Thank you for standing by. My name is Frilla and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the El Mylon Pharmaceuticals Q2 Earnings conference call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question and answer session. And if you would like to ask a question during this time, simply press the star, followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, please press the star one again. Thank you. I would now like to turn the conference over to the company. You may begin.

Good morning. I'm Josh Brodsky, Vice President of Investor Relations at El Nile. With me today are Yvonne Greenstreet, Chief Executive Officer, Jeff Poulton, Chief Financial Officer, Tolga Tangular, Chief Commercial Officer, and Pushkol Garg, Chief Research and Development Officer. For those of you participating via conference call, the accompanying slides can be accessed by going to the events section of the investors page of our website investors.lnylam.com slash events. During today's call, as outlined on slide two, Yvonne will offer introductory remarks and provide some general context. Jeff will review our financials and guidance. Tolga will provide an update on our global commercial progress. And Pushkol will discuss our TTR franchise, our confidence in Triton CM, and upcoming pipeline milestones before we open the call for your questions. I would like to remind you that This call will contain remarks concerning L. Nilem's future expectations, plans, and prospects, which constitute forward-looking statements for the purposes of the Safe Harbor provision. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by these forward-looking statements as a result of various important risks and uncertainties, including those discussed under the heading Risk Factors in our most recent periodic report available on our website and on file with the SEC. We disclaim any obligations to update such statements. And with that, I'll now turn the call over to Yvonne. Yvonne?

Thanks, Josh, and thank you, everyone, for joining the call today. During the second quarter, we demonstrated strong performance across all aspects of the business. Notably, it marks the first time Amvutra revenues exceeded $1 billion in a single quarter, representing an annual run rate of more than $4 billion just 15 months into the ATTR cardiomyopathy launch, a testament to both the commercial opportunity and our 9M's execution. As we reflect on the launch, several insights reinforce our confidence in the durability of Amvutra growth over the years ahead. First, this has been an impressive launch by industry benchmarks when looking across market share, access, and revenue generation. Second, the fundamentals of our TTR business are strong, and they include Amvutra's compelling clinical profile and label, the strong access that we established at launch, which continues to improve, and our robust and expanding provider network. Third, patient demand for Amvutra continues to grow robustly, particularly in the first-line setting, which has been our focus as we aspire to market leadership, given Ambutra's clinical differentiation and desirability as a foundational therapy for newly diagnosed patients. Tolga will discuss how we are now further investing in broadening our Ambutra prescriber base and supporting overall category growth, the last of which has been accelerating. Finally, our geographic expansion strategy continues to gain momentum. And today, we're pleased to announce our collaboration with B1, through which they will have exclusive commercialization and distribution rights for Amvutra in mainline China and Macau, subject to Amvutra receiving marketing authorization. Together with B1, we aim to help advance awareness and support diagnosis of ATTR amyloidosis and, if approved, bring the strength of TTR silencing with Amvutra to patients in these underserved regions. As Jeff will describe shortly, we are lowering our 2026 revenue guidance today to reflect a better understanding, with hindsight, of the first few quarters of our U.S. launch. Specifically, that early second-line demand growth in 2025 benefited significantly from pent-up demand for a new therapy that has since normalized. With that learning and our strong 2026 second quarter performance, our confidence in Amvutra's growth trajectory has never been stronger. First-line new patient starts and now responsible for about 80% of category growth in this accelerating market, and we believe we're making great progress in establishing Amputra as a foundational therapy. I will now turn to recent developments in the competitive landscape, specifically the negative outcome of the cardio-transform study of eplon-tursin. We recognize investor interest in understanding any potential implications of that study's failure for our probability of success in Triton-CM, our phase three cardiovascular outcomes trial of Nucreceram. Let me be clear, this outcome does not alter our conviction in the Triton-CM study, and as Pushkol was sharing greater detail, our strong confidence is grounded in the established clinical evidence for RNAi therapeutics in TTR and the track record of our clinical organization. At the same time, we have a variety of options at our disposal to potentially adapt the study and position it for optimal success. We will carefully review the full EPLON-Certion dataset when it becomes available and adapt our study plan if appropriate. We have successfully navigated complex TTR development before and believe we are exceptionally well positioned to do so again with Niflisran. Additionally, in the quarter, we were pleased to announce a series of strategic AI collaborations across the enterprise, including with Inceptive to expand the next frontier in the discovery of RNAI therapeutics, and a collaboration we're pleased to announce today with a large healthcare system in California aimed at supporting early identification of ATTR cardiomyopathy in routine care. This builds on our previously announced partnerships with Vis.ai and Komodo Health. Altogether, this cohesive AI strategy from discovery and evidence generation to disease identification, clinical practice, and commercial execution reflects our long-term conviction that AI will fundamentally reshape how medicines are discovered, developed, and ultimately delivered to patients. Finally, we also continue to progress our deep pipeline of investigational medicines, initiating a phase 2 trial of ALN6400 in von Wiedebrand's disease and a phase 2 trial of my Valseran in Down syndrome-associated Alzheimer's disease. And we look forward to a series of clinical data readouts in the back half of this year, including presentation of initial phase one results as ALN HTT02 in patients with Huntington's disease at EHDN in October. All of this progress builds our momentum towards accelerating innovation and scaling our impact as we look to deliver on our five-year vision online in 2030. And our strategy is anchored around three pillars. The first pillar is to establish global leadership in TTR while continuing to build a doable franchise. The momentum we have built in ATTR cardiomyopathy to date, along with recent developments in the competitive landscape, including the CardioTransform Phase 3 top-line results and the delay in expected U.S. generic entry for Tafamidis until mid-2031 further reinforce the strength of our position and the significant opportunity ahead to establish Amvutra as a foundational therapy and realize our TTR leadership ambitions. The second pillar is growing through sustainable innovation, where we aim to deliver therapies that not only slow the progression of disease, but prevent, halt, or reverse it. And the third pillar is scaling with discipline and agility to enable durable, profitable growth. Alnylam 2030 represents our commitment to becoming the leading, science-driven, fully integrated global biopharmaceutical company and to maximize the full potential of RNA therapeutics for patients. With that, let me now turn the call over to Jeff for a review of our second quarter financial results and 2026 guidance.

Jeff? Thanks, Yvonne, and good morning, everyone. This morning, I'll be presenting a summary of El Nilem's second quarter of 2026 financial results and discussing updates to our full-year guidance. Let's begin with the summary of our P&L results for the second quarter. Total global net product revenues were approximately $1.2 billion, representing 74% growth versus Q2 last year, driven by the continued uptake of Ambutra and ATTR cardiomyopathy. The second quarter of 2026 marks the first time we achieved more than $1 billion of TTR revenue. These results reflect a substantial improvement in quarter-on-quarter growth compared with growth in Q1 this year, consistent with the phasing expectations we discussed on our year-end and Q1 earnings calls earlier this year. Fogle will share more details on our TTR performance in the quarter. In Q2, collaboration revenue was $47 million, or a 23% decrease compared with the same period last year due to lower revenue recognized from our Regeneron collaboration, partially offset by increased revenue from our Roche collaboration, driven by higher reimbursable development activities related to the Xenath Phase III clinical trial of Zodby Saran. Royalty revenue for the second quarter increased 79% to $72 million, driven by higher Lectio sales by Novartis. Gross margin on product sales was 75%, or 4% lower than Q2 last year. The decrease in margin was primarily driven by increased royalties on Ambutra, as higher revenues in 2026 resulted in an increase in the average royalty rate payable to Sanofi. Our non-GAAP R&D expenses of $377 million increased 38% compared to last year, primarily driven by costs associated with our three ongoing Phase III clinical studies, including the Xena Phase III Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial for Zilbizaran and the Triton-CM and PN studies for Nucre-Saran. Beyond the pivotal studies, we also continue to increase investment to support important programs for bleeding disorders, Huntington's disease, and CAA. Non-GAAP SG&A expenses of $297 million increased 14% compared to last year, driven primarily by investments in support of the Mbutra ATTR cardiomyopathy launch in the U.S. and in key international markets. We achieved non-GAAP operating income of $318 million, more than triple the amount we achieved last year, driven primarily by the strong top-line results that I previously highlighted. Finally, we ended the second quarter with cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities of $3.3 billion, compared with $2.9 billion as of year-end 2025, The primary driver of the increase in cash year-to-date is our strong operating performance. Now turning to our full-year 2026 guidance. As Yvonne noted, we are revising our total net product revenue guidance to $4.7 to $5.1 billion, driven fully by an update of our TTR revenue guidance to $4.2 to $4.5 billion, representing a $200 million reduction from our original TTR guidance at the midpoint and still reflects a robust 75% growth year-over-year. Guiding the market's expectations appropriately is important, and we didn't get it right with our original guidance. We own that. Revised guidance we are sharing today reflects a better understanding of the evolution of second-line demand as our launch has progressed. Let me provide some additional color on the basis for this revision. Overall, the Ambutra cardiomyopathy launch continues to perform ahead of analogs, And importantly, we are pleased with uptake in the first-line portion of the market, which has been and remains the primary focus of our commercial efforts, given the importance of this segment to driving long-term growth. When Ambutra was launched in April 2025, the compelling Helios V data and our team's success in establishing access enabled physicians to rapidly transition existing patients who are progressing on stabilizers onto Ambutra. As a result, second-line demand volumes remain consistently robust throughout 2025, which informed our original 2026 guidance. However, as the launch progressed into 2026, and with the benefit of hindsight, it is now clear that a greater than understood proportion of early second-line volume growth was driven by pent-up demand from patients who are waiting for a new treatment option. Consistent with the trend we highlighted in our Q1 2026 earnings call, growth in second-line volumes began to moderate in early 2026 to what we now recognize as a normalized level. This normalization of second-line demand is the driver of the $200 million reduction in TTR guidance that we are announcing today. HOGA will share more perspective in just a few moments on our confidence in future TTR growth, which is grounded in three key elements. the strength of our current market fundamentals, positive impact we expect from new investments we're making based on early launch learnings, and lastly, the favorable competitive developments that Yvonne mentioned in her opening remarks. Now back to updating our guidance. We are also updating our guidance for collaboration and royalty revenues to a revised range of $575 to $625 million, representing a $150 million increase at the midpoint of the range, driven primarily by strong performance of Lectio and the resulting royalties from Novartis, as well as higher cost reimbursement from Roche, favorably impacting collaboration revenue, driven by the pace of enrollment in our Zenith Phase 3 study with LV Seriam. The remainder of our non-GAAP financial guidance remains unchanged. Let me now turn it over to Tolga to provide more color on our commercial performance in the second quarter. Tolga?

Thanks, Jeff, and good morning. I'm pleased to share our continued progress in bringing Alnylam's therapies to patients globally. Almutra is delivering a category-defining ATTR-CM launch and is on track toward delivering on our Alnylam 2030 ambitions. As Yvonne and Jeff mentioned, we have gained valuable insights as the launch has progressed. These learnings have sharpened our understanding of demand dynamics, while also reinforcing our confidence in the fundamental drivers of sustainable growth. Overall, we remain highly confident in our path to achieving TTR leadership. The momentum of the business, coupled with an increasingly favorable competitive landscape, reinforced our conviction in achieving our long-term ambitions. Tutu marked another quarter of strong commercial execution and growth. Specifically, we delivered $1.17 billion in combined net product revenues, up 74% year-over-year and 13% over Q1-2026. In just five quarters since our CM launch, we have generated over $4 billion in total revenue, reflecting both a strong base and a clear growth trajectory. Our rare disease portfolio also continues to deliver meaningful impact for patients and consistent performance for our business. In Q2, we generated $142 million in rare disease net revenue, up 11% year over year. Turning to our TTR franchise, global TTR net revenues reached $1.03 billion in the second quarter, increasing 13% versus Q1. and 89% year over year, reflecting the continued strength of the launch and the robust execution of our global teams. In the US, TTR revenues increased 15% versus Q1, and 114% year over year, reflecting robust underlying demand, with reported revenue partially held back by changes in inventory days on hand during Q2. Access remained broad, pull-through was strong, and adherence continued to exceed 90%. Outside the U.S., TTR revenues increased 7% versus Q1 and 31% year-over-year. Continued ATTR-CM uptake in Japan, the U.K., and Germany, along with strong neuropathy performance across our international markets drove Q2 growth, despite pricing handwinds related to ongoing CM launches in several countries. Double-clicking on our Q2 TTR performance in the U.S., underlying demand was exceptionally strong, increasing by $129 million in the quarter, more than doubling the demand growth achieving Q1. A portion of that demand was offset by inventory dynamics, which reduced reported growth by $21 million, and to a lesser extent by the continued and anticipated modest reduction in net price. As a reminder, our Q1 USTTR growth was more modest and was impacted by several seasonal phasing dynamics, and we are therefore pleased by the robust re-acceleration in demand in Q2 and the continuing strength of the business. Amutra's differentiated clinical profile underpins our confidence in the long-term growth opportunity. We believe that Amutra stands apart as a first-line choice on attributes that matter to physicians and patients. It is the first and only product approved in the U.S. for both ATTR-CM and hereditary ATTR-PN. It works upstream at the source, delivering rapid, deep, and sustained knockdown of the disease-causing protein. In the pivotal Helios B study, Amutra met 10 out of 10 endpoints and demonstrated robust treatment effects in the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality and recurring CV events and secondary endpoints of functional capacity and health-related quality of life. Across all of these endpoints, consistent treatment effects with or without background non-stabilizers were observed. Combined with the convenience of once quarterly healthcare-provided administration and real-world data that suggests greater than 90% adherence, we believe Amutra is uniquely positioned to address the needs of the growing ATTRCM patient population. The first five quarters of launch have provided valuable insights that are informing where we increase investment, and how we position the business for its next phase of growth. During the initial quarters following approval, many of our high-volume early adopters transitioned a substantial number of stabilizer-treated progressing patients to Ambutra. While those transitions continue, we are now seeing that portion of demand-volume growth normalized toward a more sustainable underlying rate, and we continue to capture leadership share of second-line starts. Today, approximately 80% of new treatment initiations are first-line starts. Establishing Amutra as first-line treatment choice has been our priority since launch, and we continue to strengthen our competitive position. What's more, while our strategy has never depended on competitors' outcomes, two favorable developments in the external landscape have cleared the path for us to be even more competitive in the first-line setting. First, we now anticipate Tefamidus' U.S. loss of exclusivity in 2031. Amutra is already challenging the seven-year incumbent for leadership share of new patient starts, and we see a significant opportunity to continue strengthening that position years ahead of genericization of the stabilizer class. Second, based on the cardio-transform study top-line results, we now anticipate one fewer branded ATTR-CM competitor in both the first line and stabilizer progressor segments. Finally, category growth continues to accelerate, and our competitive first-line share, coupled with this clear competitive path to greater first-line penetration, aligns well with where we see the largest opportunity. With an estimated 80% of patients still untreated and additional physicians and health systems initiating treatment of ATTR-CM, We expect the robust growth in first-line starts to continue, and we're helping to drive that category growth. More specifically, we're accelerating our investments in diagnosis-enabling initiatives, investments to identify patients earlier, to expand the treatable population, and ultimately to improve patient outcomes. Taken together, these insights provide great confidence in our ability to expand leadership across both ATTR-CM and hereditary ATTR-PN, and deliver on our 2030 ambitions of TTR leadership and a 25% revenue CAGR during the period. As we shared today, our differentiated profile has translated into exceptional launch momentum, and that experience has sharpened our understanding of what will drive the next phase of growth. First, after five quarters in the market, Amwutra's compelling profile and our focus efforts have driven broad coverage and efficient patient access with no meaningful reimbursement headwinds. We believe the Strong Access Foundation will continue to support physician confidence and patient adoption as we expand the franchise. Second, we continue to deepen adoption among physicians who have already incorporated Almutra into their practice. Among prescribers using Almutra, it now represents more than 50% of new patient starts, underscoring the strong physician preference that develops with experience. And from a TTR-CM launch through the end of Q2, we have at it over 1,700 new prescribers. Third, and perhaps most importantly, we have significant opportunity to expand the breadth of prescribers who have experience with Ambutra, which we estimated about a third of the growing pool of TTR prescribers. While we know that experience drives preference, there are many more physicians, including many who are new to the category, who have not yet prescribed on Vutra. To capture that opportunity, we are intensifying our focus and increasing our investment in customer-facing activities to expand the breadth of prescribing. We are already seeing early progress from these efforts. With accelerated growth in new Amutra prescribers during the second quarter, we believe we are in the early stages of that expansion opportunity. While we're still early in the commercialization journey, we believe Amutra is well positioned to capture the significant opportunity ahead as we bring this differentiated therapy to more patients living with ATTR-CM. With that, I will now turn it over to Pushkol.

Thank you, Tolga, and good morning, everyone. As Tolga just highlighted, we believe Ambutra has a remarkable clinical profile that supports it being the first-line treatment of choice for patients with ATTR cardiomyopathy. These key attributes are highlighted here with data from the landmark Helios B study. First and foremost, we've seen substantial benefits with regard to improving clinical outcomes, both all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events, with reductions of nearly 40% over 48 months across these two endpoints. Second, the treatment effects are largest when we intervene early. You can see that in the forest plot on the bottom left, where patients with lower BNP, greater walking ability, and younger age have had even greater reductions in the composite endpoint of 47%, 42%, and 45% respectively. And importantly, in data recently presented at ESC heart failure and shown on the lower right quadrant, we see that the treatment effect is preserved irrespective of background medications, including TTR stabilizers. These attributes, along with the quarterly dosing that supports adherence, in our view, represents an ideal profile for first-line agent for patients with ATTR cardiomyopathy. Now, the strength of these Helios B results, along with our many learnings from our deep experience in TTR amyloidosis, provide us with staunch conviction in the value of Nucre-Saran, our next-generation investigational RNAi-TTR silencer, which we believe has the potential for even greater improved efficacy by a greater knockdown, over 95%, with just two doses per year. As you're aware, we continue to advance Nucre-Saran in the Triton Phase III program. Triton-CM is a randomized, double-blind, event-driven outcome study of Nucre-Saran versus placebo. both. We announced last quarter that we utilized a pre-specified option in our protocol to expand enrollment by approximately 500 patients to 1,715 total, further mitigating the potential risk of low event rates while maintaining or potentially even accelerating timelines for this important study. Now, given recent competitor data and given that many patients in Triton CM will be on a background stabilizer, we understand that there have been many questions raised about the feasibility of delivering positive results from this clinical trial. While we still have more to learn about the epilentersin results, we believe they're likely attributable to a combination of molecule and study-specific issues. And as we compare what we know about Nucreceran with what's been reported about epilentersin, I want to assure you that we remain highly confident in Nucreceran and Triton-CM. I'll explain more in a moment, but first let me share what we'll be looking for in upcoming data presentations of the CardioTransform results at ESC to better understand the reasons why the study did not meet its primary endpoint. First, we'll be interested to learn more about the population and baseline characteristics of the CardioTransform study, particularly in the two key subgroups of monotherapy and in the patients on background stabilizers. As I noted, in Helios B, we saw that treatment effects with Ambutra were greatest in early patients, And so, a drug signal may be obscured if many advanced patients were enrolled. We already know from published data that the CardioTransform study enrolled 17% NYHA Class 3 patients, nearly double that in Helios B, patients with higher NAC stage and patients with higher B&Ps. Importantly, as I'll explain further in a moment, we believe deep, rapid knockdown of TTR is critical to improving outcomes in ATTR cardiomyopathy. Graphs in the primary manuscript for the Eplen-Tersen-PN study indicated it took longer to get to peak knockdown than M-Vutra, but the depth and variability of knockdown are also important, so we'll be looking for those details. Safety will be important given what we know about ASOs in the past and the frailty of the ATTR cardiomyopathy population. Did patients stay on drug, and were there any competing risks that impacted study outcomes? We'll also want to look at study execution and completeness of follow-up. And finally, we'll want to take a much deeper look at the outcomes data. For example, how did the individual components of their primary endpoint, CV mortality and CV events, look? And what about all-cause mortality, which is part of our primary endpoint? How did these accrue over time, and did the results vary in particular subgroups, particularly by disease severity? Bottom line is there are a lot of details not yet known about the failure of CardioTransform. However, we are in an ideal position to learn from it. With enrollment ongoing and a projected launch for an increased grant in 2030 for ATTR cardiomyopathy, we have plenty of time to digest this information, thoroughly consider our options, and implement appropriate changes to Triton-CM, assuming any are even warranted. Let me return now to why we remain confident in Triton-CM following the CardioTransform top-line release. The reasons has come down to three key factors, the specific attributes of our molecule, Nucrisiran, key design elements of the Triton-CM study, and the track record of our team here at Alnylo. Starting with the molecule, first, RNAi therapeutics are fundamentally different than antisense olivanucleotides. In our hands, RNAi has been able to deliver rapid, deep, and durable TTR knockdown, which we believe has implications on treating the course of disease. There are now several recent examples of ASOs and RNAIs silencing the same genetic target with very different profiles. We've also seen that the safety profiles of these two approaches differ as well. Second, Nucresoran's depth of TTR knockdown is expected to be best in class based on preliminary Phase I results showing over 95% TTR knockdown with much tighter interpatient variability. I'll explain why we believe that will result in strong efficacy in a moment. And finally, we have data from two prior studies evaluating RNAi in ATTR cardiomyopathy patients, Apollo B and Helios B, both of which generated data supporting a combination benefit. You've seen the Helios B data and label, which shows a clear benefit of RNAi-mediated TTR silencing in a population that included heavy stabilizer use and consistent effects in combination in monotherapy. But as I'll show you in a moment, we saw the same effect with Paticeran as well. Moving to the study, Triton-CM, now with 1,750 patients, will be the largest study conducted in ATTR-CM, which will allow us to accrue more outcome events. And further to that point, we designed Triton-CM as an event-driven study. Given the evolving treatment landscape, patients with somewhat milder disease on baseline on average, and other dynamics, we determined that a time-based primary endpoint was not ideal. Instead, we'll continue to study until we have enough endpoint events to ensure sufficient study power. Third, we've used our insights to define entry criteria that enrich for patients who are most likely to benefit based on our prior learnings. And finally, we have an outstanding and experienced team here at El Nilo. We've been focused on TTR drug development for well over 15 years, delivering two approved products. We've amassed tremendous experience across study design, execution, and analysis to maximize the probability of success of a trial in this area. Part of the experience and history of conducting TTR trials is our vast database of deep, patient-level insights that we can leverage to optimize study design and conduct. And to that last point, we have a track record of meticulous execution to ensure study success. This was most recently exemplified by how we optimized the endpoint structure and analytic plan for Helios B to deliver remarkable results resulting in the strong label that Tolga highlighted earlier. Before I move on, I'd like to underscore a few of the points I just made by sharing some clinical data that support the additive benefits of RNAi-mediated silencing on top of a stabilizer. As you'll recall, the Helios B study demonstrated an approximately 41% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality up to 42 months when Amvutra was given to patients on a stabilizer at baseline, highlighting both the residual unmet need in these stabilizer-treated patients as well as the additive benefit of Vutrisran. But what you may not know is that we saw a nearly identical effect in Apollo B. As shown here, with just 24 months of follow-up in a comparable population in that study, we saw an estimated 44% reduction in all-cause mortality. Hence, we have data from two different molecules in two different studies showing comparable improvements in outcomes, which provides the strongest evidence of a combo effect. We believe these clinical data result from the knockdown profile of these two medicines. There are many ways to look at TTR knockdown, but what we believe matters is the speed and depth of knockdown, and particularly getting as many patients as possible to deep knockdown. Here we show TTR knockdown from our polyneuropathy studies, which had the richest sampling of TTR levels. Both show median knockdown of approximately 90% at steady state. Now, we don't know exactly what level of knockdown is critical for efficacy in cardiomyopathy, but we have robust data in hereditary ATTR where we have more sensitive endpoints that suggest on a population basis achieving 80% knockdown or greater is associated with halting of polyneuropathy. And based on our depth speed and variability of knockdown the large majority of patients about 82 to 84 percent of vitrisiran treated patients reach that threshold at steady state so how does this compare to other molecules here we've plotted the same data as on the prior slide for vitrisiran now shown as bar graphs you see 91 median knockdown with about 82 of patients achieving that 80 threshold of deep knockdown. So how does that compare to the data reported for Eplon-Tursin? Our team used published data from the Eplon-Tursin PN study, which showed median knockdown of 84% at steady state, as well as available data on variability, to model the expected proportion of patients who will reach that same 80% knockdown threshold. Our model estimates that only about 67% of Eplon untreated patients would reach that same deep level of knockdown, or said another way, one-third of patients may not reach the threshold of knockdown we've seen to be associated with strong efficacy, nearly double that calculated for vitriceran. These are estimates and should be interpreted with appropriate caution, but they highlight that the TTR knockdown data and cardiotransform will be critical to review, and insufficient knockdown is one plausible contributor to the failure of that study. We ran the same modeling exercise for Nucrisiran using the same dose and regimen that we are using in the Triton CM and PN studies. And the good news is that by these same metrics, Nucrisiran has the potential to be even better than Vutrisiran's high mark. With median knockdown of 95% and low variability, over 99% of patients Truth and Decreason are expected to surpass this deep knockdown threshold. So in sum, we don't believe that the top-line results shared a few weeks ago negate the hypothesis and rationale of using a silencer for ATTR-CM patients who are already on a stabilizer. More likely as we see it, they may demonstrate that the type and depth of silencing, along with aspects of the study design, are what really matter. With that, I'd like to remind you that we're progressing a broad pipeline of medicines beyond TTR with over 25 clinical programs spanning multiple therapeutic areas across rare specialty and prevalent indications. This robust pipeline represents a tremendous opportunity to improve patient health and create value in the years ahead. To that end, we look forward to a lot of pipeline momentum in the next few years. This year, in 2026, we continue to execute on our three ongoing pivotal studies, including two cardiovascular outcomes trials. We also anticipate four key data readouts in the second half, which I'll outline on the next slide. And looking ahead, we anticipate many more data readouts in pivotal trials starts in 27 and 28. Additionally, in 2028, we anticipate the launch of Nucre-Saran in HATTR polyneuropathy, assuming positive Phase III data and regulatory approval. And of course, we'll continue to build the pipeline through the filing of three to four new INDs each year as we scale to meet our Alnylam 2030 ambitions. Coming back to 26 and our pipeline goals for the remainder of the year, we're looking forward to four important data readouts from three key programs. For ALN 6400, we plan to share healthy volunteer data from the ongoing Phase I study, as well as initial results from the Phase II study in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia. We also expect to initiate Phase 1 data from both ALN-HT202, our Huntington Disease Program, and ALN-2232 in development for obesity and weight management. With that, let me turn it back to Josh to coordinate our Q&A session. Josh?

Thank you, Pushkol. Operator, we'll now open the call for questions. To those dialed in, we'd like to ask you to limit yourself to one question each, and then get back in the queue if you have additional questions.

Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session. And again, if you would like to ask a question, please press the star one on your telephone keypad to raise your hand and join the queue. And if you would like to withdraw your question, please press the star one again. With that, your first question comes from the line of Paul Latisse with Stipul. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks so much for taking my question. I appreciate it. I wanted to just talk about like the change in guidance. You know, by our math, under the new guide, you're growing around 50-ish percent at the midpoint in the second half of this year. And for 2030, I think you still got into this 25 percent, Tager. Given this drop-off versus your original expectations and when you gave this long-term guidance, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the next sort of 12 to 24-month outlook and your confidence that you can keep the growth rate on track, likely above that 25 percent number for a while and still meet your long-term goals. Thank you.

Thanks for the question, Paul. Clearly, we're not pleased to be lowering guidance. As Jeff said, we own it. But I think it's really important to emphasize that we believe that the fundamentals driving our opportunity are really strong, particularly market growth and our first-line momentum. And it's difficult to know every single factor when you kick off a launch from the get-go. But we are very pleased with the outlook that we have in front of us, both in the near future but also in the longer term and reaching our 2030 goals. Jeff, do you want to add some color?

I mean, I'll just comment on the second half of 26 and what the revised guidance implies, and then maybe Tolga would like to make some comments on longer-term confidence in the Elm Island 23rd Guide. Paul, the revised guidance that we've given of $4.2 to $4.5 billion in terms of the midpoint of that, just relative to the growth that we just put up in the second quarter, to achieve the midpoint, we would need to deliver growth in Q3 and Q4 that's consistent with what we just put up in Q2. And I think we do have confidence in that, given some of the things that Tolga talked about, particularly strength in the first-line part of the market in terms of demand we saw in the quarter in the U.S. But Tolga, any more comments on the confidence and the longer term?

Yeah, maybe I'll combine both Ivan and Jeff's points, which is, first and foremost, we are competing in a highly untapped market. 80% of patients remain untreated. And within that category, in a short 15 months, we've already been able to actually build a very strong base for our business. And what's exciting about that, frankly, to me is while we're obviously normalizing our second-line new business, our first-line business is really rapidly replacing that. And if you think about the fact that 80% in this category comes in as new patients as first line, we really like how we're positioned with the existing prescriber basis. And as I highlighted in my remarks, one of the areas where we still need to do some work, which I believe we'll be able to do, is continue to expand our prescriber basis. And that's where we're really investing our efforts and we we've already done that so given matching that with the actually the access that we've been able to secure and good attendance rates uh our ability to demonstrate 25 percent cable growth year over year is definitely within within our reach and if i can add we're actually you know even more confident now with the results of the cardio transform study i mean there's likely to be one less um branded competitor on the market um and and and push and all the reasons why our confidence in UCRI and Triton-CM is undiminished.

So I think if anything, actually, we're sort of more confident about our future outlook given these developments. Thank you very much for that question. Next question, please. It's from Salveen. Salveen?

Thanks for taking our question. This is Tommy on for Salveen. I'm curious on if you're seeing a slower rate of second-line patients, TAF progressors per year given trends in earlier diagnoses and potentially patients staying on TAF for longer? And also, if you could maybe comment on how you expect the timing for your diagnosis and awareness efforts to start playing a key role in first-line capture. Thank you.

Those are great questions, both for talking.

Yeah, so it's a good question around the early diagnosis. Frankly, when we started, just like any launch, when you have an orthogonal mechanism of action product like we do, we knew that there was going to be a level of pent-up demand. And it's certainly over time, we've seen that being normalizing. So we're still seeing actually a healthy number of patients that are coming into the That's about 20%, both switch and combo. That will continue to be the same. And what's even more important to me is these early diagnosis is actually going to hopefully help increase the category growth and accelerating that category growth. We've already seen that. It's gone up from the prior years since we launched an acceleration of these new patients. So, in fact, those patients that are getting treated early is going to be a nice tailwind for us. Thank you. Next question, please.

Your next question comes from the line of Tazeen Ahmad with Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. I wanted to get a little bit more color about your comments about frontline is now about 80% of new starts. Can you just tell me what the split is for youth and community physician practices versus centers of excellence? And I guess the question that a lot of people are asking is if, for better or for worse, right now physicians are looking at stabilizers as being similar in efficacy to silencers, how do you kind of maintain that growth that you're seeing in front lines with needing to balance educating physicians, presumably community-based physicians, on the real differences between silencers and stabilizers?

Yes, I'll say a few words. Maybe I'll go. Yeah. Look, I mean, first and foremost, we continue to compete for category leadership against the product that's been in the market for approximately seven years. And obviously, we remain ahead of the other recent entrants. But more importantly, how the business is evolving beneath the overall share, I think, is really, really important. Early in the launch, growth was more balanced between first and second line patients. Today, a second-line demand, as we described, has moved toward a more sustainable rate. An increasing proportion of our growth is not coming from first-line patients, which represents the larger and the more durable opportunity. At the same time, I think this is really important. We are deepening adoption within existing accounts and rapidly expanding that prescriber base. So we're essentially maintaining a strong overall share while improving the underlying composition of the business through a broader physician adoption. Now, you brought up the point around the COEs and community experts. What's been really encouraging for us is as we established that early base business, that business didn't just come from the COEs. We actually had a very healthy balance of COEs, academic centers, as well as community experts. What we need to continue to do is to actually expand out those community expert centers, and we know how to do that. Some of the challenges we faced with them early on was, well, okay, I don't know what the differences are between the silences and stabilizers. Now those physicians have actually adopted Ambutra and all other stabilizers. We actually have a significantly higher market share. When it comes to, oh, well, I don't know how to buy and build this product, particularly around the community expert centers, we know how to bring them along with that, whether through building their own, helping their own practice, or creating alternative sites of care for their injections. So it is something we've done already, and now we're essentially intensifying our efforts to make sure that actually that adoption curve continues to get deeper.

Yeah, and Tazeen, may I just add to what Tolga said in response to your question? Look, there's no head-to-head data, of course, we know between these different classes of medicines, But as I tried to highlight in the main presentation, we think we have actually an incredibly unique profile for AMVUTRA. It starts with the outcomes data, which we think are really quite remarkable. I've shown you substantial impact on outcomes. And importantly, the fact that, you know, we've seen now in two studies additive benefits on top of stabilizers, which suggests there is efficacy left that's not fully addressed by the stabilizers alone. It's indirect evidence, but we think it's very strong and reproducible evidence. We've also seen that starting this class of agents early, silencers, has the greatest treatment effect, and even, you know, approaching almost 45% reductions in mortality, which I think is quite remarkable. And we're seeing evidence of disease remodeling when we look at echocardiographic parameters, we look at cardiac MRI, et cetera. So, look, our job, as Tolga has highlighted, is to continue to educate on those attributes, continue to generate evidence. You've seen at recent meetings more and more that we're putting out, and to continue to educate. And so as Tolia has talked about expanding the prescriber base, an important aspect of it is educating these prescribers on the attributes of this class of medicines. And we've seen that once they gain experience with it, that they find that it actually becomes a dominant part of their practice in terms of prescribing. So that's going to be our effort.

Very good. Great question. Your next question comes from the line of Kostas Villiers with Oppenheimer. Please go ahead.

Thanks for taking our question. One on Europe, given that Vindakel will soon be generic in Europe, to what extent do you think the commercial dynamics between Amvutra and a generic drug in Europe will reflect what may happen in the U.S. post-2031 when Tafamidis goes generic? Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So, thank you, Kostas, for that question. First and foremost, I think we've always highlighted that the contribution of growth for Europe is going to be relatively modest, similar to the growth that we had last year. And that had a lot to do with the fact that we were going to actually make appropriate price adjustments in order to capture a larger cardiomyopathy volume. Now, in terms of tefamidus, the 80 milligram, the four pills a day option is going to be going generic. I believe 61 milligram will continue to be available for a while. Now, in respect to our ability to actually capture those reimbursements, since these are single-payer systems, these systems have already anticipated that generalization transition. And what I'm pleased to say that we've actually, in most cases, been able to secure premium pricing versus Tefaminis, and I'm quite pleased with the ongoing negotiations we have, whether it's Germany, Spain, Italy, and Japan. We've highlighted the fact that we are competing very effectively, essentially exceeding all analogs and a good uptake. So while, again, because of the pricing changes, we're going to have a modest growth contribution, particularly in 26, we see 27 and beyond, the launches is going to have a meaningful impact on our overall business.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Ellie Merle with Barclays. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Just curious if you could give us more color on what a steady state level of second line starts look like. I think you said 80% of starts in 2Q were from the front line, so is 20% a steady state for second-line starts, or do you expect that to decline over time? And then I guess what drives your confidence that the front-line starts will continue at this cadence going forward? And specifically, if you could give us more color on if we strip out the second-line starts, have you seen growth in first-line starts or a stable number of first-line starts each Thanks.

Thank you, Yoli, for that question. I mean, just to be clear, when we talk about 80-20 perspective, that's mainly driven by the overall category. And what we've seen essentially is not a market share loss on second lines, but the overall volume shift into a lesser contribution of the new brands from switches for the entire category. What I'm really pleased about is while we're continuing to maintain and having a nice gradual progression of our market share, that market share growth is actually being contributed by the first-line share. So that's actually a very healthy sign of our business. And in respect to the first-line contributions, as I alluded to earlier, those physicians that actually use all three products predominantly use Amutra as their first-line choice. That's the analysis that we have. So now the question is, how can we actually continue to expand the prescriber base so more physicians actually test and understand and experience Amutra? because the experience begets preference. And this is where we're really honing our efforts in. And we've been able to expand that prescriber base at 1,500 new prescribers since the launch. And we believe we're going to be able to continue to do that. And again, the goal has always been actually on first line. And this normalization is just a question, actually, frankly, not just the dynamic, but also the strategy.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Luca EC with RBC.

Thanks so much for taking my question. Maybe a quick one for Tolga. You know, pretty clear that AstraZeneca did not show any additive effect between stabilizer and silencers in their trial based on the press release. Again, appreciated that's a different molecule, as Pushkull, you know, nicely articulated. But are you seeing any impact commercially based on that data? Are you seeing payers forcing docs to pick one versus the other and no longer allowing patients to be on the combo. Any call there? Much appreciated. And then super quickly, can you comment on the evolution of net price in the U.S. for the rest of the year? Thanks so much.

So that's a three-parter, I guess.

So maybe I'll start.

I mean, obviously, Pushka laid it out very clearly why we believe what we believe. Look, in terms of the payer pushback, obviously, it's too early to say. But what I can tell you is this. overall access to ambulatory remains very strong. Some Medicare Advantage policies that are already placed, that already puts limitation on combination use. And in fee-for-service coverage always follows the label. And frankly, physicians continue to have pathways to pursue access when they believe a particular treatment approach is medically appropriate, given the severity of this disease. What's also very important is cardio transform does not change Ambutra's evidence or its label. It was a study of a different molecule. We would not expect payers to alter Ambutra coverage based on those results. Our priority remains ensuring appropriate patients can access Ambutra, whether they're initiating first-line therapy or switching from another treatment. So we're not seeing any pushback, again, given the fact that actually the policies are already in place, and yet when the physician wants to have access, they obtain it if they provide the right, appropriate materials.

Yeah, no, thanks for that. Look, I think there are many examples of drugs in similar classes where one drug fails and the other succeeds, and we really believe what we have here are two distinct molecules with different mechanisms as well as different profiles and a different study. And really, our job is to get out there, as Tolga was saying, and educate physicians on the compelling benefits that we see for Amvutra, the focus on first-line, because we believe this should be a foundational therapy, as well as explaining the benefits that we've seen in two separate studies, as Fushka has explained, with respect to combination use.

There was one question on net price in terms of what we expect, and I think the slide that Tolga showed that showed the first half dynamics, showed the modest quarter-to-quarter decreases in net price. We expect that will continue for the second half. And if we were to show you that on a year-over-year basis, the way we had guided was mid-single-digit net price decrease year-over-year, we're still on track for that, Luca.

Thank you. The next question comes from Jessica Fye with J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Question for Pushkal, recognizing that this is hypothetical, can you elaborate on some of those potential changes available to you with Triton-CM to maximize its probability of success? And then maybe as a follow-up to that, are there potentially other paths to approval for Nucrisran in ATTR-CM beyond Triton-CM? For example, would it be feasible to run a non-inferiority trial against Amputra? Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Jess, for your question. Look, again, we feel really good about what we have in our hands, both in terms of the molecule and the creaser, and for all the reasons I talked about, and the study that we have. So again, I want to reinforce, we may not need to do anything different from what we already have ongoing. That said, we do have options at our disposal. We'll look at the data and we'll consider. I think they broadly fall into a couple of buckets. One is whether we modify enrollment in certain subpopulations, for instance, and enrich in certain ways for those. Again, we've done that already in the context of study, but we could potentially further do that based on information that we see. The other thing would be to make modifications around the analytic plan in terms of how we think about various endpoints, the hierarchy, et cetera. And so they're largely in those two big buckets. I I mean, to the second part of your question, you know, is there a possibility that if we wanted to, we could do additional studies? Yes, certainly those things are potential. I'm not going to speculate, though, further on what those might look like. But I think broadly speaking, I think there's a variety of options that are, you know, that are, again, we're playing the long game here. I think our commitment is to deliver a successful study. We've done that in the past. We think Nucresoran has the opportunity to be an amazing medicine for patients, and we're committed to delivering a positive study for that, and so we will consider all the potential options at hand. As I said, they fall into several key buckets, and we'll kind of consider all those opportunities and see if anything at all is warranted.

Thank you. The next question comes from Whitney Ijum with Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Thanks very much for taking my question. Just sorry if I missed it, but can you remind us on any updated thinking, I guess, around the total U.S. patient population or TAM for ATTR-CM and where you are with diagnosis rate currently? And then just as a point of comparison ahead of the 6,400 Phase II data later this year, what are the comparable numbers for HHT-U.S. TAM in terms of patient numbers and diagnosis rates? Thanks.

So, for TTR, what I can tell you is in our less estimates. If you go back to our TTR webinar, we've highlighted, we estimate around 200,000 patients and about 80% of those remain untreated. What to me is sort of a good confirmatory data set is the fact that you're seeing around 40% year-over-year growth of the category with a single option on the table. That has actually accelerated since we launched, and that remains very robust. So we believe more competitors, more awareness, more education, and frankly, some of those initiatives that we've just actually laid will continue to help accelerate those patients getting diagnosed. And as you all know, we have excellent data that demonstrates those patients that are treated earlier end up actually getting more benefits from MAMUTRA. So So we're very actually excited about that. And again, our position on first line gives us the confidence that we can actually continue to be the leading, you know, option on the table in this growing category.

Yeah, and with regard to hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, there are, you know, there really are no approved treatments for this disease. It's actually the second most common rare bleeding disorder that's out there. I think globally there's about one and a half million patients with this disease. I think when we think about the addressable population in the United States, I think, again, those estimates vary. I think there's a number of these patients who don't actually get to medical attention, but we think there's probably about 70,000 or so patients in the United States who may be addressable with this condition. But again, that epidemiology will firm up again, as we've seen with rare diseases where there aren't treatments. Once there are effective treatments, more and more come to attention. So that's probably a ballpark, though, for you.

Thank you. And that concludes our question and answer session. I will hand it back to the company for closing remarks.

Thank you. So to close, we continue to build momentum across our business as we execute against our strategy and advance towards our 2030 goals. And I'd like to thank everyone who's joined us today.

Thank you, presenters. And ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.