Quanterix Corp Q3 FY2024 Earnings Call

Thank you and good afternoon. With me on today's call is Masoud Toloue, Quanterix's President and CEO. Before we begin, I would like to remind you of a few things. This call will be recorded and a replay will be available for investors on the investors section of our website. Today's call will contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. These forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements regarding our preliminary results for the third quarter and the expected impact of the restatement of our historical financial statements. These forward-looking statements are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and based on information available as of the date of this call. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions, or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions, and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. The risks and uncertainties that we face include that we may have underestimated the scope and impact of the restatement, risks and uncertainties around the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, the risk that our restated financial statements may take longer to complete than expected, and other risks described in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. To supplement our preliminary financial statements presented on a GAAP basis, we have provided certain preliminary non-GAAP financial measures. These preliminary non-GAAP measures are used to evaluate our operating performance in a manner that allows for meaningful period-to-period comparison and analysis of trends in our business and our competitors. We believe that such measures are important in comparing current results with other periods' results and assessing our operating performance within our industry. Preliminary non-GAAP financial information presented herein should be considered in conjunction with, and not as a substitute for, the preliminary financial information presented in accordance with GAAP. Investors are encouraged to review the reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures set forth in the presentation posted to our website and in the earnings release issued today. Finally, any percentage changes we discuss will be on a year-over-year basis, unless otherwise noted. Other than revenue and cash balance, the financial results we are discussing today for the third quarter are preliminary only, are based on currently available information, and are unaudited and subject to adjustment, included in connection with the finalization of the restatement of our financial statements. We will report our final results for the third quarter of 2024, which could vary from those in our quarterly report on Form 10-K, following the filing of our restated financial statements. Now, I'd like to turn the call over to Masoud Toloue.

Thank you, Vandana. I'm pleased to report Quanterix continues to outperform, delivering a sixth consecutive quarter of double-digit revenue growth. Despite market pressures, our industry continues to face related to capital funding. We're a technology leader in a uniquely positioned category where continued demand for Simoa Ultra-sensitivity, our unique business model, and our ability to serve customers has shown resiliency. Revenues of $35.7 million grew 13% this quarter, driven by 36% growth from our Accelerator lab, 8% growth from our consumables business, and continued traction with partner enablement in diagnostics. On a preliminary basis, third quarter non-GAAP margin of 53% reflects our disciplined approach to operational improvements, cost, and price, where we see continued opportunity for expansion. We are advancing our strategic priorities with a balance sheet of nearly $300 million of liquidity and cash usage down to $3 million in the quarter. Vandana will touch on these results and our reaffirmed guidance in more detail. As a reminder, our three core growth objectives are one, high growth menu, specifically maintaining our leadership position in neurology and growing into adjacencies. Two, our goal to achieve ubiquity of Simoa in all labs where we are allocating resources to provide our customers with solutions in immunology and oncology. We will achieve this with new menu and higher multiplexed ultra-sensitive protein detection, which we expect will culminate in a new platform sometime in 2025. And three, leading to build the global diagnostic testing infrastructure for Alzheimer's disease. We're making great progress on growing our menu and expanding into adjacencies. Year-to-date, we have commercialized a total of 16 new products, including several novel multiplexes, with plans to launch another four assays by the end of the year. In neurology, we recently launched a N4PD assay, which combines BD-Tau with additional relevant neurology markers. Our neuromultiplexes perform well, and we expect similar adoption for N4PD. In the last couple of months, we launched three new Cytokine 4-Plex kits that will support our immunology and inflammation customers performing long-running studies and transitional work. With over 3,000 publications, there is a lot being built using our Simoa platform. I'll discuss two important developments. First, in a recent paper from Nature Medicine, researchers used Quanterix's TVP43 assay to evaluate the progression of frontotemporal dementia, or FTD, and ALS. This study showed that plasma extracellular vesicles, or EVs for short, aided in the detection of molecular pathology for these conditions with biomarkers related to repeat tau isoforms and TDP43. This example is part of a growing body of literature using Simoa to probe EVs and gain new insights into disease pathology. We believe extracellular vesicles will be an important field of research spanning multiple disease areas and are engaged with leading researchers to evaluate our new products aimed at streamlining EV testing workflows. Second, in an October 16th publication in the Annals of Neurology, Professor Jens Kuhle used Quanterix's GFAP and NFL assays to monitor patients with multiple sclerosis, or MS. Professor Kuhle's findings support a rationale for monitoring MS relapse activity with both NFL and GFAP, whereas much of past work has only examined neurofilament light. This data suggests that in MS patients, an elevation of GFAP after B-cell depleting therapy is associated with an increased risk of continued progression. These findings build upon the growing body of evidence that biomarkers such as NFL and GFAP are key informative analytes for our customers to monitor when evaluating drug efficacy and disease progression. Moving to the third pillar. In our growth strategy, we continue to progress on Alzheimer's disease testing. Beginning with recent news from the clinical trials of Alzheimer's disease conference last month, we announced the launch of LucentAD Complete, our multi-marker assay, as a lab-developed test. As a reminder, this multi-marker combines p-Tau 217 with NFL, GFAP, and Amyloid beta 40/42, and uses an algorithm to provide a single patient result. In over 1,000 patients across three clinical cohorts, our data has shown that this algorithmic test reduces the intermediate region by three-fold while also maintaining overall accuracy above 90%. Demand and interest from our customers has been strong as clinicians want the most comprehensive information for diagnosing patients. This test builds upon our best-in-class single marker p-Tau 217 offering, providing results to more patients. In the long term, we expect multi-marker blood-based testing to be the predominant method to diagnose Alzheimer's disease. We've already begun to see this develop. In September, Mount Sinai Health System announced they would deploy multiple blood-based biomarkers as early detection tools across primary and specialty care settings. Mount Sinai will be examining p-Tau 217, NFL, and GFAP using our assays through a grant from the Davos Alzheimer's Collaborative. We also continue to engage with the FDA on our p-Tau 217 single market submission. We expect to wrap up our clinical validation studies next year. Our FDA submission with multi-marker will use the same clinical trials as our single marker test. Therefore, we expect its regulatory timeline to closely trail our single marker p-Tau 217 process. Finally, an update on global diagnostics development. With approximately 10 million individuals estimated to have Alzheimer's disease, China has been an early adopter of blood-based biomarker testing. As a country with approved therapies, such as LEQEMBI to help treat the disease's progression. We view China as an important region to build critical Alzheimer's testing infrastructure. In September, our partner UltraDx received Chinese IVD clinical registration for its UDX system, which uses similar technology. UltraDx plans to use the UDX and our highly sensitive Simoa technology for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's and other disease states, thereby making our superior blood-based biomarkers accessible in China, a large market with an aging population. This is a great example of several global initiatives we're working on to build the infrastructure for non-invasive blood-based Alzheimer's testing. Vandana will now discuss our financial performance.

Thank you, Masoud. I will now go over our third quarter preliminary results and our reaffirmed guidance for 2024. Before we go through the financials, I'd like to remind you that the company disclosed the need to restate certain prior period financial statements to correct non-cash errors related to those periods. I refer you to the schedules attached to our earnings release. These represent our preliminary best estimates of the potential impacts of the restatement. And we leverage these for our prior period comparisons. Please note that these preliminary figures set forth in the schedules are based on currently available information and are unaudited and subject to adjustment. The intent is to complete the restatement by the end of this year. Actions are also underway to continue to strengthen reporting processes and internal controls, and I'd like to emphasize that there is no impact from this restatement on the underlying strength of the business and on our above-market revenue growth rates. As Masoud described, the third quarter continued our trend of double-digit growth and margin expansion compared to the prior year and sequential improvement in revenue and cash flow. Total revenue for the third quarter of 2024 was $35.7 million, an increase of 13% compared to the prior year. Accelerator lab revenue was $10.5 million, an increase of 36% driven by strength in testing services for clinical trials and custom assay development. Consumable revenue was $17.3 million, an increase of 8%, offsetting the decline in instrument revenue, which was $2.4 million, a decrease of 39%. Similar to prior quarters, the instrument outlook continues to be challenging. However, our differentiated accelerator offering has created a valuable franchise that has helped us weather a tough cycle and demonstrate double-digit growth, highlighting the continuing demand for our ultra-sensitive Simoa technology. Other sales of $5.5 million in the quarter includes $1.5 million of licensed revenue related to diagnostics, an increase of $0.5 million from the prior quarter. Total revenue from our diagnostics enablement partners was $2.7 million. In terms of revenue stratification, our customer mix in the period was approximately 50-50 between pharma and academia, and 92% of our assay and Accelerator sales were for neurology disease states, including testing services for multiple Phase one, two, and three trials. Revenue from Lucent patient testing was immaterial for the quarter. Our revenue growth was led by North America, which grew 27% due to strong momentum in lab services and from our diagnostics enablement partners. The Europe region grew 2%, and the Asia-Pacific region was down 34% in the period. Moving on to gross margin for Q3. On a preliminary basis, GAAP gross profit and margin were $21.1 million and 58.9% respectively, up $2.2 million, and down approximately 100 basis points compared to the prior year. Third quarter preliminary non-GAAP gross profit was $19.1 million, and preliminary non-GAAP gross margin was 53.4%, up $2.8 million, and approximately 160 basis points respectively, compared to the third quarter of 2023. We ended the third quarter of 2024 with $296.1 million of cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities, and restricted cash. Cash flow in the period was a net outflow of $3.3 million, which was higher than the prior year period by $1.5 million, but an improvement from the prior quarter by $1.7 million. As we had outlined at the beginning of the year, this includes significant investments in our strategic priorities, assay development, advancing into adjacencies, and diagnostics. We continue to improve core RUO cash burn, as demonstrated by improving margins, and continue to expect that the RUO business will achieve cash flow breakeven in the $170 million to $190 million revenue range. With a strong balance sheet, we continue to implement our disciplined capital allocation strategy to support our three-pronged strategic plan. I will now address guidance for the remainder of 2024. We are reaffirming the guidance we previously issued. We expect full year 2024 revenue of $134 million to $138 million, representing double-digit growth of 11% at the midpoint. Similarly, we are reaffirming our GAAP gross margin guidance of 57% to 61% and our non-GAAP gross margin guidance of 51% to 55%. Finally, there is no change in our previous cash burn assumption of approximately $30 million for the year. I will now turn it back over to Masoud for his final thoughts before opening the call for questions.

Thank you, Vandana. Quanterix continues to deliver despite the industry's macro backdrop for three reasons. First, Simoa sensitivity is unparalleled and its demand is robust. Second, we're able to deliver on this demand through instruments or Accelerator services, which is a non-CapEx and efficient way for biopharma to receive Simoa data. Third, our translational customers are heavily invested in Phase 2 and 3 studies, and there's no sign of slowing when it comes to neurology-related trials. We are at the beginning of a neurodecade. Today, Quanterix is a tools company growing double-digit, differentiated through our resilient business model, uniqueness of Simoa ultrasensitivity, and a clear path to RUO cash breakeven. Breakeven such that we're using our balance sheet to fund and drive large upside opportunities to our existing double-digit tools growth story, specifically leading the way in non-invasive testing for Alzheimer's disease. Operator, we can take some questions.

And your first question comes from Matthew Sykes with Goldman Sachs. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Hello. This is Jake on for Matt. Thank you for taking my questions. The first one I wanted to talk about is the Accelerator Lab as this continues to outperform our expectations. How would you characterize the sales in the quarter in terms of new versus existing customers? And for my follow-up, how would you frame the level of utilization from your Alzheimer's diagnostic health system partnerships? And has this trended in line with your expectations? Thank you.

Yes, we are very excited about the Accelerator business. This quarter, Accelerator grew by 36% and represented about 30% of our overall business. When you combine our consumables and Accelerator, you'll see that they account for approximately 80% of our recurring revenues, which positions us uniquely strong in the market. About 70% to 80% of our recurring customers in Accelerator this quarter are returning customers. Regarding our diagnostics capabilities, while LucentAD testing was not significant this quarter, we are continuing to support partners globally. We did see some instrument placements and consumables driven by that support strategy during the quarter.

Yes, that's right. You know, on the enablement front, we talked about $2.7 million of revenue this quarter. Last quarter, we had reported $700,000. So, you know, these will ebb and flow as we get individual partners stood up, but we're seeing good interest from our partners. We also referenced what Mount Sinai is doing with our instruments in terms of being able to use them for diagnostics testing. So, we're very pleased with the progress and starting to see, you know, Simoa technology spread through our diagnostics footprint.

Thank you. Yes, your next question comes from the line of Sung Ji Nam with Scotiabank. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you for the questions and congratulations on the quarter. I understand that diagnostics revenue will be minimal this year, but as we look ahead to next year, could you provide some perspective on how we might consider the various factors and different scenarios regarding the contribution of diagnostics to overall revenue growth?

Hey, Sung Ji. Yeah, you know, that's going to be an important question we're going to answer, you know, more towards the beginning of 2025. And obviously, it's going to be directly related to patient utilization of the LEQEMBI and Kisunla and how that ramps. And so, you know, we were just at the CTAD conference last month. And part of the situation with this ramp is really, you know, accessibility to PET scans and how PET is inaccessible in rural areas. Uncertainty in eligibility for the therapy and then obviously infusion accessibility. We think obviously that blood-based markers change this. We can really reduce cost versus PET and overall streamline diagnostics and it should help with more people getting access to the therapies. So, I'd say and to your question, it really correlates with how the therapies ramp in the year. We're seeing excitement. We see obviously a lot of utilization of our markers in clinical trials for anti-amyloid, anti-Tau trials that are happening. And we'll comment at the beginning of the year on how much of that we think is diagnostic testing related to the therapy.

Got you. Thank you for that. And then just on the biomarkers, congratulations on launching the multi-panel assay. And you mentioned that you expect the complete LucentAD complete to be used predominantly in the future over the single marker assay. Just curious, I know you mentioned a three-fold improvement or reduction in terms of the intermediate zone, and was wondering, could you remind us again what the difference is between this multi-marker panel versus your own 217 single marker assay from being able to narrow this intermediate segment of the diagnosis? And then also, you know, you also presented data on the BD-Tau assay. And I was wondering kind of how all these different assays will fit together in the future. Do you expect the BD-Tau to be used more for kind of the new therapies under development? Or do you think the BD-Tau could also be utilized for LEQEMBI and Kisunla as well? Thank you.

Yes, sure. So, starting with your question on LucentAD Complete. So, LucentAD Complete is a significant improvement on the single marker test in that our single marker test, LucentAD, is 217. The LucentAD Complete is not only 217 but adds NFL, GFAP, ABeta, 40, and 42. So, it's a five-marker test with an algorithm that looks at the five markers and provides a single patient score. Now, when we use the additional markers and the algorithm, we're able to reduce the intermediate zone by three-fold, which provides more definitive results to a higher number of patients versus any single marker test. If you look at immunoassay single marker tests in the industry, they typically have an intermediate zone that's 20% or up to 30%. This is a marked improvement for patients. We've been seeing a lot of excitement about the test at CTAD, where we launched it, and in follow-up conversations after CTAD. So, we're very excited about that. Regarding BD-Tau, we launched it a quarter ago and added it in a four-plex test. We're excited about these Tau proteins because they enable us to differentiate Tau variants from what's happening in the brain versus peripheral sources. We think that is important in staging Tau pathology, but also crucial for monitoring patients in clinical trials and ultimately could enter into some of our multiplexes in diagnostics. It's still very much a research marker for research applications and clinical applications, but could have potential for diagnostics in the future.

Great. Thank you so much. We'll get back in the queue.

Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Kyle Mikson with Canaccord Genuity. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Thanks for the questions. Congrats on the good results. So, first, I want to talk about the product line for revenue. I think it was touched on earlier, but specifically, just this interplay between instruments and accelerator. I think instruments were down 34% in the quarter, year-over-year, while Accelerator was up about 36% or so. Any instrument revenue slip into Accelerator in 3Q, and how does that overlap progress over the next several quarters, considering the changing and evolving macro dynamics? Thanks.

Yes. Let me address the first part of the question, and then we'll talk about how we expect the macro to evolve. At this point, there's definitely that toggle of instrument versus accelerator. We've seen that play out for almost six quarters at this point. The reduction in instrument revenue is more than offset by what is being pulled through from an accelerator perspective. We are very pleased with how Accelerator has performed. It's not just the benefit of the instrument toggle. There's also a lot of activity from a research and trial perspective that Accelerator is getting more than its share of. In terms of how we see this move forward in the future, we would like to see instruments come back. At this point, we haven't seen concrete signs of it. So, I think it's going to be a slow recovery here. From the perspective of accelerator, however, we do expect that even when instruments come back, this will continue to be a double-digit grower for us, just based on all the work that we're seeing on assay development, as well as in terms of trial work.

That's interesting, Vandana. And pushing on the instrument kind of theme, it's been flat the past three quarters or so, as you predicted next quarter. I assume it's going to be a similar outlook, probably just, you know, we're waiting for the restatement, but I assume it's going to be relatively flat. Maybe early 2025 and throughout the year, are you assuming any gradual improvement or inflection at some point, or should we assume steady instrument revenue levels, picking up towards 4Q?

Yes. It's a little early to talk about 2025. For Q4, our early indicators are that instrument revenue will look a lot like what Q3 looked like. For 2025, it's a little early for us. We haven't seen any signs this way or that. So, as we get into the early part of the year, we'll give more color on that.

Okay. And, you know, I'd parse out consumables as well, because it looks like that kind of missed our model a little bit. I can come back to that offline. Maybe just for LucentAD complete, just in terms of the reimbursement next steps. Masoud, what's next from a commercial payer perspective? What can you do in the meantime with them, I guess? From like a Medicare perspective, the CLFS didn't look super favorable for these AD detection tests from a payment perspective. How are you thinking about that going forward? And how will you scale this, I guess, next year? Could you use partners? Is it mainly going to be your sales team? Just walk through that one more time. Thanks.

Yeah, Kyle. The first point I want to make on the LucentAD is that from a reimbursement perspective, if you look at single markers, there was the $17 decision for a single marker. We think that ultimately that probably ends up at $90 to $130. Regardless of that decision, our goal had always been that we would focus on a four or five marker test. With LucentAD, we have a five marker test that we're really focused on clinical utility studies, the ongoing clinical trials, which we expect will complete in 2024 and provide us data for an LCD and submission for an ADLT in 2025. That’s the reimbursement timeframe. Since it's a multi-marker test, we expect something materially larger than what was decided for the single marker. Our strategy has been both. We continue to sign hospital partnerships and enable folks using our reagents. We want to get this test out there, not just in the U.S., but globally. We have significant capacity to ensure access to the test.

That was great. And one final question, kind of like a forward-looking one on diagnostics. What are some of the proof points you're looking for next year that will help decide whether to accelerate or pull back on that investment in that business? I understand that it's immaterial revenue, but hearing about your definition of success for the diagnostics business in the near term could be interesting.

Yes. I want to make a clear point that now that two therapies are approved, the number of trials and excitement for additional therapies is pretty significant. We think that's robust, and that will continue to be robust. The key driver for diagnostics will come down to those two therapies. If we start to see that ramp, I expect the demand for blood-based testing to also similarly ramp. We'll pay close attention to that as we think a non-invasive blood test will streamline the whole diagnosis process and is more scalable and accessible in the market. In terms of resource utilization, we discussed our RUO business becoming cash flow breakeven between $170 million and $190 million revenue. Our plan is to achieve that and use our balance sheet for investments like diagnostics. Reimbursement is critical, and we have high ambitions on what this reimbursement rate will be for LucentAD as it's a much more sophisticated test than a single marker and much more accessible than PET. The number and demand in the market for the current therapies will also be important proxies for gauging investment in capital allocation towards diagnostics.

Great. Okay, that's helpful. Thanks, Masoud. Thanks, Vandana.

Thank you. And next question comes from the line of Dan Brennan with TD Cowen. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Hey, good afternoon. This is Kyle on for Dan. I wanted to go back and maybe follow up on a question that was asked earlier. Now that you have data on p-tau 217 multi-marker in BD-Tau, all showing good accuracy, do you see specific use cases for each assay? Or do you think the one with the highest accuracy and lowest intermediate zone will take essentially all the potential business? Thank you.

Yes, Kyle. First, I think an important factor to consider is that with the Simoa platform, because it's an ultra-sensitive platform, all patients coming to see a neurologist will get a result. That can't be said for other less sensitive platforms. The second element is the intermediate zone. With the multi-marker test, the five markers with this algorithm, you're providing a more definitive result and hopefully less follow-on invasive testing. That’s not just good for decision-making but also much more accessible and scalable for a patient. The third point is that two years ago, p-tau 181 was interesting. We've since launched p-tau 217. Shortly after, we launched a five-marker test. If a customer or clinician chooses the Simoa platform, they know that we have exciting markers coming down the pipeline.

Got it. As a follow-up, I guess in your conversations with customers, is the larger gaining factor for clinical revenue therapy uptake performance and availability of blood-based assays, or is it really something else? Thank you.

It was interesting. This was discussed. Therapy adoption is gated by the inaccessibility to PET and infusion, uncertainty in eligibility, and these are all key gating factors. Ultimately, testing and diagnostics is important, as you need the infrastructure to be out there to determine if a therapy is right. Blood is the first-line test for that and will help clinicians make a choice. It's a key component for scaling the therapy and getting therapy to more patients.

Thank you. And next questions come from the line of Puneet Souda with Leerink Partners. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Yes. Hi, Masoud. Thanks for the questions here. First one, on the rule-in, rule-out test, can you elaborate a bit on where the multi-marker assay stands today versus the rest of the broader market? And, you know, do you think this is an assay where you can classify patients all the way from late stage to screening? And why is it harder for other immunoassay platforms to do this?

Yes, thanks, Puneet, for the question. LucentAD Complete is a five-marker test with an algorithm. Majority or almost all the other systems, immunoassay-based systems, diagnostic systems out there look at a single marker at a time or maybe two markers at most. This is the first immunoassay test looking at five markers, using an algorithm to provide an answer for Alzheimer's disease. That's a key unique factor. When we looked at single-marker tests in the market, you have this large intermediate zone. With the multi-marker test, that zone is reduced significantly, making for a much better test. Two years ago, when we developed these tests, we always assumed a multi-marker test would be the best for patients when it comes to blood-based testing.

Yes, thanks for the question, Puneet. When we guided at the beginning of the year, we had accounted for costs to get through all studies and efforts to commercialize the tests. The run rate over the last couple of quarters for OpEx is representative of where we expect to be for this year. Next year, we expect study costs to be somewhat constant, and we can move as fast or as slow as the market develops. There will be additional investment next year in diagnostics on the OpEx side, but we have the flexibility to adjust this based on market development and step up investment if it makes sense.

Okay, got it. And then, this is a broader question, Masoud, but just wondering what you're seeing among your academic customers versus your biopharma customers in the core research-use-only assays market. There have been concerns about politics and NIH. Just wanted to get a view of what you're seeing from academic customers? Thank you.

Yes, Puneet. Half of our business is academic and half on the pharma side, which was similar this quarter. We're seeing excitement from academia around new assays, and we think we have an install base that has significant underutilized capacity. Our goal is to get our existing systems in academia utilized more. So, one way to think about this is the average throughput of our install base compared to our accelerator lab. We output five to eight times more samples than average in the install base. We want these systems to be running more. It's not a coincidence that achieving that means focusing on new menu and systems running more frequently. We've developed 16 new assays this year and plan for 20 by year-end, which we'll see benefits from in '25 likely impacting academic customers.

Yes, I think the instrument softness was really across the board. Both academic and pharma were slow compared to the prior year.

Thank you. And your final question comes from the line of Thomas DeBourcy with Nephron Research. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. Just, I guess, a question, you know, related to some of your cost efforts that have been ongoing around Simoa Advantage Plus, and I guess your refreshing of existing assays as well as adding new assays. Has that contributed to, you know, the improved gross margin? Can that continue as you look out the next couple of years in terms of better lot-to-lot consistency and improved manufacturing costs of consumables?

I can take a stab at this one. To your first question on how we're doing in transition to Advantage Plus, about 30% of our consumable sales are on the new Advantage Plus lines. That's a good transition. It helps us on margins. We're continuing to see positive developments on margins, managing the transformation effects and introducing new products. All of the NPIs that Masoud talked about cause a bit of up and down on margins because they're brand-new products, but as they stabilize and become normal for us, we expect that to help our margins substantially.

Yes, absolutely. One of the research highlights that we made was with neurofilament light. We think neurofilament light is going to be important for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Some studies highlighted by combining NFL and GFAP are going to be important for monitoring disease progression. Extensive effort with our collaborators is being put into building a research normative database to normalize and evaluate normal levels of NFL and GFAP. This is just the beginning of markers. Almost all neuro trials have a neuromarker as an endpoint for efficacy. I expect this to become a pipeline for diagnostic testing in the future.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And there are no questions at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.