Welcome to the Revance Therapeutics' Q3 2023 financial results and corporate update conference call. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. Following management's prepared remarks, we will hold a question-and-answer session. To ask a question at that time, please press star followed by one on your touchtone phone. If anyone has difficulty hearing the conference call, please press star zero for operator assistance. As a reminder, this call is being recorded today, Wednesday, November 8, 2023. We'd now like to turn the conference call over to Jessica Serra, Head of Investor Relations, Communications, and ESG for Revance. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator. Joining us on the call today from Revance, our Chief Executive Officer, Mark Foley, President, Dustin Sjuts, and Chief Financial Officer, Toby Schilke. During this conference call, management will make forward-looking statements, including statements related to guidance, positive adjusted EBITDA, adjusted gross margin, operating leverage, blockbuster potential, the financial impact of OPUL exit, the impact of our pricing strategy on adoption, our competitive market position, our potential value creation, additional therapeutics approval, plans related to the timing, launch, and payer coverage of DAXXIFY for cervical dystonia, international expansion, relationships with providers, our commercial success, injector, consumer and patient preferences and behavior, the efficacy, duration, and safety of DAXXIFY, the benefits of our products and strategy, our strategic partnerships and strategy, timeline, goals, and planned operations. Our actual results and the timing of events could differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements as a result of risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause results to be different from these statements can be found in our Risk Factors sections of our recent SEC filings. Revance undertakes no duty or obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events, or changes in its expectations. Also, on today's call, we will present both GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. A reconciliation of non-GAAP to GAAP measures is included in our earnings release to the extent accessible. With that, I will turn the call over to Mark Foley, Chief Executive Officer of Revance. Mark? Thank you, Jessica. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining our Q3 2023 financial results conference call. Before I cover our results for the quarter, I'm pleased to announce the appointment of Erica Jordan to the position of Chief Commercial Officer, Aesthetics. In this role, Erica will lead our commercial efforts in aesthetics and will be focused on driving growth and synergy across both DAXXIFY and the RHA Collection, developing and executing our loyalty and engagement programs, and helping drive our international expansion strategy. Erica's appointment comes at a critical time as we focus our efforts on DAXXIFY's launch, and I look forward to working closely with her across our different strategic initiatives. Erica is an accomplished healthcare executive, and her strong leadership skills, combined with her extensive commercial experience, will be a welcome addition to the executive team. Now, turning to our results. Q3 was a pivotal quarter for Revance as we saw the positive impact of our new pricing strategy on DAXXIFY's launch, continued to drive growth in the RHA Collection, and made great progress with our DAXXIFY PrevU program for cervical dystonia, which was launched in September following FDA approval. Also important was our $50 million drawdown of debt from Athyrium Capital at a fixed rate of 8.5%, which further bolstered our cash position to $300 million as of the end of Q3. Product revenue for the Q3 more than doubled to $54.1 million from the same period last year, primarily due to the launch of DAXXIFY and continued growth of the RHA Collection. As outlined at our recent Investor Day, we believe our progress across aesthetics and therapeutics, focus on capital allocation, and path to positive adjusted EBITDA in 2025, all position us for long-term value creation for our stakeholders. Let's begin with aesthetics. We delivered $22 million in Q3 DAXXIFY sales and $71 million in total DAXXIFY sales during the first year following FDA approval, surpassing the total first-year sales of all BOTOX Cosmetic competitors combined. This is a tremendous, tremendous accomplishment, particularly considering that DAXXIFY has only been on the market for 2 full quarters and was launched under a measured strategy, which initially focused on our existing RHA accounts. Our early progress underscores the innovation and differentiated performance profile of DAXXIFY and the market's strong interest in a novel, long-acting neuromodulator. We knew that the early stages of launch would be an important learning opportunity and, as such, designed a PrevU program to leverage real-world clinical insights to inform our market positioning and enhance our launch efforts. Through PrevU, customer outreach and engagement, and recent independent survey results from 225 injectors, we gained several key validations and learnings. First, DAXXIFY's differentiated performance profile is clear, including its fast onset, long duration, and the appearance of improved skin quality. In fact, of the attributes surveyed, these were the top three reasons injectors cited for switching to DAXXIFY from their first-choice, short-acting toxin. Second, injectors are using DAXXIFY broadly across the face with high satisfaction rates. Based on the independent survey, more than 80% of injectors and patients were satisfied or very satisfied with their aesthetic results from DAXXIFY. And lastly, based on provider feedback, there is a significant opportunity to achieve broader product adoption by reducing DAXXIFY's price premium. As we have learned, there is a strong linkage between price and product expectations. DAXXIFY's higher acquisition cost and accordingly, higher price to the consumer, has led to elevated consumer expectations, price sensitivity, and a more involved switch discussion. In surveying our customers, we also heard that they believe DAXXIFY is a better product, but that at a premium price, challenges to deeper adoption exist. However, many practitioners also indicated that if DAXXIFY's price was more competitive with other toxins, they would be able to convert a larger percentage of their customers. Based on the consistency of this feedback, we made the strategic decision to adjust DAXXIFY's price. Now, with DAXXIFY's differentiated performance profile, attractive price point, and strong economic opportunity for the provider, we believe the product is positioned to provide meaningful value to both injectors and consumers. Further, long term, we continue to expect to realize an attractive U.S. DAXXIFY adjusted gross margin rate of over 80% as our business scales and as our supply chain matures. Since the rollout of our new pricing strategy on September first, the team has been focused on reengaging with existing accounts in order to help them realize the full value of DAXXIFY and gain more experience with the product. So far, we've been encouraged by the feedback we've received from our customers on the price change and with the positive trends in purchase volumes and account reorders. Notably, the third, the number of DAXXIFY vials sold in Q3 increased by 10% from the prior quarter, with Q3 revenue of $22 million offset by a lower average selling price. Revenue from reordering accounts and vials sold to reordering accounts were also up 25% and 43% respectively over the prior quarter, with the majority of the increase coming from September. Further, revenue from reordering accounts represented approximately two-thirds of DAXXIFY revenue for the Q3, the majority of which came from September. We are still in the early stages of implementing our new pricing strategy, but are very encouraged by the momentum we are seeing. At the core, we believe that our peptide-formulated toxin provides meaningful differentiation that both customers and injectors will come to appreciate and value with more experience. Currently, over 2,500 accounts have ordered DAXXIFY, leaving us with significant headroom for growth. Turning to the RHA Collection, Q3 revenues totaled $32.1 million, up 23% year-over-year, despite softness in the broader filler market, where market research indicated that filler patient spend was down in the low teens year-over-year, due to inflationary pressures on consumer spending. Our strong relative performance continues to be supported by new account growth, the introduction of DAXXIFY, and a robust and deep engagement with customers. In Q3, we hosted several live RHA training sessions at our Nashville Experience Center, with a focus on injection technique and Salesforce training. Collectively, our strong efforts have allowed the RHA Collection to gain the most market share in the HA filler market through Q3 of 2023, while most other brands have remained flat or have declined. Overall, we're very pleased with our innovative and leading product portfolio, opportunity for growth and position in the market, where we ended the quarter with over 6,500 accounts. Moving to our services offerings, as we covered at Investor Day, we've made the strategic decision to exit our OPUL Payments business in order to prioritize our capital allocation. In preparing for OPUL's wind down by the end of Q1 2024, we have ceased R&D and reduced SG&A-related spend. As a result, we expect to free up approximately $20 million per year, which provides us with the flexibility for reinvestment or OpEx reduction. In summary, we are encouraged by the progress we've made and the steps we've taken to maximize our opportunity in aesthetics across our portfolio. For DAXXIFY, we've listened to our customers and made the necessary changes to our pricing strategy to position the product for meaningful share gain over time. For the RHA Collection, we continue to drive partnership and engagement with providers, gaining share in a crowded filler market. And while we've made the decision to exit the OPUL Payments business, we remain committed to growing our loyalty and partnership capabilities in support of realizing Revance's blockbuster potential in the U.S. aesthetics market. For the balance of the year, we remain confident in our ability to continue to drive growth as we implement our new DAXXIFY pricing program, deliver deeper and broader adoption of the RHA Collection, and ensure robust engagement with our growing customer base. I'll now turn the call over to Dustin for an update on our therapeutics business and strategic partnerships. Dustin? Thank you, Mark. We're pleased to have received the highly anticipated FDA approval of DAXXIFY for cervical dystonia in Q3, marking our first approval in the therapeutics market and the official start of our therapeutics franchise. With approval, we have the unique potential to disrupt a well-established $2.5 billion U.S. therapeutic toxin market and to address a large patient population with significant unmet needs. Revance has an opportunity to address the unmet need of the three primary stakeholders in the CD market: patients, providers, and payers. Most patients experience symptom reemergence as early as eight to 10 weeks with conventional neuromodulators, but cannot be treated until 12 weeks due to label and reimbursement restrictions. Providers are also known to be conservative in treating this complex condition, as there are potential side effects associated with botulinum toxin treatments. For these reasons, physicians cautiously optimize toxin dosing over 2-4 cycles to minimize side effects. From payers' perspective, botulinum toxins are the twelfth most costly medical benefit drug category, and managing spend is top of mind. Our ongoing engagement with payers indicates that DAXXIFY's differentiated clinical profile and price point is especially compelling. Given these market dynamics, we believe that DAXXIFY's strong efficacy, long duration, favorable safety profile, particularly in key areas such as dysphagia and muscle weakness, and attractive pricing, all work together to offer a strong value proposition for stakeholders. For a condition that has no cure, providers can safely enhance treatment outcomes for their patients with a novel formulation. Payers gain the opportunity for category cost management with a treatment that can result in lower drug costs, fewer treatments, and lower procedural costs compared to other treatment options. Most importantly, patients can benefit from more days of symptom relief and potentially fewer treatments per year at a lower out-of-pocket cost. For all these reasons, we are excited to see this product into the therapeutics market, which has not seen a new neuromodulator in over 12 years. We are pleased with our approved label, which will be key to supporting optimal treatment plans for patients. As a reminder, our ASPEN clinical program studied two dose groups, the 125-unit and 250-unit doses, which demonstrated a median duration of 24 weeks and 20.3 weeks, respectively. In treating cervical dystonia, it's important to note that physicians often titrate doses to optimize outcomes for patients. That's why we're pleased to see that our approved label contains data from our ASPEN open-label study, which includes individualized dose adjustments for patients with up to 4 treatment cycles over a 52-week period at doses higher than the initial Phase III study. With the inclusion of this data, we believe our label gives physicians flexibility to optimize individualized treatment plans for their patients. Following FDA approval, we launched our PrevU program, which will include 30 practices with the objective to treat and observe patients through 2 or 3 injection cycles in order to understand optimal dosing and treatment intervals, and to optimize the integration of the product into their treatment routine. We've made great progress with the program so far. Approximately 20 practices have treated more than 150 patients, and interest has been strong on the product's potential. So far, we've seen injectors switch patients to DAXXIFY from all approved neuromodulators, allowing us to collect a wide range of patient and provider experience we are looking for. Initial doses have ranged from 100 to 500 units, with the majority at 200 units or above. Injectors continue to share important real-world clinical insights on achieving optimal treatment plans for CD patients with DAXXIFY, which will help inform our training and education and commercial efforts at full launch. As we continue to make great progress with PrevU, the team is also working in parallel to engage in robust discussions with the top 50 commercial payers about the clinical and economic benefits of DAXXIFY. We have already secured coverage and reimbursement for approximately 70 million commercial lives, which includes the largest U.S. payer, along with undifferentiated coverage from a top 10 payer with no dosing limitation, giving us confidence in DAXXIFY's potential to disrupt the category. Expanded discussions have also taken place with the Medicare, Medicaid and Federal VA and Department of Defense channels as we seek to maximize market access for DAXXIFY. We are making great progress on securing coverage across all payer channels, and our permanent J-code will be granted by the time we launch midyear 2024. As we move into Q4, we've begun solidifying our therapeutics commercial infrastructure. We have planned to have the first wave of hiring completed by the end of the year and the balance during the first half of 2024. The infrastructure build-out includes our field reimbursement, medical affairs, and sales leadership teams. In total, we plan to start with about 40 people within our therapeutics organization. We'll be ready to launch DAXXIFY for cervical dystonia in mid-year 2024. Finally, we are pleased to see continued progress in our strategic partnerships. In July, Fosun Pharma received a BLA acceptance for DAXXIFY for cervical dystonia, which followed the BLA acceptance of DAXXIFY for the glabellar lines in April. Fosun anticipates approvals for both indications in China in 2024. With that, I'll turn the call over to Toby to cover our Q3 financials. Thank you, Dustin. Total revenue for the Q3 2023 was $56.8 million, representing a 95.7% increase from the same period last year, driven by the launch of DAXXIFY and increased sales of the RHA Collection. Revenue for the Q3 included $54.1 million of product revenue and $2.7 million of service revenue. Turning to OpEx, in connection with our planned exit of the OPUL Payments business by the end of Q1 2024, we recorded restructuring charges of $95.2 million as of September 30th, 2023, and expect to record an additional $3 million in charges through the three months ending March 31st, 2024. GAAP OpEx for the Q3 was $196.1 million, compared to $106.5 million for the same period in 2022. Excluding costs of revenue, depreciation, amortization, stock-based compensation, restructuring and impairment charges, non-GAAP operating expenses were $69 million for the Q3, compared to $72.3 million for the same period last year. For the nine months ended September 30, 2023, non-GAAP operating expenses were up 15% compared to the same period last year, while total product revenue more than doubled during the same period, demonstrating continued operating leverage within our business. As noted at Investor Day, the restructuring and impairment charges related to the exit of the payments business resulted in our revised 2023 GAAP operating expense guidance of $545 million-$585 million-... non-GAAP operating expense guidance of $315 million-$335 million. Further, we expect our 2023 non-GAAP R&D expense guidance to be between $75 million-$85 million. As a reminder, our 2023 non-GAAP OpEx guidance primarily reflects increased investments in our aesthetics commercial infrastructure. We ended Q3 with over $300 million in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments, which reflects the proceeds from the $50 million in notes issued to Athyrium Capital. As Mark mentioned, we are pleased to be executing from a position of financial strength. With our top-line growth and disciplined capital allocation, we are focused on delivering positive adjusted EBITDA in 2025. Also, as outlined at our Investor Day, we expect to provide product revenue guidance in the first half of 2024. Finally, Revance's shares of common stock outstanding as of October 31st, 2023, were approximately 87.8 million, with 95 million fully diluted shares, excluding the impact of convertible debt. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Mark. Thank you, Toby. With the launch of DAXXIFY as our top priority, we've leveraged customer feedback and learnings from our early launch to remove a key barrier to broad-based adoption, thereby unlocking the product's full value proposition and long-term market potential. The early signs from our efforts have been encouraging. We continue to be focused on executing on our launch while driving growth and synergies across our aesthetics portfolio. As we look to the balance of the year and out into 2024, we believe that there's tremendous opportunity for Revance. In addition to the launch optimizations that are underway in our aesthetics business, we're also making headway in our first therapeutics opportunity, as well as our strategic partnerships. Together with our disciplined capital allocation and strong financial position, we believe we have the fundamentals in place to deliver growth and long-term value for all of our stakeholders. With that, I will now open the call up for questions. Operator? Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, please press star followed by two. When preparing to ask your question, please ensure your device is unmuted locally. First question comes from Seamus Fernandez with Guggenheim Partners. Your line is open. Oh, great. Thanks for the question. So, I was just hoping you guys could help frame the Q4 for us to some degree, and, you know, we're halfway through the quarter at this point, but we've also got holidays kind of coming in. That being said, this also tends to be the strongest quarter of the year, along with the Q2. So just trying to get a little bit of a color on, you know, should we think about that $22 million as having been sort of operational with the price change for the full quarter, basically, that you sort of adjusted the price for folks who had already purchased Daxi? And so we're actually seeing a full quarter at the revised price in the Q3. And so we can actually anticipate that the price change, which should have a positive impact, will actually result in growth quarter-over-quarter, in the Q4 for Daxi specifically. That's my first question. Yeah, so thanks, Seamus. So yeah, I mean, listen, we expect Q4 to be a seasonally up quarter as it has historically been, and we would continue, we would expect to continue to see growth in our products, including DAXXIFY, Q3 to Q4. As we previously said, you know, we're implementing these changes, and in implementing these pricing changes, we're circling back up with those accounts that have been trained, in some cases, that have product on the shelf, and that we sort of need to reengage, sort of under the new strategy. And we think that's the right formula to create long-term stickiness and a good foundation to build on. We're encouraged by what we're seeing. We obviously laid out some of the metrics that we're looking at with regards to, you know, the increase in the number of vials that we saw on a quarter-over-quarter basis, the percentage of revenue that was made up of reordering accounts in the quarter, and we continue to see that carrying through into Q4. So we would expect that, you know, Q4 is gonna be up Q3 over Q4, particularly for DAXXIFY. We would expect that we'll see, you know, the seasonality in this business where Q4 is a stronger quarter. And we're gonna continue our focus where we're engaging those accounts that we have a relationship with, that have already been trained, and continue to work our way through that as we build what we believe is the right foundation going forward. Great. Can you guys provide us a little bit of color just in terms of where you have the sense that your market share is at this point in the overall market? AbbVie makes statements on their conference call that they're not seeing much impact, but it's a little bit hard to, you know, triangulate some of the comments from competitors. So just be helpful to understand what you guys are seeing from a market share perspective in the toxin market. Yeah. So on the toxin side of it, again, we see data sources that we get, proprietary data sources that represent a much smaller sample size. You know, that data would show that we're kind of in the 2%-3% range, but again, it's gonna represent a smaller portion of that. Obviously, you got to look at sort of how you annualize that. And as we said, we're actually really pleased with how well we've performed our first year of launch, $71 million in the first full 12 months. Only two of those was really full quarters of launch, which outpaced all other BOTOX competitor launches the first year combined. So, you know, I think it's less about where we are today and more about where we are going. But we did see that we did increase our share, you know, as we've moved into Q3, based on the number of vials that we're placing. Great. And maybe just one final question. As we think about the RHA filler franchise, we also kind of captured in our own surveys, similar dynamics, to what you were commenting on, in your prepared remarks. Just trying to get a better understanding, of the sort of filler dynamics. You're maintaining your actual sales, clearly growing share, with the RHA fillers. Again, just how should we think about Q4? Should we think about that as strongly sequentially up, or, you know, kind of tempered by the economic impacts that we're seeing already? I mean, it's hard to know for sure, Seamus. I mean, we are hearing, as we said, it's interesting, you know, toxins are proving to be pretty resilient, as we've seen in prior economic downturns. Fillers are a little bit more impacted because they're a little bit bigger ticket items and a little bit more on the considered side. Again, we would see, we would expect to see Q4 as a seasonally up quarter. Hard to know for sure exactly what impact the consumer will have, but, you know, as we pointed out before, we had healthy growth year-over-year, 23%. You know, a lot of the competitors in this space saw little to no growth or actually declined, and so we had the leading market share growth on a year-over-year basis. So importantly, we feel like we're still early. We estimate we're probably in the 9%-10% market penetration, and so given that we're still only in roughly 6,500 accounts, we have plenty of room and opportunity for growth. And we continue to, you know, see that the RHA collection is being broadly appreciated for, you know, the value that it delivers. So, you know, we, we do think that we'll continue to see, you know, some consumer impact with the current economic environment. But again, we would expect to see Q4 to be up based on a seasonal basis. Great. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Thank you. We now turn to Chris Shibutani with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Hi, this is Roger on for Chris. Two quick questions from our end. One, on the therapeutic side, can you comment on whether patients in the real-world setting are also seeing, you know, longer-lasting duration coupled with, you know, lower rates of side effects, such as dysphagia and muscle weakness? And then for our second question, I was wondering if you'd comment a little bit about your go-to-market strategy in light of the pricing update. So I think, recall, like previously, you've mentioned that you'll target the base of accounts you've accumulated through the RHA filler line. This quarter, you've grown by another 500 accounts. Is this level of growth expected to be more measured going forward? Or how do you think about, you know, your go-to-market strategy and accelerating that level of growth? Thanks. Great, Roger. Thanks for the question. I'll have Dustin hit the first one on the therapeutic side. Yeah, it's really early, Roger, for us to say on the duration side. As you know, we're not through that 12-16 weeks kind of time frame or 12-20 week time frame on the therapeutic side. So, we'll be able to get more information as we kind of get through PrevU, but so far, the excitement's been good. There has been some anecdotal stuff around onset of action, which we've seen that in the aesthetic side as well, too. On the, on the kind of, safety side, we haven't seen anything that's concerning, but I can't say that that's comparative at this point. The majority of the patients, interestingly, that have been put on the product, have switched because they had breakthrough pain with or breakthrough symptoms with their other neuromodulators. And so it'll be a unique opportunity for us to understand how DAXXIFY helps them in those cases. I'll turn it back to Mark. Yeah, and on the, the go-to-market strategy with the pricing change, I mean, it's more of the same. You know, we're focused on those accounts that have obviously already been trained on DAXXIFY, have some experience, because they have an appreciation for what it takes to embrace the product, to bring it into the practice. But now with this new pricing strategy, they can get a lot more experience with it, without having, you know, price be a barrier to, to adoption. And so we'll continue to focus on those accounts that have already been trained, work with them to, to pull through product. And then there'll be a combination of continuing to go out to those RHA customers and opening some new accounts. Given the onboarding process where we want them to get trained, sampled, experienced with the product, it will naturally be a little bit more measured. And again, this is all about laying the right foundation, for future growth over time, similar to what we've done with the RHA filler line. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you. Our next question comes from Balaji Prasad with Barclays. Your line is open. Hi, everyone. This is Michaela on for Balaji. Thanks for taking our questions. Just one quick one. One to follow up, could you provide any specific color around the feedback you're hearing about around this new pricing strategy that was revealed in September? Just really looking to understand what people are like, some of the comments are saying. Thanks. Sure. I mean, I think we're getting a lot of, you know, head nodding and support for it. I was actually just recently at the ASDS meeting, which is a big dermatology conference in Chicago, and, you know, had an opportunity to engage with a number of, you know, different derms, some that are customers and some that are not customers, and walked them through the logic and the feedback and everything that we've had, and everybody completely agrees. And I think when we continue to hear universe, people are saying, "Listen, I believe it's a better product. I really like the, you know, fast onset skin quality, and duration is definitely something that the patients are looking for." But some of them that had experience were just saying they struggle a little bit with how to position it with patients, how much of a premium to charge, and acknowledge that higher the premium on the price, the higher the expectation, on the patient side, to the point where it could be disconnected from the data that we've seen in the clinical trial and what's been replicated out there in the market. And so, you know, I think people are saying this is the right strategy. It's gonna allow me to engage with the product, to really understand how best to use it without having to, you know, take an economic hit. Then going forward, I can then figure out where it fits in my practice, whether or not to take a premium. Many of them acknowledge that their, you know, patients come in two times a year or less, and so giving them maximum value is something that they're also focused on. Thanks, Michaela. We now turn to David. We now turn to David Amsellem with Piper Sandler. Your line is open. Hey, thanks. So just got a couple. So first, regarding the new pricing strategy, can you talk to what that's done for you regarding new accounts? In other words, accounts that have yet to use DAXXIFY. What's been the receptivity, and what's been the level of growth in new accounts since you have implemented the pricing, the new pricing structure for DAXXIFY? So that's, that's number one. And then on the therapeutic side, for DAXXIFY, I think in the past, Mark, you alluded to payer coverage not by indication, but more by category. And I guess where I'm going with this is, how does that play out as it relates to potential off-label use of DAXXIFY beyond cervical dystonia? Thanks. Yeah, thanks, David. I'll hit the first one and then let Dustin hit the second one. So in terms of the new pricing strategy and, and new accounts, I mean, when we went into the market, if anything, we received a little backlash in the community because we weren't onboarding all the accounts that wanted to experience DAXXIFY. And so we had a backlog of accounts that really wanted to try DAXXIFY, but the reps were, you know, focused on initially targeting the RHA customers, selling RHA, and doing those things. And so, you know, in Q2 or at Investor Day, we talked about the fact that we had, you know, less than 2,000 ordering DAXXIFY accounts, now we're over 2,250, so we're clearly onboarding new accounts. If anything, I think this streamlines the onboarding process and the messaging for new accounts that don't have an experience, because we can share with them the journey. "Hey, here was the clinical trial data, here was the market research, here's sort of the initial pricing and how accounts roll that out to patients, and here were some of the feedback." And so our suggestion to them is, you now have an opportunity to price this on par with your other toxins, get real-world experience, give your patients more value for the same price, and then you can decide over time, again, whether to take premium, whether to bring them back at the same frequency as the existing neuromodulators and give them sort of more good days or fewer wrinkle days. Or for those patients that come in two times a year or less, which is a majority, you can give them a better outcome. And so I think it's gonna really crisp the onboarding message for new accounts, and they'll benefit from the learnings of the others. And then why don't I hand over to Dustin for the therapeutics? Thanks, David. So as we kind of mentioned earlier, a lot of the majority of the payers in this space do cover bots across all indications once they approve kind of the coverage. And we've seen some of that in our early conversations as we saw with one of our top ten payers, which gave an unencumbered kind of access to DAXXIFY across all indications. So I think the payer landscape for DAXXIFY will allow for off-label use as appropriate as the provider deems fit. And I think in terms of kind of the quantification of that, I think it's early to tell. I think they'll leverage the ASPEN data that we have. They'll leverage some of the other data on ULS to determine what's the right thing to do, but there has been significant inbound interest from providers across all indications, kind of in the neuromodulator space. So we look forward to continuing to provide the data that we can, and we'll see what that entails in terms of their confidence to utilize it in other areas. Yeah, helpful. Thank you. Thanks. Our next question comes from Stacy Ku with TD Cowen. Your line is open. Hi. Thanks so much for taking our questions. So first, just to clarify something from your prepared remarks, seems like some practices need to work through their already existing DAXXIFY supply. So is that the right way to think about it as you're kind of going back to accounts and talking about repricing the as we think about kind of the impact to sales? So that's the first question, just a clarification. The second is more of a longer term question. So some of our KOLs that have really already adopted DAXXIFY, they mentioned the consumer awareness is still really low. So how can you balance kind of this expansion of other accounts trying to expand DAXXIFY adoption, but then kind of the KOLs that have already adopted it, how can you expand usage there? So kind of curious your thoughts there on how to balance, maybe a larger scale DTC to patients and when that might be appropriate. And then finally, just curious your thoughts on potential neurotoxin market entrants, so both longer acting and shorter acting, do you expect any impact? Thank you so much. Thanks, Stacy. So on the DAXXIFY supply, so yes, that is true that, you know, for some of the accounts that we are circling back up with that already have product on the shelf where they've paid higher prices, we're partnered with those accounts to, you know, figure out how, you know, can work through that inventory, get them to price it to the patients in line with their conventional toxins to get more experience and to, you know, make that an easier switch discussion. And so that, that is taking some time, and as you can imagine, if they have product on the shelf, then kind of figuring out what that engagement plan is, what the strategy is to pull it through and how to do that. And that's why we said previously that, you know, that's a target and a focus, is to go back to these accounts. Because they do have experience, their staff's been onboarded, they've been, you know, they've gone through the messaging side of it. And so that is, you know, an ongoing focus of the reps, in addition to onboarding new accounts, and for those that have already worked through product, you know, to make sure that they've implemented the new messaging. In terms of the, you know, KOLs and the consumer awareness, hey, listen, you know, we've been supporting the brand kind of more on the digital side of it, but our view is that in this early phase of launch and having such a small number of DAXXIFY accounts, we want to be thoughtful about the spend that has good ROIs. So if we, if we do nothing but activate consumers, and they go into practices that don't have DAXI and haven't been trained on DAXI, then it's not a good use of our resources and our time. So a lot of our focus and effort are focused on kind of in-office practice conversion materials. And increasingly, we're looking at ways that we can better support those accounts that have DAXXIFY, so that we can amplify, you know, their voice and drive more consumers into practices that have DAXXIFY on board. And that will be a continued area of focus, but I think you should expect in the near term, it's going to be more targeted and linked to those accounts that we have a relationship with versus just broad-based DTC. And then, you know, lastly, your question on the overall competitive market. To your point, there's a couple of new entrants out there. You've got another sort of Korean toxin that's looking to come into the market, depending on what happens with, you know, their PDUFA date. We believe that they'll compete effectively in the short-acting category, and so I would say that that probably has less of an impact on us and perhaps more of an impact on others. And then there's QM-1114 that's out there that's got a long-acting liquid formulation. We think actually having more awareness in the market about the importance of duration and long-acting makes sense and will be helpful. You know, they've received a CRL, so it's a TBD in terms of kind of what their next steps are, what their path is. But, you know, we continue to see a very robust market that continues to grow, and based on where we are in our launch evolution and journey, we continue to feel that we've got plenty of room to run. Thank you. Very helpful. Thank you. Our next question comes from Annabel Samimy with Stifel. Your line is open. Hi, thanks for taking my questions. Just following on your communication strategy with, with, injectors about the pricing strategy, it doesn't seem like all are aware of it. So, do you have a sense how many, accounts you've been able to double back on and, and how many you have left? What percent of your former accounts have you doubled back on? And, and again, how has it changed adoption of the new accounts? And then secondly, at the R&D day, you had several early adopting injectors that, you know, sort of adapted to the DAXXIFY profile and started getting more optimal responses. Where do you feel you are in that process with other injectors and adopters, and have newer adopters been having different experiences than the original adopters, just with word of mouth and, and I guess maybe peer to peer? So maybe you can just comment on that as well. Yeah. So I think, Annabel, it's hard to really know how what percent of those that we've onboarded and that have tried Daxi, that we've successfully introduced a new pricing program and that have reengaged. I think it's going to vary by territory and probably by rep on that side of it. I would like to hope that most of them are aware, and that if they aren't, that, you know, it'll be, you know, a near-term priority for it, for the field force. So it's hard to know, but, you know, that is a priority, and that's obviously where we think the greatest return is going to be in the near term. You know, in terms of, you know, kind of where we are in onboarding new accounts that didn't have a DAXXIFY, that don't have a DAXXIFY experience, you know, so far, and it's early, I think that that onboarding process is more streamlined because that messaging is very crisp. It's easy to understand. I think it's easier for, you know, when we talk about practice integration, how do the people on the staff talk about it? You know, it's a very different switch discussion if you're saying, "Hey, listen, I've got a product that has these attributes and features, but I'm going to offer it to you at a price that's, you know, in line with what you're used to paying." I think that that is a, you know, again, much easier, and we've heard that from the practices that that talk track makes a ton of sense. And so again, while it's early, you know, we like what we're seeing. We talked about in our prepared remarks, the percentage of revenue made up from reordering accounts and the increase in the number of vials that we saw on a quarter-over-quarter basis. So again, we continue to have high confidence based on the ongoing discussions that we're having with existing and potential new customers about this change, and the excitement about, you know, really trying and experiencing Daxi. Okay. And if I could just have a follow-up on the therapeutic side. I mean, I guess, how should we think about the adoption curve? I know initially you were doing this selective training of physicians, but, you know, barring reimbursement delays, which I don't think you should have any with the J-code, which is, you know, the schedules are pretty established. Do you think that there could be less hesitation for physicians to use this, given that it's not so much of an aesthetics or an art on someone's face as opposed to a real clinical outcome that patients can feel? So how do you think that adoption curve would sort of compare to what you see in an aesthetics adoption? Thanks, Annabel. This is Dustin. I think we thought a lot about that in terms of adoption curves, and you see so many different things that go into it on the aesthetic side. I think you do see some of those things in the therapeutic side, but a little bit less as it relates to kind of different toggles in that journey. I think it'll determine how quickly our reps can get into those offices, how they can work them through, as you know, getting the prior authorization. All brands need prior authorization regardless of coverage. And so I think it'll just be how quickly does that uptake. You know, the early providers in our PrevU program have been excited to use it. They're using it on a variety of different patients, so we anticipate when we get our field force hired and others, we'll be able to drive that. But typically, the adoption curves are slower here in cervical dystonia than what you would see in aesthetics. But now in aesthetics, you've got so many different variables. And so, we will continue to kinda analyze that and look forward to getting this data back from PrevU to then be able to provide what we think will be the right kind of adoption metrics on the therapeutic side. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks. Our next question comes from Tim Lugo with William Blair. Your line is open. Hey, this is Lachlan on for Tim. Thanks for taking the questions. I guess first, just Toby, it looks like you're sort of being pretty disciplined on the expense side, but you've obviously got the restructuring and then, yeah, ramping up with the CD launch. So should we be thinking about the Q3 numbers as reasonable run rate for the next few quarters, or are there more changes to expect there? And then on the therapeutic side, I think you said you had about 150 patients. I know you mentioned you're targeting 30 practices. Did you have a target patient number in mind, and are you sort of generating revenue from these patients through insurance during the PrevU program? Thanks. This is Toby. I'll take your first question then turn it over to Mark and Dustin. So, on the expense side of things and the guidance, you know, we've provided annual guidance of $315 million-$335 million from a non-GAAP perspective for the course of 2023. And, you know, obviously, that is the extent of our guidance right now. However, as Mark and I have said on our prepared remarks, the exit from the OPUL business provides us some optionality with the $20 million that we're annually investing in the OPUL business. So more to come on that one. This is Dustin. On your second point, we've treated more than 150 now. You mentioned revenue from these patients. I want to be clear that these are patients that have been sampled. The goal of this program is not to generate, you know, revenue potentially through this channel or in the early phases. Now, will some of these providers begin to start testing when we have that permanent J-code and others, utilization kind of in a non-sample setting? We do think that will happen in first part of next year, but ultimately, that'll be relatively slow because it is those 30 providers. I think as we start unlocking larger channels like federal and others, we'll be able to provide some more kind of input as it relates to kind of what that adoption looks like. But from an overall PrevU perspective, we'd anticipate anywhere between 200 and 250 or so patients that are gonna be utilized through this program. And remember, it's not just to push patients to the first start, but it's really in cervical dystonia to get them to experience a couple different treatments because of that titration that typically happens. A lot of these patients that are actually being put on to DAXXIFY have already been titrated at significantly higher doses than their starting dose of other neuromodulators. And so they're coming back in now with DAXXIFY, with a dose that potentially is different than what they're on now today with some of the neuromodulators. And so it'll be understanding that trajectory over a couple cycles, not just first starts like we saw on the aesthetic side. Great, thanks. Thank you. Now turn Uy Ear with Mizuho. Your line is open. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Can you talk a bit about, on the patients level, whether the new pricing strategy is being passed on to the patients and at what level? I just wanted to get a better sense, that's my first question. And, you know, in this quarter, you've it seems that you've increased about 500 accounts, and just wondering if that's driven primarily by RHA or more, or by DAXXIFY. Thanks. Yeah, Uy, so first on the pricing program and whether or not that's being passed on to the patients, I mean, that's our expectation, and that's the positioning that we're taking and the whole justification and rationale for the price change that we took based on feedback, which was, "Hey, I like the product. As I start attaching a premium, it makes for a longer and more involved switch discussion and then sometimes expectations." And so when we onboard new accounts or when we go back to existing accounts, we let them know that, you know, we've really adjusted this price so that you can price it to patients at the same level as your current toxins, and get familiarity and experience and get more comfort with it. So that is the hope. I'm sure not all accounts follow that. Some perhaps take maybe a modest premium or whatever, but that was the whole reason that we made the change. I would say, you know, a majority of them are doing that, and we think that that's the right way to get a lot more familiarity and experience with the product, because there are gonna be subtleties with all these products that they need to, you know, sort of really optimally work our way through. Then the second question? I just wanted to know, with the account increase in the quarter, whether that was driven, Oh, absolutely. - more by RHA? Yeah. Yeah, we said, you know, last quarter, we said we were at around 6,000 accounts, now we're at 6,500 accounts. That's total. And then we said on, at earnings, Investor Day that, you know, we had less than 2,000 DAXXIFY ordering accounts, and then this quarter we're, you know, 2,500. So I think you're seeing, you know, good growth in the DAXXIFY accounts. So that's gonna probably represent, you know, a lot of the growth in the quarter. Okay, thank you. Great. Thank you. We now turn to Serge Belanger with Needham and Company. Your line is open. Good afternoon, and thanks for taking my questions. First one, can you talk about how the Q3 was trending in terms of fill volumes ahead of the price change? And then secondly, when you launched this product, you launched it with a catchy DTC advertising of breaking up with Botox. I think emphasizing the switch opportunity for Daxi. Just curious now, with the lower price, whether you think you're better positioned to catch the new patients coming into the aesthetic market. Thanks. Yeah, thanks, Serge. Maybe I'll take the second one first. In terms of kind of how we're positioned in the marketplace with this price change and what does that mean for, you know, adoption and the DTC program that we did. You know, as I mentioned earlier, we believe that the best way to, you know, to switch a patient is at the practice level. If the practice is bought into, "I like this product, I believe it's something that I want to offer my patients because I think there's value that I can provide to them that they're not currently getting out of their conventional neurotoxin," we believe that the credibility that the injector has, you know, far and away is more valuable than a consumer coming in and asking about something that is new. So we spent a lot of our time and effort arming sort of the entire staff with materials about this new product, and then the value for the injector is they see that, "Hey, I can give my patients something that they don't have today." Most of them are trying to figure out, "How do I give them the best value for the dollar?" And then over time, it will give them another option in terms of something they can either charge a premium for once they have experience and feedback from patients, or, you know, give them more value, knowing that most of them come in, you know, less than two times a year. So, you know, we're gonna continue to lean in at the practice level to make sure that they have the right tools on the switch, and we think that the pricing lever was a biggie in terms of facilitating that switch. So it's less about trying to capture new and more about, you know, allowing them or giving them the right tools to switch it, the patients over. In terms of Q3 volumes and where we're tracking, I mean, most quarters are gonna be back-ended loaded to the third month of the quarter anyways. That's just the way that this business is. Obviously, we talked about the fact that, you know, September made up a majority of the, you know, the reorder revenue, both in terms of the vials, and the dollars on that side of it, and reordering accounts made up roughly 2/3 of the revenue. You know, we saw what we believe are really good early signs, particularly when we compared it to June, which was the third month in Q2. We like what we saw in terms of the impact of that. You know, we, we believe, based on the feedback that we received, that this was the right move, and we made the right move, what we believe was the right time, based on having enough information to influence that. You know, again, we like what we're seeing out there. Okay, maybe I'll sneak in one more. Q4 is a big quarter for aesthetics, and there's a few neurotoxin players that have prominent product days during the quarter. Just curious if you're planning to have a Daxi day during the quarter. Yeah, you know, these sort of days that competitors use to try and incentivize sort of patient couponing and bulk purchasing from accounts have been around for a while. And obviously, we've weathered that on the RHA filler side over the last several years, and that's not been a cornerstone of our strategy. We've tended to lean in with product differentiation in training and education, and we continue to feel that that's the right way to go. So I wouldn't expect anything from us in Q4 in terms of a DAXI day. You know, we're gonna continue to really focus on getting accounts onboarded with this new pricing strategy, allowing them to give their patients the experience that we think they're gonna love once they get more familiarity with the product. That's really what we're focused on in Q4. Thank you. Great. Thanks, Serge. Our next question comes from Douglas Tsao with H.C. Wainwright. Your line is open. Hi, good afternoon, and thanks for taking the questions. Just, Mark, I think you said it, but I just want to make sure it's clear. In terms of what you saw in September, after the price change, so from a total revenue basis, did you see sufficient or sort of increase in units to offset the lower price that you were getting? Yeah, I think as we, as we showed, you know, in our, in our press release, too, we saw units increase 10% on a quarter-over-quarter basis. And, you know, revenue came in at $22 million versus $22.6 million. So we saw a nice, healthy uptick of, you know, an increase of 10% in units, but that was offset by the, the, the price adjustment that we made. Well, I guess I'm trying to understand what you saw in September. So in September, I mean, so- In September- Your business, I mean. Go ahead. What were you going to say, Mark? I was just going to say, so specific to September, you know, did you see that increase in units to make it sort of a better month from an absolute revenue standpoint? Or was it ultimately, you know, and was it materially higher than what you saw, you know, for the most part? Well, I mean, as I mentioned, September tends to be a busier month, so it's really hard to know in a vacuum exactly what it would be since we weren't in the market September of last year. We did look at June as a proxy for September to say that's the third month of another quarter. And again, we liked the trends that we saw. Most of our reorder revenue and our reorder vials sold did come in September. And so, you know, we're attributing that to the price adjustment and you know, how customers embrace that change. Okay. Maybe I'm parsing words a little bit, but you know, I'm an equity research analyst, so that's what we do. In terms of your commentary about needing to reengage or reengaging with customers, I'm just curious, were you having a trouble, you know, sort of having, or was the dialogue somewhat cut off after people had some experience or perhaps, you know, were having some frustrations with DAXXIFY nearly going? Yeah, so I mean, I think we definitely had some accounts where, you know, we had some that leaned in heavily, where DAXI is majority share wallet. They've figured out the product, they love the look that they get, their patients love it, even the premiums work, and then they're really happy with it. So we've got, you know, a number of those accounts where that's working. But we definitely have some accounts that trialed the product, treated sort of a select number of patients, had some come back that expressed, "Hey, I'm not sure that the performance profile is worth it for the cost." And then for practices, if they didn't dose them right, if they didn't set the right expectations, if they didn't take before pictures so that they could compare the baseline, that hit a point where they just said, you know, this is hard, and now I've got to spend extra time kind of educating the patients or taking them up. And so as we've gone back into those accounts, it sort of hit this point of, I like it, I think it's a better product, but the practice integration piece of it is more challenging. This is where we got the feedback, and it really resonated with them, where that reengagement is, okay, if I can price it in line with the other toxins, and your price to me is such where I'm not having to eat margin, then I'm willing to lean in and get experience so then I can figure out where this fits. And so that's that reengagement piece. And in some of these accounts, that it sort of stalled a little bit or reserved it for specific subsets of patients, our goal is obviously to get broader adoption, and that's that reengagement piece. And if they had some product on the shelf, then they would work through, okay, let's talk about how we pull that through. Let's talk about how many patients we treat. Let's talk about making sure that you've got message consistency, all those things. Okay, great. Thank you so much. That's helpful. Great. Thanks, Doug. We now turn to Terence Flynn with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Hi, thanks for taking the question. I guess two, probably for Toby, is just, you know, any more clarity on, on timing of how you're thinking about the revenue guidance for 2024? Is that early January event, is it in conjunction with Q4 results, or is it later in the year? And then how should we think about the DAXXIFY gross margin progression, as we head into 2024? Thank you. Yeah, great questions, Terence. So, we haven't been specific on the timing of our guidance right now except for the first half of 2024. Right now, I think that that's the appropriate guidance to give on that particular timing. Regarding sort of the gross margin profile, if you were to look at sort of our GAAP gross margin profile, it was sort of reported in Q1, Q2, Q3. Revance's GAAP gross margin has been pretty consistent, about 73, 68, 66, and 70-ish% over the past several quarters. And again, that's largely been, you know, the Q3, obviously, you know, the mix between Q2 and Q3 of RHA and DAXXIFY was relatively the same Q2 versus Q3. So, we had lower prices for DAXXIFY starting in September, but we were able to offset that with efficiencies that we found through the supply chain to maintain that gross margin profile. You know, one of the things that as we start to utilize the prior approved product, the product that was expensed versus capitalized, we expect there will be some flux upwards on our, on sort of, the cost of goods sold for DAXXIFY. However, that will be partially offset by going into Ajinomoto and other manufacturers that are actually much cheaper on a unit economic perspective. So, we expect some fluctuation around the margin, but generally trying to offset those, and the larger thing is making sure stabilizing the prices. Thank you. Our last question comes from Navann Ty with BNP Paribas. Your line is open. Hi, good evening. Thanks for taking my question, and thanks for the comment so far on the price change. Just, an additional, some additional ones from me. Do you have an estimate on how long it will take for the salesforce to reengage on pricing with the existing accounts that have been trained and have experience? Or what percentage of existing accounts have been reengaged versus your target? Thank you. Thanks, Navann. I don't necessarily have a great number. Again, if you look at through the end of Q2, you know, we said we were less than 2,000 accounts. So I'm hoping that, you know, a number of these accounts have been contacted by the reps to inform them of the new price change to reengage. And then, you know, as we said before, that reengagement process in a given territory can take a little while as they work through each of their different accounts. And listen, I'm sure there are some that may not be sort of, you know, in a position to reengage. They might say, "Hey, you know, come back in a little bit." But I would say most of the accounts that we've onboarded have been contacted, and then the question is, where are they at in that reengagement process? I just don't know. Thanks, Navann. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our Q&A and today's conference call. We'd like to thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect your lines.