, ... a product that has one BLA with sBLAs to come. And so there will be an ASP that's obviously lower than $420, and we'll evaluate what that is, as it continues to kind of progress, and then it'll be updated each quarter, around the historical ASP across both businesses. So you'll see that's why Rob had talked about kind of a varying degree of discount, depending on how that ASP shakes out over time. We were thoughtful on the label, and I'll pass over to David, in terms of not having something that would restrict us to a longer retreatment interval cycle. Because as you saw, patients want to be retreated before 12 weeks and now can't. So one of the things we wanted to avoid is like, "Hey, you can only get retreated with DAXXIFY every 15," or what have you. So, David, do you want to add any details to that as well? No, that, that's exactly it. The way we designed the open label study, there wasn't a fixed treatment pattern. There wasn't every 16 or every 20. So the label actually shows you the range of, you know, 2, 3, 4 injections. Payers understand that it will be a range. Physicians understand that it's a range, but there's nothing preset or, you know... That was one question we actually heard from physicians: "Am I now gonna be restricted to only dosing at a certain interval?" Absolutely not. Beyond 12 weeks, they have free rein, however the patient needs. Maybe, Rob, on the specifics of in terms of bulk buying on the therapeutic side. Yeah, our strategy is to keep our price at $420, you know, out of the gate. We believe we're at such a significant cost savings and cost effectiveness relative to the market leaders today, something that we'll contemplate longer term in the future. On the immediate basis, I think we'll stay, it'll stay in the $420 range. Hi, this is Navantha from BNP Paribas. I have two questions, please. So maybe I'll start with the aesthetics one. So do you consider changing the competitive pricing versus BOTOX to providers later on? Is that a possibility? And do you still recommend a 1.5 time as a price to the end patient? And then on the therapeutic side, I'm interested to know about how you will approach the preview program differently to take into account that providers might be more conservative in switching compared to the aesthetic side. Thank you. Sure. So on the aesthetic side, with regards to pricing, I mean, our goal right now, as we re-engage these accounts, is to allow them to get a lot of experience in treating their patients. And so the preference would be, given the price concession that we have made for these accounts that have not broadly adopted DAXXIFY, is to offer the product to their patients at parity with the market leader so that they can get a lot of experience. And then from there, they can decide, going forward, based on that experience and the product performance profile, do they keep it at parity, do they charge a small markup, or do they charge a more meaningful markup? It will then be that experience that will give them the confidence in terms of expectation setting, how to position it with the patients and what expectations to set. And as you've seen with the group of clinicians up here, they've all had that experience. So they now have that opportunity to tinker with the product, to see the patients come back, to set that right expectation. So that will be the near term, and that was the big driver, is to allow price to be roughly in line so that they're not having to spend a lot of time convincing somebody that it's worth more money. And then they can get into that discussion on the next time. In terms of the future, you know, we think this is a very thoughtful move on the pricing side. That's why we say competitive. It's not parity, it's competitive. And again, given the performance profile of the product and the ability for clinicians to charge a something more than what they get today, we think there's a lot of ways that they can win. So that's our strategy in aesthetics. Rob, you want to take the preview? Yeah, it's a very good question. There are a number of factors that are gonna influence physicians' thoughts around switching patients from conventional bots that they may have been on years or decades over to Daxxify. And we believe we're gonna be addressing a number of those in our preview program. Some of them will be around their clinical confidence on how do they use the product to pull through those differentiated durable symptom relief injection to injection. And one of the key reasons we're working with these preview physicians is to really nail down the best practices, the pearls of wisdom that will come out of that real-world experience on how you do that. Another is going to be having a discussion with physicians about where their patients are in their current experience with conventional toxins. I will say we have been pleasantly surprised that the vast majority of physicians proactively, without us prompting, are communicating to us that the majority of their patients are not getting to 12 weeks. They recognize the shortcomings in the conventional toxins against that FDA-mandated 12-week reinjection cycle. So we think that part of our communication with the physicians is also to bring the voice of the patient into that equation as well. So one of the things we're gonna do in our preview program is identify patient ambassadors who have a great story to tell about what their life was like when they were treated with a conventional toxin and how that's changed once they've been converted to DAXXIFY. For that story to not only get into the patient community, which is obviously also key, but to get that into the physician community as well, so that they really understand what that patient journey is like. I think today they recognize it, but I don't know that they sense the depth and the scope of the suffering that these patients are really going through. As that patient said, by the time she's ready for her next injection, she's desperate for that injection. And as David, you know, said, we think we can remove that desperation. You know, those factors together, we think, will be a pretty strong package for physicians to consider when it comes to, you know, switching patients over to DAXXIFY and giving that a try and seeing if they can improve the lives of their patients. Chris Shibutani from Goldman Sachs. 2 questions maybe on the profitability profile. ... as you think about the puts and takes as far as the cost of goods, and you talk about ultimately achieving the 80%+ gross margin there, obviously, one of the inputs that you have made an adjustment is in terms of the revenues that you get for sale of the product. Are there any commensurate toggles within the ultimate COGS calculation in terms of your relationship with your manufacturers that can help offset and generate the achievement of that kind of COGS? And then you also made an adjustment in the R&D level of spend. And so if I think about what it is you'd be spending on R&D, you can go to your website, you have your pipeline efforts in aesthetics and in therapeutics. In aesthetics, there are a bunch of studies that have listed as phase 2 positive in other parts of the anatomy of the face. Clearly, from the discussion we've had from the KOLs here, that is not holding back their ability to practice medicine. Is further investment in these aesthetic indications part of the expense assumption? And if so, is that really necessary? Then on the therapeutic side, it looks we have cervical dystonia, but there's an additional indication. How relevant and important is that towards achieving competitive relevance in the therapeutic space? You want to start Toby now? Yeah. So to your first point about R&D expenses, the technology investment that we make in the OPUL platform, in terms of the developed technology, is expensed through R&D and capitalized—partially capitalized and partially expensed. So with the stoppage of the investment in OPUL, we'll be stopping the R&D. So that's the 2023 effect that you see. So there's a fair amount. If you were to look at that $20 million that we talked about in the deck, about more than half of that was related to R&D investment in the OPUL platform that flows through the income statement. When you look going forward, you know, towards our strategy right now, we feel that there is a lot of utilization of DAXXIFY in aesthetics outside of glabellar lines. The vast majority of products, Dysport, Xeomin, and Jeuveau, only have an indication in Glabellar Lines and are broadly utilized across the face, and that was the data that we presented today for DAXXIFY as well. So obviously, there's a benefit cost associated with that, but probably in the near term, investments in registrational paths for aesthetic indications are not on the table right now. And to David's earlier question, I think that the start for the therapeutics profile for DAXXIFY starts with IITs and data that we can generate there, and then we'll continue to build and leverage as we gain more experience in the marketplace for uptake in Cervical Dystonia, spontaneous use patterns, and sort of the feedback we get with the IITs to design a thoughtful registrational strategy. Do you want me to just hit what's in R&D then? Yeah. Currently, the most of the R&D actually is towards our supply chain, and, a fair amount of that is the investment in the LSNE/PCI strategy and the build-out of those pipelines. As you know, the... Until a facility is approved, those costs are actually expensed rather than capitalized in terms of an inventory. So as LSNE/PCI builds up and starts to make that and moves towards, approval, we'll continue to have those, and then those will decline as they become capitalized and then ultimately flown through the income statement as cost of goods. Yeah, and just to build on that, I mean, we're taking obviously a critical look, given where we are in our journey in the commercialization side, to say, "Where can we best deploy our capital?" Obviously, we made the difficult decision with the OPUL payments business. We're continuing to look to say: How do we make sure that, you know, every dollar that we have to spend is going to generate the best return? As you pointed out, Chris, on the clinical side of it, we really don't have much right now on the clinical side other than some dollars to do some IITs, for the reasons you mentioned. We've done some phase 2 work on upper facial lines. We've got a lot of real-world experience where most of our competitors only have a glabellar lines indication, and most of these clinicians know how to inject these. That's probably not a great use of our resources today. Therapeutics, we're gonna learn a lot through Cervical Dystonia. We talked about the landscape there. We're dealing with a very concentrated base. We'll have some IIT. We'll wait and see there. So we're gonna be very measured in terms of that strategy. To your first question about the supply chain and what are the other things that we might be able to do and sort of what's our confidence and our conviction, this is really, at this point, based on some of the supply chain investments that we've made. It's really a volume game, and most of that is the US aesthetics volume that's going to drive it. We've got a fixed cost related to our drug substance manufacturing, so obviously, that overhead, the more volume that we sell, gets absorbed. Then same thing from our supplier. We have price breaks at certain volume levels, so as our volume goes up, our costs come down, and that's gonna be the biggest way that we can drive it. The great thing about it, there's certainly some of our competitors who are distributors in the market, so they get their product via a transfer price, and there's a middleman that plays in it. So two of our competitors have that; we don't. And so over time, as we build scale and size, we should have more margin flexibility as it relates to our profitability profile. Mark, hi, this is Balaji from Barclays. Couple of questions, actually, for each of you. Firstly, on the gross margin side, I mean, street really, as it were, cut out, we'll have to go back to the drawing table, sitting at around 82% gross margin for next year. So on your renewed pricing or the reset pricing, when do you think you'll reach this 80% adjusted gross margin? And are there any particular inflection points that you're looking for that's going to take you there? In hindsight, what is the curve going to look like? That's 1. 2 on OPUL, we had always discussed that this provides you enormous insight into customer behavior. At what point did you think that this was worth divesting and let go of that insight into customer behavior? ... and maybe last one on the Step Edit. So can you help us understand how a Step Edit works as it relates to duration and where you still have comparable efficacy, but the duration is of a greater benefit? So how does a Step Edit work in that case? Thanks. Okay, you want to take the first one? Yeah, sure. We've consistently said on our gross margin that when you model out the experience that we've previously stated for our RHA Collection of fillers, that gross margin profile of those products is dictated by the transfer price that we get from Teoxane SA, which has hovered between 63 to 68% from a gross margin profile with the RHA Collection. With DAXXIFY, the key to unlock the next step in the leg down in gross margin is the approval of the LSNE or PCI facility. That provides the scale that we need from a fill finish, which is the sort of the bottleneck to unlock additional sort of cost savings across the supply chain. As you know, we've been in a little bit of this kind of unusual stage, where a lot of the product that we've been selling was expensed as R&D, so we've already expensed the cost and zero cost inventory. So we've had a little bit of that, but when we get to steady state, certainly PCI and the volumes will get us there. On your second question about OPUL in terms of the data insights, you know, if we walk you back through the journey, again, when we launched this, in the middle of the pandemic, we had to cut back a little bit on some of the spend. So a lot of the different initiatives we pulled back. Part of the reason that we were providing OPUL with discounted rates was that we were trying to build out the payback capability. Until we had the pay back capability, we didn't have enough other value levers to convince practices to join, so it was really a price play. Now, that we've turned on the pay back side of it, we are able to sort of extract some of that data, and so we were just looking at some data the other day across 200 practices that have the catalog, and we can look at those, and we have some really good data insights there. So that strategy continues to make sense. The challenge that we have is, given the time that it's taken it to get it to this point, and the fact that getting accounts to adopt this, oftentimes it's a little bit of a higher hurdle if somebody has an EMR system. And so that journey to converting accounts is gonna take yet another additional sales and marketing effort for that to happen. And we just had to take the pragmatic approach that as much as we like the strategy, and we think it makes sense, and, and hopefully we'll find a good home for it, and maybe that home would allow for some data sharing going forward, and we'll, we'll see. We're heading down that journey. We just felt like we're at a stage now where we have to make some priority decisions. And as much as we really like that and that strategy, we think we can better use that $20 million+ to go directly towards the, the DAXI and the RHA side of things to drive better, better adoption. And then there- Rob, you want to hit Step Edit? Yeah, I'd love to. You know, in a world where payers perceive conventional toxins to all be interchangeable and the same, they're gonna be looking for implementing mechanisms to save, to save dollars. One of those is the step edit as the Northeast regional plan that we discussed. Our discussion with them about DAXXIFY is about leveraging this different clinical performance and this different economic profile to break that step edit. So it remains to be seen whether that will be the case, but you saw the response from that particular payer, that it is giving them reason to reconsider what has been a long-held practice there, to put a step edit in place. So, our thought about the duration relationship to Step Edit is it's a way for us to get DAXXIFY carved out of that Step Edit, so that it sits outside of that limitation, so that we're not subject to that because we have a different clinical profile. Yeah. Hi, Serge Belanger from Needham. A couple questions on the preview program that just got underway in cervical dystonia. I guess, first, how many docs do you intend to be trained by the time you launch in mid-2024? And secondly, should we see something similar to what happened with the aesthetics preview program, where the initial cohort of trained docs started using the product ahead of the launch? And then second question regarding the, international expansion opportunities, should we view these as potential partnering opportunities, or these are additional investments you'll be taking on over the next few years? Rob, you wanna start with the preview? Yeah, let me start with preview. The total number of practices that we're planning to work with up to the time we launch to the broader market is 30 to 35 practices, and they will be using the product between now and the time that happens. And so that group will be ordering the product beginning in October, all the way through the time that we launch the product. They'll also, as I indicated, serve as our faculty when we go to the broader market. They'll be our trainers and our educators, but they will be using the product between now and then. It's about 36. You wanna comment on the other part of that question, where it was... Will we see that same sort of bump that we saw with this preview group when we kicked off preview? Go ahead, Rob. Yeah. Yeah we definitely expect that this... I would tell you that the initial feedback from this group is a lot of excitement about this product. They're similar to our aesthetic panel. They are very excited about being out in front and being the first to get their hands on this product, you know, commercially. And so we do expect there to be, you know, significant utilization from them prior to launch. I don't think it's gonna be on the same order as it was in aesthetics. It's a different size market, you know, things of that nature, but we do expect that they will be, you know, ramping significantly by the time we do get to launch midyear next year. I think if you look at aesthetics, we started with something called Prelude, which was around 20 or so informed KOLs that are gonna drive preview. This preview is 30, so it's not that 400 that you saw with that December preview program. So just understand this 30 is what's gonna carry us into that, that mid-part of 2024. And so, yes, their, their utilization will be larger than anyone else's, but- ... That's really gonna be more of a muted scenario in terms of that and in terms, obviously, with how they buy and build these patients. It's also gonna depend on patient flow and what practices they're in. So it's pretty dynamically different, as you know, in terms of the order patterns there. And on the international side, you know, we've long talked about our focus is here in the United States. How do we maximize the most amount of value we can out of both aesthetics and therapeutics here in North America? We've got the second-largest market unlocked with Fosun partnership, and then we mentioned that supply chain kind of allowing us to unlock the next level of international opportunities based off of the right pricing for us in terms of cost of goods, and then also the right price in, in market. So we'll evaluate what are the right markets, if any, to go direct or partnership, but right now, our focus is purely on the US We also remain very focused on our partnership with Teoxane, who obviously has significant organizational infrastructure outside the United States, and we can evaluate what's the right thing there, from a partnership perspective. Hi, thank you. This is Wei from Mizuho. On your guidance, your previous financial guidance was to reach cash flow breakeven, and now it's sort of changed to 2025, you know, positive adjusted EBITDA. I guess what I'd like to know is, what has changed in terms of your internal assumptions, particularly for the revenues, between now and then? Are you expecting significantly more revenues from either DAXXIFY? Because we know that, I guess, a small amount of revenues from Opko have gone away. Maybe I could hit that first and then give it to you. We just to kind of... The, the, the chronology of the guidance things around the financial side of it started when we said with the... This is back at our, you know, Q1 earnings call, when we said that with the additional $100 million that we had available via Ethereum in our second tranche, should we take that down, that combined with our cash balance and that $100 million, that we could fund the US aesthetics business to cash flow positive. We then actually ran the ATM in Q2 and took $100 million of equity and worked with Ethereum to reduce that second tranche of $100 million down to $50 million. When we took the $100 million in the ATM, that sort of traded out what we were saying about the $100 million in Ethereum debt, and then we added the $50 million in debt. We said, "Now we're no longer just funded to breakeven in the US aesthetics business, but for the full business." Now we're putting a stake in the ground, saying when we expect that to happen. There really hasn't been a change necessarily in what we're guiding. The only thing we've done now is created more clarity about when we expect that to happen. I don't know if you wanna- I think you covered it well. That was our last question. All righty. Well listen, thank you all so much for coming all the way out to Nashville. We're very proud to show off our facility and, and we know that you all have busy schedules, so thanks for the time. We have to-go lunches out there and food out there. Anybody who hasn't had a chance to do a tour that would like, we would be happy to, to do that, and we'd like to say a special thanks to our esteemed panel of clinicians, too, that, that came all the way out here to be a part of this as well. So thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.