Ptc Therapeutics, Inc. (PTCT) September 10, 2026 Conference Transcript

Okay. All right, everyone. Thank you for joining us for the next one. My name is Ben Burnett, Biotech Analyst at Wells Fargo. Pleased to be here with the PTC Therapeutics Management Team. We have to my left, Matthew Klein, CEO. To his left, Pierre Cravier, CFO. Thank you all.

Thank you, Ben. Great to be here.

I think maybe just to kick it off, I would ask you, what is the kind of main message you want to leave us with here and what are kind of the key catalysts we should focus on?

Yeah, absolutely. Look, I think we're incredibly excited for the company's position today. We're exactly where we want to be, as we planned over the past couple years to really transform the company into the diversified, valuable, rare disease company we believe it could be. The Safiance launch, we're now one year in, is off to a tremendous start. We remain exactly on the trajectory we believe we need to be on to get to that $2 billion-plus revenue potential. We're doing this in the context of a year where we believe that we can reach the important cash flow break-even milestone, which really sets us up for future profitability. We have over $2 billion in cash in the bank. The R&D portfolio is coming along quite well with the Vodoplam HD program, the Phrygics Ataxia program, the recently acquired Fabry gene therapy program, as well as great progress in our splicing and inflammation platforms. So we believe we're in a really strong position in terms of current revenue, future revenue growth, and a very strong financial position, which gives us incredible optionality not only to pursue activities with our current assets, but also continue to look at business development opportunities that can bring short- and medium-term top-line growth.

Okay, excellent. Well, I want to start with PKU, and like you mentioned, you've been in the market now for a little while, still somewhat early days, but you're penetrated into a lot of the centers of excellence, and I think we've seen maybe some, you know, enough time for some patients to kind of come in and come in again for checkups, and so maybe some little bit more feedback. So what is the, you know, the feedback you're getting from the treating physicians about their experience with Sufiance, and I guess what does that tell you about kind of your expectations for sort of future growth? And maybe we'll start with the United States.

Yeah, I'd say across the board, we're incredibly excited about the performance to date. Now we're about a year into the launch globally. First, the fact that it is a global launch and that we were able to launch in the U.S., in Europe, and Japan within about six months of each other, which is pretty remarkable to be able to do that. And, but I think most importantly is the incredibly positive feedback we're getting in terms of patient experience. You know, when we started talking a lot about suffiance, we said this is a very unique opportunity. This is a drug that has a dual mechanism of action. It's oral, it's well tolerated, and it's able to provide potential important benefits for the full spectrum of PKU patients. And while there have been previous approved therapies, there still remained a significant unmet need for the vast majority of the 17,000 patients in the U.S. and 58,000 patients in the sort of the global markets where we think we could commercialize. And what we've seen so far, again, has been positive. One, we've seen a number of patients return to clinic, right? So if you go back a year from now, we had this conversation, and everyone was saying, well, the launch is going to start with individuals who are on KuVan, and they're going to get switched, and that's going to be the lion's share, the early part of the launch. Not the case. In fact, what we saw was the opposite. We saw an interest in getting individuals, kids and adults who aren't on a therapy, onto a therapy. We've seen individuals who've been remote to the clinics, therapy-naive adults who many believed would be very hard to get on drugs. We ourselves believed this would be a goal for the latter part of the launch. They've come in, and they've made up at this point about 25% to 30% of the patients on drugs. That's really, really good. A number of patients who've tried and failed are coming back in. We're hearing about the benefits, not only in terms of phenylalanine lowering, which is important in and of itself, but hearing great stories, seeing case reports and case series coming out of individuals being able to liberalize their diet, enjoy foods they never were able to enjoy before, some folks being able to be completely liberalized. And this includes not only individuals with what are known as BH4 responsive mutations, but also those with classical and more severe patients. So in a nutshell, in this year, we've been able to access not only all, as you mentioned, 100% of the Centers of Excellence in the U.S., but every key market segment. Therapy naive patients, tried and failed patients, switched patients from existing therapies, patients with non-BH4 responsive mutations, patients with classical PKU. And, you know, I think that breadth at this stage of a rare disease launch is very impressive. And what we're seeing now, and I think we've said we probably have over 2,000 prescription start forms, patient start forms in the U.S. That leaves about 15,000 more, or roughly, you know, we think we have a very long way to go. And to have established this foothold in every segment tells us the work now is to just go deeper and deeper into every segment rather than have to sort of Create new ones, and that's why we're so bullish on the opportunity.

It's fascinating, just the commentary around, you know, the expectations for which patron segment would be kind of early contributors to the launch. But, you know, with regards to the Kuvan switches, when do they become kind of a bigger factor, and what drives that adoption?

Yeah, and look, there's 103 centers of excellence or so, and so, you know, maybe different at different centers. But I'd say, by and large, there was a preference early in the launch for prescribers to get individuals who don't have a therapy to try a therapy. And so the idea was, OK, I may have a group of patients on Kuvan, branded or generic. The data show that 100 percent of them, 100 percent of them should do better on suffiance. But let them be for now. Let's start with those who don't have a therapy. And in a way, that makes a lot of sense. So now we're starting to see and hear more and more of prescribers doing the work now to switch patients. And we commented a little bit on this dynamic at Q2 earnings, and we said, so we're seeing a little bit longer time to fill. Why? Because clearly now with payer policies in place, which have been very favorable, very flexible, but nonetheless, when you're going to switch someone from a less expensive drug to a more expensive drug, it's going to be a little bit more back and forth. And as you know, that back and forth takes time from when you get a, you know, a first request to fill to when ultimately getting that filled. But I think what makes us so excited here is there's probably still about 2,500 patients on CUVAN in the country, branded or generic. And as we said, we expect all of those patients to do very, very well on suffiance. I'm not saying 100% of them are going to get switched, but a lot of the prescribers said they expect over time that the vast majority of them would get switched. It's going to take a little bit of time, but we know when that switch occurs. First, going from one once-a-day, well-tolerated therapy to another that just simply provides greater benefit, you know, that means strong motivation for switching, both in terms of patients wanting it and prescribers wanting it, and two, adherence, right? You've already proven yourself adherent on a drug that's once-a-day and oral. Now you're going to go to another drug that's once-a-day oral but delivers more benefit.

Okay, excellent. You know, I think another thing heading into the launch, there was some estimates and expectations around kind of the The average weight and the net price, now that you kind of have a year under your belt in the U.S., are those estimates still good? How do you think about kind of the average price?

Yeah, I think we're pretty much where we thought we'd be. You know, we said in a ballpark, we priced it, the WAC was under 45 kilogram patient. We said we expected to be in that ballpark of 45 to 50. That's where we are. I'd say while the average age, we said, is about 17, 18, we're still getting a full spectrum of patients. In fact, I think we shared on the Q2 earnings call that we had one of the first newborns started, a very neonate, started on suffiance with outstanding results. So we see that as an area of growth and obviously lower weight, which is why the average doesn't tell the whole story. But I think overall we're in the ballpark of those numbers where we thought we'd be.

Okay. And you touched on this earlier, but I think one of the other kind of focal points just when we look at some of the other PKU launches is on the persistence rate. You know, again, with a number of months under your belt, how do you feel like the persistence rate of suffiances is sort of trending?

We commented at Q2 that we were around 20% discontinuation rate. We thought we were getting pretty close to steady state. The reason for that is, looks like what we have, again, what we've said is there's been a lot of things we thought at the time of launch that have gotten trued up now, and I think we assume that if someone wasn't Responding to some fines, they'd get probably a one-month trial and off, and what it seems like has been the case is it's closer to three months, so that's why we can just look at this now and say we're getting pretty close to steady state, and it reflects the experience in the clinical trials where we had over 75% of patients have, you know, greater than 15% phenylalanine lowering. The other dynamic here that's super interesting, it relates back to the fact that early on we saw a lot of the therapy-naive patients. The reason they're therapy-naive, for the most part, is because there was a belief that they would not respond to Kuban, i.e. they had non-BH4 responsive classical PKU. They were the more severe patients. So the fact that we had such a strong adherence rate early on in the most severe patients also, we think, bodes very well as we move forward and start getting more and more switching patients who we know definitionally are going to be responsive.

Excellent. Okay, fantastic. And so, you know, that's the U.S. piece. You obviously have a lot of experience marketing medicines outside of the United States. How is the ex-US kind of market unfolding? And I realize it's sort of my territory, but what can you say about that?

Yeah, it's going great. Look, we said that we believe we're at a point where we're seeing steady growth in the US. We believe that. And we'll have growth acceleration outside of the US that will really kick into gear in the latter part of 26 and into 27 as we get pricing and reimbursement in more countries. Early on, the story has been Germany, Japan, and early access programs. And so Japan, we launched at the end of Q1, so we saw a really nice contribution in Q2 from Japan. That's a high-value market because pricing there is on par with the U.S., and while there's maybe 1,000 patients or so in Japan, the fact that the value for those patients is higher makes it a really valuable market for us. It's also a market where there's probably a higher proportion of patients on current therapies as well. So I think that's one where, as a switching dynamic comes into play, we expect there to be a lot of room for growth in Japan. Germany was our first launch. It was July 15th of 2025, and that's following what we expected, kind of fits and starts in terms of growth, because in that first part, in that free pricing period, where we had started a compassionate use program, which gave us a small group of patients that were able to switch commercial as soon as we launched. We know that there's some reluctance in Germany sometimes for prescribers to start patients while the company is naming the price. They like there to be an agreed-upon price. So we saw a little bit of an increased uptake in the first half of the year when we were out of the free pricing period. And we expect once we have the final agreed-upon price in Germany, which we said will be before the end of this year, we'll probably see the next wave because that will signal to prescribers two really important things. One, that the price going forward is absolutely the government-sanctioned price, and the second, that we as a company are committed to staying in Germany. We've gotten feedback that there's a lot of concern that if companies don't get pricing that they want, they pull out of Germany, and therefore there's a reluctance to start patients on the therapy if the prescribers can't guarantee that the therapy is going to be there in a year from now. But we have every expectation that we'll land on a satisfactory agreed-upon price. And look, there's a lot of PKU patients in Germany, and their teams are working really hard there to make sure that as we can go deeper and deeper into the launch, we really realize the market potential there. In other regions, we're using name-patient programs. We're doing that in certain parts of Europe as well, Latin America, Middle East, other regions. I think as we move into 27, we're going to be looking to get pricing and reimbursement in some of the major European markets. Also, we expect Brazil, where we have approval, to start making contributions. As you know, the process there takes a very long time. First, you leverage the judicialization process, which we put all things in place to be able to start to realize that, start getting group purchase orders as we move into 27. Russia, Commonwealth of Independent States. We've gotten two recent approvals in the Middle East that we expect to be able to launch there in the near future. So I think we're really pushing, moving on all fronts globally, which is really, really exciting.

Okay, fantastic. And just to double click on that, so when the German pricing is fully established, does that sort of kick off other European territories and kind of pricing discussions?

We've started. So we've already started with submitting dossiers in some of the larger European markets. There'll be other markets where we'll continue to rely on name patient for a while just because that makes the most sense. And obviously, as you think about launch and launch sequence, one of the important things is that pricing corridor and trying to maintain a consistent list price, which goes into our whole strategy of how we sequence European markets, timing of pricing and reimbursement discussions and the like.

Okay, excellent. And I want to move on to some of the other products, but just last question here. So you have a lot of experience with Translarna outside of the United States. Is that playbook essentially applicable in this case, or are you kind of having to recreate the next U.S. playbook?

Yeah, 100% applicable. So first of all, we had the infrastructure. If you just look at the timing of the, as we face challenges with this sun setting of Translarna outside the U.S. in many locations, it was really the perfect timing to say, okay, we've got PKU coming on, let's start market development work. But the relationships with the medical centers, which tend to be similar specialty centers, the relationships with the HTA authorities, understanding the politics, understanding how things work in each of these countries, having the important content, the teams were all there, that experience, that infrastructure was built. That's true in Europe, it's true in Latin America, it's true in Russia, Commonwealth of Independent States, Middle East. The one place where we had to build was Japan, which we did. It was fully built, you know, ahead of approval and ahead of launch, and I think the proof is in the pudding there. That launch is off to a great start.

Excellent. Okay. Well, very good. I want to move, I guess, speaking of Translarna and also Enflaza, like, how should we think about kind of the evolution of those drugs, you know, through 27?

Yeah, it's a great question. Look, you heard me at the beginning of 26 say, you know, there's a couple things we know for certain this year. We know supply is going to do great, but what we don't know, you know, we know that also for certain that we're going to see continuing decline in Duchenne franchise, and we have, but still with reasonably solid revenue contributions. So I think Flaza is now ticking along between $20 to $25 million in the first two quarters. We've actually saw some patient starts, which is really odd when you have 10 generics on the market having, over two years ago, lost exclusivity. And we've said all along, look, we believe we can continue to deliver revenue from Flaza until one of the generics drastically cuts the price, and then you get to the race to the bottom. It's hard to predict when that's going to happen. As I know Pierre always says, they don't give us a heads up when they're going to cut the price. But, you know, for now, we're going to continue to deliver, and we've got really great relationships in the patient community. I think this is a point also I should highlight, our patient cares, our PTC cares patient services team, which has been so important to the brand loyalty for MFLAZA, but is also now a central part of this appliance story, really going out there and working with patients and prescribers to make sure we get patients on drug and they stay on drug, and that team's been really important in what we've been able to do with MFLAZA as well. On the Translana side, look, we're selling the drug without a license in Europe. There's no precedent for that. We expect over time that that revenue should continue to erode. Countries where we get large purchase orders like Russia, like Brazil, we've gotten them this year. Unclear if we'll get other ones this year or any going forward. So a long way to say I can't predict what it's going to be, but I expect that revenue will decline over time.

Okay. Okay. That's great. And maybe turning to Vodou Plam and Huntington's disease, we've seen a lot of news flow just in the Huntington's disease sector, especially in the biotech sector. Talk about your strategy here, and what is the goal of maybe connecting with the FDA ahead of the phase three readout?

Yeah, absolutely. So, look, we made very clear after we shared what we believe are very solid results from the 24-month long-term extension that we and Novartis, our partner, would discuss whether we'd meet with the FDA with the news that the gene therapy was given the green light to submit an application for accelerated approval based on CUHDRS. It's unique here as gene therapy. Yep, as a COHDS as an intermediate clinical endpoint, and that was obviously a very important data point for us in making our plans, because we said, look, not only do we have very good results at 24-month slowing progression over 50%, and what we expect will be the ultimate dose, we've got a much larger number of patients who've been treated, we have a better defined safety profile. Unlike the gene therapy, we actually have objective measurement of target engagement and MHTT protein reduction. That's usually what you see with the gene therapy. That gives you confidence in the gene therapy, but just given the fact that it's locally delivered to the brain and ours is systemic, we're actually able to have that with the small molecule. The confirmatory study is up and running, right? It's been agreed upon, and it's up and running. And obviously, it's reversible, multi-tratable if new things are learned. So we think when you put that constellation of data It's certainly worth a discussion to say, hey, FDA, if you're willing to accept an accelerated approval endpoint over in CBER on a small number of patients without these features and not having any placebo-controlled data that we had where the placebo and natural history performed like each other, you know, it's worth having that discussion in CBER. I think Novartis has been very clear, though, that their base case is phase three. It has an interim analysis to get to an answer sooner If it goes that far. And look, I think it's just reasonable to have that discussion and get the FDA's feedback, and that'll happen in the second half.

Okay. Excellent. Very good. I also want to turn to the Phrygics Ataxia program, where you also had some recent FDA feedback. I guess maybe frame that and also frame the commercial opportunity as you see it.

Yeah, absolutely. So, look, I think we were quite clear that, you know, we believe the data package for vitiquinon supported approval last year. I think FDA took a very strict view statistically, and that was really, in our discussions, what came out as the reason. They just couldn't get comfortable approving it since we had only hit on a component of the primary endpoint, even though that was separately specified as an endpoint. And they made it clear that they wanted an additional study to support approval. They suggested that that study could be an open-label study with natural history comparison. We were pleasantly surprised by that, but I think when you consider that the safety profile of the drug is very well characterized, it's very safe, demonstrated to be very safe and well tolerated, especially in children, the data did show evidence of benefit that really needed to be confirmed, and FDA has So I think they trusted that as a source of of comparator. So we went, you know, I guess under the heading of trust and verify, we went ahead and developed a protocol, a statistical analysis plan of how we would actually do the natural history comparison group, what would be the model, the matching model, what would be the analyses, met with, brought those to FDA, met with FDA, met with FDA. We got feedback, which we could easily incorporate, and now we're going to get ready to start that trial this quarter. So we said about 120 individuals age 7 to 21, same inclusion criteria as we had for the MOVE-FA Phase III trial. And again, I think given all of our learnings in FA, given the fact that we have a very good understanding of what that natural history comparator arm should do in terms of progression over the 24 months, then we believe this is a very high probability of success study. Okay. In terms of market opportunity, we've said all along that this is a therapy that, while has been studied a lot in children, could be a therapy both for children and adults with FA. I think there's still a wide-open opportunity for pediatric patients, and clearly there's enough room for another treatment option for adults in FA, especially one that we wouldn't expect would carry some of the monitoring requirements that SkyClarus requires.

Excellent. I also want to touch on, so you recently acquired an asset, ST920 for Fabre. I guess, number one, talk about what attracted you to that asset.

Yeah, this is, you know, so we had talked all along about, you know, one of our objectives this year was to explore business development as a way to leverage our global commercial infrastructure, which has clearly demonstrated itself, again, to be quite capable and quite accomplished, but certainly has capacity. And so we've been continually looking for rare disease opportunities that we think can set in quite well. This one came a little bit out of, I don't want to say out of the blue, but it was kind of a unique situation through the bankruptcy proceeding. We became aware that this was a BLA stage asset. The clinical data looked good, sounded like they, and what we found on diligence was that the CMC was in good order. We certainly know how to commercialize gene therapies. We certainly know how to get gene therapies approved. We had one of the first AAV therapies that got approved with abstasic ability. And we believe there's a very real market opportunity here. The standard of care for Fabray is enzyme replacement therapy. That is the standard of care. There's two approved enzyme replacement therapies in the U.S., an additional one outside of the U.S., heavy burden. For some individuals, it's every other week administration that requires pretreatment immunosuppression. Patients over time can develop antibodies that can then reduce the effectiveness of the enzyme replacement therapy. So the value proposition of having a one-time, single administration, no immunosuppression required, safe and well-tolerated enzyme replacement we thought was really special. And so we pursued it. And then the ability to bring in a BLA stage asset for, you know, $110 million, we thought was, again, pretty unique. And, you know, we're still doing our work on what the market opportunity is here, just looking at some of our initial estimates and what some of the analyst estimates were for the gene therapy in previous years. You know, we have every reason to believe this could be, you know, seven, 750 million, potentially even higher peak global opportunity for us. So when you put all that together, obviously a lot to be excited about. We expect to close the deal in the next couple weeks and expect, as we said previously, to have the BLA submitted by the end of this year.

That's great. And the one thing you mentioned is it's a global opportunity. How important is that ex-US piece to the kind of commercialization of this?

I think it's important. I think the U.S. is going to be the large or the majority of that opportunity. Clearly, all eyes, as we told our teams and our commercial teams, everyone's super excited. I should say in part, we have a lot of in-house Fabreg commercial experience from just previous companies. And so a lot of folks who worked on ReplGal back in the day, and some who've worked on Fabrizon. So we've got a lot of folks around the company who know Fabray, know the patient community really well, and are so excited about this opportunity. But we said, look, let's focus first things first. Let's get that BLA in. And then we will go ahead, and we're working on right now just the sequence of how we pursue registration in other countries, launch in other countries. How do we leverage name-patient? Again, as you alluded to before, our playbook, which has demonstrated to be quite successful in a number of different launches.

Okay. The ink is obviously still wet here, and we're getting close to closing, but what have you said about what's needed to file the BLAs? Are there any other things that you need to check off as a company before doing that?

Yeah, so they, Sangamo initiated rolling submissions, so they've already submitted components of it. The last major piece is CMC. I think we know from our own experience and everyone who knows, looks at gene therapies, CMC is a big one. We obviously did a lot of diligence work on that to give us confidence that this is a solid package. There's just be some work to do, put that together and get that filing in, and rest assured we're also going to look over every aspect of the BLA and make sure this is as solid a submission as possible.

Okay, excellent. In the last few minutes or so, I want to go through some of the kind of earlier stage pipeline programs. Maybe we can start with the MSH3, and maybe just high level, why have another potential Huntington's program?

Yeah, so we're super excited about MSH3 for a number of reasons. This comes from our splicing platform. You know, we talked a lot about at our R&D day last year that we've made a number of advances in splicing, clearly pioneered the field with Avrisdi. Vodoplame then came along as a second therapy. Both have demonstrated to be highly valuable therapies. One of the things that we did internally a couple years ago was say, you know, we've got basically this well-differentiated, validated, and valuable RNA technology, small molecule splicing, particularly well-suited for CNS disorders where ASOs and SIRNA can be sort of distribution-limited for obvious reasons. Let's focus on this. Let's really cultivate this platform. We think it can be incredibly valuable for neurological disorders, as well as other disorders, which may or may not be core to PTC, that we can use as a source of strategic partnering. And the MSH3 program is sort of the first product of that. From start to finish, it took us, from start to DC nomination, took us about three and a half years, which is, you know, warp speed compared to what a RISD and Vodaflam took. And we're really excited because MSH3 is an important target for somatic expansion, not only for Huntington's disease, but also for other disorders like myotonic dystrophy, for example. And there's a number of triplet repeat disorders. So this is a first for us in splicing where we can have a target that could be useful in a number of disorders. In terms of specifics to HD, it's a different mechanism than HCT lowering. It's a different target. It's a different dinucleotide sequence. Again, showing a little bit how we've evolved the splicing platform that we can achieve sequence specificity, not just with the sequences we used for vodoplamine and VRISD, but now a whole different set of targets. And we think this could also be one that's particularly well suited for juvenile HD, where you have very rapid expansion of the CAG repeat, which is why it's such an aggressive early onset disease. So at the very least, it's complementary to HCT lowering, but we also think that there can be specific populations, i.e. juvenile HD, where it's particularly well suited.

Okay, fantastic. And then, you know, as you think about kind of the clinical, like, I guess, what is the clinical kind of plan? Like, when would you progress into phase one, phase two?

Yeah, absolutely. So we're in the process of doing the IND-enabling pharm talks now. We've said we expect to be in phase one next year, and we will pull the page out of the RISD playbook, if you will, which we did for VOTA plan, which is use phase one to not only collect the important pharmacology and safety data, but also begin to leverage the fact that we can measure mRNA and protein changes in peripheral blood cells. Just to give us an early read on PKPD and validation of target engagement. Our teams are already in the background doing the work of thinking as well about what are potential biomarker strategies we can leverage as we move forward that could potentially open up an accelerated approval pathway as we move into phase two and beyond.

Excellent. You have a lot of programs, but I think that the other one that I wanted to make sure we hit on is the NLRP3 program. What's the opportunity there? Sure.

We're very excited about this. Look, I think when we talked about our inflammation platform, we said, look, the idea is there's a number of targets that are known to be biologically important, and the question is, can we develop differentiated molecules, differentiated in terms of safety, target specificity, and potency? NLRP3, PTC612, we believe ticks all those boxes. As we shared again last year at our R&D data, it benchmarks quite well against other NLRP3 molecules in terms of potency. It has a slightly different chemical scaffold than a number of the others that were associated with some of the side effects, so we believe we could have a better tolerability profile. And we said in terms of indications, we're planning to prioritize rare pulmonary indications for the simple reason that if you look at that Venn diagram of NLRP3 inflammasome activity and disease pathology, there's a lot of overlap there, both in terms of inflammation and fibrosis, which are really the two legs of the NLRP3 story. We're in phase one right now. We mentioned that as part of the MAD portion of the phase one study, we're going to be enrolling a cohort of individuals with metabolic syndrome, basically to allow us in phase one to just start to get an understanding of what we're seeing in terms of exposure, NLRP3 activity, and effect on some biomarkers that we know will be important in the store as we move forward into phase two.

Okay. Fantastic. And maybe if I could just ask kind of a broader sort of just company level question. Obviously, there's a lot of R&D and interesting things kind of coming out of the pipeline. But how do you think about like, is the goal near term to drive revenue? And I guess, how do you think about like goals in terms of cash flow positivity and profitability and kind of what should be the expectation for investors?

Well, we said we could be cash flow breakeven this year, number one. Profitability was very important to us when we started actually to, you know, reset the company a number of years ago, you know, actually revenues are growing and then OPEX has been reduced, right? And so that's very important to us. We want to build a diversified, sustainable business. You have to be profitable, no question. And then rest assured that, you know, despite the fact that we have a number of early stage programs coming and new development assets, there's There's also the old programs coming up. So for instance, HD, Full Phase 3, Novartis Base, all of it, as an example. So we said we're going to be very disciplined with OpEx, and that's what we've been doing. And in any way we look at a company, that's how we think about it. Business development, for instance, we said we're going to be disciplined. It's very important when we look at it, we want to create value for shareholders. So that's how we think about all those programs.

Okay, fantastic. Well, very good. I just want to turn to the audience. Are there any questions from the audience?

I think we did a good job.

Thank you. Thank you, Ben. Thank you.