Welcome to the Viridian Therapeutics first quarter 2022 conference call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. Please note this event is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, John Jordan, Vice President of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications at Viridian. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you, Debbie. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our first quarter 2022 conference call. Today, after the market closed, we issued a press release providing our first quarter of 2022 financial results and business updates. A replay of today's call will be available on our investor relations section of our website approximately one hour after its completion. After our prepared remarks, we'll open up the call for Q&A. Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone that this conference call and webcast will contain forward-looking statements about the company. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ. Please note that these statements reflect our opinions only as of today. Except as required by law, we specifically disclaim any obligation to update or revise these statements in light of new information or future events. Factors that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements are discussed in greater detail in our most recent filings on Form 10-K and our other reports filed with the SEC. I would now like to turn the call over to Jonathan Violin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Viridian. Thanks, John, and good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us on our first quarter 2022 conference call. I'm also joined today by Kristian Humer, our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Business Officer. We'll begin with a brief update on the business, including recent and upcoming milestones and the progress we're making in advancing our lead candidates for thyroid eye disease, or TED. Kristian will review our first quarter financial results. We'll open the call for questions. First and foremost, I'm excited for the data we expect to deliver in the coming months. We have multiple data readouts that we expect will confirm the potential of our antibodies to significantly advance the treatment of thyroid eye disease. After a very productive 2021, we continued our momentum in the first quarter with substantial progress in our phase 1/2 proof-of-concept clinical trial for VRDN-001 and the initiation of our first human clinical trial for VRDN-002. Those trials are poised to deliver top-line data in the third quarter. We believe these two trials will provide the initial evidence to establish VRDN-001 and VRDN-002 as meaningful therapeutic advancements in treating thyroid eye disease. I'd like to spend a few minutes reviewing each of our TED programs and the significance of the ongoing trial for each asset, starting with VRDN-001. Data from previous oncology trials and our preclinical studies indicate that VRDN-001 has the same mechanism of action and similar pharmacokinetics in humans as TEPEZZA, the only therapy approved by the FDA for TED. The key difference for VRDN- 001 is higher affinity. Both our own data and previously published data show that VRDN-001 has sub-nanomolar affinity and potency against IGF-1R, the targeted mechanism of action of TEPEZZA. This higher potency may reduce the dose required to deliver efficacy in TED patients. We see an opportunity to develop VRDN-001 as a differentiated intravenous product addressing the need we've heard from stakeholders for a less burdensome and potentially safer dosing regimen. In December, we announced dosing of the first subject in a phase 1/2 proof-of-concept clinical trial for VRDN-001. This trial is designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of VRDN-001. It includes both healthy volunteers and randomized placebo-controlled cohorts of TED patients and is assessing multiple measures of the signs and symptoms of TED, including proptosis, the bulging of eyes characteristic of TED. Over the past several months, we completed dose escalation and enrollment of healthy volunteers and continue to enroll TED patients. We expect to deliver top-line proof-of-concept data from two cohorts of TED patients in the third quarter. We now have 11 sites active in recruiting, similar to the number of sites in the TEPEZZA phase 3 trial, and we're working with some of the top enrolling sites from that trial. Though some of the site activation took longer than we initially expected, we continue to see strong engagement from investigators and interest from patients. Importantly, we've been very pleased that once opened, the rate of screening and enrolling patients per site has met our expectations. We're very confident in our enrollment projections and in sharing top-line data in the third quarter. While we eagerly anticipate reviewing our first data from TED patients, I'm pleased to share today some highly encouraging interim data for the healthy volunteer portion of this trial, which includes 13 subjects receiving 2 doses of placebo or VRDN-001 at 3 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, or 20 mg/kg. We're very encouraged by the safety and tolerability seen to date. There have been no drug-related adverse events associated with hyperglycemia, hearing loss, or muscle spasms at any dose, including the top dose of 20 mg/kg. Other adverse events have been generally comparable to placebo, and to date, there have been no infusion reactions or serious adverse events. In addition to this promising safety profile, we see robust increases in IGF-1 plasma levels, a biomarker for IGF-1R inhibition. Interim data show a rapid sevenfold increase in IGF-I from baseline to all doses tested, including 3 mg/kg, suggesting doses as low as 3 mg/kg are sufficient to achieve maximal IGF-1R inhibition. Moreover, maximal inhibition was achieved rapidly and was sustained throughout the two-dose treatment period. No increases in IGF-I were observed in patients treated with placebo. The robust IGF-I response at 3 mg/kg is consistent with data for this antibody in oncology patients and suggests this dose could be highly effective in TED patients. This is important because it could allow us to advance VRDN-001 as a self-administered subcutaneous injection in addition to intravenous administration. We've included the preliminary safety and IGF-I data in our updated corporate presentation, which is available on our website. This interim healthy volunteer data increases our excitement for our upcoming proof-of-concept results that confirm our expectations for the safety and potency of our molecule. Based on these results, we now plan to evaluate an additional cohort of TED patients at a dose of 3 mg/kg following the completion of the proof-of-concept portion of the ongoing trial. We expect to deliver proof-of-concept data from two cohorts in the third quarter and data from the low-dose 3 mg/kg cohort in the fourth quarter. As a reminder, the proof-of-concept portion of this trial includes two cohorts of eight TED patients each, randomized in a three-to-one ratio to receive VRDN-001 or placebo. The first cohort will include two infusions of 10 mg/kg of VRDN-001, and the second cohort will include two infusions of 20 mg/kg of VRDN-001. We're assessing multiple efficacy endpoints and will report data at six weeks after two infusions of VRDN-001. We'll report the same endpoints used to evaluate TEPEZZA, focusing on mean change from baseline and proptosis reduction, but we'll also report proptosis responder rate, clinical activity score, and diplopia. Our goal is to see efficacy signals comparable to TEPEZZA at six weeks. In particular, we're focused on change from baseline and proptosis, for which the three TEPEZZA datasets, phase 2, phase 3, and phase 3 open label extension, showed very consistent changes at six weeks with a mean of 1.7-1.9 millimeters. That's the range we're aiming for. It would confirm that we can recapitulate the rapid improvement in TED symptoms that TEPEZZA has demonstrated and position us to quickly advance our program towards pivotal trials with the goal of being second to market. Since TEPEZZA is the only entrant in a rapidly growing market already annualizing at $2 billion in the U.S. just two years into launch, we believe that showing VRDN-001 proof-of-concept data similar to TEPEZZA would be a major value-creating event for us. We know we have a compelling product with the potential to be the second entrant in a large, rapidly growing market. We also know we have multiple opportunities to differentiate our product profile to enhance our market position. To this end, we're already preparing VRDN-001 for pivotal trials, including manufacturing material at commercial scale, assuming positive proof-of-concept data, and we anticipate advancing our program rapidly. We intend to sprint to market with a differentiated VRDN-001 product profile and plan to assess multiple dosing regimens in parallel. Fewer infusions or different routes of administration will be a welcome advancement for TED patients. We look forward to discussing our phase 3 plans following our proof-of-concept trial readout. Let's now turn to VRDN-002, our next-generation IGF-1R targeted program. VRDN-002 is a humanized monoclonal antibody that incorporates validated half-life extension technology and is designed to support administration as a convenient low-volume subcutaneous injection for the treatment of TED. Based on the VRDN-001 healthy volunteer data we shared a few moments ago, we're now increasingly optimistic that a low dose of VRDN-001 might allow a self-administered subcutaneous dosing paradigm, and we're excited it has the potential to move rapidly and become the first subcutaneous therapy for thyroid eye disease. VRDN-002, with its half-life extension technology, may represent the next generation best-in-class product, as it has the potential for less frequent subcutaneous dosing than any TED therapy, including VRDN-001. We expect to show the pharmacokinetic benefits of this molecule in our ongoing phase 1 first-in-human trial. We announced dosing of the first subject of this trial in March. The trial is a single ascending dose study to explore safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of intravenously administered VRDN-002 in healthy volunteers. We've completed dose escalation and expect to announce top line data from this trial in the third quarter, either concurrently with or following shortly after our VRDN-001 proof-of-concept readout. We expect that the results of this trial will demonstrate how well half-life extension technology improves pharmacokinetics compared to a traditional IGF-1R antibody. These data will inform the dose and dosing frequency of a low-volume subcutaneous product. We're on track to have a subQ drug product ready in early fourth quarter, and we expect to be ready to initiate a subcutaneous proof-of-concept trial in TED patients shortly thereafter. With our VRDN-001 and VRDN-002 programs, we believe we have a compelling TED portfolio with intravenous and subcutaneous options that can compete across all settings of care. I'm grateful for the excellent work the Viridian team has done to advance our programs and also for the investigators, volunteers, and patients who are participating in our trials. Moving to our programs beyond TED, we're expanding our pipeline by discovering and developing more convenient next-generation antibodies for indications in which proof of concept for the targeted mechanism of action already exists. For both our VRDN-004 and VRDN-005 programs, we see opportunities to advance patient care and evolve treatment paradigms with a new best-in-class entrant. We continue to progress these programs in discovery stage. We'll provide updates as these programs mature. For now, we remain laser-focused on delivering on our TED portfolio opportunity. I'll now turn the call over to Kristian Humer, who will discuss our financial results for the first quarter. Kristian Humer. Thank you, Jonathan. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to open up our comments by stating that we ended the first quarter with $175 million in cash equivalents, and short-term investments as of March 31, 2022. This puts us in a strong financial position to fund the advancement of multiple programs in TED while expanding our discovery pipeline and operations into 2024. Subsequent to the end of the first quarter, we entered into a credit facility with Hercules Capital for up to $75 million. Upon closing of this facility, we withdrew only $5 million. An additional $20 million is available at the company's request through June 15, 2023, with an additional $25 million available upon the company's achievement of certain milestones. The remaining $25 million is available subject to lender approval. The company is under no obligation to draw funds in the future. We believe this credit facility further increases our financial strength by reducing our dependence on capital markets, which provides us added strategic and operational flexibility to advance our programs. Turning to expenses. We reported research and development expenses of $17.7 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2022, compared with $13.8 million for the same period last year. The increase in research and development expenses was primarily driven by personnel-related costs, license fees, and clinical trial costs for VRDN-001 and VRDN-002. These increases were offset by expenses related to manufacturing and IND-enabling studies for VRDN-001 and VRDN-002 that were incurred in the first quarter of 2021. General and administrative expenses were $8.4 million during the first quarter of 2022, compared with $6.2 million for the same period last year. The increase in G&A expenses was driven by increases in personnel-related costs, including severance, share-based compensation changes, and consulting expenses. The net loss was $25.7 million for the first quarter of 2022, compared with $18.5 million for the same period last year. The increase in net loss was driven by increased operating costs as well as lower revenue from our collaboration with Xenon in the first quarter of 2022 compared to 2021. As of March 31, 2022, Viridian had approximately 42.9 million shares of common stock outstanding on an as-converted basis, which included 27.2 million shares of common stock outstanding and approximately 15.7 million shares of common stock issuable upon the conversion of shares of Series A and Series B. With that, I'll ask the operator to open the call for questions. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. To ask a question, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the key. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. The first question comes from Chris Howerton with Jefferies. Please go ahead. Excellent. Thanks so much for taking the questions, and congratulations on the clinical progress thus far. For my questions, I think pretty simple. In terms of the first question, just wanted to clarify on the healthy volunteers data. I'm colorblind, and I can't see everything all that well, but it looks like the error bars are not consistent across throughout the line plot. So I'm just wondering if it is a sparse data set in that, you know, like, there's only one patient at certain time points, or I guess just a little more color in terms of what constitutes the data representing that graph. And then the second question, again, I think it's just a relatively simple clarification. When you think about the dosing between VRDN-001 and VRDN-002, do you think of them as being equipotent? You know, does a 3 mg in VRDN-001 equal, you know, 3 mg in VRDN-002? Thank you. Sure. Thanks, Chris. Hi. With respect to the IGF-1 question, keep in mind this is an interim analysis. In the slide preceding the slides you're referring to, we discussed the stage of the trial. The top dose cohort, the 20 mg/ kg cohort, is ongoing. We don't have data from later time points there. I think what you're seeing mostly reflects that. But we have completed the 3 mg/kg and the 10 mg/ kg cohort. The second question was VRDN-002 versus VRDN-001 and comparative potency. These molecules have similar affinity for receptor. Where we expect them to differ is in the pharmacokinetics. To remind everyone, VRDN-001 has a very similar pharmacokinetics to pertuzumab and other first-generation antibodies in this class. With the inclusion of half-life extension, we believe the VRDN-002 will have substantially longer half-life, as we've seen in our preclinical data. The question that the ongoing study will begin to answer is with a similar dose, let's say 3 mg/ kg dose, if we can get sustained exposure, we may not have to give as big a dose over time. The question of equivalent dosing is really not just the affinity for the receptor, but very largely driven by the pharmacokinetics. That's why we're so excited about the VRDN-002. We know that the VRDN-001 is subnanomolar affinity. In fact, we believe based on the old oncology data that as you lower the dose much below 3 mg/ kg, it becomes PK-limited. Improving affinity further is not likely to help. What we think is going to help is improving the pharmacokinetics. That is what is dose limiting. Again, that's why we're so excited about the VRDN-002, and I'm looking forward to seeing the first human data next quarter. Okay, very good. I mean, I guess I'll ask it. You know, your competitor Horizon has also announced that they are developing what they call a high concentration subcutaneous formulation as well. You know, how do you anticipate this changing your strategy in the near term, if at all? Excuse me. Let's review what that might mean, right? TEPEZZA is approved at, well, the loading dose is 10 mg per kg and seven ensuing doses of 20 mg/ kg. We know that the average patient size receiving TEPEZZA is 75 kilograms, so that's a gram and a half of drug every three weeks. The current marketed formulation is 50 mg/ mL. 150 mg at 50 mg/ mL, that's 30 mL, 30. That's a large volume, right? That would be a large infusion to get to subQ. What might one be able to achieve with a high concentration formulation? A typical target to shoot for would be about 150 mg/ mL. Not all antibodies can get there, some can. In fact, both VRDN-001 and VRDN-002, we've been able to formulate to 150 mg/mL without precipitation, good viscosity. That's a kind of standard threshold for high concentration. There are two products that have got higher than that to 180 mg/mL and 200 mg/mL, Hyrimoz and Actemra. That would be sort of an upside. Let's say we can get, we see TEPEZZA at 150 mg/mL. That takes the volume to 10 mL. Maybe if it manages to meet the best ever of 200 mg/mL, it could get down to 7.5 mL. That's still a pretty substantial volume. It's not something that's a single low volume injection. For that, we think the threshold is 2 mL, and we can point to commercial products that have been very successful with 2 mL or lower as an injection. We're looking still at the approved dose in TEPEZZA, even assuming success of a high concentration formulation as an infusion or a large number of injections. That's why we think that getting a lower dose and hence a lower volume can enable us to deliver a compelling product for a while with a low volume and less frequent subcutaneous product. The next question is from Thomas Smith with SVB Leerink. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions and congrats on the initial data here. Just let me start with one on the healthy volunteer data for VRDN-001. Safety looks really clean. Is there any additional color you can add on the hypertension or hyperglycemia events? I know both deemed unrelated to study drug, but just wondering if there's anything else you can add to that. Yeah. The hyperglycemia was in a patient who had hyperglycemia baseline. It was mild, continued to be mild, and that's why it was deemed unrelated to study drug. Hypertension, I mean, these are kind of typical mild variations one often sees in a phase one study. They were mild, and really deemed unrelated to study drug and not of concern to either the site's investigator or to us. Okay. Makes sense. On the proof of concept TED cohorts, any additional color on patient enrollment here? Are there any specific headwinds you're coming up against in terms of site activation or patient enrollment? I guess, you know, maybe a follow-up to that, any early read on the types of TED patients that your investigators are enrolling into the study? These patients that are more, you know, on the milder or severe end of the active disease spectrum, where are the investigators indicating the greatest degree of interest at this point? Sure. Yep. In terms of enrollment, you need two things, right? You need to get sites active, and then you need to get patients enrolled at the sites. We now have 11 sites open. Majority of those have been in recent weeks, so we were expecting an uptick in site activation a little earlier. Now that we have these sites open, some of them have been open for a few months. We've got a pretty nice track record to see what the enrollment rate looks like. It really is matching what we had expected a priori. The hurdles we had in getting the sites activated, which were for a variety of factors, we think we're past. Solved the issue, and now the enrollment rate is performing just as we'd hoped. That's why we're very comfortable with our third quarter guidance. With respect to the types of patients, we designed the study to ensure that we were not gonna be enrolling patients that were less likely to show a benefit, right? We really mimicked the TEPEZZA phase 3 I/E criteria. We're working with sites very experienced in the space, and of course, keeping close oversight, to make sure that no one outside the I/E criteria are slipping in. The study is really designed to ensure we're enrolling a similar patient population. Been really happy with the engagement we've seen from sites, the interest from patients. Keep in mind that TEPEZZA is not often quickly available. A lot of patients either don't have access or it takes them a while. Whatever the reason, we're seeing really good interest and are pleased with the enrollment we're seeing so far. Okay. Got it. Just one last question on the plans to add the 3 mg/ kg cohort for TED patients. Like, really interesting to think about the prospects of this in a subcutaneous formulation. I guess just how much formulation work have you done to date around zero zero one, and how difficult would it be to advance this subQ form? How quickly could you potentially get this into the clinic? Yeah. Actually very quickly, we shared this at some point last year. We were very quickly able to get VRDN-001 and VRDN-002, for that matter, to our target concentration of 150 mg/ mL. That's with good viscosity, meaning that it would be amenable to subcutaneous product. We don't see anything blocking us. In terms of timing, when could that advance forward? Really the key question is, will the 3 mg/ kg dose work? Stay tuned for an update on our plans, but it's something that we're increasingly excited about and don't see any hurdles on the formulation front that would keep us from getting there. Okay. Got it. I appreciate you guys taking the questions, and congrats again on the initial data. Thanks, Tom. The next question is from Laura Chico with Wedbush. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the question. I'm getting one from investors that I just wanted to clarify on. With respect to VRDN-002, the timing is moving out to the third quarter, and maybe that's just a narrowing. I guess I'm kinda curious if the initial dosing is complete, I guess are there remaining data items to process there on the VRDN-002 readout? Just kinda clarifying the timing change on that. With respect to VRDN-001, I might have missed this, apologies if I did. I don't see any of the pharmacokinetic data released. When might we get a little bit more visibility on that aspect of the healthy volunteer data? I think there was some question before about kinda half-life differences with TEPEZZA and different patient populations. I'm curious if you have any color there. Thanks. Sure. Thanks, Laura. For VRDN-002, we're narrowing the guidance. We'd said mid-year, meaning 2Q, 3Q, and we're clarifying that it's third quarter. We did say dose escalation is completed, so that means we got up to the top dose. Keep in mind that with half-life extension, you know, you need to sample for a while to understand how well the half-life extension technology is working. You know, we just need to wait. We're very pleased with how the study's gone. Everything's gone quite well. With respect to VRDN-001 PK, again, we're still collecting data at the top dose cohort. What we've seen so far, very consistent with the oncology data, actually really excellent PK. We've seen no signs of target-mediated clearance, which is something that we had to watch out for, but it looks great even at the low dose. No evidence of anti-drug antibodies. Again, that was true back in the oncology days for this molecule, but wonderful to see that again in our hands. With respect to, are there differences across patient populations? Just to remind everyone, we think about VRDN-001 versus TEPEZZA. These are both IgG1 antibodies, so they're very similar. They have indistinguishable pharmacokinetics in non-human primates, also in oncology trials when both of these antibodies were in oncology studies. TEPEZZA has never been in healthy volunteers. When we look at the PK in thyroid eye disease patients, instead of individual PK, which is how we prefer to think about pharmacokinetics, and when I cited the oncology data and the non-human primate data, that's individual PK, the TED PK is really population PK based on sparse samplings. It's really a different model, and you can't really do an apples-to-apples comparison. What I can say is based on the preliminary data we've seen, we don't see any obvious differences between VRDN-001 and TEPEZZA. We think we're going to have very similar PK when we get to TED patients. That's super helpful, John. Maybe one last one if I can sneak it in there. With the proof of concept data coming in 3Q, will we have full data at both the six-week and the 12-week time points? Thanks very much. Sure. We're really focused on the six-week time point because, again, we're mimicking the TEPEZZA dosing paradigm through week six. We dose on day one, we dose on day 21, and then we're measuring efficacy on day 42 or week six. There is a near-term follow-up at week 12, but we're not dosing between week six and week 12. In terms of doing the kinds of cross-trial comparisons that we all are interested in, really have to look at the six-week time plan and not the 12-week. Lots of interesting information will come out of the 12-week follow-up. But we're not guiding to include that in the top-line readout. Really, as soon as we have the six-week data on both the 10 mg/ kg and 20 mg/ kg cohorts, we'll have a rich data set that we'll be excited to share. Thanks very much. The next question is from Rami Katkhuda with LifeSci Capital. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions and, congrats on the early data. Just going off a previous question, if the 3 mg/ kg dose VRDN-001 is shown to be efficacious as a subQ therapy, I guess, does that affect your development plan with VRDN-002 at all, or is it too early to tell? Yeah. Well, what we like about our approach here is we have lots of options, lots of shots on goal. If we can get VRDN-001 to the subQ, I mean if that 3 mg/ kg cohort works and VRDN-001 can move forward in the subQ product presentation and a subQ injection, right, we're trying to get to a low volume injection as opposed to a larger volume infusion. The nice thing about that is that there's potential it could move very quickly and could be the first subQ entrant in thyroid eye disease. With VRDN-002, with half-life extension, there's an opportunity to reduce the frequency and come up with the most convenient possible product presentation. We would be interested in moving that forward as well. Got it. You know, we should add, right? It's the only IGF-1R antibody with half-life extension to market, so it could be really hard to beat. Definitely makes sense. I guess another question, if you don't mind. Can you remind us if plasma levels of the IGF-1 biomarker generally correlate with clinical efficacy in TED? Well, because TEPEZZA was never dose ranged, we can't point to a dose-response relationship. Really what we can do is look back at all the IGF-1R antibodies in the past. Very consistently, and based on the underlying biology, when you inhibit IGF-1R, when you bind and block the receptor, plasma levels of IGF-1 go up. It's a marker for target engagement. It doesn't tell us anything specifically about the pathophysiology, so we can't draw either the mechanistic or qualitative or quantitative link. The fact that we're seeing a maximal response, with a same high rate of onset of the increase in all these doses and given the fact that we have sub-nanomolar affinity and we're well above 10 micrograms per ml exposure, if you look back at the old oncology data for this drug, it's very reasonable to hypothesize that we're saturating the receptor and could deliver full efficacy at this dose. That's, I think that's really what drove our excitement for announcing that we'll be starting a 3 mg/ kg cohort with that on the fourth quarter. Makes a lot of sense. Thanks. Again, if you have a question, please press star then one. Our next question is from Jason Butler with JMP Securities. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for taking the questions. This may be one that you still need to see more data from. Any thoughts based on the data you have today on whether dosing frequency with the 3 mg/ kg subQ formulation would be? Would it be the same two-three weeks, or could it be, you know, different to that? Just at this point, is at least one of the scenarios for VRDN-001 that you conduct a registration study or studies that incorporates both the subQ and the IV formulations, so you'd go to FDA in parallel with both formulations? I think it's a little too early to answer both questions declaratively, right? We need to see some more data. There's a trade-off, right? When you think about a subQ product, there's a trade-off between volume and frequency. You can have a lower volume more frequently or a larger volume less frequently. When we see data from the 3 mg/ kg cohort, we'll have some interesting decisions to make as to what we will study going forward. Now of course, when we think about how can we get this approved, right? The goal as I said would be to get this to market as fast as possible, and that will very much feed into our thinking as to what kind of dosing frequency we'll do and what level of evidence is required to get the subQ product approved. Stay tuned, but we're really excited that there's potential that this could move forward quickly. Great. Thanks for taking the question and congrats on the progress in the data. Thanks, Jason. This concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Jonathan Violin for any closing remarks. Thank you, and thanks, everyone, for joining us today. As I hope you've heard, we're very excited about both the ongoing progress that we're making across our TED programs and the multiple upcoming data readouts. We'll look forward to updating you as our programs advance. With that, we'll close the call. The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.