Thank you for standing by, and welcome to CourseUp Therapeutics' fourth quarter 2025 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star 1-1 on your telephone. To remove yourself from the queue, you may press star 1-1 again. I would now like to hand the call over to Audubon Macari, CFO. Please. Go ahead.

Hello, everyone. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. Today, we issued a press release announcing our financial results for the full year and providing a corporate update. The copy is available at Corsep.com. Our complete financial results will be available when we file our Form 10-K with the SEC. Today's call is being recorded. A replay will be available at the Investor's Past Events tab of our website. Statements during this call, other than statements of historical fact, our forward-looking statements based on our plans and expectations that are subject to risks and uncertainties which might cause actual results to be materially different from those such statements expressed or implied. The risks and uncertainties that may affect our forward-looking statements are described in our annual report on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, which are available at the SEC's website. Please refer to those documents for more information. We disclaim any intention or duty to update forward-looking statements. Our 2025 revenue was $761 million compared to $675 million in the prior year. We expect our revenue growth to continue and are providing full-year 2026 revenue guidance of $900 million to $1 billion. Net income was $99.7 million for the full year 2025 compared to $141.2 million in the prior year. Cash and investments at December 31, 2025 were $532 million, which reflects our acquisition in 2025 of $245 million worth of our common stock pursuant to our stock repurchase program, as well as shares acquired upon the exercise of course of stock options and the vesting of restricted stock grants. I will now turn the call over to Charlie Robb, our Chief Business Officer.

Thanks, Adobach. As many of you know, last Thursday, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against us in our lawsuit to stop Teva Pharmaceuticals from marketing a generic version of Corleum in violation of our patents. We believe the court made a mistake. Patents we have asserted as included in Corleum's label and Teva's copy of Corleum's label instruct physicians how to administer Corleum safely with drugs many patients with Cushing syndrome require for optimal health, such as widely prescribed antifungal and antiviral medications. We know there are physicians who follow these instructions. The expensive, risky research we undertook to make this important medical advance available is exactly what the patent system is meant to encourage and protect. We plan to appeal. I'll now turn to the FDA's failure to approve relicorolant as a treatment for patients with Cushing's syndrome. We were surprised by the FDA's decision. Because relicorolant benefits patients with Cushing's syndrome, and we strongly believe the data we submitted with our NDA shows that. There are many reasons we were so optimistic about Reliquorlin's prospects. Most importantly, as the FDA has acknowledged, our pivotal GRACE trial met its primary endpoint with a p-value of 0.02. The primary evidence we submitted to confirm this positive result came from patients in our double-blind, placebo-controlled gradient trial whom the FDA had identified prior to data unblinding as being of particular importance to its review. Further, GRACE's primary endpoint, improvement in hypertension, secondary to Cushing's syndrome, addresses a serious unmet medical need. It was also agreed to by the FDA, and for good reason. Cardiometabolic complications are the leading cause of death in patients with Cushing's Existing hypertension medications are often partially or wholly ineffective in treating this condition. 76% of the patients with hypertension who enrolled in GRACE, for example, were already already taking one or more blood pressure lowering medications. Of these patients, 39% were taking three or more. These patients needed a blood pressure treatment that worked for them. Relic Orlans demonstrated benefit addressing an unmet need in patients with a serious condition by itself would be ample reason to expect its approval, but we had additional causes for optimism. Throughout Relic Orlans development program, patients exhibited meaningful improvements and other signs and symptoms of Cushing's syndrome, not just hypertension. For example, in the open-label phase of GRACE, patients had a robust and consistent response to treatment. They lost weight without losing muscle mass, their waist circumference shrank, and their glucose control improved, all without a worsening in their other signs and symptoms. Patients with Cushing's syndrome do not improve without treatment. They get worse. Another important quality of Relicorlant is the gave cause for optimism is that Relicorlant confers its benefit without giving rise to serious adverse events and off-target effects associated with the currently approved treatments, including QT interval prolongation, adrenal insufficiency, hypokalemia, endometrial thickening, irregular vaginal bleeding, and termination of pregnancy. Relicorlant would provide a treatment option for patients who find one or more of these risks disqualifying. The liver enzyme elevation cited in the FDA's complete response letter can be managed, as the complete response letter implies, through appropriate label instructions and post-marketing surveillance and did not give us reason to doubt. In addition to the efficacy and safety benefits I just described, there was still another reason for us to expect Relic Orleans approval. Our clinical development program writ large, by which I mean the design of our trials, the number of patients studied, and the amount of data included in our NDA compare favorably to the development programs that led to the approval of other Cushing syndrome medications. For example, a pivotal GRACE trial employed the same design as the trials that led to the approval of Isterisa and Rekerlev, the two most recently approved Cushing syndrome medications. Our primary source of confirmatory evidence for GRACE's positive result was drawn from patients in a placebo-controlled double-blind study, making it more compelling, in our view, than the open-label evidence that supported other approvals. The number of patients we studied in GRACE, their trial completion rate, and the amount of data they contributed to our MDA exceeded that of the most recently improved medication. In sum, our review of FDA precedent, just as much as our scientific evaluation of relic relic relic clinical data, gave us ample reason for optimism. I'll close with a final reason. We worked with the FDA for years to bring ReliCorlin to the point of NDA submission. During that time, the FDA made recommendations regarding various aspects of our program, as is the case with all development programs, and we accommodated those recommendations. By the time we submitted our NDA, we had tailored our development program to the FDA's guidance in all material respects. The FDA tells sponsors when it does not think they should admit NDA, they did not tell us Nor did the FDA tell us we would face significant review issues or a possible refusal to file Internal guidance calls for the agency to inform drug sponsors as quickly as possible if there are deficiencies in the form or substance of the NDA package that would preclude approval. We heard nothing of the sort until the very end of the process. At neither the mid nor late cycle meetings that are part of every NDA review was the word deficiencies used. To reiterate my original point, we were surprised. Where do we go from here? Our priority is to make rolloqueline available to patients as quickly as possible. We will meet with the FDA in April to better mention of our NDA, perhaps including additional analyses from our NDA's rich data set, to a filing of a formal appeal with the FDA's Office of New Drugs, to deciding we need to conduct this. I'll now turn the call over to Sean Madouk, President of our Endocrinology Division.

Thanks, Charlie. Our Cushing Syndrome business experienced a surge in demand in 2025. We saw a record number of new prescriptions for our medications and a record number of first-time prescribers. We delivered 37% more tablets than we did in 2024, with a record number of patients receiving our medications than ever before. But we should have delivered more. We had a 61% increase in the number of new prescriptions, but only a 37% increase in tablets sold. That gap is an illustration of the lack of capacity at our pharmacy vendor. I've discussed on prior calls the inability of our previous pharmacy vendor to fully meet the rapidly increasing demand for our medications. We took a major step towards solving this problem in October when we began transitioning our business to a new specialty pharmacy with much greater capacity. We have been pleased with the new pharmacy's capabilities, but the complex, time-consuming task of transferring prescriptions and medical files for thousands of patients from the old pharmacy to the new one disrupted our business in November, December, and January. The headwinds created by this transition work have subsided. The new pharmacy received a final batch of patient files earlier this month, and we are seeing promising signs of improved pharmacy performance. For example, we are on track to set a monthly record for new patient starts in February. I've never been more confident in the future of our commercial business. For many years, physicians screened and treated only the most physically obvious cases of Cushing syndrome. In the last 15 years, many studies have shown how important it is to identify and treat patients across a much broader spectrum of disease. But the landmark CATALYST trial we completed last year proved this point definitively. CATALYST had two parts. Its first prevalence phase screened 1,000 patients with diabetes that was uncontrolled despite receiving the best care, including GLP-1s, and found that 24% of them had hypercortisolism. Catalyst's second treatment phase randomized 136 patients with uncontrolled diabetes and hypercortisolism to receive either Coralum or placebo. After 24 weeks of treatment, the mean decrease in HbA1c in patients who received Coralum was 1.47%, compared to a 0.17% mean decrease in patients who received placebo. Patients in the Coralum group also exhibited large decreases in weight and waist circumference. These data, fully published in December, are transformative. Physicians have begun to incorporate these findings into their practices, but a change of this magnitude takes a bit of time to fully absorb. As the prescribing community internalizes the catalyst findings, screening for and treatment of Cushing Center will increase, and so will the number of patients receiving our current medications. We expect our Cushing Center business to grow to at least $2 billion in annual revenue by the end of this decade. When ReliCorin is available, growth will accelerate further. I will now turn the call over to Joe Belenoff, our Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Sean. And thank you, everyone, for joining us this afternoon. Since CORCEP's inception, our work has had a single focus, fully exploring the potential of cortisol modulation to treat patients with serious diseases. That potential is vast. We have made important advances. It is now established that hypercortisolism is much more prevalent than previously thought, and the treatment with a cortisol modulator can benefit many patients. There is now growing acceptance the cortisol activity at the glucocorticoid receptor, or GR, worsens the prognosis of patients with many types of solid tumors, while reducing cortisol activity at the GR can be beneficial. A Rosella trial proved this point in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Patients who received brelicoralant, in addition to napaclitaxel, had longer progression-free and overall survival than those who received napaclitaxel alone. As our oncology research continues, I am optimistic that relichloralant and other cortisol modulators will provide treatments for patients with other solid tumors and will be effective in combination with other anti-cancer therapies. Looking beyond hypercortisolism and oncology, our work in metabolic and neurologic indications is advancing quickly. I'm also optimistic that our proprietary compounds will prove beneficial in these areas as well. I want to underscore Sean's comments about the CATALYST trial. It is transforming medicine. Prior to CATALYST, no one would have thought that one in four patients with resistant diabetes had hypercortisolism, and no one would have thought that treating these patients with a cortisol modulator would produce such striking benefits, substantial reductions in hemoglobin A1c, weight, and waist circumference compared to those patients who received placebo. Patients experienced these improvements even as many of them decreased or entirely discontinued their other glucose-lowering medications, including the most potent GLP-1 agonists. These are landmark findings. We have recently completed the 1,000-patient Momentum trial. With everything else that has been going on, there has not been much focus on Momentum, but it is a very important study. Momentum complements catalysts by examining the prevalence of hypercortisolism in patients with resistant hypertension. We will announce its findings next month in a featured oral presentation at the annual conference of the American College of Cardiology. Catalyst offers physicians struggling to treat patients with resistant diabetes a paradigm shifting insight. Hypercortisolism plays a foundational role in many of their patients' conditions, and treating that hypercortisolism can provide important benefits. Momentum may begin to provide the same insights about patients with resistant hypertension. These findings and the change in patient care that they will stimulate will drive growth in our Cushing syndrome business for years to come. Last month, we announced the positive final results of our Phase III Rosella trial in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Rosella met both of its dual primary endpoints, patients who received relicoralant in addition to the potent chemotherapy medication napaclitaxel experienced longer progression-free survival and longer overall survival than did patients who received napaclitaxel alone. To quantify these benefits, patients treated with relicoralan and napaclitaxel experienced a 35% reduction in risk of death, a hazard ratio of 0.65 compared to patients who were treated with napaclitaxel alone, with a p-value of 0.0004. Median overall survival for patients receiving relicorolant was 4.1 months longer than it was for patients on napaclitaxel monotherapy. A significant number of patients responded even better to the addition of relicorolant to their anti-cancer regimen than these results suggest. At the survival curve's 75th percentile point, patients receiving Relichoral lived eight months longer than those who had received NAPAClitaxel alone. We will be presenting Rosella's full results at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the SGL meeting, in April, and we'll publish them in a leading peer review journal later this year. As you can imagine, the world-class managers and salespeople we have recruited to run our commercial oncology division are eager to bring Relichoral into patients. They and leading oncologists believe strongly that Rella Coralent, with its best-in-class efficacy and safety data, oral administration, and lack of biomarker selection requirements, is likely to become the new standard of care for women with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Our FDA PDUPA date is July 11th of this year. As I mentioned earlier, Rosella is just the beginning. We are currently evaluating relicorolant in combination with other anti-cancer therapies and in other solid tumors, including platinum-sensitive ovarian, endometrial, cervical, and pancreatic cancers. Data from these studies will be National Comprehensive Cancer Network, or NCCN, guideline enabling, and will inform our future development decisions. We expect results from these studies by the end of next year. We are also evaluating GR antagonism's potential to augment immunotherapy. Because cortisol suppresses the immune system, it may blunt the effectiveness of therapies intended to stimulate an immune response. A treatment regimen that combines an immunotherapy agent with a GR antagonist may stimulate a stronger, more effective immune response. We have started a Phase 1b study of a proprietary selective GR antagonist, nanocorrelant, in combination with nivolumab, a PD-1-directed immunotherapy to treat patients with a broad range of solid tumors. Finally, we are exploring glucocorticoid receptor antagonism's use in combination with androgen deprivation therapy. Our collaborators at the University of Chicago are currently enrolling a randomized placebo-controlled Phase II trial of relochloraline plus enzalutamide in patients with early-stage prostate cancer to determine if GR antagonism can block a cortisol-mediated tumor escape route. Cortisol activity plays a role in the initial development and progression of a serious liver disorder known as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis, or MASH. MASH afflicts millions of patients in the United States and globally, and it is a significant and rapidly growing cause of liver and cardiometabolic morbidity and mortality. Our proprietary selective cortisol modulator, MiraCloralant, is very potent in the liver. In a Phase I-B study, it rapidly reduced liver fat and improved other important markers of liver health, including fibrosis. The drug was very well tolerated without the GI side effects commonly seen in patients being treated for MASH. Our 175-patient double-blind placebo-controlled Phase IIb MONARCH study is fully enrolled and will produce results by the end of this year. If they are positive, we will advance to Phase III. Patients with ALS have dysregulated cortisol levels, which is why we believe our proprietary selective cortisol modulator, DASA Correlant, may be very useful. Results from our 249-patients double-blind, placebo-controlled DASLs trial of DASLs in patients with ALS are encouraging. In DASLs, patients who received 300 milligrams of DASLs for one year exhibited an 84% reduction in risk of death compared to patients who received placebo. The p-value for this finding was .0009. Dazochoralin's apparent prevention of early death, that is, death early in the course of the disease, confirmed by a pivotal trial would be a tremendous benefit to patients, many of whom die relatively quickly after the onset of symptoms, before they have lost significant function and quality of life. We have initiated a small study to see if dose titration can improve Dazochoralin's gastrointestinal tolerability. Non-serious GI distress caused most of the discontinuations and dazzles, an outcome we think can be avoided. We expect to incorporate what we learned from our dose titration study into the design of the pivotal trial we plan to start later this year. To sum up, our Cushing Syndrome business experienced a surge in demand for Coralum in 2025 because a growing recognition among physicians of hypercortisolism's true prevalence and the necessity of appropriate treatment. With expanded pharmacy capacity now in place, we are confident that we will meet future demand, which we expect will grow significantly as the findings from our catalyst and momentum studies are recognized by physicians. We are working with the FDA to obtain approval of Rella Coralent in Cushing syndrome. As Sean said earlier, our Cushing syndrome business is poised for substantial growth with our existing medications and will grow even faster upon the approval of Relicorolant. By mid-year, we expect Relicorolant's first oncology approval in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, a particularly challenging form of ovarian cancer. We are very pleased with the groundbreaking results of our pivotal Phase III Rosella trial, which met both of its primary endpoints without changing the safety burden borne by patients. The fact that glucocorticoid receptor antagonists have demonstrated such compelling results in this extremely difficult-to-treat cancer type gives us confidence in relicorealance potential in earlier stages of ovarian cancer as well as in other tumor types and in combination with other anti-cancer therapies. We expect results from our BELLA study in platinum-resistant and ovarian cancer by the end of this year and from our other new oncology trials by the end of 2027. Following up on our positive Phase II DASLs findings, we expect to begin a Phase III study in patients with ALS by mid-year. By year end, we will know the outcome of our Phase II Monarch trial in patients with MASH and we'll proceed to Phase III if that outcome is positive. We are also continuing to discover and develop new cortisol modulators, advancing the most promising of them to the clinic. The potential of cortisol modulation to benefit patients is vast. It is a privilege to help convert that potential to approved medications that can really make a difference in people's lives.

We thank the patients who participate in our trials, our employees, our clinical investigators, and our academic collaborators for being part of this important work operator let's proceed to questions yes sir as a reminder to ask a question you will need to press star one one on your telephone to remove yourself from the queue you may press star one one again please stand by while we compile the q a roster our first question comes from the line of David Anthelem of Piper Sandler. Your line is open, David.

Thanks. So I have a few. First on the CRL, it sounds like you believe that the agency, for maybe lack of a better term, moved the goalpost on you, but I wanted to get more detailed thoughts on how you're thinking about it. And then secondly, your willingness to run a more conventional randomized trial of relic correlant, in type 2 diabetes, and or hypertensive patients who are poorly controlled, I guess something along the lines of momentum and catalyst, and how likely is it that ultimately that's the path you go down. So that's my first set of questions. And then on Corlin, can you just talk about some of the assumptions in your guide, particularly erosion of net price, percentage of the business going through the AG and also just the net price, the discount or net price off of the list price. How should we think about that for 26?

Edward, I think that we caught all of your questions. I'm sorry, David. I think we caught all of your questions. But if for some reason that we haven't, you know, specify at the end and we'll try again because that was a good list. So I'm going to give you a first to Charlie to talk about the CRL.

So, David, I'm not sure exactly what sort of moving the goalposts would have looked like, and I don't know exactly what was in the sort of FDA's mind in that regard. But, you know, what we did was looked at the data we had on a sort of scientific basis, and it clearly met the hurdle for approval. And then when we turned and looked at the other drugs that the agency had approved, you know, both sort of our trial design and program generally, and the results we had were clearly right in line with, you know, prior approved treatments. So I don't know if the FDA's thinking shifted in any way, but we really just think they missed the mark in that regard. I hope that sort of addresses you.

Yeah, please, David. Does that answer your question?

Well, I guess there is a redacted CRL that lays out some very specific concerns, so it just seems that there's a lot of daylight between how the FDA is thinking about this filing and how you're thinking about this filing, and I'm just trying to understand how we in the investor and analyst community can somehow bridge that gap, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I mean, I think the, again, I think that, you know, without sort of parsing the CRL line by line, there are things in it that are sort of curious and hard to follow. For example, leading with, you know, they acknowledges right out of the gate that our pivotal trial met its primary endpoint, for instance. The confirmatory evidence we provided also met its endpoint. And, you know, until the agency mentioned sort of an analysis at the end that they performed that we had never seen and really can't replicate. So there is daylight between our position and their position. And I think the, again, I just have to return to, I think, on the merits compared to the other approved drugs, we got it right. I can't really explain how they moved, you know, to their decision. and that's what we're going to find out when we meet with them at the meeting in April. That's really the purpose of it. We do want to understand. We think they will be able to articulate it to us and we will be able to move forward from there. That's why we're meeting with them.

And, Sean, there were several questions related to sales at Coral.

Yeah, no, thanks for the question. So in terms of the AG, the AG's net price is about a 30% discount on Coral and ZWAC, and that's been consistent, really, since we launched the AG. Now, over the course of 2025, more volume shifted from Corlin prescriptions, obviously, to AG prescriptions. We ended the year at about 75%, and that really was what the pricing impact was in our 2025 revenues. Now, in terms of 2026, we're at about 78% AG. We expect it's going to maybe move a tick or so more, but it's essentially stabilized. But we have built in, you know, potential pricing pressures and discounting in through the remainder of 2026.

Okay, thanks. And then just my question on running a randomized relic-horrent trial. If it came to that, I think you just talked about the likelihood of ultimately going down that path. Is that the outcome you envision here, and how long would such a study take?

You know, again, I really want to, important point, I really want to clarify for the whole audience. Our medicines are for the treatment of hypercortisolism. And what we found is that the pool of patients with hypercortisolism is significantly larger than I think was believed 15 years ago or 10 years ago, or by many people, even five years ago. These patients reside in many important disease states and previously just simply didn't respond to conventional treatment. So, for instance, what the Catalyst study showed us was that in patients who have resistant diabetes, even with the best medications treated by the best doctors, there's really a group of non-responders. And of those non-responders, about a quarter of them have hypercortisolism. And what the treatment portion of the Catalyst study said is if you treat their hypercortisolism, those symptoms improve, and they improve really very dramatically. Now, the results for hypertension, for resistant hypertension, are yet to be revealed, but please pay attention in a month because I think they're going to be very important. And I think the general point that we're making is that hypercortisolism is an important driver of many symptoms, and patients with hypercortisolism are currently undiagnosed in many important disease states. So where it leads us to do in terms of clinical development, I can't tell you with certainty at this point, but really understand that mechanistically what's going on is the identification of patients with hypercortisolism and then their treatment.

Okay, next question. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jing Dang of Truist. Your line is open, Jing.

Hi, this is Jing, online for June. Thanks for taking my questions. My first question, actually, is on the oncology side. Congratulations on your Rosala data has been both OS and PFS. But my question is looking ahead to SGO in April. So what should we expect to see for that completed data set? For example, like a specific subgroup or safety analysis, and also full safety tables, and then also, how do you expect that this will support early adoption?

Okay. I think I'd like to start that answer to question with Bill Geyer, who is our chief development officer, and then at the end, maybe Roberto Vieira, who I have not had a chance to introduce you to, who is the president of our oncology division, and a few additional comments.

Bill, go ahead. Thank you for that question. So, one, I want to respect what we're going to present at SGO and not give you too much details, but yet still try to answer your question, as well as respect our publication that we hope to have come out as soon as possible as well. But at SGO, on the whole, we expect to show the full Kaplan-Meier curve, where you can see the percentage of patients who are alive in both arms and the separation of those arms. That will be a key point to look at. And, yes, we will have full safety data sets presented there as well. And an important finding I think you'll see is that the safety isn't really any different than the analysis we did about a year ago. And so it really shows the tolerability of relic-or-landing combination with that of NAPAC-litaxel. So there will be a lot of data within that presentation. I think you'll find it very interesting, but I do want to respect that embargo for that presentation. But, yes, you'll see a full analysis and a full data set presented at SGO and hopefully soon published right after or similarly close to that time.

Okay, very good. And, Roberto, I think you're calling on to speak to early adoption.

Yeah, so thank you for the question about the adoption. I want to go back to the point that Joe made in his opening remarks. A 35% reduction in the risk of death, a 4.1-month extension of median overall survival in a population that is incredibly refractory and clinically challenging to treat. So we look at this, especially in the context of the outcome or indication, as being transformative. This has never been done before. It's the first time that we have overall survival data of this magnitude demonstrating the outcome of population. And then you look into the safety and tolerability. We were just alluding to that. We present the final data, but you can look at that in the Lancet publication from last The bottom line of the safety is that Rallacorland did not really add much to the safety buzz in comparing to Nodupac Taxel. Now the Pac-Baxel is a taxane that there's great familiarity on how to treat it, and I think that the best way to look at the safety is at a single-digit discontinuation of the regimen. So overall, very tolerable regimen. It's also an oral therapy that actually doesn't add to the burden of treatment altogether. So when you look into efficacy in the outcomer population, the safety, and the conveniency of this regimen, our expectation for adoption is really a very early adoption in lines of therapy and very broad adoption, establishing what we consider to be a potential new standard of care in the category.

Thank you, Roberta. Okay, next question, please.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of RK with HC Rainwright. Your line is open, RK.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Joe. A couple of quick questions here. One is on the supply chain issues and specialty pharmacy, you know, how confident are you that all of those which have been lingering for almost a year now have been taken care And when we think about the guidance that you gave us, how much of that is being taken into account the relic correlant revenues from the oncology franchise, how much of that is included in there? And then the last question is, as Bill was talking about safety, do you – are we going to see the full picture of safety from relic correlant in that trial? because, you know, obviously you were thinking that you had all the safety stuff straight, but the FDA was not thinking so with the Torella correlant and the Cushing syndrome. And then the last question for, again, for Bill is how does he think about, you know, Petruda coming into the picture now, and how was Roberto and Bill trying to think through it and message it.

Well, Arkay, thank you for the list of questions. You're going to give our whole executive team an opportunity to weigh in here. So, Sean, why don't you start with the first question?

Yeah, no, thanks, Arkay. I'm going to talk a little bit about the end of last year and then talk about what the expectations are moving forward. So the transition between the two pharmacies started in October, and it was challenging, as I talked about in my opening comments. One thing I want to make clear is that all patients are actually now at Courant. Now that those patients are all at Courant, we're actually seeing improvement, and a lot of the metrics we look at are heading in the right direction. So we've got a record number of new starts. We're on track for that in February, and we're serving our existing patient base in a more timely and efficient manner. So now in terms of the new pharmacy partner, you know, what gives us confidence that we'll be able to see a different result? And that's based off, I would say, why we selected them and then what we're seeing today. So this is a pharmacy that has over 25 years of expertise in the orphan space. They have a patient-first mindset, which is very much aligned to Corsept and how we support our patients. They have extremely strong leadership. They have strong people. They have very sophisticated technology and processes, actually, on how they manage a patient from enrollment all the way through to distribution. distribution. And one of the most important pieces, which was our issue with sort of overloading the system last year, is that they actually have multiple locations. So they have the ability to scale their business very, very quickly. And our belief is that they are, well, they told us they're committed to doing that. And our belief is that they will scale with us as our business continues to grow. So we've been working very closely with them over the last many months through the transition. And we're very happy with what we've seen and have a lot of confidence in that vendor.

Good. Okay. Thank you, Sean. And, Adubac, why don't you take the revenues question?

Sure. Hey, R.K. So, regarding how much of our guidance, you know, the mix of it, almost all of our guidance range comes from our Cushing syndrome business at this point. Only a small portion of our guidance range comes from our oncology business, just given the anticipated timing of launch in oncology.

Bill, you have the safety question. safety question. So again, hopefully I answer it in the way you were asking. So related to safety from Rosella, as I stated before, and I'll give you a little bit more detail because you kind of related it back to endocrinology. So from Rosella, what we're seeing in the safety profile a year ago versus now a year later at the final survival analysis, we're seeing very similar safety profile, almost exactly the same. And again, you'll see that at SGO. Now by raising endocrinology, I think you're probably raising, you know, are we seeing any rises in ALT that we might have seen in that of the endocrinology program? And I'll go back to the endocrinology program. Our assessment within the endocrinology program is we did not have any cases of drug-induced liver injury, and we also have confirmation of that from our external independent safety committee that also evaluated all that data. So no real issue there in endocrinology, and I know it has been raised, But we then went to look at oncology, and we looked at the Rosella data, and I just want to make it clear as well, we aren't seeing any rises in ALT elevations that are significant and of concern, because as a background, when you look at within the Rosella trial, one, natpaclitaxel on its own can rise ALTs, and you need to kind of understand that within platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. But when we combine relicorlin with that of natpaclitaxel in the Rosella study, we're going to be presenting this data in just a couple days, we actually see half the amount of ALT rises in the combination arm compared to that of the napaclitaxel alone arm. So we're not seeing any added toxicity. We're actually seeing reduction in that of ALT rises. And that data, again, we'll be able to share with you in just the next two days. So I feel very comfortable and confident with the safety profile of endocrinology in both the oncology area and also the endocrinology area. Roberto, the final question?

Yeah, so concerning QTRUD, RK, let me just start by reminding us that their approval is for CPS greater than 1 or PD-L1 expression greater than 1. So in our data set, in real world, we are talking about 50 to 60 percent of the total population, so of course you have that limitation of the biomarker right there. Now, beyond this, it's important to remember that QTRUD has been used in ovarian cancer for a while as part of the NTSCN guidelines in other regimens that are taxane sparing, that do not utilize Poclitaxel. It has a use there, it's 10 to 15% of those patients already in later lines of therapy. Now, when we have engaged, you know, work with oncologists, they are very much interested in maintaining options. They, of course, are very interested in Rosella, and the way for them to maintain options is to continue to use as they have done in their combination that does not require lipoclitaxel, and to use that in later lines of therapy. So overall, when you compare a regimen that came with a safety button that you can see in their data, hazard ratio 0.76, there is a clear signal here that there's a utilization of a Rosella regimen in other lines and maintaining optionality for it through the later lines of therapy.

Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you, R.K. And I think we will conclude our call, and we will plan on seeing you in three months. Before I get off, though, I just want to let you know there really is a lot of important news to pay attention to as we go forward. We have our momentum study results. We have our oncology presentations. We have publications coming. And so please do follow. There's a lot of news between now and the next three months, and we look forward to talking to you again at that period of time. so thank you.

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