Belite Bio, Inc Q2 FY2023 Earnings Call

Good morning, and welcome to the Belite Bio Q2 2023 Financial Results Conference Call. At this time, all attendees are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentations. As a reminder, this call is being recorded and a replay will be made available on the Belite Bio website following the conclusion of the event. Before we begin, I'd like to bring your attention to the forward-looking statements slide. During this call, we may be making forward-looking statements, please refer to the language on this slide for further reference. On today's call we have Tom Lin, Chairman and CEO; Nathan Mata, CSO; and Hao-Yuan Chuang, CFO. With that, I’d like to turn the call over to your host Tom Lin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Belite Bio. Please go ahead sir.

Thank you, Sarah. Thank you everyone for taking the time to join this meeting. I'm Tom Lin, CEO of Belite Bio. I'll start off by giving the overview and the milestones we have achieved so far. So for those that are new to the Belite story, the drug that we are developing, Tinlarebant, is a novel once daily oral tablet designed to bind to serum retinol binding protein as a means to specifically reduce retinol delivery to the eye. This approach is intended to slow or halt the formation of toxic retinal-derived byproducts, which are generated in the visual cycle and are implicated in the progression of Stargardt disease and Geographic Atrophy secondary to dry AMD. Belite Bio believes that earlier intervention directed at emerging retinal pathology, which is not mediated by inflammation, would be the best approach to potentially slow disease progression in Stargardt disease and GA in dry AMD. So there is a still significant unmet need for both indications. Currently, there is still no approved treatment for Stargardt disease and there are currently no approved oral treatments for GA, which oral treatments are expected to capture a much wider market for advanced dry AMD. We have so far received fast track designation, rare pediatric disease designation, and orphan drug designation, which allows us to frequently discuss with the FDA about our progress and see how we can expedite the approval of this drug, if we show positive results from our Phase III study. I’d also like to mention that we still have a long patent life with the first composition of matter patent expiring in 2035 and additional patent extensions and new patents being filed, which will extend the patent portfolio into the 2050s. Now in terms of the important milestones achieved this quarter, our Phase II 18-month treatment data continues to show a slowing of lesion growth. We are also expecting our Phase II 24-month final data readout in Q4 this year. We've also recently completed enrollment of our global Phase III Stargardt trial, and we are now expecting interim readouts around mid-2024. We've also started enrollment for our global Phase III trial in GA dry AMD. With this, I'll pass it on to Nathan to go through the clinical trial results. Nathan?

Yeah, thanks, Tom. So I'd like to first start by providing an overview of the trials we have going on in Stargardt disease. We have two studies, as Tom mentioned, we have an ongoing open-label Phase II study. It is a two-year study, which is just about ready to end in October. I'll give you some more information about that as we move forward, but we've got 18-month data to share with you and I'll provide that in a moment. There's also the Phase III data, which as Tom mentioned, has recently stopped enrollments. We've met our target. In fact, we've exceeded our target by about 10 subjects. We've got 100 subjects in there. Both of these studies are two-year studies. They're both looking at the primary endpoint, which is the growth of atrophic lesions that is DDAF and I'll explain what that is in a moment. So there's a lot of similarities between these designs. The differences are as follows. In the open-label Phase II, there's only 13 subjects, and these subjects came in with only autofluorescent lesions and I'll show you some of the biology on how the autofluorescent lesions turn into this atrophic lesion that we call DDAF. So that's one of the differences. The other difference, of course, is it's an open-label study. We're looking at the same efficacy measures, the same assessments by imaging modalities, such as fundus fluorescent auto photography to look at the lesion growth and you can see here at the bottom what the key inclusion criteria were. The Stargardt Phase III study is also a two-year study in design. Of course, it's global. There'll be a two-to-one randomization favoring Tinlarebant, and you can see there the various inclusion criteria at the bottom of the slide. Next slide, please. So I want to show you first, as Tom mentioned, this agent, Tinlarebant, is a retinol binding protein 4 antagonist. And so the first biomarker, if you will, that we will see is a reduction in the retinol binding protein 4 levels in serum and that's what's shown here from the Phase II data out to 18 months, you see the very first point which is shown there to 100% that's before the patient's got dose and you can see over the period of 18 months, we've achieved about 80% reduction from baseline of retinol binding protein 4. You see here, this target threshold of greater than or equal to 70% reduction. This number has been determined in a clinical study in Geographic Atrophy with a different retinol binding protein 4 antagonist. I'll share that data with you as well. But this has become our market because we believe that you need to achieve at least this level of RBP4 reduction to affect a change in lesion growth. And by the way, the daily oral dose these kids are getting, these 13 adolescent Stargardt kids, is five milligrams per day, and study out to 18 months, I'll go over the safety data as well. Next slide. A little bit about the biology. So early in the disease course, there are only autofluorescent lesions and that's shown on the left-hand side here, the left side image. These lesions are called occasionally decreased autofluorescence by ophthalmologists. Basically, what they do is they represent cells laden with autofluorescent entities. These autofluorescent entities are bisretinoids. These are the agents that we're trying to reduce because these bisretinoids are formed from vitamin A. We've reasoned that by reducing the amount of retinol going into the eye, we can have an effect on reducing the accumulation of these bisretinoids and slow the growth of these autofluorescent lesions. So these autofluorescent lesions are amenable to rescue. But if left alone, which of course they have to be because there's no treatment, they will transition into atrophic retinal lesions, which is shown on the right-hand side, you see that black demarcated image, that basically is irreversible photoreceptor cell loss; those cells are never coming back. That atrophic area is what ophthalmologists refer to as definitely decreased autofluorescence and stopping the growth of that lesion type is the primary endpoint. But of course, ophthalmologists look at the combined lesion growth rate because both of these lesions are pathological, and so in one study conducted in 2020 by Georgiou and coworkers, they found in 53 adolescents Stargardt kids, the growth rate of the combined lesion was roughly about 0.7 millimeters square per year. When we look at that same anatomical feature in our 18-month data and annualize it up to a year, we see a growth of only about 0.28 millimeters square per year. So that represents about a 60% reduction in the combined lesion growth rate based upon a comparison to this very well-conducted natural history study, which by the way, at that time, was the largest natural history study conducted in adolescent patients. But we're very concerned about comparing the atrophic lesion growth because that is after all the endpoint. And for that comparison, we had to go to the largest natural history study of Stargardt's conducted today called ProgStar. This study enrolled hundreds of patients with Stargardt disease, many of them were adult patients. But among these patients, there was a small group of 20 subjects that had the exact same baseline characteristics as our subjects in the open label Phase II, that is they were 18 years or younger, and they had no atrophic lesion at baseline, only autofluorescence. So we were able to compare the combined lesion growth rate in that ProgStar group to ours, as well as the atrophic lesion growth. The combined lesion growth is shown on the left-hand side. This is called DAF or Decreased Autofluorescence. So it represents the QDF area plus the DAF area. And you can see here out to 18 months, we're getting about a 50% reduction in the combined lesion growth rate. And you remember the slide previously showed you a 60% reduction. So it's a pretty good comparison between these two separate and independent natural history studies. When we look at the atrophic lesion growth as the DDAF, we see at 18 months about a 60% reduction in that atrophic lesion growth rate, and notably, not many subjects are converting. In fact, there seems to be a slowing of the conversion in our treatment group, transitioning from the autofluorescent lesion to the atrophic retinal lesion type. And that is all very consistent with our hypothesis that we would first affect a change on the autofluorescence and then subsequently a change in the atrophic lesion growth, and we believe that's what these data are showing us. And I should have mentioned that the investigators from both the previous study by Georgiou and this study ProgStar, which was Hendrik Scholl, commented that we are seeing a definite bona fide treatment effect in these natural history study comparisons, so it's very promising for us to see. Next slide. This is showing you the visual acuity data. We're showing you both eyes, the steady eye and fellow eye. Of course, both eyes are going to get the same treatment because this is an oral systemically applied drug. We're showing you this because in clinical studies, you do have to designate a study eye and then the other eye just becomes a fellow eye. We just want to show you that across 18 months, we're having a stabilization of visual acuity in these subjects. And this is a very promising trend because typically these subjects lose anywhere from four to six letters per year, so the fact that we've stabilized over 18 months is a very promising trend. That combined with a slow lesion growth tells us we're affecting exactly what we want to do, stop the lesion growth and eventually have an effect on preserving or improving vision. And you can see there the letters lost is roughly within the noise of the variability of the visual acuity assessment. Next slide, please. We would like to discuss the safety data. I should begin by noting that we have not observed any systemic toxicities or adverse events to date. There are no clinically significant findings concerning vital signs, physical exams, cardiac health, or organ functions. What we're observing are two anticipated effects of this therapy due to the reduced amount of vitamin E entering the eye. We expect impacts on rod and cone photoreceptors, which are the two types of photoreceptor cells in the retina. The first adverse event we are seeing is a type of Chromatopsia known as Xanthopsia. This occurs due to cone photoreceptors, typically triggered when patients suddenly move from very dark environments to bright ones, such as waking up in bright light. Essentially, the cone photoreceptors are activated and require a chromophore. Under our treatment, the chromophore is not supplied as quickly, resulting in a timing delay for these cone photoreceptors to be filled. During this delay, they may misfire and produce artificial colors in the visual field; specifically, Xanthopsia appears yellow. Most subjects are experiencing Xanthopsia, but no one has exited the study due to this. In fact, we observe some recovery over time, and subjects are not being withdrawn from the treatment while they are recovering. The second ocular adverse event is known as Delayed Dark Adaptation, mediated by rod photoreceptors. When transitioning from bright light to dim light, the rod photoreceptors activate and also require a chromophore, which leads to a delay in filling these photoreceptors. Consequently, there is a temporary reduction in sensitivity to dim light, with a delay that can last between 8 to 12 minutes, and in severe cases, it can extend up to 20 minutes, which is referred to as night vision impairment. However, overall, we are very pleased with these findings. We have lost one subject to follow-up at 12 months, leaving us with 12 subjects at the 18-month mark, which still indicates a very promising safety profile. Next slide, please. So now I want to talk about that proof of concept study I told you about the 70% marker, how did we get there. Well, this was a study I conducted approximately 12, 13 years ago when I was with another company. I had this idea that reducing retinal delivery to the eye might have an effect on slowing lesion growth. I didn't have a drug to do that with but I did find an anti-cancer drug called Fenretinide, which had a side effect of reducing retinol binding protein 4 in the blood. As I said before, it was developed as an anti-cancer drug, but in all the cancer studies, what investigators noted was a dose-dependent reduction of RBP4. So I repurposed Fenretinide into a two-year Phase II proof-of-concept study enrolling 246 GA patients to see if this drug would have any effect on slowing lesion growth. There were two treatment arms and placebo; 100 milligram, 300 milligram and of course placebo. I want to show you the lesion growth data just from the high dose arm and placebo because the middle dose of 100 milligrams had absolutely no effect on lesion growth. What you're seeing here on this histogram shown on the left-hand side, the black bars show the lesion growth in the placebo group expressed as a percent increase from baseline. So we're getting about a 50% increase over 24 months in the placebo subjects. In the 300 milligram group, there was something very interesting. There was a group of subjects who had a very profound reduction of retinol binding protein 4, at least 70% or more. In those subjects, there was about a 25% slowing of lesion growth over two years. In the subjects that did not have this reduction of retinol binding protein 4 of 70% or more, there was absolutely no effect on the lesion growth rate. So we're pretty convinced, especially in GA, that this is the level of reduction that would be required to affect a change in lesion. Of course, this is the same sort of approach that we're applying to Stargardt disease. An interesting thing about this lesion growth reduction, you'll notice it started right about the 12 month time point and it should stabilize between 18 and 24 months. But when we look at the visual acuity loss in these subjects, we also notice that in these subjects who had a preservation of lesion because there was a reduction of lesion growth, there was also a stabilization of visual acuity loss, right about the same time; 12 months there was a six-letter loss, and there was no further loss after 24 months. Meanwhile, the placebo group and the patients or the subjects that did not get that profound reduction of RBP4 continued to lose vision up to about 11 or 13 letters over the two years. So we have a very significant visual acuity gain and a very significant lesion reduction that has never been observed before in a GA study. The problem with this Phase II study was that only one in three subjects actually achieved this profound reduction of RBP4 in the 300 milligram group, and the reasons for that are twofold. One, Fenretinide has terrible bioavailability, so we asked subjects to take this drug with a high fat meal at dinner to increase exposure into the blood. Many patients complied up to that one year, but after one year, we had a lot of patients falling off with that compliance and we knew that because the RBP levels in these patients would inflect upward indicating that they're no longer having suppression of RBP4. The second problem was the low potency of Fenretinide. Fenretinide is a terrible drug for RBP4 antagonist, possessing the same affinity for the target as a native ligand, vitamin A. With Tinlarebant, we have designed a drug that specifically overcomes those deficits of Fenretinide, with greater bioavailability and 100-fold greater potency than does Fenretinide. So we're convinced with this better purpose-designed RBP4 antagonist, we can achieve at least this benefit, and probably even greater, because again, we'll have better compliance, and we'll have greater potency of the drug on target. Next slide, please. So now a little bit about our Phase III study in Geographic Atrophy. This is important to know. We were concerned that with a higher age and higher BMI of patients that have GA versus Stargardt disease, we would have to do a dose higher than five milligrams. We did a PK/PD study with both five milligrams and 10 milligrams, and what we found was a five milligram dose produces the same pharmacokinetic profile as it did in younger subjects. In these healthy adults, we're seeing about an 80% reduction of RBP4 across the dosing period with this five milligram dose and it's also important to note and we see this in the adolescent subjects as well. Once you withdraw the treatment, the RBP4 levels start bouncing back upward, showing a nice reversibility of the pharmacodynamic effect, which of course is a nice safety feature in the event of any untoward adverse event or you want to return the patient back to baseline status. Now a little bit about the clinical design overview for a Phase III study we call PHOENIX. This study design is going to be nearly identical to the Phase III trial designed for Stargardt's, that is it's two years in duration, it has the same randomization frequency two-to-one favoring Tinlarebant, it has the same endpoint measure. So we're still looking at the same DDAF measure as the primary measure for efficacy. And of course, we're looking at other measures such as DCBA looking at the autofluorescence. There are two major differences; one, of course, is the indication, Geographic Atrophy, not Stargardt's; and the second one is that we'll be enrolling up to 430 subjects instead of the 90 that we targeted for the Stargardt disease study. This, of course, reflects the higher prevalence of GA in the population. But otherwise, these studies are essentially identical. And I think Tom mentioned that we've actually kicked off this study, we've enrolled our first patient, I believe it was last week, and we continue to get more interest and more patients rolling into this Phase III study as we move forward.

Thank you, Nathan. So as of June 30, 2023, we have 57.4 million in cash. For the R&D expenses for the three months ended June 30, we had research and development expenses that totaled about 5.5 million compared to 1.6 million for the same period last year. The increase was mainly due to the expenses on the PHOENIX trial and also the increase in wages and salaries due to our R&D team expansion. For the G&A expenses, again, in Q2, we had G&A expenses of 1.4 million compared to 0.9 million for the same period last year, and the increase is due to the rise in professional service fees and salaries. The net loss was 6.8 million this quarter compared to 2.4 million last year, for the same quarter. About the key milestones, as Tom mentioned earlier, we initiated the study this Q1 and we just got the first patient in this quarter. We also completed the enrollment for the DRAGON study with 100 subjects, and we expect to have the 24-month data by Q4 this year. We also anticipate having the interim result from the Phase III DRAGON study in Stargardt disease by mid-next year. With that, I'll turn it back to Sarah.

Now I'm going to open it up for questions from our first analyst, which is Basma Radwan from Leerink. Basma, you may go ahead and unmute your line.

Hi, good afternoon. This is Basma on for Marc Goodman. We have a few questions on the upcoming final readout of the Phase II trial in Stargardt disease. The first question is really what should we expect in terms of the efficacy at month 24? More specifically, I'm talking about the reduction in the DDAF lesion growth rate. Should we expect a similar level of reduction in the lesion growth rate to the level demonstrated at month 18, which is a 50% reduction when you compare it to the matched controls from the ProgStar study? The second question is about the conversion from the QDAF lesion to the DDAF lesions. So at month 18, five out of 12 patients on Tinlarebant had DDAF lesions vs nine out of 20 patients in the ProgStar study. What changes to this proportion should we expect at month 24? And the final question is about any updates you have about dropouts in the study. Do we still expect to have 12 patients for the client pointed at month 24? And I do have follow-up questions for the Phase III drug study, if you don't mind.

Sure. Nathan, you want to take this?

I’m happy to answer your question. Regarding what we anticipate seeing at 24 months, particularly for the DDAF, we expect to maintain similar trends as we've seen thus far. We anticipate achieving at least a 50% reduction; we already have an idea of the 24-month data from ProgStar, which indicates it will be slightly better than the current results. Additionally, our DDAF results are expected to improve slightly as well. This study is concluding in October, which is about two and a half months from now, and I don’t foresee any major changes in the trends over the next few months. Therefore, what you see now is a solid indication of what to expect at 24 months. Concerning the number of subjects, I don’t anticipate losing any more participants. We initially lost one out of 13 due to a follow-up issue at 12 months, but no one has exited due to safety or adverse event concerns. I have no real worries on that front. The other question you raised was about the conversion from autofluorescent lesions to atrophic retinal lesions. By 24 months, I expect that at least two more subjects will likely convert, based on our current trajectory. However, there will be a notable difference in the conversion percentage between the ProgStar subjects and those in our study, with our study likely showing a lower number. This aligns with our hypothesis and mechanism of action that reducing autofluorescence should slow the transition to atrophic retinal lesions. I believe I’ve covered all your points, but please let me know if there's anything I missed.

Thank you. That was very helpful. The one question we have about the Phase III DRAGON study, it's about the inclusion criteria. So you do specify in the inclusion criteria lesion size to be within three display areas. Could you provide more color on the rationale behind this inclusion criteria, really?

Our approach for early intervention involves studies in Stargardt disease and Geographic Atrophy. I've found that smaller lesions at baseline tend to respond better to oral therapeutics, such as visual cycle modulators or RBP4 antagonists. This is also supported by natural history studies showing that smaller lesions grow faster, while larger lesions tend to slow down. When I mention small lesions, I refer to those less than five square millimeters, and nothing larger than 10 square millimeters. Lesions over 10 millimeters are considered too large, where inflammation begins to play a role. It's crucial to understand the progression of the disease; early on, there's minimal inflammation. The initial QDAF lesions we observe are the first steps toward developing atrophic retinal lesions. However, once these lesions grow too large, there's little that can be done to slow their progression. The emphasis on lesions smaller than three display areas is grounded in previous clinical and natural history studies showing that smaller lesions respond better to treatment. For instance, the mixed-use debt study by Kubota Pharmaceuticals indicated that patients with smaller lesions at baseline experienced a 40% reduction in lesion growth, highlighting the importance of our strategy to recruit subjects with smaller lesions. This clinical and scientific evidence reinforces our belief in our approach, emphasizing that early intervention is the best way to prevent emerging retinal lesions that can ultimately impact vision.

Great, thank you. That's very helpful.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you for the questions, Basma. The next question comes from Jennifer Kim at Cantor.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions and congrats on the execution this quarter. Maybe to start off with DRAGON, I believe the original announcement for enrollment completion highlighted 90 adolescent patients and here it says 100 subjects. I was wondering, maybe you could provide any color around that difference?

Yeah, let me do that, if I could because I'm sure that was going to come up. It's important to note that when we stopped the enrollment at sites, there were a number of subjects in the screening queue; we can't just turn those subjects away. So basically, although we stopped accepting new patients, the patients that were in the queue, which amounted to roughly 20 patients in the queue, went through screening, and of those subjects, approximately 10 qualified for the study. So that's why we went from our target of 90 to approximately 100 subjects to date.

Okay, wonderful. And then a follow-up for DRAGON: Prior to the interim data next year, are you considering at all disclosing the baseline characteristics for these patients?

Yes, in fact, we are looking forward to presenting this data at AO this year; the 24-month data we get out, which coincides with the AO conference by the end of the year. I think that's in early November.

Okay. And then maybe one, just in GA, more of a broad question: With safety becoming even more of a focus, given the concerns with the recent news, I'm just wondering how does that play into your thinking around the opportunity for an oral once daily?

Yes, good question. We are discussing a largely elderly population affected by AMD and GA. Oral treatments and non-invasive options are generally more appealing, especially for those concerned about safety. Given the recent news, invasive intravitreal injections may pose challenges for patients in this age group, as many would likely be averse to receiving a needle in the eye. Nathan, do you want to provide additional insights on this?

No, I think you know there's clearly a treatment burden for the patient with an injectable therapeutic and the fact is that there's not going to be a clinically meaningful benefit derived by the patient for at least two years, perhaps longer. The same could be said with an oral therapeutic, but there's less of a treatment burden for the patient. So I think when offered the option between oral and injectable, obviously, the patient is going to choose the oral, so it'll be a greater uptake for an oral therapeutic. With respect to AEs, such as the retinal vasculitis that had been observed, this is even though a rare finding, these are the risk factors associated with injections in the eye, and there'll be others. So there's inflammation, there's all types of things that can happen when you puncture an eyeball with a needle, and you have to do it repeatedly, every other month or every third month, whatever it is, this is a very aggressive invasive treatment therapy. We believe once an oral therapeutic is approved, I think patients will flock to it, and that will certainly detract from the uptake of either Apellis drug or the Astellas/Iveric drug that just recently got approved. So we're not too concerned about the injectable therapeutics. I do want to emphasize, as I said before, those therapeutics address late-stage disease because actually what they're doing is they're killing an inflammatory response that's driving the disease process. Early in the disease course, there's no inflammation, either in Stargardt disease or in GA, you just have these incipient biomolecules or factors that are causing retinal pathology, but there's no inflammation yet. Inflammation really kicks in later. So those therapeutics, those injectables, would not be effective in our patient population. Conversely, our therapeutic would be expected to be beneficial in that later stage, sort of as a maintenance therapy for patients who are sort of getting treatment, and they need to sort of keep the Geographic Atrophy at bay. So we think there's synergy rather than competition, and we're certainly not concerned about any safety concerns that they have because we don't think they're going to affect what we have in terms of an oral therapeutic, which to date has shown to be very safe and well-tolerated in these adolescent Stargardt subjects.

Got it. That's helpful. Thanks, guys.

Yep. Thanks, Jennifer.

Thank you for the questions. The next question comes from Yi Chen at HC Wainwright.

Thank you for taking my questions. You just talked about the adverse events associated with Apellis drug. So just to clarify, you believe that the retinal vasculitis is associated with the injection, but not the drug itself in terms of the mechanism of action, or complement inhibitors?

It could be a combination of both, Yi. I was just saying that in other studies, for instance, when they first started developing the first anti-VEGF drugs, they had, I believe, at that time it was Macugen. They had things like this as well, and it wasn't necessarily attributed to the drug; it was attributed to the procedure. Yes, it is possible that the drug in itself could cause that, but I think that's a rare possibility because it didn't occur, I don't think in their Phase III study. So again, once you start getting real-world evidence for how this drug is going to be applied, you'll start unearthing some of these potential risks, and these are not manageable risks; these are very serious concerns where patients are losing vision, even though it's a small number of patients. So yes, it can be from the drug, but I believe more about the actual intervention itself. That's just my personal belief.

So I believe one of the causes of retinal vasculitis is infection and inflammation and neovascularization, so all of that can be associated with intravitreal injection, an invasive treatment that causes that.

So it is reasonable to expect newly approved products may have those adverse events as well when it's commercialized, right?

Very possible. I predict yes.

Okay, thank you for the questions. The next question comes from Bruce Jackson at Benchmark.

Hi, thank you for taking my questions. You mentioned the increase in the study size for the DRAGON trial. Originally, you put it up to 90 patients in order to improve the probability of getting an efficacy signal. Now that you're at 100, has that increased your confidence that we're going to get an efficacy signal on the results?

Nathan, do you want to take that?

We have always believed we would see an efficacy signal since the six-month data. In the Stargardt open-label Phase II study, we've observed positive results at every six-month interim analysis, extending out to 18 months. This isn’t about changing the treatment effect size; it’s more about increasing the power, which refers to the confidence that the effect will be durable over two years. The additional 10 subjects provides an extra buffer for that power. It doesn't guarantee a greater treatment effect or increased statistical significance at the conclusion of the study, but it does enhance our ability to assert that the results are genuine and robust, as more patients are demonstrating that treatment effect. Therefore, it’s more about the power than the treatment effect size.

Okay. That’s helpful.

Bruce, to add on that, so we run the simulations and all that, so with the added sample size onto the study, and now given that we've gone up to 100, I think that gives us a better chance of getting a positive or a statistical significance at interim, so that gives us a better chance of reaching that.

Okay, great. And then one finance question, I thought I'd throw one in. In terms of your cash balance and your burn rate, how many quarters of cash do you have right now?

Yep. Thank you, Bruce. So we do expect that we have cash flow running until the end of 2025 with the current rates.

All right. Perfect. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, this concludes the verbal portion of the Q&A session. Hao-Yuan, do we have any questions for the webcast or should we hand it back to Tom for concluding remarks?

No, I don’t have any questions here. You can turn it back to Tom. Thank you.

Well, thanks, everyone, for joining this call, and we look forward to updating you on our end of Phase II results shortly. Thank you very much.