Good afternoon. Thanks for joining us at TD Cowen's 44th Annual Health Care Conference. It's the 44th annual health care conference. My name is Stacy Ku. I'm one of the biotech analysts, and I'm pleased to be joined by Revance CEO Mark Foley. I think Toby Schilke is not going to make it today, but we'll have Marc Korenberg, VP of Finance, as well. Thanks so much for joining today. Thanks for having us. Before we go into Q&A, just briefly, let's talk about, provide a brief recap of your early experience launching Daxxify, recap your strategy pivot, and just some major learnings. Sure. So, you know, we launched in the market, fully in Q1 of last year, late March, after we went through the preview program. We had very consistent, robust clinical data from our Glabellar Lines program in aesthetics, some phase II programs in upper facial lines, and then a fair bit of data also on the therapeutic side. That really sort of formed the foundation for our go-to-market strategy. We had focus groups, market research. As we got into the market, we took a very measured and staged launch because we knew that within the toxin world, that people were going to use it much more broadly than what we had experienced, and that we were going to learn some things. And in this learning journey, we found that while the product was working really well, when we attached our premium pricing to the practice, and then the practice attached a premium price to the consumer, that the expectation on the consumer side was fairly elevated. For those that didn't believe that they got the full 6-month duration, they didn't hear median, they heard 6 months, and that led to some, I would say, difficulties with the conversion cycle. Injectors became a little bit more cautious in terms of how aggressively they were promoting it. Then for patients, if they didn't get sort of the duration that they thought they were supposed to get, then they weren't happy. So we, you know, took some time to kind of pulse the market and see what made sense. But based on that collection, what we heard pretty uniformly was, "Listen, we think Daxi is a better product, but the price side of it and the expectation is challenging conversion and use." So we made the decision to adjust the pricing to price it in line with the idea that now practices and patients can get the, you know, the added benefits of Daxi at a price that's consistent with what they would pay in today's toxin world. Okay. And we do have increased scrutiny around, obviously, repairing the relationships and different accounts. But just curious, let's take a moment. Talk about now, how are you talking about the differentiation of Daxxify? What are the benefits, when you're talking to these different accounts? Yeah. So it's really we've streamlined it to sort of fast, last, and the look. So we think there's three things that sort of what I call sort of a next-generation toxin does. And it's not just a duration play. What we continue to hear, and I was just sharing with you, I was at a customer event last night with about 13 of our customers that have been strong users on both the RHA and on the Daxxify side. And what kept coming across was that, you know, the look that the patients are getting, the glow, you know, it's a more natural look, seems to be resonating. And it's not unexpected that as we get into the clinic more and we have this sort of novel peptide formulated technology that we are going to continue to learn some things. So, you know, when we go into these accounts, we believe that, you know, the product is going to be more than just on the duration side of it. And that's going to, we think, going to make a big difference going forward. Okay. Wonderful. And just the last few moments to talk about kind of the repricing strategy. What has that been like as you go back to the different accounts and repair relationships? Even talk about what is repairing relationships? What does that mean? What are you going out and doing? So maybe first talk about, like, what happened on the relationship side. When we went to market and we went in a very targeted and measured way, we definitely had a number of accounts out there that were frustrated that they couldn't get early access to the product. And we said, "Listen, we're trying to go in a measured state. We want to get feedback. We want to go through a training program." And so that led to some people having, I think, more sensitized views on the company when we went in there. I think some also felt like perhaps we oversold duration and that by pitching that to their customers, that when their customers didn't get the value they wanted, that they had to do kind of retreatments and tweaks and changes. So when we went back out to these accounts, we said, "Listen, let's take the next two quarters on the heels of our pricing strategy change to go back out to these accounts that have been through training, that have used the product, that have seen the performance benefits of the product, but are frustrated in some form or fashion." And there are a couple of different groups. There were some that were happy. They were like, "Listen, we love your products. We're happy. We think it's a better product. We're all in. This has just been a challenge for us to make the conversion because of pricing." So those have been easier. Next group that we have are those that, you know, are frustrated that we have to go back in and say, "Okay, let's talk about now where we go from here." And in some cases, maybe they've got some inventory on the shelf or they feel like they had to do a bunch of free treatments. And so it's okay, how can we work together? Maybe we can bring some samples in to treat some staff. Some will feel like, "Hey, our cost of acquisition was higher." And so we've been working with those customers on that. And then the third bucket are some of those that jumped on the bandwagon because they wanted to have early access to Daxi. It took some effort within their practice to get things turned around. And now they're just like, "Hey, listen, I'm just not ready to reengage." But I think it's really important to go back and build this foundation because many of these are RHA customers. And so that as we move forward, we've gone back and invested in those relationships. And if some aren't ready to reengage right now, that's okay too. But at least we gave them sort of the priority of on this new journey if they wanted to reengage. Okay. As we approach, getting closer and closer to Q2, where are you in that progress? Do you feel that you are nearly complete or still work to be done? No, we do. I think we were pretty intentional in saying we think it's a two-quarter. It's a Q4 and a Q1. And so we like how we're tracking on that. And I think as we get into Q2, we'll go through kind of the more normal launch cadence where there'll be a mix of new accounts and doubling back on existing accounts to grow volume versus where we are today. It's been much more skewed to those accounts that have been trained and that made an initial purchase. Okay. And what early metrics or signals are you finding that are encouraging? Yeah. Well, I think we talked about it on our earnings call on Q4. So number one, we were looking at how much of our revenue was coming from existing accounts because that to us was a sign of we're able to reengage these accounts and get them to reorder versus all of our revenue coming just from opening up new accounts. We said in, you know, Q3, you know, approximately two-thirds of our revenue came from reordering accounts. And then in Q4, we said more than two-thirds came from it. So we think that's a really good sign. The other thing we looked at in Q4 were the units. So even with the price decline, our units were up 22% Q3 to Q4, which, you know, also speaks to that pulling through. And so we think those are good metrics today. As we get more information going forward, we'll look at what other metrics might be helpful to share out. We're just going to want to make sure we've got confidence in them and a trend, not sort of a single data point. Understood. So, on the earnings call, you also rolled out some new incentive measures, some new programs. So can you just talk about that investment? Sure. So, you know, in this industry, it's a very incentive-driven marketplace. So practices do a lot of incentive and promotional efforts on the patient side and same on the company side. Everybody has their own form or fashion of consumer loyalty or engagement or different things to try and drive preference for the product. And so we've long known that this was something that we were going to be active in. As you recall, we went the route with a non-traditional path with the OPUL platform as a way to be embedded in the actual practice. And then through data, credit card processing fees, and others, we could turn on an incentive that way. That proved to be a longer journey and more expensive than what was probably the right investment for us today. And so we're going back to some more traditional programs that we know work. And for us, we've got such innovative products that we also don't feel like we have to necessarily innovate and, you know, reinvent everything. So we've done a number of different influencer events. This past quarter, we leaned into a patient coupon where, based on the purchase quantity that an account made, they could qualify for $75 off patient coupons that they could offer then to their consumers as a way to get more trial and experience and usage. But we'll continue to try a variety of different programs. We'll measure the ROI, and then we'll look at those that move the needle most and continue to do that throughout the course of the year. Okay. We've also discussed removing the advertised pricing, so the lack of an advertised pricing. So talk about that and implications. Sure. So if you step back and look at sort of why did we have that in place in the, you know, the first place? So none of our other competitors have that in place. We did it when we were kind of very focused on this prestige and premium strategy where the idea was, by not allowing a practice to advertise price, it drove sort of that discussion around pricing and margin into the practice. And so it would not commoditize the services. But in reality, all of our other competitors are, you know, allow their prices to be advertised. So it's not something that we're doing today that others don't do. And as we made the pricing change, we realized that with a lot of our accounts, we're like, "Listen, we think these are great products. We want to be able to talk about them." But oftentimes, when we put promotional things out there, we include price because our patients want to know. And so we were, at some level, constraining their ability to frankly give us free advertising and talk about our products out in the marketplace. So we just said, based on where we are today on the price, let's make sure that we're empowering our customers to go out there and talk about, you know, their excitement and educate their consumers about the product. Okay. Wonderful. So, now turning to the broader launch in Q2, obviously, we're still very early in the penetration of your existing relationships. So just talk about your plans, early relaunch. And then as we think about kind of the broader market, maybe your change in views on the broader space as well. Change in views in terms of. How you're going to go after the broader market with your new pricing strategy? Sure. So, you know, if you look back and you look at our RHA filler launch, right, we were very methodical and disciplined because that was a product line that, in order to get the full value of it, there were some subtleties around injection technique. The product has got a lot of experience in Europe, and over there, they inject a little bit more superficial. And the RHA product line, because of the way it's manufactured and then the fact that it's less engineered, sets up uniquely for superficial injecting, and it moves naturally with the phase. And so if you look at our process there where we onboarded roughly 500 accounts a quarter, we drove nice, very steady, consistent growth. We would expect something very similar for Daxxify, whereas we get out into the market, we think it's going to be important to make sure that once we onboard new accounts, they get trained on the product, they understand the reconstitution, they understand sort of how to inject it, and probably most importantly, they understand how to pitch it to their patients. What's the narrative? Making sure that their staff is educated, how do they talk about it, doing staff treatments, and then probably end up with a Daxxify day where all that will take some time and effort. So as we move towards Q2 and get beyond this period of time where we've been doubling back around to these Daxi accounts to get them comfortable with the change, we would expect it to move to a more normal course where it will be some combination of, you know, new account activation and some effort to continue to grow our share within the practices that we're in. Okay. We're going to talk about guidance in a little bit, but just to be giving your commentary around that normal launch, in the past, you've said it takes about a quarter for a new account to kind of onboard Daxxify and integrate it into practice. So what are your views there? Are you still just talk through all this kind of thoughtful training? So what are your expectations as you brought in? Yeah, I think that we will see a more normal adoption cycle with a new product. And I think with each product, the question is, what's the signal that practices are looking for to give them confidence and comfort with the product? So normally, with an onboarding of Daxi, you know, we go through all that. We treat some staff, treat some patients, and then they're probably going to want to wait and see, how does it work? Right? There's some short-term indications, like how quickly did it set in? Does the look do I have to do any touch-ups? And then there's the duration profile, like how long is it lasting and what's been that experience? So, yeah, I think what we want to do is to start loading the funnel of those accounts that are going to go through that trial and early experience journey that we hope will obviously turn into conversions and more sticky business going forward. Okay. Wonderful. As a reminder, obviously, you all have around 3,000 accounts for Daxxify and 7,000 total. So we're going to take a brief pause and actually look at the broader aesthetic practice and how nuanced and differentiated it can be as we think about kind of this pricing in line with other neurotoxins. So what we found is that a lot of practices are very different in that they kind of have to pick a horse. They have a lot of it's a lot of relationships. So as we think about pricing and kind of your pursuit of being in line, how should we think about that piece? And also kind of your earlier commentary very early in the launch around going deeper. Yeah. Yeah. So if you look at the market overall, we estimate that there's about 40,000 accounts that are out there. And given sort of how early we are in our journey, at some level, we can kind of cherry-pick those accounts that want to do business with us. And there's going to be a range too. Some might say, "Hey, we're fine. We're happy. We're not ready to go." But, you know, I come back to my dinner last night, you know, the couple of plastic surgeons, dermatologists, med spas. I think that in this industry, there's always a hunger for what's new because their patients are asking them what's new. This is a field that's always trying to stay on top of cutting edge with the idea that they want to provide the best to their patients, and they want to be able to attract new patients because they're always sort of viewed as they're on top of things. Given that Daxxify is sort of this, you know, next-generation neurotoxin, as we kind of move beyond this phase of the strategy change, we do expect that we will start to get more noise out there in the community around consumers' expectation and preference, practices, experience with it. For us, it's just making sure that we find that this group that we go to are committed, are interested, are willing to put the time in to make it work, and that will ultimately have a halo effect. And so, you know, we can get there by selectively finding those accounts that are ready and willing to partner with us on this stage, and that'll get driven down to the field side of it. And so, you know, we like where we're positioned. We come back to the RHA line, which was the strategy that we took there. Pricing, you know, we said we're competitive on price because I would argue that if you went out to 10 practices and asked them what they're paying for their current toxin, you're going to get 10 different answers. So there's no sort of one answer that is out there. We priced our product competitively. It allows them to price it in line to their patients. And then ultimately, over time and with experience, they can decide, do they keep it at that price? Do they take a little bit of a premium? Where does it fit in their practice? And also, for us to be successful, it doesn't have to be 100% of their business, right? We can take our fair share and build a great business. Okay. Wonderful. And so back to guidance. You provided guidance for the year. You provided a lot of details on the split between Daxxify, RHA. Just remind us your expectations for seasonality, quarter cadence. And again, as we talked about the broader relaunch, obviously, then there might be some expectations around potential growth in sales as well in Q2. So just help us walk through those different pieces. Sure. So we talked about minimum product revenue guidance of $280 million this year. That's to be up a little over 30% on a year-on-year basis. If you look at the components, we expect a little more than half of that to be RHA, a little bit less than half of that to be Daxxify, you know, which puts us in a range where we think those are reasonable growth expectations for both of the different product lines. From a seasonality perspective, we've said that we expect normal seasonality. So Q1 would be the slowest quarter, followed by a stronger Q2. Q3 is going to be sort of in line with Q2, perhaps slightly down, slightly up, and then a strong Q4. So because of that, you're going to find revenue to be a little bit more back-end weighted on the year. This is not inconsistent with like our RHA the last two years. In 2022, our Q4 to Q1, we were down, I don't know, 13%-14%. We grew 50%. Last year, we were down 13% and grew 20%. So we were down 13% Q4 to Q1 and still grew 20% for the year. So we would expect a normal seasonality in the business. And, you know, given where we are on the share side of it, we often get questions around the market, like, what do you think about the overall macro and how sensitive is your performance to that? We grew our filler share or filler market last year by 20% in what was a down filler market on a year-on-year. So we think, frankly, our ability to execute is much more about our ability to break in and convert new accounts than it is based on the macro, which seems to be setting up for a decent year this year. We'd note that, there's some controversy, obviously, around Daxxify pricing, but the clinicians always tell us that they find RHA to be really well priced. Yes. Yes. Yes. So, I guess moving to RHA then, naturally, what are your expectations in terms of growth for the next few years? Obviously, a much more mature product. So, and obviously, more sensitive to kind of the overall market. Sure. So we're about a 10% share. So we still feel like we've got a fair bit of room for runway and growth. We did just get the indication for lips, which is the most commonly injected area in the face. And while people certainly have been injecting lips and using our products to do so, the ability to now train to promote and to do that around the lip side of it, we think will be an important part of that as well. You know, because, as I mentioned before, some of the subtleties around injection technique with the RHA filler line where they will inject a little bit more superficially, we actually think it's a pretty sticky product once it gets into an account. So we'll continue to find new accounts to engage and lean in with. We'll certainly use Daxxify as a door opener in some accounts as we now move to more new account engagement where we can look to draft either Daxi into RHA accounts or, you know, RHA into a Daxi account that's willing to bring it in. But, you know, obviously, if you kind of look at a little bit more than half of our revenue guidance from RHA this year, you know, we would expect a reasonable growth this year. Okay. Last question on the aesthetic side. Earlier, we were talking about kind of your ability to go around and reach a lot of these different accounts. So to what extent are you, and I'm sure Erica, going around and really personally making the connection to these accounts? Yeah. Listen, this is very much of a relationship business. And I think that given we're, you know, solely focused on kind of, you know, really the aesthetics market today, you know, we'll talk about therapeutics in a little bit, that, you know, that personal touch goes a long way. And selfishly for us, it's a great way for us to hear directly from those customers in terms of what's working, what else we can do as a partner. And so we've made a, you know, pretty committed effort as an executive team to be visible, to be present, to be in the field with customers. As we share, and I've got another customer event tonight, one next week in Miami. We're also going to do some more visible events in some of the key markets like New York, L.A., Miami, where we'll do sort of bigger programs and promotions to help make sure that they see us as a company that's truly committed to making sure that we can bring them innovation and that we're going to make the necessary changes. Wonderful. So moving on to the therapeutic side, just remind us the progress for Cervical Dystonia right now in the preview program. So any additional, I guess, anecdotal clinician commentary around the patient experience and early redosing? Sure. So we received CD approval in the fall last year. We got our J-code in January this year. And to date, we've got about a little more than 50% commercial coverage already in place. So teams have made amazing progress. And so we often get the questions, you've got the approval, you have the J-code, why are you waiting? And what we said there is, listen, in Cervical Dystonia, we think that we have even a more compelling value proposition because in the Cervical Dystonia patient population, you know, more than 80% of patients see symptom breakthrough before they get to week 12, which is the earliest that they can be retreated. And so it's less about getting somebody to six months, and it's more about does the duration of the product give them more symptom relief before they can get to that retreatment phase? But the way that a patient is converted from one toxin to another, since that's the primary mode of treatment, is these neurologists are more worried initially about side effects. So they don't want to get dysphagia and muscle weakness. So they tend to start low on the dose, get to that 12-week timeframe, and then start to titrate them up to try and balance that max benefit versus side effect profile. So we wanted this thought leadership group to be able to get through a few cycle treatments so that when their colleagues get the product, they can then speak to kind of here was the way that I sort of approached initially. Here's kind of how I went from here. Here was the experience. And so just this past weekend in Nashville, we had our preview group in, and it was a very encouraging discussion with them. I think that they're seeing 94% of the preview physicians are saying that, you know, they perceive Daxxify to be longer lasting. What's interesting is their perception is being formed based on this initial injection, which we know they're intentionally being very conservative. So the fact that they have that perception, they're early in the journey and they're seeing a really good safety signal, you know, has us very cautiously optimistic about what we think the potential could be, not just in Cervical Dystonia, but ultimately in the broader therapeutics category. Can you talk about the, as we think about therapeutics broadly, the pricing strategy that you've made for Daxxify versus other neurotoxins? What's that value proposition? Obviously, you talked about the really fast progress you made with payers. Yeah. Yeah. So unlike aesthetics where it's, you know, pretty much you sell directly to the practice, they determine sort of what, you know, they're comfortable paying and what they charge the patient. This is all reimbursed. And so, you know, it's less about the price to the physician and more about how does the payer feel about the price? A couple of things of note there. One is in our Cervical Dystonia clinical program, ASPEN, we actually saw that we were able to drive sort of that, you know, 20-24-week duration on, you know, dosing that was more along the lines of one-to-one with, for example, like a BOTOX. And so if you look at that, since our pricing is going to be largely informed by what we do in aesthetics, at a one-to-one dosing, we're meaningfully less expensive to the payer. So the payers are very encouraged because toxins are the 12th largest drug-managed category for these payers. And so there's a big incentive for them to manage that. On the provider side, they're very encouraged because they're like, we haven't seen anything truly different and innovative in 30 years. And if we have the ability to give our patients that are suffering from these different conditions, something that lasts longer and gets them through to their next treatment without having a decline in symptoms, that's a big win also. And obviously, there's, you know, these patients talk a lot among themselves. And so we think we can touch all of them. So right now, we've been very encouraged by what we're seeing on the payer side in their receptivity to allowing the clinician to make what they think is the best decision. If they go the direction with us, then, you know, it's a win all the way around. Okay. Wonderful. And you kind of alluded to it, but CD could be a pretty focused launch. Is that the right way to think about it? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And I think, you know, you along with some of the other, you know, sell-siders have sort of modest revenue expectations for this year, which I think is appropriate because by the time we go to market mid-year, we would expect those neurologists, again, we're going to be very targeted and focused, are all going to go through their own journey just like the aesthetic physicians, which is, okay, I hear you, but let me get some of my own experience. I'm going to treat two or three patients, get them through a few treatment cycles, make sure that it works for me before I lean in. And so we think that, you know, we'll start to see that accelerate more in that 2025 timeframe. Okay. Wonderful. Last question. You've also talked about how the payer landscape could be a little bit more general in terms of reimbursement. So what type of, I don't want to say, let's say broader adoption expectations should we see? Yeah. Great question. So, you know, if you look at the commercial payer landscape, each of these payers has their own sort of way of managing the category. So today, in the more than 50% of commercial payers that we have access to, I would break them down into thirds. So one-third is agnostic indication. So even though we only have a CD indication, they've sort of said toxins are covered broadly. So it's really up to that payer and the clinician to decide where they think it's appropriate. The next third will cover the indication, and then they're open to data. Like we are open to considering coverage for other indications in our plan if you've got clinical data that we find meets sort of whatever level threshold we want. And as we know, we've got phase II data in upper limb spasticity. We're doing some IITs and migraines, so we'll have some readouts there. And then the other third is in the category of they're only going to cover what the indication is. And so, of course, we can only focus in, you know, teach and train to Cervical Dystonia. But these neurologists that are treating these Cervical Dystonia patients are also treating a number of other muscle movement disorders. And to the extent that the payer ultimately, you know, has a policy or a coverage that allows them more flexibility, we would expect some of them might explore that. Wonderful. In the last few moments, we did want to talk about valuation. And then, importantly, your updated thoughts around profitability. Sure. So on the valuation side of it, or? Valuation of Daxxify, obviously, lots of different complications. Talk about what you think about durability, the relaunch. And then, obviously, as it relates to the valuation, your recent updated thoughts around profitability and what kind of overhang you think you might have removed. Oh, sure. So, you know, on the guidance side of it, nothing's changed. We've continually said that, you know, with the cash that we had on hand at the year-end that we expected to get and expect to get to adjusted EBITDA positive by 2025. And so that's the plan that we're marching on. You know, we made some decisions to streamline our OpEx, you know, with the exiting the OPUL business, streamlining our drug product manufacturing facility, consolidating some of our commercial structure, and then making some G&A changes to the point where our adjusted EBITDA guidance this year is about 6% down from last year at the midpoint of the range. And so we continue to feel really good about the path that we're on to get to that. The raise that you're talking about, we just, you know, raised another $100 million in equity yesterday morning. You know, a big driver of that was there was a lot of noise in the market that even with our ability to execute on that plan, we have $150 million in term debt and a convert that's out there. And there was a lot of noise in the market that we think a raise is coming. So even if you're successful, you're going to need capital to sort of address the particularly the shorter-term debt. And we felt like in talking to folks, that was creating an unnecessary overhang on the fundamentals of the business and that people were much more focused on our ability to service the debt. So, you know, our belief is that by removing that, that investors can more purely focus on how do they think about the fundamentals of the business, our ability to execute. You know, we think it was the right decision for the company. Okay. Wonderful. A few minutes for Q&A. Any questions? Sure. On the therapeutic side, do you see in the longer term, the therapeutic side could be an equal contributor as to aesthetics, or? Well, if you look at just in the U.S. alone, the toxin market for therapeutics is larger than it is for aesthetics. And I would argue from a value story, if what we're seeing in Cervical Dystonia gets replicated in other different categories, then I think perhaps there's maybe even a more compelling reason why there might be some switch. If you truly have a condition that isn't fully being managed within your treatment course and this provides an alternative that can do that, you know, we think it will provide sort of a powerful dynamic in the marketplace. But do you see organizationally? Are you guys well-resourced to tackle the therapeutics? Marketing efficacy is different? Yeah. Well, I think so right now, no, right? I think we have the right resources today to go into the market for Cervical Dystonia to generate the necessary proof points. But then the questions over time become, you know, how do we lean into more indication expansion? How do we make sure we have that? And I think that this is kind of one of those things that we'll figure out. You know, there's no doubt that in some of our streamlining efforts, we're saying this year because so much of our revenue is aesthetics, that right now we want to make sure that we're focused most of our resources there, but that we have adequate resources to make sure that we properly launch therapeutics. And so for us in therapeutics, it's less about how quickly we can go and more build that foundation, learn, and then use that to inform kind of where we go next. Okay. Thanks so much. Awesome.