Good afternoon everyone. Thanks for joining us here at the Goldman Sachs Global Healthcare Conference. We're pleased to be joined today by Saqib Islam from SpringWorks Therapeutics. Maybe I'll turn it over to you. I know a lot of people know the story, but if you could just give us kind of like an overview of maybe the key value drivers this year, what you think are most important. Well, I think we're in the fortunate position of having everything right out in front of us at this point. Right. So first primary value driver I think is going to be the continued launch of Ogsiveo, how we are penetrating the market for desmoid tumors. And I think a discussion around the aggregate depth of that market and the opportunity I think is going to be a major value driver. And the other again right out in front of us and really obvious is the opportunity for neurofibromatosis associated plexiform neurofibroma. That is again a meaningful rare disease that is kind of in need of another meaningful treatment. And so we hope to be filing our NDA for NF1-PN in both pediatric and adult setting. And we said in the midpoint of this year. And so we're coming up on the midpoint of that year. I think that's going to be an important element that really starts the clock from our regulatory process of when we'll launch our second drug, which we hope to be certainly by this time next year. Perfect. I think we'll start with Ogsiveo. Obviously it was approved kind of late November last year maybe. How would you characterize the launch today, particularly relative to your expectations? The launch has gone very, very well. I mean, I think, you know, we're certainly predisposed to say that, but I think the numbers will speak for themselves and have spoken for themselves thus far. As we think of the drivers of that, I think there are a few things that, you know, that I think ultimately are contributors to our happiness with the launch and the prospects that we see going forward. First, certainly it starts with the effectiveness of the treatment. We have seen certainly the data that you had, you know, going into the approval, but consistent in any survey done by ourselves or our investors, it is abundantly clear that patients are seeing the benefit very early and very meaningfully. And that relates to a whole host of elements that are beyond even kind of controlling the tumor from growing or the tumor continue to have it shrink is actually pain. And that is a piece of feedback that we've gotten regularly going into the launch. But certainly since the launch, as you see that people that are deep, that are early and that are consistent and persistent with treatment. So you start with the overall efficacy. The second is certainly start looking at the prescriber base. We have had already. Almost 80% of the centers of excellence in the United States have done at least one. Centers of excellence in desmoid sarcoma have had at least one prescription written for Ogsiveo. If you click through on that a little bit, over 98% of physicians who have had a prescription, so you've got some experience with the medication in your patient, has said that this will be the first line treatment and the standard of care. So you start with those two elements that become very important, you know, in terms of the benefit to patients, the satisfaction among the prescriber base as well. And then you add to that, you know, the label is quite broad and there isn't a limitation there. Our reimbursement environment has been as we had hoped. And I think what we have said publicly up until now, and I'll say it again today, is over 98% of commercially covered lives have. Insurers representing 98% of commercially covered lives have reimbursed Ogsiveo without restriction. And now the majority of those have adopted policies as well. So the time from getting that first prescription to getting it reimbursed for a patient is starting to shrink as you start to wind up on policy. So add each of these elements to what we think is a really meaningful total addressable market and that is leading to our satisfaction in the launch. So then it's all about execution from that point forward. Yeah, absolutely. One of the questions we field a lot of times is like, is there a bolus driving initial uptake? I guess. What is your view now that you've got a couple months and maybe you can even give us some qualitative color on where we are in the second quarter? Yeah, so the non-public information policies. The policy side. Yeah, listen, I think it's important as we think of the opportunity to understand that this is a rare disease and that this is a rare disease and people do get prescribed the drug when they are ready to take it. So with that as a context, you don't see much of a bolus. Right. Early on as we're going from data to approval, for sure, patients who had tried other therapies who were in the window of finishing something else were waiting for the medication and you saw some people get on. But as I think of the segmentation of who is going to be helped by this medicine, it falls into three broad buckets. And those patients get prescribed the drug when they're ready for it. First and foremost, we've talked about 6,000-7,000 people in the United States currently getting treated for a desmoid tumor. Now, where we sit at the moment is actually with the benefits of 6-7 months of experience. And now ICD-10 codes that indicate, you know, when a patient is being, you know, a desmoid tumor patient enters the system. We believe that that is actually a conservative number. Right. So whether it's, you know, in that range. So let's say that, you know, we're at least at the high end of that range in terms of the number of people in the United States currently benefiting from treatment, from requiring treatment for a desmoid tumor. Now, add to that the patient experience. The prescriber experience, we think, will do very well in getting to a large number of those patients as we move towards becoming the standard of care. Those patients will get treatment. Some of them, they've been a disproportionate number of the patients we've covered thus far, but they typically finish the treatment that they're on, whether it's a chemotherapy or they recover from surgery or they're on or a TKI or hormone treatment and then get on Ogsiveo. So those happen over time. It's not really driven by a bolus. Right. The second segment here is the 1,700 newly diagnosed patients per year in the United States with a desmoid tumor. Now, we've heard that the prescribers, or I've said that the prescribers who have experience with it, 98% will say they'll use this first line. So we expect to get those patients in time, but they get prescribed the drug once they are diagnosed. That doesn't happen at the beginning of the year. That is when they get diagnosed with the disease. Important to remember, though, that this is a n enriched pool because you're only getting d iagnosed for a desmoid tumor if you're having symptoms that require a diagnosis. It isn't part of a diagnosis. That happens annually for any of us. Right. You're looking for something. The reason you're looking for something is you are having a symptom. The reason you are likely to treat once you know what you have is because you're having symptoms. So it's a bit enriched, as we think of that, 1,700 newly diagnosed patients per year. And we expect to do obviously reasonably well with that group as well, given what we have seen in terms of our patient data, but those happen over the course of the year. Then you've got about 30,000 people in the United States who have a desmoid tumor, who have not gotten it, who are no longer getting a treatment. Some of those are people who've got satisfactory treatment with surgery and they didn't have a recurrence. Some of those are people who have had a regression and some of those are people who actually have tried multiple things and nothing is working and at a certain point have left the system. What gives us confidence with that group is our own physician. Surveys indicate that physicians are now indicating that they are going into their records and are notifying patients, whoever came in with a Desmoid Tumor that this medicine is now available for them. So you add that together in an environment where we are getting reimbursed. You know, we are not seeing many discontinuations at all as we saw in our phase III as well. We think that there is an ample opportunity to have a really meaningful market now, q uarter-over-quarter, of course we expect to see that. But you don't see a bolus effect in that way because it's a rare disease rather than kind of an accumulation. Patients get the medicine when they need it. Our confidence is actually in the fact that this aggregate number of patients are there and that's becoming abundantly clear and t hat prescribers believe that this is the s tandard of care that in any survey one does, you will see that, and most importantly that patients are benefiting. They are seeing very quickly reductions in pain, sustained benefit, and that obviously implies that things are going on with their tumor as well. A follow up question to your comments there. You said 1700 patients are newly incident each year. How many of those are diagnosed at the specialty centers where you talked about having 80% coverage? It's hard for us to say at the moment and obviously with time we'll have more information, but we expect the majority of them to have been funneled through to a center of excellence by the time they get diagnosed. You definitely see in the community as well, large community centers, people will get diagnosed with a desmoid tumor. But you know, I'd say that the majority of patients of that diagnosed number we expect to be at a center of excellence. What are you seeing thus far in terms of compliance and adherence, recognizing we're pretty early here. It's been very consistent with what we saw in the phase III. So very few discontinuations. You do have some dose reductions that you'll see with some patients. As we saw in the phase III as well. And now we're offering our blister packs, which are at the 100 milligram dose as well as 150 milligram dose. That actually allows those patients to have a more convenient means of taking care of themselves, even at a lower dose. And so there is the element of that plus the convenience. Right. So if you or I got, you know, God forbid, diagnosed with a desmoid tumor, you know, and you, fortunately, you've got Ogsiveo, you take six pills, three pills in the morning, three pills in the evening to help manage that. Now it'll be one pill in the morning, one pill in the evening with an A.M. P.M., you know, clear designation in those packages and, you know, with t he real, you know, kind of consideration f or patients is that people tend to b e on more than one medication at a time. The more we can do to help patients simplify, the more we can do to kind of help with compliance, I think the better it is for everybody. Okay, you skipped my qualitative question about the quarter. So maybe I'll ask you like one specific one. Did you see growth? And I get this one a lot, so I'm just passing it along to you. Did you see growth into April and then into May, just on a month-over-month basis? So we're not going to comment. Yeah. Do we see growth? Yes, we are adding patients every month and we would expect to be adding patients every month, particularly in a disease that, you know, people are benefiting and people are requiring treatment. So I can answer that, that we are certainly adding patients everywhere. You've previously outlined like a $1 billion market opportunity here. I guess now that you're in the market and seeing these patients come through, what's your level of conviction around that number today versus the time of launch? It's higher. And I think it's to some extent it's math that even I can do. Right. So as you think of the newly diagnosed number, so let's start with that. You have 1,700 newly diagnosed patients per year. That number consists also of people, as we talked about, it's enriched. So the likelihood that those people require treatment is pretty high. Now you've also got conviction among physicians that this should be the first line treatment. So now what portion of that 1,700 just in the newly diagnosed do you think you get? If you keep those patients on treatment for an extended period of time, that is a meaningful, you know, commercial opportunity and a meaningful patient opportunity. Add to that the 6,000, you know, 6,000-7,000. Let's just say it's on the high end of that, or, you know, as I said, it's conservative. What proportion of those patients as they c ome off treatments that are not as e ffective, not on label, that, you know, now with an alternative for themselves that they see that deals with the number one symptom outside of the tumor itself, which is the pain that we can clearly indicate that they benefit from. What is our opportunity to get into that? You know, what portion of that 7,000 do we get? And then it's what portion of the remaining 30,000 we get w hen you get from there to the p ricing that is very clear and that we're getting reimbursement on, I think it can only give you more conviction. As I said, with the ICD-10 code data that we've seen right now, our confidence in the number of patients out there has only increased. Sure. At ASCO, there was obviously some conversation on the management of ovarian dysfunction. This has been a topic since the data. I guess. What are you seeing in terms of real world utilization and management there? We have not seen ovarian dysfunction be a limiter to prescription. That is a specific comment within women of childbearing potential specifically. I think there's a clear reason for that. One is you look at the typical patient, particularly experienced patients had been through multiple lines of treatment. So they are seeking a solution. Right. So now you have something. Two, the resolution data we have. Now, unlike chemo TKIs, which all got their challenges with respect to kind of reproductive health, we've got data that shows resolution. We shared some of this. At ASCO, 100% of patients who stopped taking Ogsiveo had resolution of their ovarian symptoms. That includes menses, hormonal levels, and so very specific. In addition, 3/4 while on medication had resolution of those symptoms. So you don't have anything else with that kind of resolution data. So we have not seen that yet in the real world setting of that being a barrier to prescribing for women of childbearing potential, you know, for those reasons, specifically a resolution and B, the fact that chances are you're there, you're trying to deal with a symptom. I think the comfort level that you can give a patient is, yes, let's treat your symptoms. Yes, if you have issues with ovarian regulation that you can have resolution there, and if you need to do family planning, you can do that in a way that you can't with chemotherapy, in a way that you can't with TKIs, in a way that you can't with surgery. So I think all of those factors lead to the benefit of, you know, of resolution here being kind of a key element for that decision. Now, having said all that you have w e certainly, we're going to get people over time, you're going to treatment naive patients as well. Some may watch full wait, but this is the only alternative. As you think of, you know, what is possible for patient, for patients with desmoid tumors to get treatment with confidence that you can have resolution of any o varian issue. Beyond ovarian dysfunction? Are there any other safety or tolerability considerations that are kind of coming up, anecdotally or otherwise, that you can help kind of coach or manage? Well, nothing beyond what we saw in the phase III. So you get GI tox, you've got, you know, you've got certain issues that you've got to manage. And we think that people are getting better at managing those over time. Certainly you kind of think of prophylactic treatments that you take to make sure that you kind of mitigate the GI impact of the medicine. And I'd say that nothing new beyond what we have already seen. Tying it all together, as you look through the balance of the year, I guess what are the implications of all these factors as you think about growth through kind of like the year e nd into next year. Without drawing a curve for you w e've got high conviction that there are a meaningful number of patients. We've got very high conviction that we will continue to add patients every quarter. We've got high confidence that, you know, that number added will be much greater than the numbers who drop, you know, and that's consistent with what we saw in the phase III. This will be a stacking function you see in many rare diseases, right? If you've got long term treatment, if you've got reimbursement, if you've got patients at the core, patients who are benefiting, they will continue to add over time. I think our conviction is very, very high. Thanks for letting me annoy you on those ones. Sorry. On neurofibromatosis type 1, you reported data this year at ASCO. Walk us through what was reported, particularly with respect to what was incremental in the data kind of last week versus what we'd already seen? So it was, you know, the data set that we released at ASCO was slightly more comprehensive. We had more time with the data. We had patient reported outcomes as well with the data, but all confirmed the same thing, right, which is we believe that we have a best in class d rug for in the pediatric setting for p atients with NF1-PN and we believe we'll have the first in class for the adult setting of patients with NF1-PN. Now we don't have to guess where we are, right. We've got a comparable out there with AstraZeneca's medication. Now they are providing something to the c ommunity that did not exist before, and we applaud them for that. It's clear as we talk about the opportunity here, though we say there are 40,000 patients in the United States with neurofibromatosis-associated plexiform neurofibroma. Three quarters of the opportunity is actually in adults versus peds. So we have to extrapolate from, you know, you can look at what the AstraZeneca results are, which are very strong just in the pediatric setting. But it's very clear to us that they have not penetrated that market. And that is basically, we believe, because of the tolerability of their medication. Now we haven't done across, you know, we have not done a head-to-head with them, but you can look at the profile of the medication. We can say on efficacy we are at least as good or better, certainly in depth of tumor response, nothing like mirdametinib. No one has seen anything with 50%+ tumor size shrinkages in the pediatric setting like we showed with mirdametinib from a tolerability standpoint. We believe tolerability is the key towards efficacy because it requires staying on the medication to see the benefit over time. You could not compare our data to theirs because we had much better tolerability, many fewer grade 3 adverse events and much fewer discontinuations in the pediatric setting. We share data on the adult setting which, which they have not shared yet. We believe that that'll be continue to play out as well. The opportunity we think is quite significant to help a large number of patients. But the distinction in the medications, you know, we've done our independent surveys on blinded where you lay out the profile of the AZ medicine and our profile and you see some pretty startling things. Over 90% of physicians surveyed even with in the market said that there is a need for a better drug for these patients. Over 96% of physician surveyed said that our profile was superior to theirs. Probably driven by each of the factors as I laid out. So as we sit here, you know, in mid-June, you know, we said that by mid-year or around mid-year, we'll be filing our U.S. NDA. That'll be followed by our European filing for mirdametinib in both children and adults t aking the whole opportunity, I think that's going to become a very exciting part of our story in, you know, in a very, you know, very proximate period of time to where we are right now. In terms of clarification on the survey work that you've done, is that specifically focused on pediatric physicians that say there's still so much unmet need or is? That approximately survey work has been done in the pediatric setting. Perfect. Good to know. It's some kind of apple to apples as much as possible. What about in terms of like patient quality of life or patient reported outcomes? I think there's some data there last week. Absolutely. So, you know, we have the benefit of having conducted this study ourselves. Right. This was not on the back of an investigative study. So, you know, in fairness, AstraZeneca, they don't have patient reported outcome data for children because they didn't conduct it. They did not do the work to determine that. Right. And so we have the benefit of having done that that's obviously very positive. And we think that that'll certainly, you know, play out in both the pediatric and the adult setting. And we can't speak to their adult data because they haven't, we haven't seen it yet. Obviously nothing's approved in adults. We think eventually they will be filing in adults. You know, we expect certainly to be differentiated f irst. Okay, I mean, in desmoid tumor, you've talked about in the past, like the importance of getting pain on the label, et cetera, like, think about getting some of these patient quality of life metrics on the label. Is that something that's possible and how important will it be for that patient population? I think it's, I think for this P atient population, it all matters and it all benefits. Too early to tell how much one specific PRO is going to matter in this disease for this group of patients, we continue to believe that tolerability will be key, that a patient's ability to stay on the medication and is the biggest contributor to their success. And so we, we believe that if you get a label even without PROs, and, you know, too early for us to tell, we have not yet filed. So it's not like I'm guiding one way or the other. I think here just that ability to keep patients on drug consistently for a longer period of time is going to reap the benefits that, you know, any other element of the label is probably not going to be necessary. Yeah, you talked about the portion of patients that are adult versus pediatric, but maybe you could help us quantify like how many patients are out there in the adult versus pediatric setting. And how do you expect that, like those to be, who's going to get treatment? Yeah. So, you know, we talk about 40,000 people in the United States with NF1-PN approximately. That's derived from a larger number of 100,000 people with neurofibromatosis 1 in the United States. You know, you've got a 30%-50% lifetime risk of progressing to the more serious manifestation of the disease, which is NF1-PN. We estimate that about a third of those are children and 2/3 of those are adults. And obviously you have people who, you know, present. They first get diagnosed when they're children with the disease and then, you know, kind of they age out of that category but still require treatment. Now, the reason we believe it's three quarters of the commercial opportunity is because there's size-based dosing and so there's incremental dosing based on the size of the patient. As people move from infancy to adolescence to mature adulthood, the dosing increases. So the commercial opportunity we view is 3/4 driven by adults. What portion of those patients are getting either Koselugo today or another therapeutic intervention versus other kind of options? Yeah, I mean, it's incredibly fragmented. And we believe that h as in the U.S. has had very limited penetration. There's still other MEKs used off-label, there's still other treatments used off-label largely because of, you know, people's inability t o stay on that medication. We think there's a real opportunity in the pediatric setting for us in the United States. In terms of like, adherence and compliance to those products, like, what do we know about that today? What we know is what they have shared, which is that 50% of patients come off Koselugo within a year. So those they get, they lose 50% because of people's inability to tolerate the medication. Having said that, they've still shown very strong revenue, which is, I think, a marker of the fact that there are a lot of people who need, who need some treatment. So we think, you know, we've had data that shows, you know, kind of the benefits of mirdametinib to even Koselugo experienced patients. And so we think we have a real opportunity, you know, specifically, even in that pediatric setting, you know, to be a differentiated treatment. Okay. As you think about the buckets of patients that are kind of like most likely to come onto therapy early on, maybe require additional work. Can you help characterize for us like the lowest hanging fruit to the most challenging patients and how big is each group? Yeah, some of that is gonna be driven by the tumor location. Some of that is gonna be driven by kind of the severity of the symptoms. So it's hard to kind of, you know, it isn't kind of that. There is a specific grouping that I can naturally get to without looking at those kind of specific, you know, patient driven, you know, characteristics. We believe that this, you know, this is a tumor that sits on the nerve sheath. It is incredibly painful. It is physically disfiguring. There are other manifestations of disease that, you know, kind of lapse into kind of neurocognitive elements from, you know, from having the disease. It is a traumatic disease. We expect that if there is anything that is available for these patients that they can stay on and benefit from, we expect the vast majority of patients to, you know, to seek treatment. It isn't something that you can ignore. It's. It isn't a treatment that you can actually be inert to. You actually need to take some action. Otherwise you will continue to suffer in pain because of these tumors. They tend to sit on the nerve sheath. You see some surgeries, they tend to be very difficult, very painful, and not very successful. So tough to get clean margins. I'd say we expect a meaningful number of the 40,000 to seek treatment. I can't say which, you know, the characteristics will lead somebody to treatment first. I do know that the enthusiasm for mirdametinib based on the profile we've given has been really high. In terms of pricing, I guess we obviously have one analog, but anything else that you would guide us to in terms of thinking about where you could shake out on price here. I think early to— I give you credit because in desmoid, you asked about pricing a year before. I set the price. We set the price. And so now we're on schedule, of course. And NF1, I think that it's. There is a marker out there with a price for. For a competitive drug. And I think that will shape, you know, kind of the dynamics around setting price both in the U.S. and outside the U.S. Perfect. In terms of infrastructure that's going to be required to build out ahead of the launch. Yeah. What should we be aware of? I think it's going to be an analogous U.S. infrastructure to what we have in desmoid tumors. So we've talked about this in the context of our desmoid tumor launch was about 35 sales reps covering the United States in our five territories. And their job is very specific to, you know, in that case, educating, making people aware and then letting them know that there's something that works. The opportunity in NF1-PN is different, but we think it'll be a similarly sized sales force for the US and the reason we believe that is it's a very well organized patient group, it's a very well understood disease. You've got a lot of people waiting. There tends to be a much more kind of streamlining of patients into neuro oncology settings, you know, that become kind of specialized treatment centers, less diffuse as far as who tends to be managing these patients. And so you can find those prescribers relatively, relatively succinctly. We expect for the U.S. for it to be an analogous number of things 35-40, I would say—y ou know, as we think of kind of the size of the sales force now, what we don't have to replicate, which I think is a useful item, is, you know, kind of marketing infrastructure, pricing and reimbursement infrastructure, market access, reimbursement infrastructure. We've got a team that has done quite a good job in the desmoid setting that we're going to be leveraging. But as far as on the ground salespeople, I look at it as something that is analogous to what we have done for desmoid tumors. Soon to be t wo potentially commercial products. How are you thinking about the European strategy? What's the latest update? Let me take them in turn f or Ogsiveo, it's a different, you know I'd say it's quite a different question because for Ogsiveo, we conducted our phase III study, half of those sites were in Europe, r ight? We announced our data at ESMO, you know, in Europe. Our PI is a German physician, so the awareness is actually quite high. The concentration of patients is relatively well understood. And we know the sites that are managing those patients because they were our sites for our study. So we think we're in kind of a very good position to execute in Europe. If we chose to execute in Europe with NF1-PN, again, larger patient population, our sites were not in Europe. You actually, if you can use the analog of what AstraZeneca, they have a lot of sales outside the U.S., right? Even just in the pediatric setting there. I think that again, we have the b enefit of a competitor already kind of announced to the market and out there. We think we have the ability to execute on the benefits there, but it is going to be a bigger lift to do to be successful in Europe for NF1-PN certainly versus desmoid tumors because we were on the ground in Europe with our phase III. Okay. Maybe briefly you could set the stage for us with respect to the ovarian granulosa cell tumor data that's coming later this year. You're correct, it's coming in the second half of this year. Again, this disease is, you know, you l ook at the patients who are on this study, you know, they have failed multiple lines of treatment. Right. This is actually salvage treatment as you think of this subset of ovarian cancer patients. And so you are looking at a scenario where we've got 53 patients on this study. We'll have data in the second half of this year. It is a very treatment fatigue group of patients. Right. And looking to create a benefit for them that they have not yet seen in multiple. But yet it is a large group of patients, r ight? It's about 1,500 newly diagnosed patients a year with this subtype of ovarian cancer. And so we think that there is a large group of patients that we can help now. Tough to tell from where we sit right now until we have the data, what our next regulatory strategy will be. Do you run a full phase III? Do you get on NCCN guidelines and try and get to these patients immediately? What we wind up doing is going to be driven by the data that we have, and that data will be available to us and to everybody else by the end of the year. Are there any thresholds you think about in terms of success that might facilitate one or the other of those strategies? I think it's tough to highlight those thresholds now only because, you know, we just don't have the data to kind of. So on the one hand, we don't have the data on the other b ut also, you actually have got patients f or whom nothing is working. The bar to help is actually relatively low. We have to see how far we clear that bar before we decide kind of what our next steps are. Okay. In terms of other pipeline assets, is there anything else you'd like to highlight that you think could be kind of value drivers over the next 12-18 months? Yeah, I mean, tough for me to tell what in the next 12-18. But certainly, you know, with brimarafenib, with our partners at BeiGene, you know, you're looking at, you know, BRAF mutations driving 7% up to 7% of all solid tumors. Right. We've got data that we think is really interesting. We've got in a monotherapy setting, in a combo setting with Amgen's drug, we t hink we'll have data this year that we can use o n the back of that, we're going to be dosing our first patients in TEAD, right, with a Hippo pathway mutation which actually impacts a whole host of cancers. We will have data towards the end of the year from one or many of our partners in BCMA. So, more and more is certainly coming, but hard to say which of those will be meaningful drivers in terms of latest as far as maturity. I think the brimarafenib data could be i ndicative of, you know, kind of a m eaningful phase II and you know, down the road opportunities for us in a large solid tumor indication. Okay, now that we're kind of past the point of me asking you about cash and where you're going to get it, the question is cash and how you're going to use. So how do you think about capital allocation across the portfolio and with respect to any other opportunities you see? So, you know, it's actually a really important question, right. We are in a position where, you know, in a very fortunate position where we believe that we have cash through break even. Right. So given the curves that we expect in both, both Ogsiveo for desmoid tumors as well as NF1PN, we're going to be in a spot where we, you know, are kind of masters of our own destiny as far as what we can do now. There will be a gap between that and then the next piece of, you know, late stage development experience on our end. And so we have to make a decision about what we are able to bring in. That takes advantage of what I think we're good at, which is, you know, late stage drug development, you know, working with the regulators, getting a label that you can execute around and getting a launch. Right. And so we think we can be quite effective in that. But you know, I think that at this moment in time, we aren't the only people looking for those type of assets. Given the kind of intensity, if you look at what's going on in this environment and more to come there. But I think we're certainly our eyes are open to what we can add to the platform that we have built, the execution platform that we have built to bring medicines forward for rare disease patients. Great. Well, with that, thanks so much everyone who joined us here and on the webcast. Thank you. Saqib for joining us as well. Talk to you all soon. Thank you, Corinne. Thanks, everybody.