Hello, and welcome to the Tayshia Gene Therapies Second Quarter 2026 Financial Results Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star 11 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand has been raised. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce Vice President of Corporate Communications and Investor Relations, Haley Collins.

Thank you. Good afternoon, and welcome to Tayshia's 26 Financial Results and Corporate Update Conference Earlier today, Tayshia issued a press release announcing financial results for the quarter end of June 30, 2026. A copy of this press release is available on the company's website and through our FDC file. Joining me on today's call are Sean Nolan, Tayshia's Chief Executive Officer, Nuka Marnagandran, President and Head of R&D, and Cameron O'Long, Chief Financial Officer. We will hold a question and answer session following our prepared remarks. On today's call, we will be making forward-looking statements, including statements concerning the potential of TASIA-102, including the reproducibility and durability of any favorable results initially seen in patients dose-to-date in clinical trials, including with respect to functional milestones, to positively impact quality of life and alter the course of disease in the patients we seek to treat. Our research, development, and regulatory plans for our product candidates, including the timing of initiating additional trials, reporting data from our clinical trials, and making regulatory submissions, timing or outcomes of communications with the FDA on the regulatory pathway for TASHA-102, the potential for product candidates to receive regulatory approval from the FDA or equivalent foreign regulatory agencies, our ability to realize the benefits of breakthrough therapy designations for TASHA-102, our ability to drive long-term value for stockholders, and the market opportunity for our program. This call may also contain forward-looking statements relating to Tayshia's growth, forecasted cash runway, and future operating results, discovery and development of product candidates, strategic alliances and intellectual property, as well as matters that are not historical facts or information. Various risks may cause Tayshia's actual results to differ materially from those stated or implied in such forward-looking statements. For a list and description of the risks and uncertainties that we face, please see the reports we filed with the SEC, including our annual reports on Form 10-K for the full year ended December 31, 2025 that we filed on March 19, 2026. This conference call contains time-sensitive information that's accurate only as of the date of this live broadcast, August 11, 2026. Tayshia undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this conference call, except this may be required by applicable security laws. With that, I would now like to turn the call over to our CEO, Sean Duller.

26 financial results and corporate update conference call. On today's call, I will begin with an update on our recent clinical, manufacturing, and commercial readiness activities. Dr. Zuku Nagandran, President and Head of R&D, will then discuss data presented at the recent IRSF-Rett Syndrome Scientific Meeting, which strengthens the clinical and scientific foundation of the TASIA-102 program. Cameron Alon will follow up with a financial update, and I will then provide closing remarks before opening the call up for questions. The second quarter of 2026 was a highly productive period for TASIA-102 clinical development strategy while advancing key manufacturing and commercial readiness initiatives as we move toward a potential DLA submission for TASHA-102. We achieved several important milestones, including the completion of dosing in both the REVEAL-PIVOTAL and ASPIRE trials, as well as the presentation of compelling longer-term Part A data from the REVEAL-Phase 1-2 trials. Beyond the clinical development for TASIA 102, completed payer research to inform further market access planning initiatives, continue to build our leadership team, and strengthen our balance sheet through a successful follow-on financing that is expected to support our planned activities into the second half of 2028 and through potential DLA approval. Collectively, we believe these accomplishments place us in a position of strength as we approach the planned six-month interim analysis from the REVEAL-PIVOTAL trial, continue our engagement with the FDA, and advance commercial readiness activities. I will begin with a clinical update. We continue to execute with discipline across our REVEAL-PIVOTAL and ASPIRE trials and are pleased with the significant progress made to date. In June, we announced a successful completion of dosing in the over-enrolled REVEAL PIVOTAL trial, with a total of 17 patients dosed with TASIA-102. Importantly, similar to our REVEAL Part A trials, we enrolled a well-balanced distribution of ages across pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients that's reflective of the broader Rett syndrome population. We believe this allows us to generate a comprehensive data set that may support a broad label for TASHA-102. Once all 17 patients in the pivotal trial complete six months of follow-up, we will conduct a six-month interim analysis, which may serve as the basis for our planned BLA submission and potentially accelerate our submission timeline by at least two full quarters relative to filing on the 12-month label. Given our longer-term Part A data that substantially exceeded the FDA-aligned 33% minimum efficacy threshold established for the PIVO, we believe there's further evidence of attendants for regulation based on the account. And also, we believe in our ASPIRE trial, where we treated four patients at two to less than four years old with TG102. Aspire is primarily a safety-focused threat syndrome as part of our planned BLA package. In addition to generating supportive safety data, Aspire is designed to provide insight into the impact of early intervention, including the potential to reverse disease manifestations and restore function while also preventing further disease progression in younger patients. With dosing now complete in both trials we are laser focused on preparing for the pivotal trial interim analysis and subsequent discussions with the FDA to inform next steps toward a BLA submission we expect to provide an update on both fronts in the first half of 2027 we continue to believe the increasingly robust body of evidence generated across the program strengthens the rationale for this potentially expedited submission plan turning to safety. Both high and low-dose TASHA-102 continue to be generally well-tolerated. There have been no severe treatment-related serious adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities observed since the clinical trial began over three years ago. Across the 33 patients treated in the reveal phase 1, August 2026, the holiday weekend, one patient in the reveal pivotal trial experienced the single, moderate, grade 2 treatment-related adverse event of peripheral sensory neuropathy and expected AAV-associated risk, approximately six weeks after treatment. Consistent with the Treating Institute's policy, the patient was admitted overnight for management and observation, thus resulting in a technical classification of the grade 2 event as the patient was discharged the following day. Clinical trial dosing is now complete. First patient received TASHA-102. To date, 33 patients spanning a broad range of ages, genotypes, and disease severities have been treated, with no severe treatment-related serious adverse events or dose-limiting toxicities reported. The safety profile of TASHA-102 has remained encouraging, with a consistent benefit to risk profile throughout the program. I would like to recognize the expertise and vigilance of our participating principal investigators, the rigorous training and oversight provided by our clinical development and clinical operation teams, as well as our CRO partner, and importantly, the commitment of the patients and caregivers whose participation in the trials and dedication to help ensure the best possible outcomes for the Rett syndrome community. Based on the totality of the data generated to date, including the favorable safety profile and compelling efficacy data from the longer-term follow-up from the reveal part A, we continue to believe TASHA-102 has the potential to be a differentiated and transformative therapy for a broad population of patients with Rett syndrome who continue to face high unmet medical need. The strengthened body of evidence supporting TASIA 102 was highlighted at this year's IRSF Rett Syndrome Scientific Meeting, where we presented data that collectively reinforced the clinical and scientific foundation of our development program and registrational strategy. Suku will discuss the data in greater detail shortly, but before I turn the call over, I wanted to touch on our ongoing commercial readiness effort. We have continued to make meaningful progress in preparation for a potential launch. This past quarter, we completed payer market research, which demonstrated strong support for TASHA-102's value proposition and reimbursement potential that TASHA-102 was viewed as a high-value therapy due to its transformative disease-modifying potential in a population with significant unmet need. coupled with the convenience of a one-time intratungal administration that is less invasive than other direct-to-CNS approaches and can be administered in a broadly accessible outpatient setting. Importantly, PAIR willingness to provide coverage was primarily driven by the potential for TASHA-102 to deliver durable, clinically meaningful benefits. PAIRs consistently emphasized the importance of demonstrating durable functional gains and improvements that translate into real world benefit for patients and caregivers, areas where we believe the growing body of clinical evidence supporting TASHA-102 differentiate. Finally, the research demonstrated that strong efficacy, safety, and durability are expected to be the primary drivers of coverage and support reimbursement, with durable functional improvements serving as the most important determinant of value. These findings reinforce our confidence in the Tayshia 102's commercial potential and reimbursement outlook. We are leveraging these insights to further refine our market access strategy and support a successful potential commercial launch. In tandem with our market access strategy, we have also expanded our longstanding partnership with Catalan, the leading global contract development and manufacturing organization. Catalan will serve as our primary commercial manufacturing partner following potential FDA approval of TASHA-102. This expanded agreement secures a long-term commercial manufacturing capacity and establishes a scalable supply framework intended to support TASHA-102's potential launch and future demand. Under the agreement manufacturing will be conducted at Catalan's FDA licensed gene therapy campus in Harman's, Maryland which is an established AAD manufacturing facility with significant commercial expertise experience across more than 90 gene therapy programs including multiple commercial products with BLA enabling process performance qualification activities underway we believe we have established a strong manufacturing foundation necessary to support the anticipated significant demand for TASHA 102 following its potential launch and commercialization finally we continue to strengthen our organization through the key leadership hires that position us for the next phase of growth. This includes the recent appointment of Mike Johannesson as Chief Legal Officer. Mike brings more than three decades of experience across corporate law, governance, compliance, and strategic transactions, including extensive leadership experience in the gene therapy space. His tenure at Advanced Medicine Partners, Jaguar Gene Therapy, and Avexis will be instrumental as we execute on our strategic priorities and continue to evolve the organization. I would now like to turn the call over to Suku to dive deeper into our recent data presentations at the IRSF scientific meeting.

Thank you. As Sean highlighted, we've achieved several important milestones supporting the advancement of TASHA-102 towards potential registration, including the successful completion of dosing in both the REVEAL and ASPIRE trials, as well as multiple data presentations at the IRSF scientific meeting supporting TESHA 102. Importantly, these data sets reinforce our confidence in the program and collectively support the transformational potential of TESHA 102 to deliver durable real-world benefits to patients. We presented longer-term REVEAL Part A data, where all 12 patients treated had at least 12 months of follow-up data as of the May 2026 data cutoff, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of the durability, depth, and consistency of treatment effect over time. The data continued to demonstrate broad, multi-domain functional impact at decent over time through greater than 12 months post-Asia 102. We are particularly encouraged by the durability and deepening of the treatment effect. Notably, we have not observed evidence of plateau effect with data continue to trend upwards over time. Using the FDA-aligned developmental milestone assessment criteria that serves as the primary endpoint in the review of pivotal trials results from Part A far exceeded our FDA-aligned pivotal response rate threshold of 33% with a 75% response rate seen as early as three months and increasing to 83% at six months. By 12 months, 100% of the 12 patients were responded. These results further boast to our confidence going into the upcoming six-month interim analysis of the Reveal Pivotal Trial. We've observed a consistent and clinically meaningful treatment effect across the pediatric, pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients treated. Across the six pediatric patients evaluated, 16 total developmental milestones were achieved. And among the six adolescent and adult patients, 15 developmental milestones were achieved. Together, patients achieved a total of 31 developmental milestones. Given that over 85% of the prevalent red syndrome population is older than 10 years of age, we are particularly encouraged by the consistency observed regardless of age or disease severity that supports the commercial opportunity for TASHA-102. In addition to the consistent treatment effect across age groups, we've observed broad functional impact across core disease domains of Rett syndrome. At 12 months and beyond, patients demonstrated a total of 310 functional gains across communication, fine motor, gross motor, and autonomic domains, averaging 26 gains per patient. These gains included both natural history-defined developmental milestones as well as additional skills and improvements that meaningfully impact daily life, such as enhanced motor skills and hand moves, the ability to respond to questions, reduced seizure activity, and decreased hand stereotypies, to name just a few. Collectively, these findings reinforce our belief that TESHA-102 has the potential to provide meaningful therapeutic benefit across a broad red syndrome population and deliver tangible gains in independence and quality of life for patients and caregivers. We continue to be encouraged by the favorable safety profile of TESHA-102 with no severe treatment-related SAEs or DLTs across the 33 patients treated as of the August 2026 data cutoff. The CFD profile of TESHA-102 has remained encouraging the consistent benefit to risk profile throughout the program. To that end, I would like to recognize our participating principal investigators for their clinical expertise and diligence in patient care, and thank our clinical development and clinical operations teams and CRO partners for their exceptional training, proactive monitoring, and commitment to maintain the highest stance of patient safety and trial execution throughout the study. In addition to the clinical data, we also presented analysis from the Rett Syndrome Natural History Study, supporting the design of the Reveal Pivotal Trial. The data demonstrated a clear developmental plateau after six years of age, with the likelihood of gaining or regaining a developmental milestone that was lost after a defined number of years declining sharply to less than 6.7%. These results support the minimum inclusion age of six years in a well-controlled, single-arm interventional trial, evaluating gain and regain of developmental milestones. They also further strengthen our confidence that the developmental gains observed and revealed are meaningful and distinguishable from the expected natural history of the disease in patients six years and older. We also presented methods evaluation study data supporting the developmental milestone assessment, DMA for short, as a psychometrically valid and FDA-supported primary endpoint for single-arm interventional studies. Prior to initiating reveal, the DMA was evaluated in a multi-site non-interventional study to assess its applicability as a clinical outcome measurement in a registrational study. These findings are shared with and reviewed by the FDA as part of the trial protocol developmental and strengthen our confidence in the integrity and interpretability of the data set we expect to generate from the review of the trial. Finally, we presented previously reported preclinical data supporting the design of the TESHA-102 construct. The data demonstrated that TESHA's mini-MECP2 is functionally comparable to full-length MECP2 across molecular and biochemical functions. In addition, DESHA's self-complementary AV9 vector enables superior MACP2 expression compared to a single-stranded AV9. This supports our construct design and ability to achieve broad effective delivery to the central nervous system through the minimally invasive intrathecal administration approach, which as Sean referenced earlier, is of particular importance to pair. Taken together, the durability and breadth of the clinical responses observed today, consistency in response across patient population, supporting natural history analysis, and psychometric validation of the DMA pivotal trial endpoint together with a favorable safety profile continue to position TESHA-102 as a potentially transformative therapy. I'll now turn the call over to Cameron to review our financial results.

Thank you Sukuk. Research and development expenses were $38.6 million for the three months ended June 30th, 2026 compared to $20.1 million for the three months ended June 30th, 2025. The $18.5 million increase was primarily driven by BLA enabling PPQ manufacturing initiatives performed during the three months ended June 30th, 2026 and higher clinical expenses from the reveal and As far as compensation expenses, including non-cash stock-based compensation, also increased as a result of additional $12.1 million for the three-month end of June 30, 2026, compared to $8.6 million. The increase of $3.5 million was primarily due to higher compensation expenses, including commercial launch readiness initiatives. Net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2026 was $46.6 million, or $0.13 per share, compared to a net loss of $26.90 million.

Participants to limit themselves to one question. One moment, please. Our first question comes from the line of Kristen Kluska with Cantor Fitzgerald.

Hi, everyone. Thanks so much for taking the question. The one I wanted to ask was on your payer research. obviously they see the potential of this therapy and the unmet need but you made some comments around the one-time IT administration procedure in particular curious if there was anything specific they said about that kind of procedure and the outpatient that was important in the payer discussions and yeah how we should be thinking about the specifics behind that thank you yeah Kristen thanks for the question and there'll be more to come on this and I would say this is the second step in our pair discussions more to come later this fall and hopefully we can provide more updates you know as time goes on but

the number one in terms of high value as you'd expect the focus was primarily on the potentially transformative data set that we have and they really like this idea of the milestones and being able to demonstrate functional gains and improvements that have never been demonstrated before so this also highlighted the strength and the robustness of the natural history analysis that we did because it really contextualized for the payers what they were getting for the money that would be spent on the therapy the second thing was around the durability and the fact that you know at this point we could share with them that we have at least three years worth of data in our patients by the time we get to market you know that's going to be you know closer to four plus five years things of that nature and obviously that meant a lot to them and the safety aspect was another one too i mean they like the fact that you know we've continued to demonstrate that overall you know this is a well-tolerated gene therapy so that that combination of the product offering really resonated in the context of a high on med need rare disease with nothing that's been demonstrated to truly transform outcomes in patients the IT piece was something they definitely anchored to because of the fact that they realized that this is a much less invasive route of administration versus other ways to go direct to the CNS they know that because of this administration aspect that the reimbursement is going to be on the outpatient side and so those are going to be attractive margins for those folks. And they also realized about the scalability of it. You can get to more patients with this. So as they thought about the economics, they could see how the outpatient reimbursement could be quite attractive to them relative to other potential administrations with other gene therapies.

Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Salvine Richter with Goldman Sachs.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. Can you help us further understand the grade 2 SAE? You noted that this is an expected AAV-associated risk, but how do you mitigate this risk on the forward, and how frequent are these type of events for gene therapies that leverage AAV9? Thank you.

Yeah, Kelvin, very great question. I think a few things for context here. Number one, the RET population in general, there's over 50% of RET patients have peripheral neuropathies as part of the disease course. Number two, as you stated, that AAB9 does have a, it's a known effect of AAB9 that you can see peripheral neuropathies. And there's multiple product labels where that's indicated. It's not unexpected here. In this particular case, it was a grade two, which is a moderate event. I would say that in terms of the management of this, to comment on that, but from what we see from the product profile, the balance between risk and benefit really tilts heavily on the benefit side here without question. You know, we were hoping to get through the whole clinical trial program without any type of situation like this, but the fact that it's a grade two is certainly encouraging. It was not severe, and I'll turn it to Suku, but I just want to highlight that this team really worked hard with the PIs in terms of monitoring and then managing, and this will get at your question, is how do you mitigate these type of things, because they are expected to occur.

Yes, Sean. And Salvin, thanks for the question. So as Sean highlighted, with AV9 programs, you do see sensory neuropathy, so it's not uncommon. And it is usually easily managed with immunomodulatory agents if the clinical consequences need that kind of intervention. And as Sean highlighted, in our program we've looked at this carefully and the benefit significantly continues to benefit significantly more than any risk to this patient population. And there is very good data that in red syndrome patients that you do get peripheral neuropathy. So at times the peripheral neuropathy and the clinical features of the disease itself can sometimes mask or be the main reason that you have the sensory neuropathy. And in this specific case, we worked very closely with the investigator and followed the institutional treatment protocols to work with them and to have appropriate immunomodulatory agents to treat the clinical presentation, and this patient recovered pretty quickly to a substantial recovery post discharge from the hospital within 24 hours. so overall we are quite pleased with the outcome for this patient thank you our next question comes from the line of Tazine Ahmad with Bank of America hi good afternoon thanks for taking my question maybe just to follow up have

you discussed this events with FDA have they you know provided any kind of feedback on any kind of change to monitoring requirements or changes just in general to outpatient administration, and have you seen any similar neurological symptoms in other treated patients? Thanks.

Yeah, Tazine, thanks for the question. You know, let me give a little bit of context on this one, too, because I think it really does matter. Every situation is a little bit unique, and in this particular instance, again, keep in mind this is a grade to moderate. First considered life-threatening grade five obviously is the worst outcome possible. So this is a mild to moderate type of a finding. It happened on the July 4th holiday. So the PI's out of town, sub-PIs managing things, patient, and they, we rightly, we very much supported this. You know, they were, they did it exactly what Suku and his team have trained them to do, would just monitor closely and then treat very, very quickly. And so, you know, as a result of that, the policy at the hospital was an overnight administration and monitoring, and that's what led to this being deemed a serious adverse event.

Yes, I was also going to address this question about the FDA. So we did send this case report into the FDA, and so it has been disclosed to them, and at this point, they have not had any questions. We've also disclosed this to the IDMC, and they felt it was part of the usual process of AB9 therapy, and there is no concern either, and did not suggest anything different from what we've done up to now.

So the reason I was giving you the background, Tazine, is to give you the context that I think had there not been some of these circumstances that I mentioned, very likely we wouldn't even be talking about each set of circumstances that contributed, which is why, as Sukhu mentioned we feel very comfortable in our ability to manage this going forward it's not unexpected in the disease or with a 89 and again nothing from them which thank you our next question comes from

the line of maury raycroft with jeffries hi uh thanks for taking my questions i was going to focus on just uh the seizure data that you're collecting for part a wondering if eeg data were collected? And if so, are you seeing any objective changes in EEG activity that correspond with the higher level improvements in seizures that were reported at IRSF? And how will seizure activity be assessed more rigorously in the pivotal versus Part A? Are you going to have enough patients and baseline data to evaluate benefit on seizures and potentially include that in the label?

That's a very interesting and important question. So as you probably know, when it comes to red syndrome 80 to 90 percent of red syndrome patients do have a history of seizures especially one three to four years of age that's when they first start showing features of different types of seizures whether it's generalized tonic clonic or partial complex absence etc we do have these the data from the part day data that we are evaluating and overall as you know Dr. Elsa Rosignol also disclosed in her presentation there appears to be an overall decrease in seizure frequency and severity and maybe even in the combination of meds dose. We are evaluating that data further in depth and we may disclose some of that data at a major medical meeting hopefully late this year or maybe early next year. In the Part B data set, there are EEG data at baseline that occur the patient's medical history, the medication history, etc. that includes anticonvulsant medications that are used, and we will, there are a lot of EEGs being done as a part of the protocol, but it's not a primary or secondary endpoint, it's probably more going to be exploratory. So at this point, to give us a signal potentially on the, hopefully, the beneficial effects of patient want to do when it comes to seizure control as well, but all I can say at this point is stay tuned and we will update you further as we get that information. One thing that's reassuring at this point in time as of today is we don't see worsening of We've just been going as well. Thanks for it.

Got it. Question comes from the line of Chris Raymond with Raymond James.

Hey, this is Sam Leach on for Chris Raymond. Thank you for taking our question. Maybe just one more follow-up on the safety event. I know that this is related to AAV exposure, but do you think that there also could have been related to the intrathecal administration, and was there anything about the patient, such as age, dose exposure, or any other risk factors that might have predisposed them to the event?

I'll turn this over to Suku, but I can say at a high level there was nothing relative to the administration that was noted by the PI. As you know, this is done very, very commonly. Again, the age of the patient really had no bearing on this circumstance, and, you know, things essentially can happen, and I think that's what we have here. So I don't believe there's any read-through, but Sukhu, you should certainly comment on this.

Yeah, Sean, I agree that I don't think the lumbar puncture procedure itself puts the patient at high risk for this kind of incident. With AB9, as we said earlier, you do sometimes do see peripheral sensor neuropathy develop, and that could be one of the reasons that this occurred. But also an important point we made earlier was that Rett syndrome patients do have their own features of peripheral and polyneuropathy, and that also develops over time. So sometimes could they have both concurred at the same time? Maybe, but we won't know at this point in time. But the most important thing is the patient responded and is doing much better now and that obviously reassures us as well on the overall safety profile for the product.

From the line of Jack Allen with Bayard.

Great, thanks for taking the questions and congrats on the progress made over the course of the quarter. Two quick ones from our end. I was hoping you could add some more color on when the dose and the spire completed. I think you guys were targeting July, and I'm just curious if you have any more precision about when in July that may have completed. And then as it relates to the more recent disclosure around the sensory neuropathy, it's great to hear the patient is on the mend. Any more color you can provide on, you know, the immunomodulatory agents that were given to that patient and the time course to recovery would be very helpful as well.

Yeah, Jack, thanks for the questions. I think, you know, we haven't been super precise in terms of dates on the on the dosing just historically I would say it's been several weeks since the last aspire patient was was dosed you know this event that we were talking about here happened six weeks post dosing for all the people in the pivotal trial are beyond that obviously so we you know that that's by the most clarity that we can that we can provide on that anything more to add?

Well, what I would add, Sean, is that the patient started recovering pretty quickly after the treatment was given, and we haven't got into details around what the specific therapies were or what the details were behind the patient, because that could be disclosed in the patient's potential, protected health information as well, so we're not going to get into that at this point.

But you did mention, Suku, that the way to manage these types of things is with immunosuppression or immunomodulatory agents. So that's what's relatively standard. Yeah, very standard. Hope that helps, Jack.

Yeah, very helpful. Thanks so much for the call.

You got us. Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Yan and Zhu with Wells Fargo.

Oh, great. Thanks for taking our questions. Just on the safety event, I was wondering, is it the expectation that patients who might have peripheral neuropathy could have full recovery upon immunomodulatory treatment? And then also was wondering the role of prophylactic immunosuppression and how that might have, you know, could have impacted on this kind of event. I believe patients do have prophylactic steroid, although whether they had, I wasn't sure whether serenolus was also used prophylactically.

So, Yalant, you had multiple questions in your question there, so let me try to answer all of them in a very simple manner. So, the prophylactic immunomodulation given for protocol, overall I think does have very positive impact on the occurrence of these peripheral neuropathies post-AB9 gene therapy. So that is why they are not like overwhelmingly seen, but they are seen commonly, okay, so if you know what I mean. Second is the peripheral neuropathies that may be related to AB9 gene therapy regardless the road of administration, if the recovery to the immunomodulatory intervention is rapid, we observe that the patient is going to get much better quicker over time. So that is a positive signal clinically. So hopefully that's what we see eventually with this patient. There was another question. You have three questions. Did I answer your question, Genard?

Sorry, I didn't quite hear whether prophylactic treatment could play a role in preventing this or…

Yes, prophylactic treatment will play a role not in preventing, but in reducing the incidence. Does that make sense?

Okay.

So what I'm saying is if you didn't give any prophylactic treatment, you might see a few more cases, but it won't be overwhelming.

Okay, great, great, thanks for the, uh, additional cover.

Our next question comes from the line of Gil with Needham.

Hey guys, this is Jonathan on for Gil. Um, I just had a quick question if you guys could provide any color around the, uh, over-enrollment, it looks like, for your ASPIRE and Pivotal trials.

It seems like you guys got an extra patient in the ASPIRE and two in the, um, Pivotal. yeah Jonathan the rationale behind that was because we didn't want to we didn't want to leave any patient behind so we made a commitment that if you went into screening and you screened into the study that we would we would treat you and so you know one of the reasons that you have to consider doing that is that if you do get a screen fail and you don't have more patients than you're planning for in the process of being screened, you could end up delaying your enrollment. So we made a conscious decision to work that way as a clinical operations organization, and we worked very closely with the PIs and the potential caregivers so that they understood that and they understood the commitment that we made. So that's why there is a few more patients in the reveal pivotal and one additional patient in the ASPIRE trial.

Great. Thanks so much. You got it. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Angela Kuhn with Canaccord Genuity.

Hey, guys. This is Angela on for Whitney. Thank you for taking our questions. First question is, On the safety, you guys mentioned that patients typically get peripheral neuropathy. Does that present normally more like acute events, or is that more chronic when it happens in the population?

And then separately, have you guys talked about potential sales size force and what the commercial organization would need to look like to support a launch? just on that last question did you ask about the the size of the commercial organization yeah just like have you said any day that how many um salespeople you might need to support the launch oh no you know i'll take that part first i would say more to come on that angela Well, it's a relatively discreet SG&A, and I think what you're going to see is a combination of a relatively small amount of, quote-unquote, sales representatives. They're going to have a group of people that are very focused on working to secure, and that's going to be a big part of what we do. Patient services is going to be another group that's instrumental in working with the families to make sure that everything gets navigated from the time the prescription gets written to them, getting to the institution and treated to them, working with the insurance companies to make sure that reimbursement occurs. So we're going to put the resources in play to make sure that it's the situation and journey for the families going through this. So there'll definitely be more to come later this year, beginning of next year, as we further refine our details around the go-to-market strategy and what that organization looks We've done a lot of work thus far, and at this point, it's, again, doing more market research and work to make sure we really understand the patient journey and flow and what we present line of sight to what this is going to look like. But I think before we give more detail, you know, I'd like to get additional information and then we can give you a very fulsome report on it.

And you had another question on the neuropathy. Patients with Rebs syndrome do develop peripheral sensorine at times, a mixed neuropathy, and it becomes conic over time. So if your question is, is it sudden, acute, and does it resolve on its own, usually not. It's more conic process.

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

Thank you so much for taking my question and providing the update. I wanted to touch on some of the manufacturing and CMC work that you're working on. You know, beyond the completion of the PPQ run, what CMC activities remain kind of on the critical path to the BLA? Are we talking assay validation, process validation, shipping hold-time validation, or other kind of components of that? And just as a follow-up, you know, when you say the FDA has agreed with the comparability approach, You know, kind of just drill into what that actually means in terms of the process and getting to commercial products. Thank you so much.

Yeah, great question. I would say in terms of if we start with the comparability, the first time we had aligned with the FDA on comparability was when we compared the clinical lot. So that was the lot in part A with B, right? And so it was Asian parameters with the FDA. Subsequent to that, we've continued, and I think we disclosed this a few quarters ago, that they continue to deem us analytically comparable to the clinical lab. So the next is that when we complete the PPQ runs, if those two are comparable from an analytical perspective, which we fully expect, both in terms of efficacy and safety, to support the regulatory. Really good spot there. You asked about assay validations and things of that nature. We're in a really good spot there with the FDA. So really, what's on the critical path, CPQ runs, and then having that discussion with the FDA after we submit all the data around what the comparability looks like. So, you know, I would say in a nutshell, we're on the CMC side, and at this point in time, CMC is now a critical path.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Joshua.

Hey, thanks for taking my question, and congrats to MNF State. Maybe just going back to IRSF, you presented a really great poster outlining the establishment of the RFDMA, the Development Milestone Assessment. I was hoping you guys could just reiterate the key points there and highlight to, you know, how this provides confidence in the reliability of the central raters and confidence in the validity and interpretability of the data from a regulator's perspective. Thank you.

We can tag team this, but, you know, I think it starts with the fact that, via the milestone strategy, a novel path, today, the only thing that's been on CGI and RSVQ, and we knew that for a gene therapy, that was not going to be sufficient to garner capturing the value we think would be commensurate with the product. The pairs would not have. We struck out on an endeavor to figure out what would be a clinically meaningful, very robust, that demonstrated the value of the product. And fortunately for us, we found the milestone plateau and then began to work on what's the construct of the actual tool that will use the instrument, this data. and and so what is is do exactly that and so it's a very to go through the assessment of the milestone so keep in mind there's there's 28 milestones so you're going to want to put in place a process that's very systematic and very rigorous so as an example the sequence of the milestones is tested the same way every time any implements used in the study are consistent from baseline throughout the study so it's very easy to again measure what what you're what you're seeing there the angles of the cameras as an example is something that was the manuals for the training all of this took a lot of time so it took 18 months from the concept to us being able to lock it down with the FDA and you know fortunately for us we ran a pilot in the background we you know we haven't talked too much about it but we call it the resume trial and so we were able to do the DMA in a non-treated population that was also for the most part sites in the clinical trial so you knew like that was going to be a good index against then the ultimate final version of this. And that was also part of the submission that we made to the FDA. And that's how when we say that it's psychometrically validated, that pilot helped us validate that. We shared all that with the FDA, and that's what got them comfortable around taking this approach in an open-label study was how rigorous you're going to be able to at a clear baseline. So, I mean, we can go chapter and verse deeper on that, but at a very high level, that's what happened, and it took a lot of hard work from the team, and it took a lot of time. It wasn't something you could just jump into, and it was something the FDA was very concerned around, was the rigor and the systemization of that data collection.

All I would add, Sean, is the process and rigor of the collection and validation of the data set for the DMA was what was done in the study, and that was what was disclosed in the poster. And interestingly, there was an FDA representative at the IRSF meeting who actually presented to the audience and talked about the need for this kind of rigor, and also made a point that just because a patient population being studied is potentially highly variable, That cannot be used as an excuse for a fully designed trial for a full of a product. It was a very interesting discussion that was raised. And this is a review of what also being involved in the lens. It was pretty timely, you know, our data disclosure.

Thank you. I'm sure no further questions. So with that, I'll hand the call back over to Chairman and CEO, Sean Nolan, for any closing remarks.

We appreciate everyone taking the time to hear our update, and we look forward to speaking with everyone in the future. Have a good night. Take care.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating. This does conclude today's program, and you may now disconnect.