Argenx SE (ARGX) September 2026 Conference Transcript

All right. I think we'll get started here with the next fireside. So my name is Derek Archilla. I'm one of the senior biotech analysts here at Wells. Very excited to have Argenics with us and Karen Massey, CEO. Karen, great to have you here.

Thank you for having me here. It's great to see you.

Excellent. So lots have been, you know, going on at Argenix. So, so many things to talk about, but you've been in the CEO seat for four-ish months now. So maybe just kind of give us, I guess, a little recap of what's happened and ultimately, you know, kind of the continued growth going forward and your priorities as a new CEO.

Yeah, absolutely. It's been an exciting couple of months for Argenix, a very busy few months just in the Argenix way. So, you know, we have laid out our vision for the company as Vision 2030. So we set that out a few years ago to treat 50,000 patients by the end of the decade, to be treating 10 diseases and to have five new molecules in late stage development. And what we've seen over the summer, over the last couple of months, is really incredible progress against all of those goals. So we had Q2 delivering $1.5 billion in revenue for the quarter and really strong growth with MG and CIDP and seronegative MG launch off to a great start. Obviously, we had positive data in terms of myositis. I'm sure we'll talk about that. So that was very exciting and exciting for patients as well as for Argenic. So adding to the number of indications that we can bring to patients. And then, of course, on our five molecules in late-stage development, we've been moving our internal pipeline along very, at a rapid rate, and we can unpack a lot of news in there. But obviously, we had also the acquisition of Forte Biosciences, FB102, so another molecule added into our pipeline. So really strong progress against our Vision 2030 goals. And the reason that we set out Vision 2030 in that way, not just focusing on number of patients, but also number of diseases treated and number of molecules, is because our goal is to set up to become the immunology innovator of the future and to continue our sustained growth through the 2030s, through the next decade. And by being in that position in 2030, that really sets up the next phase of growth.

Excellent. So maybe let's start with the base business in Myosinia Gravis. So, I mean, one of the questions that we get, I'm sure you get also, is, you know, continued growth there. You know, what gets you convicted that, you know, that continues to grow and VivGuard's got sustainable growth there amidst more competitive intensity and things like that. So, like, where do you kind of feel like FCRN is, you know, best placed in that market and where VivGuard really stands out?

Yeah, when I look at this and sort of we use the phrase that we're still at the beginning of the growth curve in MG, which is amazing when you think it's been 18 quarters since launch. How can that still be at the beginning of a growth curve? But why I say that is 80% of MG patients are still not treated with a targeted biology. So that's how much room there is for growth in the MG market. And when you ask physicians, four out of five of them will tell you the first biologic I go to is Vivgard. So what we know is there's 80% of patients out there that are not yet treated with a biologic. The majority of neurologists will choose VivGuard when they want to start a patient on a biologic. So we're well positioned. And now it's up to us and our team to really drive that adoption and that prescribing behavior. And our ocular MG data will help with that. Many times patients have ocular MG symptoms first. That's how they're presenting to their patients. So in our drive to move into earlier lines of treatment, that ocular MG data and the upcoming launch, knock on wood, that potential launch should help.

I guess when you think about 80% of patients still not on a kind of biologic or targeted therapy, where do you think that goes? Does it go to 50% on biologics and targeted therapies? It's like what sort of expansion opportunity for just, I guess, the overall market, but specifically for VivGuard, you know, in the context of, as you just mentioned, ocular, seronegative, broadest label, pre-filled syringe, auto-injector. Like, you have all these things that, you know, could come through to the MG market. So, like, where do you think, like, peak share could be for that?

Yeah, when we did the math, that's how we laid out the expansion opportunity that we laid out for MG. So when we launched in MG, we thought there were 17,000 patients in the addressable market. That's when we were more thinking about VivGuard being used in the more refractory patients, which is where you asked about competition. That's more where the competition is being used. With our launch, particularly of pre-filled syringe, we were able to move more into the earlier Lyme patients. And so we identified that there's about 25,000 early Lyme patients that we think are eligible for VivGuard based on the burden of their disease and that we're in the process of penetrating that portion of the market. And then there's the 7,000 patients in ocular MG as well. That's not the entire ocular MG patient population, but it's the patient population that we think should be eligible for VivGuard. So when you combine that with seronegative, which was the 11,000, that's how we get to the entire TAM being 60,000 patients in MG.

I know you've characterized as well as Carl, about, you know, with kind of seronegative and the, you know, I guess it's not an inflection in growth. It's more about sustaining the current growth trajectory. So, because we're getting that big, we're getting large numbers at this point. So, I guess, how do you, do you feel the same way about ocular when that's introduced in terms of launches, kind of just keeping that trajectory the same? Or, you know, could you see more of an inflection there?

I think it'll continue the growth trajectory that we're on. I don't think you'll see an inflection point. You know, if If anything, those triple seronegative patients in particular have been waiting for VivGuard. And so we saw a strong uptake from them as soon as the payers were able to get it on policy. I think with ocular MG, we have more work to do in terms of making sure that the neurologists really understand the burden of this disease and have the urgency to treat. So I don't see that there'll be an inflection point, I think.

But it will allow us this continued steady momentum and steady growth that is truly incredible, 18 quarters since the launch got it understood so maybe just shifting gears to cidb so you know i guess best market relative to mg a little bit smaller more entrenched competition with ivig so you know you've got a couple strategies not only with you know kind of vivgard um you know switching data but also with imposi proof art so i guess how do you think about the overall opportunity there you know across you know both therapies yeah so there's significant opportunity for growth in cid in the CIDP market.

So we identified the addressable market as 12,000 patients, but there's 42,000 CIDP patients out there. And I think as we continue to get more experience with VivGut in the market, what we hear from neurologists, what we hear from prescribers, is the more experience they get switching patients from IVIG, the more they see the benefit the patients are getting from VivGut, the more comfortable they are in making the switch, but also in starting naive patients on VivGut. So I think we're well positioned for continued growth there, and that's just a matter of working our way through those patients. And then, as you say, really exciting with impassapruvat as well. We know that VivGuard has the best response rate and the most robust data set of the approved therapies on the market today. Having said that, there are some patients that don't respond, and we do believe some disease is driven by IgM, not just IgG. So in Passaprubat, a second molecule that we're studying within CIDP is a really exciting opportunity for us to, yes, potentially bring another mechanism, and in the future, potentially even combination therapy.

Can you spend a minute on, like, so we talked about this last night about, you know, we all got the MG market wrong, right? We were modeling, like, one and a half billion peak for VivGart there, and now, you know, you're well eclipsed. You're doing that a quarter. So essentially, like, you know, think about MG today, CIDP, but even some of these future indications that you're looking at with VivGuard, you know, like, how should we be thinking about these markets? Are there upside? Is there still upside to MG? Is there still upside to CIDP here? That kind of white space comment that you talked a lot about last night, you know, where do you kind of see that opportunity now within these already kind of in place indications?

Yeah, absolutely. You'll see it in our, as a big part of our corporate strategy is trying to identify what we call these white space indications. which I think are easily missed. But the benefit of these white space indications, or part of the reason that they're often missed, is when there's been limited innovation, there's lower diagnosis, lower treatment rates, you know, so it's harder to size the market. It's harder to get a good understanding. I mean, if you look at IM&M, our next potential indication, there's not a specific ICD-10 code for IM&M. So it's not easy to just go out and pull the data and say, hey, how big's the market, and put it into our spreadsheet like we all do. So we really take the time, and I think our team is incredibly good at it, saying where are these white space indications that we think are underdiagnosed, undertreated, where we might be able to make a real benefit or impact with our medicines because they have been underserved. And look, some of them, not all of them, but many of them, I think will get wrong because you're just looking at the data that's in the system, but it's reflecting a treatment paradigm that is not optimal. And so by going after these white space indications, I believe you have more opportunity for more upside and more of those positive surprises, if you will.

So maybe a good segue to IAMNM. So next likely indication, positive results. Maybe characterize those results relative to standard of care. I guess, again, if there's not an ICD-9 code, does that hinder a launch or is that a lot more pre-work that you guys need to do to get ready for launch and education?

Yeah, I don't think the lack of the ICDI code doesn't hinder the launch. We can get around that. It more hinders the ability to do the analysis and the market sizing and that type of thing, but there's ways to get around that. I'm not concerned when we actually launch. But look, I'm incredibly impressed by the numbers that we saw in myositis. I mean, positive p-value on the combined population, IMNM and DM which is what the study was designed for and then when you look at the data on the TIS 15 point difference consistent IMNM and DM really consistent and then you look at all of the secondary measures all of the core set measures within the TIS I mean incredible consistency within IMNM and within DM and also across and and so you know and whether you look at muscle component, skin component, physician reported, patient reported. And so I know we use this word consistency sometimes too much, but there's no other way to describe the data. And I think that's important because it shows that you're not seeing a chance finding. You are seeing a medicine that works in both of these indications. And that's why you hear our commitment so strongly that, yes, we have a path forward in IM&M and we'll move quickly there with the FDA. And we want to pursue a path forward in DM as well, and we need to determine what that path is, and the first step is have a conversation with the FDA, but we have conviction in the data.

Yeah, let's revisit that in a second. So in terms of like IMNM, would you think the characteristics of that indication more align with like an MG type of launch or a CIDP type of launch?

Yeah, without being too, a little bit of both. The size, so we say about 20,000 IMNM patients, so that's more of the size of CIDP. You'll recall the dosing is similar to CIDP. But I think in terms of the unmet need, I mean, it's actually not like either of them, but potentially more like MG, where there's nothing approved. So you don't have IVIG entrenched in the market in the way that you do with CIDP. And so I think from a patient perspective, you'll be able to get that uptake quite quickly.

And this is a dive into rheumatology. So new area for you guys, I mean, you had the benefit bit of some overlap with CIDP and MG and, you know, having already kind of communicated VivGuard to the neurology community. So, you know, how do you plan to do that within rheumatology? And it even said, you know, I think you guys said last night, there is a little bit of overlap with IM and M specifically across neuros. So like, you know, how do you kind of leverage some of that as you move forward into room?

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we'll take the same playbook of launching into neurology as we launch into rheumatology and all of the learnings. And I think we've been really successful as establishing Argenix as a trusted partner to neurologists. We'll do the same in neurology. And certainly VivGuard, as let's say, their go-to FCRN. By being first in class matters, so we'll be first in class in rheumatology. I think also what plays in our favour in the case of rheumatology is that we already have 20,000 patient years of safety, so they'll have that. But yeah, we'll, you know, in terms of how we think about rheumatologists, I mean, always grounding ourselves in the quality of the science and the data, I think, is how Argenix likes to show up. And that's how we intend to show up and expand into rheumatology.

Like, what other data that you'll present, I assume at ACR later this year, like, that detailed data, secondary endpoints, what should we be looking for as investors? but also, like, what's going to be most, you know, data that resonates with physicians in terms of potential prescribing and commercial uptake?

Yeah, well, it's going to come back to what I said, which is the consistency across. I think when you, rheumatologists are used to treating very complicated diseases, and, you know, and the treatments that they have available often have these trade-offs between efficacy and safety. between sometimes is the efficacy sort of clinically meaningful? Is there consistency across endpoints? And so I think the fact to be looking out for that consistency of efficacy along with the confidence in the safety, I think, will be really meaningful. And for me, what's been important in rheumatology, actually since we had the Sjogren's Phase II data a few years back now, and nipocalumab also had the data, When I was at ACR at that time, you started to hear rheumatologists talk about, and only a few of the rheumatologists talk about, okay, it seems like autoantibodies are actually playing a role in these diseases. They're not just innocent bystanders. And rheumatologists say, you know, up until now, I had questioned. Maybe these were just innocent bystanders, and were FCRNs really going to work? And I think since that Sjogren's data, and especially now with the myositis data, you really hear that tide turning, if you will. And so I think what I would be listening out for is are rheumatologists broadly understanding the important role that autoantibodies play? Are they seeing and therefore translating that into, okay, I can see a place for FCRN in my patients?

Understood. So maybe going back to DM, so is this more a question of when it gets approved in DM versus if based on the data?

And obviously you have to talk to the FDA, but what's kind of the base case that you guys are planning for yeah absolutely we have to talk to the FDA and and see what the path forward is but we are committed to getting a label in DM so it is as you say it's a when not if and we have a good precedent you know that many of you know when we when we read out the adhere data in MG we had seronegative patients in that study but didn't show a statistical significant improvement and in that case because of the placebo we went we had the discussion with the FDA we were able to design a shorter smaller study to be able to reinforce and we were able to bring seronegative bring VivGuard to seronegative patients that was a commitment we made to the community it's a commitment we stuck by and if we get to that place that's what we'll do with DM as well.

Gotcha I mean the data look very competitive you know and I guess how do you think about the opportunity in DM there'll be you know an incumbent you You know, Roy Vant will be there, you know, with Brepo. So I guess, like, how do you think the market could break down? But, you know, efficacy-wise, you know, it's probably more competitive than most people thought it would be. So that was a pleasant surprise. But, yeah, like, talking about kind of how that market might evolve and what you'll be looking for for the Brepo launch, you know, presuming that you might be coming in behind.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I agree. I think the efficacy really stands up. And what's going to be very important is that safety. We know rheumatologists care, you know, as all specialties, really care about safety. The fact that we have 20,000 patient years of safety and that's one of the greatest strengths of VivGut. And then obviously, you know, ease of route of administration, I mean a weekly injection, which frankly some patients prefer to an oral. So I think it'll rely on the package of data that we bring forward and also how we show up as a company, how Argenic shows up. And I think we've demonstrated the ability in neurology to really, as I said earlier, to win the trust, the loyalty, and really become partners to neurologists in treating their patients. So I think we'll be able to do the same. I'm sure Roy Van will have a great launch. It's fantastic for patients who have had nothing other than IVIG. So the fact that two innovations are coming to market, I think, is fantastic. And what we've seen in every other market that's come before us is that when you have innovation coming, the market grows. There's certainly more need for more than one MOA. There will be patients that are more suited for one than the other. There will be an ordering that starts to unfold. And we'll do that based on the data and based on the evidence.

So maybe let's move to Mpasi-Brupart. So, you know, Vivgart's little brother there. So, like, I guess we got MMN data coming out. It's exciting because, you know, maybe MMN is a smaller market, but maybe you can talk about the opportunity. But it's mostly about kind of de-risking this molecule. And as we were talking about before, you're evaluating it, CIDP, delay graph versus host disease and others. But I guess how important is MMN not only just for kind of telling that pipeline and product story, but just for Argenics, you know, specifically just in terms of, like, oh, we're now got, you know, two products. We're not a single product company, and we have the internal capacity and capability to develop a pipeline in-house.

Yep, I think you said it exactly. I mean, our goal and our mission is to be an immunology innovation company. VivGuard is an incredible molecule to build the foundation off of, but it's not enough, and it's not our only goal. And so this is an incredibly important step forward for the company with our second molecule. And Impassive Rubart is a really cool molecule. It's really well-designed. C2 is a great target. And I can tell you, if this was the first molecule for another biotech, people would be incredibly excited because it is a multibillion-dollar asset, a pipeline in a product. And, I mean, if you look at MMN and the opportunity there, when I talked earlier about white space indications, this is another exact white space, Argenix-like indication. I mean, there hasn't been innovation. IVIG is the only approved therapy. There hasn't been innovation in years. these patients are the highest users, amongst the highest users of IVIG, and yet they're still progressing. So they're not doing well. And so there's really room to bring real value to these patients and also to the healthcare system.

So let's get into the trial. So we, you know, it's a non-inferiority trial. So I guess, you know, how important is that versus hitting, you know, superiority is another, you know, potential, you know, in the trial. So I guess, do you need to be superior to win in the market can you be non-inferior and I guess one of the questions that we get is you know in that control arm you know how should we be thinking about I guess the patient performance or the you know control arm performance um for IVIG like will they actually get better a little bit or should they about stay the same as they get randomized on basically the same kind of dose so yeah maybe just walk us through how you guys are thinking about that?

Yeah, absolutely. So, I mean, a win on the study is a positive study, and the primary endpoint is non-inferiority, and I think that will absolutely be a compelling package to be able to launch. It's actually quite unique to be launching with head-to-head comparative data, even at non-inferiority, and when you think about the hours that these patients spend in the chair, if they're on IVIG you know even even just competing on that but I think we'll have more than that so so a win is non inferiority we have superiority is a very close follow a follow-on and of course we all have we're all optimistic that we that we end there as well and that's the upside scenario in terms of how how we think about the study and how it's designed so it's pretty challenging to do a head-to-head study versus IVIG just to, and partly because the dosing is sort of somewhat individualized and how it's used in the real world. And so in order to do the study, we have to sort of stabilize patients on their individual dose of IVIG and make sure that it's that stable dose. And then they're on that dose through the rest of the study while the others randomized to IMPASA prubart. So the primary endpoint is grip strength and look what we know and what we expect if you look at other data on IVIG and grip strength is there's a little bit of you know up and down with their response rate over time. What we saw in our clinical trial and we've published this data phase two data for IMPASA prubart is pretty smooth and even an improvement on grip strength. So I think the data will look strong. Look, we'll have to turn over the data card. We've just designed it for non-inferiority, but I think the team has designed a well-designed study and is executing it, a very complicated study very well.

So you guys have IV right now for M-Posipu part. And then you guys are working on sub-Q. I think it's already in phase one development. Maybe just talk about that, not only for MMN, but CIDP and future indications as well.

Yeah, it's the exact playbook that we take for VivGuard that, you know, we'll get in. I'm sure I'll start talking about FB102 and every other molecule. You know, I think one of our learnings through the launch of VivGuard and one of the things we've done incredibly well is just serial innovation. So launch with IV, very quickly bring a subcutaneous, very quickly bring a pre-filled syringe. Next year for VivGuard, we have the auto-injector. We'll take that same playbook. I think we've developed a real capability to do this, even with large volume injector. injections, and we'll take that same belay book with impassipruvant.

How should we think about the read-through from MMN to CIDP for impassipruvant?

Yeah, I mean, they're different diseases, obviously, so there won't be a direct read-through. But what we know for both, what we know for MMN is that it's IGM-driven. Our belief in CIDP is that there is some portion that is IGM-driven, and that's the portion that we think is not being treated by VivGuard. So if we see positive impact in MMN, you can imagine that we would see it in CIDP. But let's turn over first the MMN card and see where we land and go from there.

What do you think about kind of the field of other complement inhibitors? So, you know, it's always C2. Now, you know, people talk about C1S and MMN and CIDP as well. So where do you kind of feel M-Posite could differentiate there? There's always talk about safety and labels. So maybe you can kind of opine.

Yeah, yeah. Look, we chose C2 very specifically for a few different reasons, and one of them is safety, as you mentioned, and specifically because of the potential risk of lupus with C1. But we also chose it not just for that risk, also because it's at the intersection of the classic and the lectin pathway. So we believe, actually, by being at C2, you open up more pipeline in a product opportunities for impassive rubat. And for me, that's the more important point of why C2. For me, the important point around why C2 is you have opportunity to impact a broader range of indications as a pipeline in a product. I think leaving the alternate pathway is important from a safety perspective, and obviously that applies to C1 as well, so you can still mount a bacterial infection, and we have data that you can do that.

So I think that's important from a safety perspective as well. do you think they all get some sort of vaccine requirement anyways just because of the way the trials have been run they require them already yeah certainly i mean the exactly the vaccines are uh required in the trial the trials are being run in that way so i i would imagine at launch that would be the base case of assumption understood so maybe you move to forte so you did this acquisition um maybe talk about the genesis of your interest in cd-122 because it seems like it predates just you know forte and you guys have been studying it for a while so So maybe excitement around that target and, you know, ultimately where you think you can take it.

Yeah, yep. We have been studying it for a while. I mean, our BD, our search and evaluation team is out there sort of asking them to look for new biology, look for new targets and new mechanisms of action. And so a few years ago, they identified CD122. And really the excitement, the initial excitement around CD122 was as much around the fact that how sort of the elegance about sparing the Tregs. That's what got our scientific team really excited, that you can have an impact on the disease but still spare the Tregs. And then as we started learning more and more about the potential impact of CD122, the breadth of indications, the fact that they're white space indications that I was talking about before, it started to look more and more like an argenics-like indication or an argenics-like molecule. So we'd been following the space and staying close. And for us, the important de-risking moment was that vitiligo data and seeing that readout. And that was the moment for us to be able to say, OK, we see that there's an exciting molecule here. We see that it's the right moment for us to get engaged where we believe we can still bring value to the development of the asset. We were talking earlier about, I think, Argenix's strength in being able to develop different product presentations.

Also, you know, unique clinical trial design and innovative clinical trial design. moving pipeline and a product assets forward impact you know in parallel multiple programs so so we felt that this was the right moment to act and that it was an exciting molecule gotcha so I guess you know when you think about the space and aisle 15 kind of monotherapy we just saw the data from Teva you know in celiac and you know I think one of the things that we've learned looking at all these celiac trials very hard to cross trial compare but yeah you guys were you know forte was gonna have celiac data maybe talk about you know how much you'll disclose around that and if you'll give an update around you know FB102's data and I guess you know do you get more excited about celiac or vitiligo or some of the other indications particularly given the biology right so we were talking about earlier you know IL-2 really you know bounces up once you actually you know have a gluten challenge or you take gluten so maybe that's a better indication but you tell us in terms of like you know again where you think you can take this and what makes sense for this mechanism?

Yeah, yeah. Lots of questions in there. So we saw the data last week to start there with IL-15, which I think gives an even stronger conviction in celiac. And we believe targeting CD122, so you're actually blocking IL-15 and IL-2, is a stronger value proposition and a more elegant solution. In fact, not just for celiac disease, but as you say, also for vitiligo for alopecia and then there's a host of other beyond that indications that we're exploring and and and that we'll look into as well we always start with the biology and move from there but I think you're hitting on an important point which is these are the types of molecules that Argenix likes to go go after which are targeting a point in the immune system that is like a switch that is impacting multiple different diseases. And I think it really allows us, from a corporate strategy perspective, optionality, and it reduces risk, because you're not reliant on one indication, working or not. You have, let's say, multiple shots on goal with the same molecule. So I think that's an important component.

And just in terms of the CELAC results, will you put something out, or will we understand?

Yeah, sorry, that was the other question. Yeah, absolutely. So we're expecting their phase two results, So we will share some level, as we always do. It's a learning study. So in terms of what are we looking for in this study, you mentioned as you get more and more up to speed on celiac, what you realise is there's so many different factors and levers to designing, successfully designing a clinical trial. So we know, we have phase 1b data, that this medicine should work in celiac. And now it's about how do we make sure that we design the clinical development program to really be able to show that in the best light. I think this phase two learning study will give us a lot of insight into that because of the patient population, sort of relatively broad patient population. It's enrolled the intensity of the gluten challenge. So it's a quite long eight week gluten challenge. It starts with quite high gluten and then reduces the gluten over time. so we'll be able to look at a lot of different factors in terms of dose response in terms of gluten challenge but I think will help us in help inform the right type of phase 3 study so so we will share data as we get it at the highest level and then over time we'll share more data as appropriate can you talk about maybe this land and expand potential strategy in celiac and you know it's a big indication so you know we're like how would you kind of build around that in terms of a clinical development program? Yeah, I mean, that's the discussions that we're having at the moment. So I don't have an answer for you. We'll be able to share more probably at J.P. Morgan once we have the phase two data, once we've done the full analysis. But yeah, I mean, in celiac, there's two point, I think they estimate 2.5 million patients in the U.S., so quite a big patient population. There are those that can control their disease with diet, but to varying degrees of how much gluten sensitivity is there. And so there's a way that you do a trial in that population versus there's a patient population that is not even able to control and is still symptomatic despite a gluten-free diet. And the way you design and execute a study in that patient population is quite different. Both populations, you need to have histology and symptomology endpoints, but also the sort of, let's say, balance and what you're looking for in each difference. So So we'll look to segment the market, see where we can go first, see what the different trials are in order to make sure. I mean, the goal, similar to what you've seen us do in MG, is we want to be able to bring this medicine that works to all patients over time. It just depends on what order we go about that in.

And maybe one last one on FB102. So you talk about alopecia and being excited about that opportunity. I guess, you know, these are fairly straightforward. You know, they grow their hair back. you know, objective, you know, kind of measures. So I guess, again, how strong do you think the biology is there for FB102? And ultimately, again, is this something that can really be only addressed by, you know, a CD122, IL-15, IL-2 targeting agent?

Yeah, so I don't think it's alopecia. I don't think it's exclusively only going to be able to be addressed by CD122. But I do think it is, we will, and we saw that in the phase, or I'm thinking vitiligo, But I do think you will see differentiated efficacy because of the combination of IL-15 and IL-2. And so, yeah, we'll see the data play out there. But there's a lot of indications that are where this particular combination of cytokines is at play.

So maybe we'll end here with kind of like durability of the overall company and the franchise, you know, mostly with VivGuard here. So you have some follow-on molecules, but you guys are all in on FCRN. You've got long-acting, you've got hyper-concentrated, you've got oral. So walk us through, you know, kind of these differing strategies, you know, as we get them into the clinic. You know, we already have one of the extended half-lifes that's phase three ready. So, yeah, talk us about kind of how you think about the development plan for those and ultimately, again, just driving a durable franchise for decades here.

Yeah, absolutely. That's the goal is to lead in FCRN for decades to come and to deliver that durable growth for decades to come with our FCRN franchise. And you laid it out. I mean, I think what we're doing right now is leading in MG and CIDP and myositis in the places, and we can continue to expand our leadership there where the biology is known. But I think our goal, what we've been doing since the very beginning as leaders in FCRN, is unraveling the biology of FCRN and discovering where FCRN is playing a role and can play a role. And I think we'll continue to expand the indication set that you see that FCRN can impact. And we have two molecules, two next-gen molecules, in order to sort of explore even further than we could with VivGut. And then, as you said, we have an oral FCRN as well, which I think could be a game-changer over time. So we are well-positioned to lead this space and to really expand this space for decades. And as I mentioned earlier, our goal is not to be an FCRN company. Our goal is to be an immunology innovation company. And so that is a really important leg to the stool. But the rest of our pipeline, we're putting equal focus on to say, how do we make sure that we're maximizing impact for patients across a breadth of different targets?

Yeah, so maybe let's end on that note in terms of like, you know, that evolution and transformation from, you know, kind of single product, you know, more niche rare disease. Now with the Forte transaction, you're getting into a larger disease. Is, you know, do you want to move to even larger I&I, like to be a fully functioning, you know, dominant I&I player? What do you think you need to do, you know, over the next five plus years? Is it more external BD? Is it more development from the pipeline? Is it just using the opportunities that are already ahead of you with the current assets? Like, where do you want to take it?

Yeah, it's, yeah, I mean, I think it's all those things. To start with, I think we're in a position of strength. I mean, when you look at our pipeline and you sort of map out the growth trajectory that we have over the next decade, you can see durable and continued growth. So it's always good to start from a position of strength. And our mission and what we're hunting for is can we find novel biology, exciting, cool science like we did with CD122 and our internal pipeline as well, where we find cool novel biology in these white space indications within immunology and where we can find those uh that combination whether it's internally in our own pipeline whether it's with academic institutions whether it's like forte with other biotech companies then we have the flex the flexibility on the balance sheet to be able to to go after it um and and and and bring those in house um and then hopefully make a difference for patients so i feel very fortunate that we're building on this foundation of strength um but we're certainly thinking about the future and how we make sure we take advantage of that of that foundation to build uh for the long term all right well thanks karen we'll leave it there thanks so much great thanks eric good to see you