Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Scholar Rock's Third Quarter 2025 Conference Call. This call is being recorded on Friday, November 14, 2025. I would now like to turn the conference over to Scholar Rock. Please go ahead.

Good morning. I'm Laura Ekas, Vice President of Investor Relations at Scholar Rock. With me today are David Hallal, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Akshay Vaishnaw, President of R&D; Keith Woods, Chief Operating Officer; and Vikas Sinha, Chief Financial Officer. For those of you participating via conference call, the accompanying slides can be accessed in the Events section on the Investors page of our website. During today's call is outlined on Slide 2, David will provide introductory remarks and a business update. Akshay will review our R&D progress. Keith will provide an update on our commercial readiness activities and Vikas will provide a financial update. We will then open the call for questions. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that during this call, we will be making various statements about Scholar Rock's expectations, plans and prospects that constitute forward-looking statements for the purposes of the safe harbor provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any forward-looking statements represent our views only as of today and should not be relied upon as representing our views as of any future date. I encourage you to go to the Investors & Media section of our website for our most up-to-date SEC statements and filings. With that, I'd like to turn the call over to David. David?

Thank you, Laura, and good morning. Thanks to everyone for joining our third quarter earnings call today. In April, when I was appointed CEO after 8 years in the Board Chairman role, and on the same day, we brought in Akshay, Keith, and Vikas, we were confident that Scholar Rock was positioned to be the next great global biotech powerhouse. We based this on several factors. First, our conviction that the global opportunity with apitegromab in SMA alone offers the potential for many years of sustainable growth that will power our company through the end of this decade and into the next. Second, as world leaders in myostatin biology, our ability to deliver transformative therapies to patients suffering with additional rare, severe, and debilitating neuromuscular disorders. And third, leveraging our innovative platform to advance our novel subcutaneously administered myostatin inhibitor, SRK-439. When we joined Scholar Rock, the most significant milestone ahead was the September 22 PDUFA date for apitegromab in SMA, which had been granted priority review. Our BLA was supported by robust data demonstrating apitegromab's efficacy and safety for children and adults living with SMA. Based upon our 188-patient prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multinational Phase III trial. This trial showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in motor function as measured by the Gold Standard Hammersmith Motor Function Scale for SMA. While we were disappointed to receive a complete response letter on September 22, we were pleased that the strength of our Phase III data was reflected in the FDA's review of our BLA and that the sole approvability issue referenced in the CRL was the status of our third-party fill/finish facility in Bloomington, Indiana, which is owned by Novo Nordisk. We know that it is not a matter of if but when apitegromab will be approved in the U.S. for patients living with SMA. We are emboldened by the commitment we have made to the more than 35,000 patients globally living with SMA who have received an SMN-targeted therapy. We are working expeditiously to deliver on our ambition that globally any patient with SMA who can benefit from apitegromab should have access to apitegromab. And now more than ever, we are confident in the significant opportunity that we have ahead of us to serve the SMA community as we work with the determination to bring this important medicine to children and adults with SMA. This is indeed what we know well and what we do well. I would like to now provide a regulatory update on apitegromab. We had our Type A meeting with the FDA on Wednesday. We are grateful to the agency for their full participation, particularly in the context of a government shutdown. The meeting was in person and included the relevant leaders and decision-makers from the agency, including the neurology division and the Office of Compliance. Our team was joined by Kenneth Hobby, President of Cure SMA and representatives from Novo Nordisk. We were encouraged by the meeting. It was constructive and collaborative. It was clear that there is a shared understanding of the high unmet need for the SMA community and a shared sense of urgency to bring apitegromab to children and adults with this disease. Novo Nordisk detailed the progress they have made in implementing their remediation plan at the Bloomington facility and affirmed that they expect the facility to be ready for reinspection by the end of this year. We discussed the path forward and await the final minutes of the meeting. We will continue to work closely with the FDA and anticipate resubmitting the BLA and U.S. launch following approval of apitegromab for children and adults with SMA in 2026. I'd like to now turn to adding redundancy to our supply chain. When Novo Nordisk purchased the Bloomington site in December of 2024, they plan to internalize the plant for their own products. In light of that, Scholar Rock implemented a plan to add an additional U.S.-based fill/finish facility. Now with the OAI classification, Scholar Rock has accelerated our timelines for an additional vialer. We have selected a world-class commercial facility that has a proven track record and has successfully completed recent site inspections, including with the FDA and EMA. As you know, one of the bottlenecks to rapidly adding a new vialer is securing commercial capacity. This can be a lengthy process. Importantly, we have secured commercial capacity commencing in the first quarter of 2026, and tech transfer is now underway. We anticipate submitting an sBLA for this facility later in 2026. In summary, we will continue to work with urgency to bring this important medicine to the SMA community. We look forward to providing clarity on resubmission timelines as soon as we are able. In addition to the large opportunity we have to serve children and adults with SMA, we continue to strategically advance our pipeline. This includes the Phase II OPAL study progressing apitegromab in a second rare debilitating neuromuscular disorder as well as advancing SRK-439 into the clinic. Akshay will provide additional detail on these activities shortly. Importantly, to reach our ambitions, I am pleased to opportunistically strengthen our balance sheet during the third quarter, and we continue to operate with a tight financial plan, which Vikas will discuss later in the call. This plan is aligned to thoughtful strategic investments to drive long-term value creation. We remain confident in the strength of our strategy, the grit of our team, and the transformative potential of apitegromab and our pipeline. The regulatory challenges we face today are temporary, but the opportunities ahead to serve patients are extraordinary. With that, I'll turn the call over to Akshay to provide a more detailed update on our R&D progress. Akshay?

Thank you, David, and good morning, everybody. As David noted, we continue to work with urgency to bring apitegromab to children and adults with SMA as quickly as possible. SMA is a rare severe neuromuscular disease resulting in irreversible loss of motor neurons and progressive muscle wasting that diminishes the independence of both children and adults. Apitegromab has the potential to reverse the trajectory of SMA from a loss of motor function to a gain of motor function as demonstrated in the Phase III SAPPHIRE study, underscoring the importance of the potential benefit of this therapeutic. I'd now like to turn to Wednesday's Type A meeting. I was pleased to lead our team at that meeting in Bethesda. As David said, the meeting was in person and included the relevant leaders and decision-makers from the agency, including the neurology division and the Office of Compliance. Our team was joined by Kenneth Hobby, President of Cure SMA and representatives from Novo Nordisk. The meeting was constructive and collaborative. We reviewed the comprehensive data from the apitegromab development program, including the Phase II TOPAZ study, which demonstrated that delayed treatment results in suboptimal motor function outcomes. These data underscore the impact of delayed treatment and the urgency to make apitegromab available to the SMA community. At the Type A meeting, it was clear that the CRL we received on September 22 was based solely on the need of the Bloomington facility to be in compliance with CGMP or Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations. During the meeting, Novo Nordisk detailed the progress they have made in implementing a robust remediation plan at the Bloomington facility. Novo Nordisk also shared with the FDA that it expects the facility to be ready for the inspection by the end of the year. We remain in close coordination with Novo Nordisk as we await the minutes from the Type A meeting. After Novo’s completion of remediation of the Bloomington facility and a site reinspection by the FDA, we anticipate recommission of the BLA and U.S. launch following approval of apitegromab in 2026. As part of our long-term growth plans to serve patients around the world with apitegromab, we're also accelerating timelines to bring a second fill/finish facility online. This process requires rigorous validation and regulatory approval to ensure the same quality, safety, and efficacy of the drug product. Importantly, we have secured commercial capacity commencing in the first quarter of 2026 and anticipate submitting an sBLA for the second facility later in 2026. Outside of the U.S., we continue to expect a decision from the EMA on our apitegromab Marketing Authorization Application, or MAA, near the middle of next year. Further to our commitment to a broad SMA community, we announced today that we've initiated dosing in our Phase II OPAL trial evaluating apitegromab in infants and toddlers under the age of 2. The trial is enrolling participants who have been treated with an SMN1-targeted gene therapy or who are receiving treatment with an approved SMN2-targeted therapy. It is designed to investigate 2 different doses of apitegromab for a duration of 48 weeks and will assess PK/PD, efficacy, and safety. In the OPAL study, early intervention with apitegromab could support muscle during the critical early development phase, complementing SMN-targeted therapies that aim to preserve motor neurons. By promoting muscle growth when motor neurons and muscles are still forming, apitegromab has a unique opportunity to improve motor outcomes in young children with SMA. Beyond SMA, we're on track to initiate clinical development activities for apitegromab in a second neuromuscular disorder by year-end. We plan to provide additional information on the disease and the clinical development strategy in early 2026. And finally, we continue to advance our world-leading Anti-myostatin Platform beyond apitegromab. The FDA has cleared the IND for SRK-439, and we're on track to initiate a Phase I study in healthy volunteers before the end of this year. This program is built on the validated approach that delivered apitegromab. Specifically, 439 was designed to be an innovative, subcutaneously administered myostatin inhibitor binding to both pro and latent myostatin with high affinity and selectivity. Based on preclinical data, 439 has the potential to potently inhibit myostatin and increase muscle mass. We expect to have data from the SAD portion of the Phase I study in 2026. In summary, our focus remains on bringing apitegromab to patients and investing with financial discipline to deliver on the promise of our broader pipeline. The strength of our data and the momentum across our programs gives us confidence in the impact we can deliver. Now at this point, I'll turn the call over to Keith to discuss our commercial launch strategy and planning. Keith?

Thanks, Akshay. The SMA community is demanding more. Even with currently available treatments, they need a treatment that directly addresses progressive muscle wasting. Apitegromab demonstrated that ability in our Phase III SAPPHIRE study, and we will be ready to deliver apitegromab to the SMA community upon approval. This is not a matter of if, but when. Our understanding of the demand for apitegromab and our confidence in its potential to address the unmet need for children and adults with SMA continues to strengthen. As we look at SMA globally, nearly a decade following the launch of the first SMN-targeted therapy, the demand for treatment continues to grow. After the first 3 quarters of 2025, annual revenue for current SMA treatments are trending to approximately $5 billion globally. With the continued growth of SMN-targeted therapies, the need for the world's first muscle-targeted therapy is greater than it has ever been before. Our small, lean, and highly experienced U.S. customer-facing team is active in the field. We are using this additional time to enhance our engagement activities and to strengthen our performance against key pre-launch readiness metrics. As a reminder, we are just under 4 months into our pre-commercial field deployment, whereas most biotech companies typically benefit from a longer runway prior to approval. Nationwide, there are approximately 140 SMA treatment centers and more than 2,600 SMA prescribing physicians. With this additional time, we are working to both broaden and deepen our engagement with these potential prescribing physicians. However, an SMA patient is not just treated by one of these physicians but by a broader cross-specialty SMA treatment team. This team can include physical therapy, pulmonology, orthopedics, and more. This additional time is enabling us to better understand the patient journey and the roles of the SMA treatment team in each of these 140 treatment centers and how they influence patient care. Additionally, our market access team is expanding their focus beyond that of national payers to also include top regional payers. This builds on our ambition that any patient with SMA who can benefit from apitegromab should have access to apitegromab. Furthermore, our unwavering commitment to the SMA patient community continues through partnerships at local and national events and through education on the importance of targeting muscle. We are deepening our collaboration with advocacy groups, and we are also building lasting relationships, one patient, one caregiver, one family at a time. In Europe, our efforts continue to drive SMA education and awareness, laying the groundwork to ensure we reach patients efficiently across key markets. Our opportunity to serve patients around the world in SMA is significant. There are an estimated 35,000 people with SMA who have received an SMN-targeted therapy and who could be eligible for treatment with apitegromab. We are making strategic disciplined investments in our launch infrastructure, and we will be ready to execute rapidly once apitegromab is approved. In short, we are ready. The strategy is clear, the team is in place, and our commitment to the SMA community has never been stronger. Now I will turn the call over to Vikas. Vikas?

Thank you, Keith. Our overarching objectives are to fund our R&D activities to expand our leadership in the myostatin and muscle space, support a strong commercial launch, and extend our runway to meet our eventual timelines for apitegromab approval. In line with these objectives, I'm pleased to provide our third quarter financial results and to discuss our approach to managing our cash runway and investment prioritization moving forward. Turning first to our third quarter results. We ended the third quarter with $369.6 million in cash and cash equivalents. For the quarter, we reported $103 million in operating expenses, which includes $18.3 million in non-cash stock-based compensation. Excluding stock-based compensation, operating expenses were $85.3 million, which reflects ongoing investments in infrastructure to support apitegromab regulatory approval, commercial readiness, and our clinical pipeline. During the third quarter, we strengthened our balance sheet, adding $141.7 million. This cash came from two sources. First, we executed our ATM and sold approximately 2.8 million shares, which resulted in net proceeds of $91.7 million. And second, we drew down $50 million from our existing debt facility. As we await apitegromab approval, we continue to operate with a tight financial plan focused on thoughtful capital allocation to advance our clinical pipeline and strategic investments to support commercial readiness. Accordingly, we have adjusted our go-forward operating plan. We have deferred investments across a number of areas, including new hiring, launch expenses that are gated to approval, certain R&D activities, including a third indication for apitegromab, and other discretionary spending. Now I'll turn to the six prioritized investments we are making: the acceleration of a second fill/finish facility for apitegromab, SMA commercial launch readiness, ONYX apitegromab extension study, the Phase II OPAL study, the second indication for apitegromab, and the commencement of SRK-439's clinical development. Turning to our balance sheet, our current cash balance is $369.6 million, which we expect to be augmented by approximately $60 million in cash from the exercise of outstanding common warrants by year-end. With this, we expect our cash to be sufficient to fund operations into 2027. This cash runway has conservative assumptions and does not reflect any upside from the potential sale of apitegromab or a priority review voucher. To further strengthen our balance sheet, we intend to expand our credit facility while preserving our non-dilutive financing options. We will provide further clarity on this, as well as our anticipated operating expenses for 2026 during our fourth quarter earnings call. Scholar Rock continues to operate from a position of financial strength with a disciplined approach to capital allocation and a clear focus on supporting our strategic priorities. With that, I'll turn the call back to David. David?

Thanks, Vikas. In closing, Scholar Rock remains focused on near-term execution while building with financial discipline for the future. Our conviction in apitegromab and in our broader strategy is stronger than ever, and we are moving with urgency and purpose to deliver meaningful impact for patients. Our priorities are clear: execute with urgency to bring apitegromab, the world's first and only muscle-targeted treatment that improves motor function to children and adults living with SMA as rapidly as possible. Advance apitegromab development activities in the second rare debilitating neuromuscular disease, and that will be followed by additional indications where we can have a transformative impact for patients. We want to progress SRK-439 into the clinic and continue to invest in our future with discipline to support these high-value initiatives. Before I close, I want to share my sincere appreciation for Cure SMA and the SMA patient community. Over these past weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with many individuals and families living with SMA, and the words of support that have been shared with us and with me directly have been tremendously meaningful as we work harder, better, and faster to bring this impactful medicine to those who can benefit. With that, we'll now open the line for questions. Operator?

Our first question comes from Mani Foroohar from Leerink Partners.

Congrats on the progress through what's been obviously a choppy period for everyone in the government. I think a couple of quick questions. I know I'm violating the one question rule. One, in terms of thinking about further financing opportunities to top up the tank as necessary, how do you think about debt versus royalty/equity? Like how do you think about the relative cost of capital? And what's the most appropriate use once you get to a launch? And then another commercial question. In the early days of launch, it is probable that you will be transitioning from one facility to another. To what extent does that introduce any operational risk going from products from one facility to another? And how can that be addressed ahead of time by you guys now?

Thanks, Mani. Why don't we take the first question first with the cost on the financing options and then I'll come back on the redundancy of supply chain with fill/finish. Vikas?

Yes, thank you, David. Mani, our primary goal is to secure financing until we receive approval. Our initial strategy to minimize costs is to extend our loan facility slightly more. We are currently in discussions regarding this. That will be our first option, followed by considering royalty payments. If the timeline extends too long, we may need to consider equity, which we want to avoid as it is the most expensive option. We are making efforts to prioritize non-dilutive options first. Does that address your question?

Yes. So a follow-up. That would imply that, relatively speaking, we should expect you guys to wind down/use ATM much less going forward? Like how does that fit into the strategy?

Yes. Obviously, our first objective is to work with the loan facility and expand upon that. ATMs are put in place just to take some small augmentation of the capital at an opportunistic view. And we did take it down in the last quarter. Because we are only $50 million loan facility available. We're expanding that loan facility as we discussed. And as soon as we have the new facility in place, we will share it with all of you.

And then, Mani, regarding the second vialer, a couple of bottlenecks I've shared with you and others in the past. One of the big ones I highlighted in the call was obviously finding a commercial line that is available, that has got the ideal configuration for our vial. Our team, under the leadership of Lisa Wyman, our Chief Tech and Quality Officer, just did an extraordinary job in accelerating our second vialer progress to secure commercial capacity in Q1 and commenced tech transfer in lightning speed since that middle of October timeline when the OAI hit, we thought that that was really important. Now to get there and to get there quickly, you want to change as little as possible in your second vialer as in your primary vialer, whether or not it's vial configuration, analytical testing, so that actually helps you with speed as well. And those are the things that we'll be focused on. And the impact in the marketplace really should be almost seamless whether or not we are distributing our apitegromab from the Bloomington facility or the new second vialer, it should really be quite seamless operationally to the marketplace, and we would expect it to be that way.

Our next question comes from the line of Eric Schmidt from Cantor.

Congrats on the progress as well. David and team, for those of us who've kind of been reading the gory play-by-play around the Catalent facility in Bloomington, and know some of the prior history and all the past issues. How do you kind of provide confidence that this remediation effort is on good footing and that the inspection will prove positive? And then maybe secondarily, do you expect that to be a Class I or Class II acceptance for the resubmission?

Thank you, Eric. There is indeed a history with the facility, which we believe is primarily centered around the quality system and culture. It largely relates to previous ownership that lacked the consistent influence of Novo Nordisk and their dedication to quality and compliance. I've mentioned frequently that the specifics of the situation are quite concerning. We reported the observations back on August 6 during our last earnings call, which seems like a long time ago now. We have been navigating through the CRL and the OAI. However, we have had the opportunity to witness the collaboration with Novo, their commitment from the leadership, the changes they are implementing within the staff, the integration of Novo's quality system at the facility, and the significant progress they are making on a comprehensive remediation plan. As they indicated to the FDA on Wednesday, they believe the facility will be ready for reinspection by the end of the year. We don’t take this lightly, as we believe they are conducting several internal reviews to ensure reinspection readiness. We anticipate they will continue to engage with the FDA to gather insights on anything missing from their remediation plan that may need adjustment before reinspection occurs. We are certainly encouraged by the seriousness and urgency that the entire organization is placing on the remediation effort. Regarding the classification, I will hand it over to Akshay, who was on-site with our team in Bethesda on Wednesday and can provide his perspective. Akshay?

Thanks, David. Eric, I just want to reiterate that it was a very constructive and collaborative meeting. I think the agency, as you might expect, shares the need for urgency as we all work together to try and get apitegromab to patients. So it's not for us obviously to second guess and say, will it be Class I or Class II. But we were very heartened by the comments they made and the approach they committed to help effect the release to patients. So we need to work with Novo to get their work done. Let's wish them the best get the site reinspected, resubmit the BLA, and I'm confident the agency is going to act with urgency and commitment to this community of patients, which they've always shown when it comes to SMA.

Our next question comes from the line of Tess Romero from JPMorgan.

So to be clear, the BLA that you plan to submit in 2026 for apitegromab will include Catalent as your primary fill/finish and you plan to file the sBLA for the additional fill/finish facility later in 2026 following the potential approval of the BLA. Why is that the right path versus using an additional fill/finish only? And then a follow-up is just on the EMA review. How is that going with respect to manufacturing-related items?

Thanks, Tess. Yes. I mean I think given where we are, given the tone and tenor of the meeting that Akshay presided over this week and again, the progress that Novo has been making, which really enabled them to communicate to the FDA that they are on track to be reinspection ready by the end of this year. We just think that that is the absolute right path for us. We would expect that our BLA would be resubmitted with Catalent as our primary filler. And we would expect a second filler to be added to our file, which was frankly always going to be our plan anyway given the fact that Novo wants that facility for internal purposes. And so that is the path that we are following, obviously, everything that we are doing to accelerate our second vialer is a great insurance policy for us no matter what would happen. I was really gratified by our team's efforts over the course of just the past month with the major progress that they have made to secure commercial capacity at a second vialer and already have tech transfer underway, and of course, we'll be expecting the commencement of our commercial capacity to be leveraged beginning in Q1 of 2026. Regarding the EMA, I'd love to have Akshay comment on that. Obviously, quality and compliance is important to all regulators, including them.

Indeed. And just to review the status of the MAA, the question and answers that go back and forth have proceeded well. So the review continues in exactly the timeframe you'd expect. And as we guided on the formal comments, we expect a decision by the middle of next year. Now vis-a-vis the Catalent manufacturing status and the EMA, there is a mutual recognition procedure. And so there is an interdependency. And I think we obviously agree with that. Though I would point out that everything we're doing for the 2026 resubmission, we, Novo and all our collaborators for the 2026 resubmission of our BLA here in the U.S., launch following approval by the FDA is in line with supporting our MAA. So there's not much more I can say right now, and obviously, we'll keep you updated. But let's stay on track and as we proceed with the BLA, we hope that supports the EU approval as well.

Our next question comes from the line of Tazeen Ahmad from Bank of America.

Thanks for the detailed update. So can I ask when is the latest that you can have this reinspection for Catalent to be completed and given the green light in order to meet your expectations for a 2026 launch? And then just to play the scenarios for a second. And for whatever reason, the second inspection for Catalent doesn't resolve all issues. How quickly could you pivot to make any application with your second fill/finish? And how would that impact your timelines for 2026? Like would you be able to switch that sBLA filing to a BLA filing and keep the timelines the same as you just mentioned?

Thank you for the question, Tazeen. To address Eric's point, there is a history at the facility from its previous ownership that includes several challenging inspections leading to Form 483s and some repeat observations. We understand that there is concern about whether a reinspection will be successful, as that's our main goal along with Novo Nordisk. They are putting their team through rigorous preparations to be ready for reinspection, and we know they are committed to this process. Regarding your concern about unresolved issues, we need to consider whether the remaining observations would impact the facility's classification, which we aim to change from OAI to either VAI or NAI. As for the timeline, a reinspection could extend into 2026 without affecting our guidance for resubmitting our BLA and launching in the U.S. upon approval. We're pleased that our recent Type A meeting with the FDA was constructive and collaborative, highlighting the urgent need to address significant patient needs. We're optimistic that all necessary steps toward a successful reinspection will be taken promptly. We believe Novo Nordisk is serious about being ready for inspection by the end of this year, setting a high standard. If the inspection does not go well, the role of the second vialer becomes crucial. Our efforts to expedite that second vialer are extremely important, as it is part of our main resubmission strategy. There may be ways for the FDA to facilitate the addition of a second vialer as part of our primary submission. We anticipate that our preparations will help mitigate any negative impact from an unsuccessful inspection. As we continue working with the second vialer, we will keep you updated on our progress with tech transfer, which is already in motion, leading into the filling lines we plan to execute in the first and second quarters.

Our next question comes from the line of Kripa Devarakonda from Truist Securities.

Congratulations on all the progress. Thanks for all the details. So in terms of timelines for resubmission of BLA, I feel like we're all asking the same question, but is the plan to wait for the reinspection and for the OAI to be resolved before you submit the BLA? And I understand that Novo has said that they're going to be inspection ready by year-end, but could Novo request an inspection? And finally, would you be able to address whether Novo hired any outside consultants to help with this process?

Yes. Maybe related to the timelines on resubmission. I think that Akshay can comment on our thinking and recognizing that with the collaboration with the FDA and the shared urgency, it's a little dynamic. We don't have our Type A meeting minutes yet, but Akshay can share at least our go-forward plan with respect to that.

Yes. I mean I think base case, Kripa, it's safe to say that the reinspection would have to occur before we resubmit after that. But as David said, it is a dynamic situation, and we'll do everything possible to resubmit in a fashion to expedite the approval of this drug, which patients need so badly. We were heartened by the degree of support from the agency during our Type A meeting. A lot is going to happen in the coming weeks and early part of next year, and we look forward to resubmitting this BLA.

But, for sure, Kripa, given that, again, it's reiterated our sole and primary issue is the classification of this facility and their state of compliance. I think it's a safe assumption that we'd like to see that clear. And be ready to go immediately with a resubmission. That's sort of our go-forward plan at this point.

I think it's worth adding, David, that resubmission is really compared to the initial BLA resubmission. It's a very different asset. It's a much more contained effort around just the safety update and the CMC aspects of the file. We're ready to file that resubmission at very short notice.

Kripa, concerning whether Novo could request a reinspection, they seem to be indicating their readiness. We believe that Novo and the agency still have some work to do. Regarding the remediation plan, we wonder if there are any remaining tasks to complete before reinspection. We anticipate that this will be occurring soon. They have effectively signaled to the FDA that they are prepared for a reinspection by the end of this year, which is very significant. However, as you know, the reinspection will not be pre-announced; it will be an unannounced inspection. They can inform the Office of Compliance that they are ready for reinspection. As mentioned during our Type A meeting, we expect the FDA's reinspection of the facility will likely catch them by surprise. Regarding your final question about third parties, Novo is broadly exploring options and has been collaborating with outside experts to aid in these matters, including the remediation plan. We are pleased with the diligence and urgency they are applying to this remediation process, and we appreciate their efforts.

Our next question comes from the line of Etzer Darout from Barclays.

Just because investors have been paying attention to the September 2026 date regarding potential approval, David, could you help us understand what the FDA minutes revealed about the type of resubmission you need to make and what the timelines might look like for the decision once you have refiled the BLA?

Yes. Thank you, Etzer. That's an excellent question. Akshay wanted to engage in thorough discussions with the agency during our Type A meeting. While we don't have the meeting minutes yet, we want to give the agency the space to proceed with their work. Akshay can provide insight into our thoughts on the resubmission timing and whether it will be classified as Class I or Class II.

Yes, as far as the minutes are concerned, I think it's always good to get the minutes in hand and reconfirm the impressions that we're conveying to you this morning that they're documented in the minutes of the progress that Novo has made, of the commitment that everyone is showing to the agency, and Novo's comment about being ready for reinspection and everything we've discussed so far. So we await those minutes, and we're confident that they'll reflect what we're conveying this morning. Now as far as the resubmission is concerned, we just discussed that with the last question. Of course, we'll resubmit as soon as the inspection is done or earlier, if possible. But we'll be guided by the agency through all of that. The minutes we get won't spell out the nature of the review timelines for the resubmission. That's not their practice. They await the resubmission of the BLA before that's done. One thing I can tell you is that David emphasized the tone and tenor of the meeting that there was support to act with urgency to get all parties, including the agency, to get this drug to patients as soon as possible.

Our next question comes from the line of Marc Frahm from TD Cowen.

And all the detailed disclosures around this meeting. Maybe in that light, just as you move forward and Novo hopefully is, in fact, in position to be reinspected. Just what do you expect to be able to disclose and kind of on what timeline, particularly given that it isn't even your facility directly, but it is a partner. Will you be able to disclose right when it gets inspected not until maybe some 483s are received? Just what are the disclosure plans there?

Thank you, Marc. This year, our disclosure plans will focus on what is most significant for us. The reinspection timeline and its outcome are crucial, and we aim to share important information with you. Typically, an inspection lasts from a week to a couple of weeks, concluding with a closeout meeting where a preliminary assessment is often provided, often accompanied by a Form 483. However, we don't typically expect a Form 483 to lead to an Official Action Indicated (OAI). This aspect surprised us all. Novo has been addressing this situation proactively. We intend to keep our communication lines open and will share significant information as it arises. In the past, we've found that even if certain issues didn't directly involve us, knowing the facility's classification was important to disclose. We will continue this practice as we progress toward resubmission and a potential U.S. launch upon approval.

Okay. That's helpful. And then maybe just on the idea of waiting for the reinspection to kind of happen in the reclassification before filing. But also in your prior answer, you noted this would be kind of like an unannounced reinspection once they've communicated that they really are in a position to be ready. But kind of a forcing mechanism to that at some level could be a submission of a BLA from anyone using this facility. So maybe is there some value in maybe filing ahead to kind of try to force the timeline on the inspection? Or is your expectation that there are just so many other products flowing through this facility that that's kind of going to happen on its own without you guys being the forcing?

Well, Marc, a couple of the things you said are really important. One is that we've heard this too, right? The thing that creates urgency are pending applications. Right now, we don't have a pending application. We have a pending resubmission. At the same time, I would note that we were generally pleased with how constructive and collaborative the in-person Type A meeting was and that there was this shared understanding of the unmet need and shared urgency. While we're not on file, I would say a lot of the things, and you're absolutely right on your last point, that there are other pending applications at that site, and that can serve us well. We do think our Type A meeting serves as a really good central point of highlighting while we're not on file. But there is real urgency here for a community that is desperately wanting to benefit from the world's first and only muscle-directed therapy. We have to continue to work with the agency to find everyone's right footing on what the right thing to do is, and that is really our go-forward plan. We believe we've built sort of a foundation and framework with the agency throughout the initial priority review period up until September 22 and even through Wednesday, which is a really strong foundation for collaboration for us to work together to resolve this issue.

Yes. Thanks, David. I just want to reiterate the importance of that collaborative approach. You mentioned forcing function, so to speak, and the idea of resubmitting ahead of the reinspection. I don't know that that's wise. We want to be working closely with the FDA and be guided by them now. As we said, it's a dynamic situation. If they invite us or they support any kind of resubmission in a particular timeframe in and around the reinspection, we will, of course, we are ready and we can resubmit very efficiently. But this is not about a forcing function; we have to collaborate with the FDA.

Our next question comes from the line of Evan Seigerman from BMO Capital Markets.

With the delays for apitegromab, can you talk more about what your sales or market research team's efforts are to identify patients ahead of the launch? You had mentioned efforts to work with centers of excellence to understand the patient journey better. But do you feel you are developing a more robust number of patients which you could target for therapy following approval, potentially leading to a little bit of a faster uptake than people were probably initially expecting?

Yes. It's a great question. Keith was highlighting earlier in the call, and I'll turn it over to him for further comments on launch prep.

Yes. Thanks for the question. I guess I'd say first of all, when the September 22 date occurred, that was after 2 months of the team being able to spend time out in the field. Now, with the extended time, we're getting to not just visit with the physicians, but we're also getting to meet the SMA treatment teams and getting that full feel. What is that additionally, not just the SMA treatment teams, we're spending more time with patient advocacy events and getting to speak with patients and their families. I can tell you what we're hearing is that there's a clear understanding of the unmet medical need and the approach of attacking this disease from a dual modality, no longer just the motor neuron but also directly targeting the muscle, and this is being well accepted as we get the opportunity to meet with more people in the community. You add to the fact of the safety profile that apitegromab has demonstrated. In all of our studies, not just our SMA studies, but if you take a look at EMBRAZE, that was also all adults who were treated with 10 milligrams per kilogram and exceptional safety results. I guess I would end with the fact that at the end of the day, we're offering the world's first muscle-targeted therapy, and in the event that you have a choice to either be in a situation of having experienced muscle loss or the potential for muscle gain, why wouldn't you want to use apitegromab?

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