Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Altamune Year End 2025 Financial Results Conference Call. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star 11 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. As a reminder, this call is being recorded. I'll now introduce your host for today's conference call, Lee Roth, President of Burns-McClellan, Investor Relations Advisor to Altimmune. Lee, you may begin.

Thanks, Gigi, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for Altimmune's fourth quarter 2025 financial results and business update conference call. On today's call, you'll hear from Jerry Durso, our Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Christoph Arbett Engels, Chief Medical Officer, Linda Richardson, Chief Commercial Officer, and Greg Weaver, Chief Financial Officer. Following management's prepared remarks, we'll open the line for the Q&A session. Our fourth quarter and full year 2025 earnings release was issued this morning and can be found on the Investor Relations section of the Ultimune website. Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone that remarks made about future expectations, plans, and prospects constitute forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor Provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All to mean cautions that these forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated. For a review of the risk factors that could affect the company's future results and operations, we refer you to our filings with the SEC. I also direct you to read the forward-looking statements disclaimer in our press release issue this morning, which is now available on our website. Any statements made on this call speak only as of today's date, March 5, 2026, and the company does not undertake any obligation to update any of these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that occur on or after today's date. As a reminder, this call is being recorded and will be available for audio replay on the Altemune website. With that, it's now my pleasure to turn the call over to Mr. Jerry Derso, President and CEO of Altemune.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today for our fourth quarter financial results and corporate update. As this is my first earnings call since joining Alt-Immune as CEO in January, I'd like to start with some comments to reinforce why I'm excited about the opportunities ahead of us with Pembedutide. Alt-Immune is exclusively focused on liver disease, an area where I've spent a good part of my career. Despite a number of therapeutic breakthroughs in the past several years, there remains significant unmet need and treatment gaps among patients living with serious liver diseases like MASH. We believe that Pembidutide has the potential to bring meaningful benefit to people affected by a variety of hepatic diseases. The balanced one-to-one agonism of glucagon and GLP-1 in a single molecule achieved with Pembidutide makes it potentially well-suited for the conditions we're targeting. Glucagon's direct effect on the liver can drive reductions in liver fat, inflammation, and fibrotic activity, while GLP-1 can mediate weight loss and appetite suppression and may contribute to anti-inflammatory effects. Additionally, PEMBI incorporates our proprietary U-port structure, which slows absorption and is believed to drive improved tolerability, potentially reducing GI and other side effects, which can lead to greater treatment adherence. Importantly, keeping patients on therapy at the right dose is crucial to the management of chronic diseases such as MASH. The data we've generated to date across multiple preclinical and clinical trials, including our Phase IIb MASH study, reinforce our belief in the strong therapeutic potential of Pembidutide, as well as its ability to stand out among competing therapeutic options if approved in MASH. As we evolve the PEMV plan, we're focused not only on advancing into Phase III, but but also ensuring that the potentially unique benefits of PEMV for patients, payers, and physicians are addressed in our program with a keen eye to competitive advantages in PEMBidutide's targeted product profile. Based on our ongoing discussions with hepatology KOLs and other practitioners, it's clear that clinical practice in MASH is evolving and will continue to evolve as new therapies become available. The prevailing sentiment is that no single therapy will be able to effectively address the needs of all patients. This is already being acknowledged by the industry, as a number of companies are pursuing combination strategies to meet the needs of broader segments of the patient population. With PEMBi's dual mechanism, we have a combination therapy in a single molecule with the potential to address both the hepatic and metabolic drivers of disease at once, which could differentiate PEMBidutide from these multidrug approaches that aim to achieve the same benefits we're providing with a single compound. In our Phase II MASH study, PEMVY showed strong and early MASH resolution at just 24 weeks and clear antifibrotic activity at 48 weeks. The key measures were consistently moving in the right direction, with important noninvasive markers of fibrosis and inflammation improving as therapy progressed in the trial. In addition to efficacy, patients need a therapeutic regimen that they can adhere to in order to realize the full benefit of treatment. As we've shared, the favorable tolerability leading to low discontinuations due to adverse events that we saw in our Phase II mass trial can be a key differentiator that PEMB may deliver. Likewise, for patients and physicians, the simple dosing aspect of PEMBidutide could play an important role. The one- or two-step titration scheme we'll be incorporating into the PEMBidutide Phase III trial could prove to be key when compared to the much more complex dosing of other injectable compounds. The potential of PEMV was recently recognized with FDA breakthrough therapy designation in MASH. Breakthrough is granted to medicines that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and have shown preliminary clinical evidence indicating the potential for substantial improvement over available therapies on a clinically significant endpoint. We look forward to proving this out in our upcoming Phase III trial. I hope this gives you some additional perspective into why we're so encouraged about the future of Pemba Dutide and excited for what's to come. Now, as to how we're preparing to deliver on this potential, one of my top priorities since becoming CEO is strengthening Altimmune's foundation to equip us for the continued successful advancement of Pemba and support our strength as a late-stage development company. I'm pleased to report that over the last several months, we've enhanced our team with the addition of new leaders who bring expertise in liver disease, late-stage clinical development, commercial strategy, and other key areas. We'll continue to build onto the strong alt-immune team strategically to make sure we're able to deliver. We've also remained focused on strengthening our financial position. The $75 million capital raise completed in January was an important step in our ongoing efforts to prepare for the planned initiation of our Phase III this year. We remain committed to securing access to the capital required to successfully drive our clinical programs and create long-term value. At the end of Phase II meeting with the FDA, which was held in the fourth quarter based on 24-week data from our Phase II MASH study, we received valuable guidance on the Phase III trial, and we made excellent progress on the in-depth planning of a major global MASH trial like this. We are clear on the overall design elements and the endpoints, and we're now in the process of making the final detailed decisions on the protocol and the full operational plan. Christoph will share more on the trial with you this morning. While we have significant focus on our MASH program, we're also executing well on our other Phase II trials. As a reminder, last fall we completed enrollment of the Phase II AUD trial ahead of schedule, and we're now on track to report top-line data from this study in the third quarter of this year. We're also expecting the complete enrollment of our Phase II trial assessing PEMBA and ALD in 2026. PEMBA DUTIDE represents a unique and compelling opportunity to improve the lives of people with MASH and other liver conditions. It has the potential to become an important tool for physicians as they look to improve upon the current treatment paradigm. This is a very exciting time for the team at Altamute. We're moving quickly with intent and focus on bringing Pemvidutide to patients and creating long-term value for our shareholders. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Christoph for a clinical update.

Thank you, Jerry. As we shared on our conference call in December, the 48-week data from the impact trials of Pemfidutide and MASH, which evaluated the 1.2 and 1.8 milligram doses, was very encouraging. The 48-week dataset included key noninvasive markers of liver inflammation and fibrosis, weight loss, and tolerability, and showed strong evidence of anti-fibrotic effect at week 48 following the early MASH resolution shown already at week 24. The 48-week data established a clear dose response that supports our plan to focus on the 1.8 mg dose in the Phase III trial, while also evaluating the 2.4 mg dose, which could provide additional benefits on both weight loss and, most importantly, liver efficacy. We saw substantial improvements, both from baseline and from week 24 to week 48, in health, liver stiffness, with the results achieved at the 1.8 mg dose being particularly clinically relevant and comparable to or greater than that observed with the approved MASH product. These measures are clear indicators of anti-fibrotic activity, and we believe that they will translate into measurable histologic improvement at the 52-week time point in phase 3, which along with match resolution will be the basis for potential accelerated approval. In addition to the strong benefit in health and liver stiffness results, treatments with Pempisicide demonstrated statistically significant improvement in liver fat content, liver health as measured by ALT, and CT1 imaging with particularly impressive results observed in the 1.8-milligram treatment arm. While these nits tell the story of pembegitide's robust direct beneficial effect on the liver, the 48-week data also provided evidence of its ability to address metabolic drivers of MASH, with patients receiving 1.8-milligram PEM-B achieving 7.5% weight loss at 48 weeks with no plateauing. As noted, the inclusion of a 2.4-milligram dose could result in greater weight loss in the upcoming Phase III trial and be an opportunity for additional efficacy on MASH endpoints for accelerated approval. As Jerry pointed out, adherence to treatment in this chronic disease is currently a substantial challenge. Long-term treatment is key to demonstrating clinical outcomes as well as delivering benefits to patients in the real world. Therefore, safety and tolerability are of paramount importance in addition to demonstrating efficacy in MASH. I am very pleased to say that the low treatment discontinuation rate in the 48-week Phase II study were maintained in patients taking PEMV. We attribute these key benefits to the favorable safety and tolerability profile of PEMV with limited GI adverse events despite the absence of titration. The timing of the GI-related adverse events in the impact trial, which were predominantly occurring in the first or two months of treatment, helped inform our plan to introduce a simple one- or two-step titration depending on the dose in the Phase III program. We expect this to further improve the tolerability profile of what we observed in Phase II study. On the regulatory side, the minutes from our end of Phase II meeting with the FDA, which we received in January, confirmed our takeaways from the meeting. We are aligned with the agency in all key aspects of the design for the pivotal Phase III study, which will assess PEMVD-tide in patients with moderate to advanced fibrosis. Participants in the PEMV arms will start at 1.2 milligrams and follow a one- or two-step monthly titration to either the 1.8 or 2.4 milligram dose. The trial's primary population will enroll 990 patients with biopsy-confirmed F2 or F3 MASH, evenly split between placebo, Pemvidetide 1.8 milligram and Pemvidetide 2.4 milligram, and measure improvements in either of two primary endpoints, MASH resolution, or fibrosis improvement at 52 weeks with AMASH assist used to aid the histologic assessment. The 52-week endpoint is designed to support potential accelerated approval with five-year clinical outcomes data on liver-related events needed for an eventual final approval. A second cohort, following the same dosing and titration parameter, will enroll approximately approximately 800 patients, with net assessed F2 and F3 MASH, and measure changes in these non-invasive tests over the same treatment period. This population will support safety and long-term clinical outcome evaluations. In total, we will enroll approximately 1,800 patients in this pivotal study. Other key endpoints in the program will include safety, weight loss, and additional potential differentiation attributes such as body composition, quality of weight loss, and patient's reported outcome. This will be a global trial with sites in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. In addition to the alignment with the FDA, we have submitted requests for scientific advice to both the European Medicine Agency and the MHRA. We have incorporated learning from previous programs and believe that our Phase III design is well positioned for these regulatory agencies. Overall, we've made great strides towards preparing to initiate our Phase III trial this year. We are finalizing our protocol and we have aligned with the FDA on the trial design. We have incorporated feedback from key opinion leaders, and we look forward to execution of the Phase III study. We will be providing updates on our progress as appropriate. Now, looking beyond MASH, PEMV has the potential to address major unmet medical needs in both AUD and ALD because of a similar liver physiopathology to MASH in these indications. And both of those Phase II trials are progressing well. First, reclaim our AUD trial completed enrollment in the fourth quarter of 2025, and we look forward to reporting the top-line data in Q3 of this year. In addition to patients' reported measures of alcohol consumption, the trial will also assess an objective biomarker associated with alcohol intake, PEMV's effect on body weight, and safety in this population. For the RESTORE trial in ALD, which will evaluate pembedutide's effect on liver-related non-invasive tests, markers of alcohol consumption and body weight, is continuing to enroll and we expect to complete enrollment later this year. Both trials will further expand the already robust body of evidence for pembedutide in serious liver disease. And with that, I will turn the call to Linda for a commercial perspective on Pembidutide.

Thanks, Christophe, and good morning, everyone. As we move toward phase three initiation, establishing the future commercial competitiveness of Pembidutide in MASH remains a primary focus, both in the design of our trial, as Christophe described, and in identifying and addressing unmet needs in the marketplace. Despite early excitement with the first two classes of approved therapies for MASH, it is clear there is significant room for new therapies to address treatment gaps and needs. We recently conducted market research with 75 U.S. healthcare professionals who treat MASH patients to assess unmet needs in the market and satisfaction levels with current and future therapies. I'll share some key insights now. First, we learned that physicians are identifying emerging needs in patient subgroups. This includes options for MASH patients who have discontinued semaglutide for either tolerability or efficacy reasons and now need alternatives. Tolerability failure was seen as an area of high or very high unmet need by the majority of the respondents. Half of all physicians surveyed agreed that there is a high or very high unmet need for therapies appropriate for MASH patients at risk for loss of muscle mass. A recent review of the literature shows that nearly one in four patients with MASL-D is at risk for additional muscle loss or sarcopenia, and this rate is higher in more advanced MASH patients. In addition, healthcare professionals in our research see several fundamental limitations with currently approved and potential future therapies, setting up a clear need for potential novel options like pembidutide. Many physicians acknowledge that the lack of weight loss with FGF21s and resmediram are limitations of these options. And 44% agree that the tolerability profile of GLP-1 and GLP-1-based therapies cause many patients to drop off. Over one-third believe that lengthy titration schemes to improve the tolerability of these drugs create adherence challenges. A similar number agree that the loss of lean muscle mass is a concern when initiating GLP-1 or GLP-1 GIPP therapy, echoing the concerns regarding sarcopenic patients I mentioned earlier. From our Phase II data seen to date, we believe that PEMP-DUTITE and its dual mechanism of action may address many of these unmet needs. Our existing clinical program already shows that PEMP-DUTITE has a favorable tolerability profile relative to current and investigational therapies. This may be highly differentiating and is clearly important in this market where patients must remain on drug therapy to achieve efficacy and weight loss benefits. Furthermore, other MASH therapies have trial designs with long titration schedules using multiple subtherapeutic doses to try to mitigate side effects. As Christoph highlighted, our Phase III trial will start with an active 1.2 milligram dose dose in each arm and have only one, or at most two, titration steps to possibly further improve our favorable tolerability profile. The inclusion of a 2.4 milligram dose with a two-step titration over only eight weeks should help maintain tolerability and allow us to evaluate potential further increases in efficacy and weight loss. Weight loss is an important element of managing MASH, and it's clear that lean muscle preservation is a growing concern among HCPs. This is an unmet need that we may be able to address, as we've seen lean mass preservation in our Pembidutide obesity trial, and we'll be generating additional data on this element in our further studies of Pembid and MASH patients. Now, I'll share how physicians reacted to our blinded product profile in this market research. We developed our projected product profile based on our current data for impact, showing early and significant mass resolution, anti-inflammatory and fibrosis effects from NITS, and included data we anticipate seeing in our Phase III program, such as quality weight loss in the 8% to 10% ranges with lean muscle preservation. HCP surveyed recognized significant promise in our efficacy, including direct action on the liver with our glucagon agonism, metabolic improvements, straightforward titration, quality weight loss that preserves lean muscle mass, and PEMV safety and favorable tolerability. In fact, in this market research setting, over 70% reported a very high or high likelihood to prescribe PEMV. Physicians projected using PEMV in 43% of their F2 patients and 51% of F3 patients. Over 80% saw PEMV as both a first and second line option. PEMPY DUTIDE's potential efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile may allow for use in patients requiring greater efficacy than a GLP-1 alone or providing quality weight loss not seen to certain other classes of drugs, like FGF-21s and resminarum. As we add to our understanding of PEMPY's clinical performance and data and amplify our storyline regarding our unique combination of attributes, we believe we will be well positioned to enter the MASH marketplace. What we see today and continue to hear from healthcare professionals certainly signals strong interest in PENVY Dutide. It is not enough to be differentiated. You must have meaningful differentiation, and PENVY's projected profile provides that. I'll now turn it over to Greg to review our financial results.

Thank you very much, Shannon. I'll begin with a brief review of our fourth quarter 2025 P&L. R&D expense in the fourth quarter 2025 was $18.4 million compared to $19.8 million in the same period of 2024. Variance in R&D spend related to the end of the Phase IIB trial in late 2025. Breaking that down further, the Q4 2025 R&D spend included $12.8 million of direct costs related to Penvidutei development, of which $3.1 million was for the IMPACT Phase II B trial, $7.4 million for the Phase II trials in AUD and ALD, and $1.2 million in CMC-related expenses. Fourth quarter 2025 R&D also included $1.3 million in non-cash stock-based comp, which was flat in comparison with the same quarter prior year. Moving to G&A, the G&A expenses were $10.5 million and $5.1 million for the quarters ended 12, 31, 25, and 24, respectively. The Q4 increase in G&A year-over-year was driven by a one-time non-cash, in-cash stock compensation and payroll charge due to executive transition, which totaled $2.6 million. along with increases in professional fees and other compensation-related expenses. Fourth quarter 2025 G&A included total non-cash stock-based comp of $3.6 million compared to $1.8 million in the prior year period. Net loss for the fourth quarter 2025 was $27.4 million, or $0.27 a share, compared to a net loss of $23.2 million, or $0.33 a share in the fourth quarter of 2024. Total full-year 2025 cash OPEX was approximately $67.5 million, excluding non-cash comp of $16 million. We anticipate the use of cash will trend up this year as we approach the launch of the MASH Phase 3 trial. As Christoph mentioned earlier, we're actively finalizing the last details of the study plan and the other last important details for the Phase 3. When ready, we will update you and come back and provide more guidance on the timing of cash flows and related details. Now, moving over to the balance sheet, we reported total cash of $274 million at year-end 2025. We made a great deal of progress in building the financial position, having recorded net proceeds totaling approximately $208 million last year in a combination of $174 million in net equity capital raised and $35 million in funding off the Hercules Tronch loan facility. And in addition, we raised $75 million in a registered direct offering announced in January with Alieska Investment Group. The proceeds from this offering, along with $8 million raised off of our ATM facility in January equates to a pro-forma cash position today of approximately $340 million. We forecast that our current cash position would provide an operating cash runway into 2028 based on our current expectations for the scope and timing of the MASH Phase III plan, along with the cost of both the AUD and ALD Phase II trials. Our intent is on having the cash resources necessary to execute the MASH Phase III trial. We'll continue to be strategic and opportunistic in our approach to securing access to the forecasted capital needed to fund the Phase III, and we'll keep you updated on our progress. And with that, I'll turn the call back to Jerry.

Thanks a lot, Greg. As we highlighted today, we've entered 2026 with a great deal of momentum. We've made significant progress as we evolve into a late clinical stage organization, and And we're committed to further advancing our promising differentiated liver therapy and creating long-term value for our shareholders. So this concludes our formal remarks, and we'd now like to take questions. Operator?

Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star 11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. And our first question comes from Roger Song of Jeffreys. Your line is open.

Congrats for the update, and thank you for taking our question. So first question related to the Phase III. We all see the FDA have some new single pivotal framework. Just curious, have you talked with the FDA about that potential change, and then is that possible you can further save the cost from the Phase III if FDA allow you to do some amendments for the Phase III. Thank you.

Thanks for the question, Roger. Christoph, maybe you get on that one?

Yes, no. So, we discussed this. We haven't discussed this at the end of Phase II meeting. The path for approval for the MASH programs is one single trial for accelerated approval, and then all the way to final approval for clinical outcomes. So this doesn't really apply directly for us. That really doesn't change anything from how we're approaching our development program towards approval.

Got it. That makes sense. And then just knowing you're still finalizing the protocol, just any statistical plan you can share at this point in terms of the interim versus the final outcome, alpha-split and then different two primary endpoints for the intern, if anything you Yeah, thanks, Roger.

A lot of progress there. Maybe Christophe can give the big picture on that.

Yeah, so the first is we are having a fairly standard design for the phase three. So we have our two primary endpoint isoperville FDA guidance, which is mass resolution without worsening of fibrosis, and fibrosis improvement without mesh worsening. And this is how we powered our study. Our study is powered more than 90% on these endpoints, and that gives us a sample size that is around 990 patients, so 330 patients per arm. As we highlighted, that power should give us the sufficient patience to reach the approval. And the split of the alpha is, as you know, for the accelerated approval, the part one is 0.1, and then the rest of the alpha goes all the way to the clinical outcome. The last thing is we've powered, based on our assumptions, for the 1.8 milligram dose. So as mentioned, we're very well powered for this. In our trial, we have the options for an upside with the 2.4 milligram dose. And so we're really hoping that we'll see some added benefits there.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Roger.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Ellie Murrell of Barclays, your line is open.

Hi, this is Jasmine on for Ellie. Thank you for taking our questions. I have two. So first, from your conversations with the FDA, where does the agency stand now on flexibility to consider NITs as a potentially registrational endpoint? Is the thinking for including the NIT cohort that we could potentially see more flexibility on this in the future, that you might be able to amend and use this cohort for approval more quickly. And then secondly, can you talk about your plans in MASH F4 and potential timelines there? Thanks.

Thanks, Jasmine. Maybe I'll start and then turn it back to Christophe. On the first question, we did broach the point of endpoints on NITs in the end of Phase 2B process. the agency at that point said it was premature to consider that which is why you see the biopsy driven endpoints nonetheless will capture all of that data so with that process at the agency will be ongoing but again the as we finalize the protocol you'll see the biopsy driven endpoint as part of that maybe you want to pick up the second sure no I mean in the context of the aim mash assist approval, we see the agency slowly moving towards that direction.

So we've incorporated NITs in our trials, and we've put everything in case they change during the conduct of the study. So we are in a good shape here if they were to go there. The other questions on the F4, I mean, our current focus is clearly on the F2, F3. We believe there is some potential here with the mechanism of actions and the direct effect on the lever to impact the F4. At this point in time, our team is really dedicated towards the execution of the phase three and putting all the last pieces in place to start.

Okay.

Thanks, Jasmine.

Thank you. Thank you.

And our next question comes from Yazneen Rahimi of Piper Sandler. Your line is open.

Hi, this is Dominic on for Yaz. Congrats on all the updates, and thank you for taking our question. So we just had a few here. The first one related to the phase three for NASH, what are the great limiting steps to kick off that study, and how are you thinking about the timelines for enrollment and offline data?

Okay, maybe I'll start on the first half and then and Christophe can take the second. You know, we're very focused on bringing PEMV to patients as soon as we can. I think we're approaching the preparation on both the financial and the operational fronts. As Christophe outlined, we like where things sit on the clinical side, good clearance from the FDA, good insight on our proposal regarding Europe. So all things are moving in parallel. We expect that all will be in line to start the trial as we progress through this year, and we'll narrow the guidance as things come to fruition again. The teams are moving quickly here, and this parallel approach is going to lead us to initiation of the trial.

Yeah. I mean, I can just add to what Jerry said. We are preparing everything on the regulatory side. We have alignment with the FDA. We have done our homework on what is expected from the European or the MHRA. We're in good shape here. We don't expect any major changes on our approach. So it's about now execution, getting the team to finalize the last details, whether it's in our protocol, some of the key aspects of the protocol, and then moving forward to be ready to start as soon as possible. Okay.

Great. Thank you. And then I just have one more question on Reclaim. We're excited for that trial. What are your thoughts on what you hope to see and what would you consider currently meaningful on alcohol usage for that? Thank you so much.

The study on the AUD is canalizing the heavy drinking days over a period of seven days or a week. And we have powered the study to see a fairly conservative change. So hopefully Hopefully, we'll see that. We are also capturing other endpoints, like the zero drinking days, as well as some of those WHO risks, because this could be endpoints that will be discussed with the FDA if we move that program forward. So we're going to look at all these aspects when we get the data, and hopefully, we'll see some improvement. As a reminder, the mechanism of action is well-suited for this, both on the reward system through the GLP-1 side of it, as well as the direct effect on the lever, which is quite unique compared to what other programs have currently in development. Great.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Corinne Johnson of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

This is Anupam on behalf of Corinne Johnson. Jason, maybe can you tell us about the additional financing through the year and what you are anticipating needing to reach the completion of the Phase III in the MASH program? Any color on that?

Yeah, so maybe I'll start on that, and then Greg could pick it up. As I mentioned a couple of times already, including in the prepared remarks, we're preparing on both the financial and the operational side. On the financial side, as Greg outlined, we've improved our position. He referenced roughly $340 million on the balance sheet at the end of February. That gives us runway into 2028. We'd like to make further progress as we progress to initiate the trial. We believe we have good line of sight on some options on how we would approach that in parallel to all the good operational work that Kristoff and his team is doing. And then we'll access the appropriate tools along the way. Greg, anything else you want to reiterate? I'll just pick up that thread.

I think we have a sense of purpose here in making sure we've got the strength of our resources in hand as we begin the next necessary steps to launch this trial this year. Just basically just have a clear line of sight on what that looks like, how much that's going to take, and confident that we'll get there.

Okay.

Thank you. Question comes from Annabelle Salami of Stiefel. Your line is open.

Hi, thank you for taking my question. Thanks for all the color on the profile and the physician receptivity. So I just want to ask, from a competitive landscape, we'll likely be seeing more data from Reda and Servo in obesity this year with the full knowledge that this is in obesity. What are some of the key data points that you as a team are looking for that may translate into MASH and could potentially have implications for the competitive landscape on the glucagon agonist front? Maybe you can just give us an idea of how you're thinking about the entire competitive landscape for these specific dual agonists.

Sure. We're always paying attention to what's happening in the marketplace. And we look at ourselves and what we have in terms of great tolerability, quality weight loss that we haven't seen with these other agents. Our simplicity of our titration and tolerability, which we've emphasized, is really seen as is something quite important. For very obese patients, you know, I think that there is going to be a role for managing that, but that has to be balanced with tolerability and efficacy elsewhere. And the direct acting effects that we have shown in the ratio that we're showing, in the one-to-one ratio, we believe are very important. If you're talking about the results in obesity, there may be some read over there, of course, but the trial that they're looking at shouldn't read out for quite some time on outcomes. Our trial will be very heavily focused on MASH patients. So that's our focus, F2, F3. And the size of the market is such that there are going to be enough patients who need help that there will be ultimately many roles, I think, for penvidutide, particularly if we deliver on the differentiation in the profile that we just talked about.

I think, and just maybe one other point Linda touched on, the ratio matters. I think when you think about the BI compound, for instance, I mean, obviously we'll see some additional data from them, but I think the work we've done with our own compound, we believe the balance ratio is part of what's driving some of the elements around the tolerability profile, which again, we saw a good solid picture in our phase two without a titration. Now we had the opportunity to put a simple titration and maybe move forward on that as So we're looking at all of the competitive entrants. It's why we focused on this call. Frankly, a lot more detail on the differentiation story because it's how we view the work that we are doing currently, executing the phase three, and also really always understanding how we're going to position PenB to bring the benefit to the patients that need it the most.

Yeah, and let me – I just want to correct myself right now. The Cervodutide study is with their 8-to-1 GLP-8 glucagon, that is in the MASH population. I was looking at the RET2 trial in my head. So I just want to make sure I correct that. Either way, I think the tolerability for Cervo was going to be quite significant for them. and when you look at the complicated titration schedule that is going to be of concern as well.

Okay, great. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Patrick Tuccio of HC Wainwright. Is line this open?

Good morning. Luis Santos here in for Patrick. Congratulations on all the progress. My question is regarding the mash non-invasive tests that you are using so now that you have alignment with the FDA did they provide any clarity on using it as primary rather than just surrogate as well as the AI biopsy reads or potential accelerator approval Christophe yep so on the on the on the discussion with the FDA so as mentioned the needs are not are too premature now and we just want to be really ready on this however I mean the opportunity with

our two cohorts is actually several fold once it fulfills some of those those the requirements for the safety as well as the long-term clinical outcome but But also to enroll a little faster, our phase three trials, because we know, and we've done that, that we'll look into it, PIs will be happy to actually have the patients having different options, so the biopsies and the NITs. So that will give us some advantage there, and we're hoping this will be playing in our favor. However, with regard to the AMASH, this is still a consensus based on the pathology reading. At the end, the pathologist is responsible. Where we believe this could help us is actually in reducing variability, potentially if we do the right training, et cetera, having a lower placebo response and trying to play in our favor. So we're putting those pieces into place right now. We're having a lot of discussions with key pathologists and with the Amash assist company, PathAI, and we're putting all the pieces of that and getting very close to having a really strong path toward biopsies, but also, as mentioned before, having the flexibility around the needs in case the FDA changes their mind.

That sounds great. Very quickly, can you update us on your CMC manufacturing readiness, and do you plan to scale for global trial manufacturing supply for both obesity and mass simultaneously, or do you plan to partner on that end?

Scott Roberts can take the question. Just one point on the front is that we're focused on the MATIC trial, okay? We're focused on positioning PEMB as a liver compound.

Yeah, that's exactly right. And as far as readiness for the phase three, we believe that we're there. We're ready to go on that. As far as MASH, a global trial that's really not an issue for MASH, you know, we were recently developing the process for obesity. We can scale to that size as necessary, but the company is focused on MASH, and for those indications in the U.S. and the rest of the world, we're exactly where we need to be.

Great. Thank you so much. Thanks.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Michael DeFiore of Evercore ISI. Your line is open.

Hi, guys. Thanks so much for taking my questions. Two for me. I just want to – the first one, I just want to drill down on a prior question that was asked. Now that you received the FDA minutes, what are the key elements that are fully locked and what is the single biggest remaining variable that you're still optimizing? And secondly, with the request for EU scientific advice now submitted, is there any early read on whether EU feedback could change anything meaningful versus the FDA aligned plan? Thanks for the questions, Michael.

So on the FDA minutes and the discussion with them, I mean, we are really in the last phases of finalizing our protocol. We have all the elements, like I mentioned, the sample size. We talk to all of our biostatisticians. We have the primary endpoints, the line, the population, et cetera. What we're looking at is finalizing some, like, for example, the biopsy is a critical points, and we want to really take the time to do it in the most comprehensive manner and having our A-team of pathologists with us. So we're taking the time to do this the most appropriate way, and these are the kind of last details. Some of the QC, for example, things like this. So these are really the final stages of those aspects. With regard to the EU, we've worked with regulatory consultants. We have a good understanding. We actually even have biostatisticians that are advising the EMA that worked with us. We've put together all the pieces, so we don't expect anything to hold us back. And we – our protocol and the design of the study shouldn't change based on the scientific advice. Great.

Thank you.

Michael.

Thank you. And our next question comes from John Wolopin of Citizens. Your line is open. John, your line is open.

Yes. Hi, Catherine.

Thank you.

Two quick ones. Mostly on the Reclaim program, firstly, how are you guys thinking about the mechanism of action, like as far as having GLP and glucagon specifically maybe being beneficial over just GLP-1 agonism in the alcohol-related diseases? And also logistically, how do you guys plan on kind of moving forward with the phase three program? Are you guys going to kind of move forward with AUD and then wait for ALD data or do you want to kind of see both before moving forward? Thank you.

Yeah, maybe I'll start with the second question and then Christoph can take the mechanistic one. So, as we said, we're going to expect the readout on the AUD trial in quarter three. We'll assess the data and then plan next steps. That would happen immediately upon receipt of the data. No need to wait for ALD. We like the fact that we have a second phase two going in ALD, but as the enrollment will finish this year, that will be a later readout.

Yeah, on the mechanism of action, so it's well recorded in the literature that GLP-1 have a central effect on the rework system and the type of alcohol use that those patients will have. The difference is the direct effect on the liver. There are now more and more, and recently in January at the MASHTAG conference, there was clearly a talk talking about the fat in the liver of these patients, but also some elements of early fibrosis. So it would be very suited for these populations to not only treat the alcohol use and the cravings and that reward aspect, but also treat directly the liver because their liver is already substantially damaged, and even with early fibrosis, with clearly the dual mechanism of action and the tolerability, I would add, in that particular population is extremely suitable for a product like pemvitutide. This population feels good. They are not having – you don't want to add side effects or complications to them, so they really want to get their liver treated as well as the cravings.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Andy Shea of William Blair. Your line is open.

Thanks for taking our questions. We have two questions. One is related to the prepared remarks that you made, highlighting that semi-failures might be a potential segment to provide clinical differentiation. So can you tell us a little bit about the exclusion-inclusion criteria regarding the length of the watchout period in the upcoming phase three trial. So that's question number one. Question number two has to do with kind of the pathologist panel that you decided. I'm curious if it's just like a two person panel, three person panel, kind of talk about the education process, if you don't mind. Thank you.

So I'll start with the first one. Clearly, what we hear and what's been presented in the past conferences is that SEMA is hard to tolerate, that most patients do not reach the MASH effective dose, that the titration is complex for them, and that there are a lot of dropouts of treatment after already six months to a year. So this is a challenge there. If that's the case for us, clearly we will accept these patients in our Phase III trials, and we want to be able, if they have not tolerated SEMA, to bring them on board, because they will have an option, which they decide, again, to have. And I want to remind you here the extremely strong efficacy we've seen in our Phase II study, as well as the tolerability. So both together is a perfect option for this population, with a real chance now to address the liver and their metabolic causes for that match. With regard to the pathologies, we're still finalizing these details, we're towards the end of this. Our thinking right now is to have, it has to be a consensus. So we're thinking to have a few pathologies, and the reading would be a two plus one type of reading with the consensus the plus one would be if there is no consensus between the two pathologists. Clearly, the advantage here for us is the M-MASH assist. If really that decreases the variability and helps that consensus, it should also accelerate and streamline the process. And so for us, these two aspects, decreasing variability and streamlining the process, are good positive perspective to execute our study in the best possible way.

That's helpful.

Thank you. And our next question comes from William Wood of B-Riley Securities. Your line is open.

Thank you so much for taking our questions. Two from us, if we may. On your RECLAIM trial, it's focused on drinks per day and alcohol consumption, but I was Just curious if there are any NITs looking at the liver or additional measurements that could read through to either your ALD or phase three trials, since you'll be evaluating the 2.4 MIG dose in both the AUD, ALD, and then obviously the phase three, as well as could you provide any color on how far along you are in your ALD trial enrollment? And then I have a second follow-up.

All right, on the AUD, so we don't have too many. We have the typical liver enzyme, et cetera. We're looking at heavy drinking days. We're looking at the zero day of drinking. We're looking at the WHO risk classification, if you wish, and how these patients will change. We also, since it's a patient's reported outcome, we also have blood tests such as the PET, which is a little bit like you would see in the HbA1c, which reflects the alcohol impregnation. So we believe that here we have, and we have all the other markers of the effectiveness of the drug, such as weight loss, et cetera. So we have in our AUD a number of things that will be very helpful to be – to prepare for discussions with the FDA, granted the data come out positive on this. On the ALD, we are enrolling as per plan. As you know, this is a more severe population, so it will be more difficult to enroll. I mean, we successfully enrolled very rapidly our AUD trial, much faster than anticipated. But here on the ALD, we're on track for as per plan and moving forward smoothly as I can't give you any more forecast on that at this point.

Okay. And then in your phase three trial, maybe I missed it, but will you be evaluating any Any cardiovascular benefits, or maybe how do you plan to assess MACE since you're not conducting a separate CVOT trial?

No, this is a great question. First, I mean, we've already seen some great improvements on the lipids, on the inflammations. We clearly have a decrease in inflammation with Pemvidetide. We've seen improvements in lipids at week 24, in our latest data similarly at week 48, so we believe there is a real potential here to see some cardiovascular benefits. We will clearly look at this in our Phase III match trial. However, the FDA doesn't want us to include this as the clinical outcome for liver-related events. Clearly, these are two separated aspects, but we'll have the data built in in our Phase Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Boris Pieker of Titan Partners. Your line is open.

Great. Thanks for squeezing me in. I just want to focus on the muscle preservation, and obviously it's one of the key differentiating elements of the drug. I'm just curious, the observed weight loss today, can you comment whether the muscle preservation was stronger at the lower or the higher end of the BMI scale, and what can you potentially do in the Phase III study in terms of enrollment to maximize the impact of this muscle preservation, particularly considering it's a large and international study?

Yeah, so the muscle preservation and the lean mass is critical, as you say, because this is something that, in that population, that's aging. Our average patient is 55 and older, and they start losing their bone, their muscles, and so we don't want to add anything to this. So we want to keep the muscles in this population. We've demonstrated some very interesting data already in our VCT trial, and we would like to continue demonstrating this. How we are integrating this in the phase three, we are actually in some discussions right now, whether it's a full mechanistic study, or if it's a sub-study that is put into the trial, is something that we're deciding as we're speaking today. Regarding the BMI, I mean, there's no difference between the BMI networks, So it's all different types of BMI, and it's consistent throughout. That's what we've seen in our BTT study.

Scott, I'm just curious, what specific test or biomarkers are you monitoring to better understand this muscle preservation? So is it just a DEXA scan, you know, hand strength, MRI?

What are you specifically monitoring, and what do you think you'd need to potentially get a claim in a label on some kind of muscle preservation? yeah that's what that's I mean that's a complicated questions because getting you you getting a claim would require some clearly will have MRI will have this kind of like you mentioned a dexa we would like to better understand we have some ideas how this is working as well we believe that one-to-one ratio is one of the key aspects that could lead to this. So if we can make that link and during our phase three, clearly that would be an important distinction and differentiator at launch. So we're putting all these pieces together as we're first, first we're finalizing that protocol for the mash and putting the pieces on that lean mass preservation as well in parallel.

Great, thank you very much for taking my questions. Thank you, Aris.

Thank you. I show no further questions at this time. I'd like to turn it over to Jerry Durso for closing remarks.

So thanks, everybody, for joining us today. A lot going on in the company, a lot of progress. We're moving forward towards the phase three execution. We have work to do, but we're in a good position, and we definitely look forward to providing further updates as we progress. Thanks, everybody, and have a great day.

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating and you may now disconnect.