Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for standing by. Welcome to the UroGen Pharma First Quarter 2024 Earnings Call. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Vincent Perrone, Head of Investor Relations. You may begin.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to UroGen Pharma's First Quarter 2024 Financial Results and Business Update Conference Call. Earlier this morning, we issued a press release providing an overview of our corporate highlights and financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2024. The press release can be accessed on the Investors portion of our website. Joining me today are Liz Barrett, President and Chief Executive Officer; Dr. Mark Schoenberg, Chief Medical Officer; Jeff Bova, Chief Commercial Officer; and Don Kim, Chief Financial Officer. During today's call, we will be making certain forward-looking statements. These may include statements regarding our ongoing commercialization activities related to JELMYTO, our ongoing and planned clinical trials, commercial and clinical milestones, market and revenue opportunities, our commercialization strategy and expectations, as well as potential future commercialization activities for UGN-102 if approved. Anticipated data, including ENVISION durability data, regulatory filings, and decisions, including UGN-102 potentially receiving priority review, UGN-102 being the primary growth driver for UroGen if approved, future R&D efforts, our corporate goals, and 2024 financial guidance among other things. These forward-looking statements are based on current information, assumptions, and expectations that are subject to change. A description of potential risks can be found in our earnings press release and latest SEC disclosure documents. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, and UroGen disclaims any obligations to update these statements. With that, I'll turn the call over to Liz. Liz?

Thank you, Vincent, and thank you, everyone, for joining us this morning. As we look ahead to 2024, we have several near-term catalysts, including the plan release of the 12-month duration of response data from the ENVISION study in June with our expected NDA submission this year. We have assembled a strong body of data that demonstrates a compelling clinical profile for UGN-102. The ATLAS and ENVISION trials both met their primary endpoint. And if approved, we believe UGN-102 will advance the standard of care in low-grade intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer from repetitive surgery to a minimally invasive routine non-surgical option. Our research reflects overwhelming support from both urologists and patients, with the intent to use by over 90% of surveyed urologists and over 90% of surveyed patients in the ENVISION study preferring UGN-102 to a TURBT. We are pleased to announce that we will host our virtual event to share the ENVISION durability data on June 13. The database lock will occur later this week and we are very much looking forward to sharing the final results from ENVISION at that time. Earlier this year, we announced the initiation of a rolling NDA submission, and we believe the upcoming ENVISION data will support the completion of the NDA in Q3 of this year. Assuming priority review, we could launch as early as Q1 in 2025. The commercial opportunity is significant. We estimate that the overall market is approximately 10 times the size of the urothelial carcinoma market that JELMYTO currently addresses. We intend to seek a broad indication for UGN-102. Conservatively, we estimate the size of the market opportunity to be over $3 billion. This represents a substantial market opportunity for our company and a chance to meaningfully impact treatment paradigms and improve patient outcomes. Our ongoing commercialization plan will include an incremental sales force expansion. Pricing analysis and market research are currently ongoing, but we expect pricing to be in the $16,000 to $19,000 range per dose. Given the response and feedback we have received, we believe patients will strongly welcome a minimally invasive non-surgical alternative to TURBT. While we don't expect to replace TURBT in all patients, UGN-102 will be the first and only medicine approved for patients with low-grade intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, and we believe it will offer an advance in treatment if approved. Jeff will provide more details on our commercial strategy in a few minutes. In April, we announced FDA acceptance of the IND for UGN-103, an important next step in our life cycle management strategy. 103 is our next-generation formulation of UGN-102, which combines our proprietary RTGel technology with Medac proprietary formulation of mitomycin. A key aspect of this program is the potential for extended patent coverage for our next-generation urothelial cancer franchise. Medac has intellectual property protection into 2035 and UroGen's pending U.S. patent applications, if approved, could extend patent coverage until December of 2041. We are preparing to initiate clinical endpoint studies to support NDAs for UGN-103 and UGN-104, the latter being our next-generation formulation of JELMYTO. We anticipate dosing patients in the planned Phase III trial of UGN-103 by the end of this year, and UGN-104 shortly thereafter. As reported, JELMYTO revenues were $18.8 million for the quarter, an approximate 10% increase over Q1 2023. More importantly, patient enrollment forms or PEF in Q1 were the highest ever, indicating demand continues to grow. As we have experienced in the past, seasonality in Q1 results in a delay in patients being treated due to resetting of insurance. We have seen conversions accelerate in March and April, providing support for continued growth of JELMYTO. We are very excited by a recent post-hoc analysis from the OLYMPUS trial that evaluated the long-term efficacy of JELMYTO in patients who experienced a complete response. Mark will elaborate on this momentarily, but at a high level, findings suggest that JELMYTO can offer extended disease-free periods, with some patients experiencing no recurrence for approximately 48 months. We recently released this data to the field and are optimistic about its impact with urologists. Lastly, our balance sheet remains a priority, and our cash position is strong with $164.5 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities as of March 31. Our capital allocation strategy continues to prioritize the ramp-up of UGN-102 supply and its commercial launch alongside bolstering JELMYTO sales. Our latest financial projections, assumptions, and sales forecast affirm our belief that our current balance sheet is robust enough to sustain our operations through anticipated breakeven. So we do not need to raise additional capital with our current plan. Having said that, there are a plethora of opportunities to further study our medicines across new patient populations and position our company for longer-term sustained growth. We will remain diligent with capital deployment and opportunistically strengthen our balance sheet to accelerate and execute those potential growth opportunities. I will now turn the call over to Dr. Mark Schoenberg, our Chief Medical Officer, for a clinical update. Mark?

Thank you, Liz. I'd like to start by previewing results from a non-yet-published post-hoc analysis from the OLYMPUS trial Liz mentioned earlier. The post-hoc analysis evaluated long-term outcomes of JELMYTO use for primary chemoablation in patients with low-grade UTUC based on results from the OLYMPUS trial and a subsequent long-term rollover trial. After receiving 6 weekly doses of JELMYTO, 41 of 71 patients in OLYMPUS achieved a complete response and their health outcomes were tracked for up to 12 months. 20 of the patients remaining in complete response at 12 months enrolled in a 5-year rollover trial. Results for all 41 patients who initially achieved complete response indicated a promising median duration of response of 47.8 months based on a median follow-up of 28.1 months. Among the 20 patients enrolled in the long-term rollover trial, the median duration of response was not estimable as 75% of these patients continue to show no signs of disease recurrence or progression by the data cutoff date. We plan to submit these results for peer review and look forward to sharing additional updates when available. UroGen had a significant presence at the recent American Urological Association meeting, which took place in San Antonio, with a total of 4 abstracts presented. The first of these was a post-hoc analysis from the ATLAS trial of UGN-102, which was highlighted in a podium presentation by Dr. William Huang from NYU Langone. The analysis showed that UGN-102 used with or without TURBT improved disease-free survival and duration of response compared to TURBT alone. This analysis revealed that both new and recurrent low-grade intermediate risk NMIBC patients who received UGN-102 achieved similar outcomes specifically, DFS rates were 77.4% for new patients and 63.2% for recurrent patients at 15 months, while durable complete response rates were 87.5% for new patients and 69.1% for recurrent patients at 12 months. JELMYTO was featured in 3 presentations at the AUA. This product is approved for the chemoablative use in low-grade disease of the upper urinary tract. Independent long-term real-world analysis that were presented demonstrated 86% recurrence-free survival at 24 months with the JELMYTO treatment for patients who responded to initial induction. And there does not appear to be a difference in recurrence rates between antegrade and retrograde methods of administration, original tumor size, multifocality, or tumor location. The long-term analysis also evaluated the value of maintenance use of JELMYTO. Although the analysis consisted of a 13-patient cohort, 100% of these patients maintained a complete response at 24 months. The authors concluded that administration of maintenance appears to be associated with significantly better recurrence-free survival. I would now like to spend a few moments talking about the progress made in the UGN-102 program. As Liz mentioned, the next milestone for this program is the evaluation of the secondary endpoint of the ENVISION trial, duration of response at 12 months following a complete response. We intend to share these results at a company-sponsored virtual event on June 13. Database lock is scheduled for later this week, and we look forward to sharing the results next month. I'd like to summarize the value proposition for UGN-102 and the rationale supporting our belief in the strength of our regulatory application and if approved, widespread adoption by urologists. UGN-102 has demonstrated consistency in the 3-month complete response rate across ATLAS and ENVISION as well as our prior Phase IIb study, OPTIMA II. Moreover, the ATLAS data suggests UGN-102 is superior to surgery once a complete response is achieved. In the ATLAS ITT population, 80% of patients who received UGN-102 plus or minus TURBT were still disease-free at 12 months following complete response, compared to only 50% of patients who had a TURBT alone. A significant benefit of UGN-102 lies in its innovative RTGel delivery mechanism, which provides sustained release treatment directly to the bladder tissue for up to 6 hours. This extended dwell time facilitates treatment of both visible lesions and underlying abnormal cells that predispose to disease recurrence. This attribute is critically important because, despite their expertise, urologists may not be able to detect all such cells during surgical procedures. We believe UGN-102 offers a clinically meaningful improvement over surgery in reducing recurrence risk and prolonging disease-free intervals for patients while lowering the overall treatment burden on patients. As Liz mentioned, we are actively advancing the development of next-generation formulations of UGN-102 and JELMYTO. The investigational new drug application for UGN-103 was accepted by the FDA, enabling us to proceed to clinical trials. We plan to initiate a Phase III trial of approximately 87 patients before year-end. Additionally, we are progressing with the development of UGN-104, a next-generation formulation of JELMYTO, to begin sometime thereafter. Beyond our lead programs, we continue to develop our immuno-oncology candidate UGN-301. UGN-301 is comprised of an anti-CTLA-4 antibody delivered using our proprietary RTGel technology. We are conducting a Phase I clinical study to evaluate the safety, tolerability and establish a recommended Phase II dose for UGN-301 as mono as well as combination therapy. We hope to report safety and tolerability data from the monotherapy arm by late 2024. We have also initiated combination therapy arms evaluating UGN-301, plus gemcitabine and UGN-301, plus UGN-201, our proprietary formulation of imiquimod, a TLR7 agonist, in high-grade NMIBC patients. We believe we have a unique approach in this area and look forward to providing updates as the program moves forward. Now over to Jeff for a commercial update.

Thank you, Mark. JELMYTO net sales were $18.8 million in Q1. Seasonality trends in the first quarter, which are characterized by deductible resets in January and February, were magnified compared to prior years. As Liz mentioned, patient enrollment forms were the highest ever in Q1, indicating strong demand. We're seeing an improvement in the conversion trend in Q2 with a normalized path to new patient start, leading to a reduction in the gap between enrollments and units sold. The data from the current quarter are on track with expectations of continued growth for JELMYTO sales and remain aligned with full year revenue guidance. We anticipate typical seasonality dynamics throughout the rest of the year. As Mark stated, AUA was a very productive meeting with multiple data readouts reinforcing the value of JELMYTO. We have promptly integrated the post-hoc long-term follow-up data from the OLYMPUS trial into our field operations to further enrich engagement with urologists. These data, which complement the already robust body of real-world outcomes data, will serve as a powerful evidence-based resource reinforcing discussions about JELMYTO's ability to deliver complete response rates and prolonged durable disease-free periods. For UGN-102, the pre-commercialization plan is well underway, targeting an early 2025 launch. As we get closer to the approval date, we will add a modest number of additional reps to our existing field sales force. There is approximately a 95% prescriber overlap with JELMYTO, and we plan on leveraging our commercial organization to execute a streamlined launch. As mentioned earlier, there is a strongly recognized unmet need amongst both urologists and patients for a new treatment option that has the potential to reduce recurrence risk and prolong disease-free intervals. Importantly, our research indicates a strong patient preference for non-surgical options that can reduce their overall treatment burden. Supported by a simple method of administration and robust clinical data, if approved, we are poised to transform the way patients with low-grade intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer are treated. UGN-102 provides sustained chemoablation directly to the bladder tissue to treat both visible lesions and the underlying pathology. And the clinical data we have generated suggest that UGN-102 appears to be superior to the current surgical standard of care. We know that 70% of patients face multiple cycles of recurrence and surgical resection over time. Our market research reflects urologists' concern about high recurrence rates and a strong desire for new treatment options that may prolong disease-free intervals. We also anticipate that economic factors will not hinder urologist adoption of UGN-102 as the treatment will be delivered in the physician's office. Our launch preparations are sharply focused on removing any logistical, operational, and financial barriers to use so that urologists can use 102 worry-free based on their conviction behind clinical merit alone. UGN-102 also has the advantage of being easy to administer, either by the doctor, nurse, or extender, offering a substantial benefit in terms of patient and doctor convenience. This streamlined approach enhances the experience for the patient and simplifies the treatment process considerably. Based on market research, we believe the fastest adoption for UGN-102 will initially occur in 3 groups of patients. These are patients who have had multiple recurrences, those that would be considered surgical failures; patients with early recurrence; and patients who are ineligible or unwilling to undergo surgery. Our goal for UGN-102, if approved, is to achieve broad adoption, and we are confident physicians will have a positive experience and broadly adopt. We will keep you updated as we address key insights into our plans as we prepare for the launch. I will now turn the call over to Don Kim to discuss our financial results.

Thank you, Jeff. Revenue comprised of JELMYTO sales for the 3 months ended March 31, 2024, was $18.8 million compared with $17.2 million in the comparable period in 2023. Cost of revenue was $1.7 million in the first quarter of 2024 compared with $2.3 million in the comparable period in 2023. The overall decrease of $0.6 million is primarily attributable to certain nonrecurring payments made in connection with our supply arrangement in the prior year, a decrease in mixing fees, and a decrease in the JELMYTO per unit cost. R&D expenses were $15.5 million and $12.5 million for the first quarters of 2024 and 2023, respectively. The year-over-year increase was primarily a result of regulatory-related expenses in connection with UGN-102 as well as R&D expenses in connection with the initiation of our Phase III study for UGN-103. Selling, general, and administrative expenses for the first quarter of 2024 were $27.3 million, including non-cash share-based compensation expense of $2.2 million. This compares to $24.5 million, including non-cash share-based compensation expense of $1.8 million for the same period in 2023. The increase year-over-year was primarily attributable to UGN-102 brand marketing costs. Interest expense was $2.4 million and $3.6 million for the first quarters of 2024 and 2023, respectively. The decrease was primarily attributed to the decrease in the margin interest rate and the related impact of amortization of the discount on the Pharmakon loan as a result of the amended and restated loan agreement in March 2024. Net loss was $32.3 million or $0.97 per share and $30.2 million or $1.30 per share for the first quarters of 2024 and 2023, respectively. As of March 31, 2024, we had $164.5 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities. During the first quarter, we utilized our ATM facility for gross proceeds of approximately $56 million. Today, we are reiterating our full-year 2024 net product revenue guidance from JELMYTO to be in the range of $95 million to $102 million. We expect full-year 2024 operating expenses in the range of $175 million to $185 million, including non-cash share-based compensation expense of $6 million to $11 million subject to market conditions. The anticipated full-year 2024 non-cash financing expense related to the prepaid obligation to RTW Investments is expected to be in the range of $21 million to $26 million. Of this amount, approximately $12.4 million to $13.3 million is expected to be in cash. For further details of our financials, please refer to our quarterly report on Form 10-Q, which has been filed with the SEC. We are now ready to open the call for questions. Operator?

Our first question comes from Tara Bancroft of TD Cowen.

So I'm wondering if you could tell us approximately how many patients are included in each of the 3 buckets that you mentioned of initial adopters and which of those you think may be the most robust users? And then from there, how do you imagine adoption to look over time, especially as you continue your education and awareness efforts?

Thank you. Jeff, why don't you take that?

Yes. Thanks, Tara. So the unwilling or unfit for surgery is around 10% of patients. We believe that's a conservative number because really, there are no other choices but to undergo surgery. But conservatively, around 10% to 15% are unwilling or unfit for surgery. About 25%, 23% from Medicare data tells us that they have 5 or more recurrences. So your frequent recurrences and that same number is also early recurrence. So one-fourth of the patients will have a recurrence within 6 to 9 months. So a good number of patients that physicians have told us really UGN-102 will have a benefit for. And then your second question was around adoption. Certainly, I think those 3 areas will be where it's adopted the soonest. And then it's imperative that the commercial team drives that adoption to ensure that it's available to every patient, whether it's newly diagnosed or someone that's had a previous TURBT.

Yes. And I guess Tara, the only thing I'll add to that is we do expect the adoption curve to be faster than what we've seen with JELMYTO for a few reasons that mainly what Jeff has talked about in the sense of how much easier it is to give and that being the case and the knowledge and experience that a lot of these physicians already have with our current medicines. So we expect that to be much quicker than it was for JELMYTO. But even if it were the same adoption curve as JELMYTO, again, being 10 times the size, you can do the math, right? If you look at what we did last year, over $80 million in revenue for JELMYTO, if you just said it was the same in the third year on the market, what would it look like? It's something like that. So that would be a good analog.

Our next question comes from the line of Raghuram Selvaraju of H.C. Wainwright & Co.

Just with respect to reimbursement for UGN-102, I was wondering if you could give us some granularity on the following. Firstly, do you think that there might be potential upside to your envisaged pricing range? And what factors might influence that from a clinical data efficacy profile perspective? Secondly, maybe, Jeff, you could explain a little bit about how a J-code might work in the case of UGN-102 or if it's not applicable why it might not be applicable? And then lastly, if you're talking about an incremental expansion of the sales force, can you just remind us what the sales force headcount is currently and how you expect that to change as and when UGN-102 is approved and being launched?

Sure. Thanks, Ram. I'll address the first question on pricing and then let Jeff handle the other two. We do see potential for higher pricing than what we've previously communicated. It's important to strike a balance, especially since this treatment targets low-grade disease, which has different pricing compared to high-grade disease. We will definitely take the final data that will be presented in June into account. Regarding the factors that influenced this, last year's data allowed us to conduct pricing research that enabled us to consider a higher price point. Given the upcoming data expected in June, we anticipate a similar situation. While we haven't finalized the pricing yet, we are definitely aiming for a higher range, potentially even a bit more than what we've discussed before.

Yes. And let me comment on the J-code. So yes, we will eventually have a permanent J-code, like all Part B drugs, though we will have a miscellaneous code until CMS reviews. The nice thing, as we saw with JELMYTO, we were approved in the second quarter of 2020. You then apply for that permanent J-code the following quarter; they take a quarter to review, and we had a permanent J-code January of 2021. So depending on our approval timing, that will be the process. But the nice thing is that they're reviewing these quarterly now versus annually. So I expect that same process to take place for UGN-102. Current headcount, we do have around 7 regions, 45 territory business managers, those are the reps supported by the reimbursement team, nurses as well as key account directors and FRMs. We will expand 1 region, we will go from 7 to 8, and we're kind of finalizing right now the number of representatives, but anywhere between 10 and 15 representatives as well followed up by those support functions as well. So hopefully, that helps.

Very helpful. And just as a quick follow-up to that. I don't know whether Liz or Don, you want to comment on how you expect the G&A infrastructure of the company to change in the wake of UGN-102's approval or if you don't really expect much change on that front.

Yes. Don, do you just want to comment on G&A?

Absolutely. So thanks, Ram. So basically, we don't see actually that much difference after this year. So this year, we are going to spend some money to build an inventory and build some sales force, but then it will be pretty consistent. Liz, do you want to add?

No, I think that's correct.

Our next question comes from the line of Matt Kaplan of Ladenburg Thalmann.

As we approach the one-month mark for the ENVISION study, could you provide more details about the 12-month durability data we should anticipate? Additionally, Liz mentioned potential pricing advantages depending on that data; what factors would influence this in relation to the durability data?

Yes. I understand that there may be some uncertainty about whether you're asking for expected numbers or insights into what we'll be presenting. We will provide information on the 12-month durability, safety updates, and our future expectations. Therefore, we will be able to offer median estimates. The quality of this data will enhance the value we provide to patients and physicians within the healthcare system, which has been our focus from a pricing perspective. Regarding what we would consider a success, based on the ATLAS data, we noted that the 12-month results showed 69% effectiveness among all recurrent patients and 66% among those with a prior TURBT. Achieving results in that range or better would certainly feel like a significant achievement for us. We are looking forward to sharing this data in June.

That's really helpful. Can you give us insights on the impacts of the discounts related to the Medicare refunds and unused drug and 340B purchases? What was the extent of that impact in the quarter? Additionally, what should we anticipate as we move forward for the rest of the year?

Yes. So Don?

Yes. So I think it's probably better for Jeff to answer. But in general, we expect a similar number in terms of overall gross net but regards to more specifically like 340B or the wastage provision, we expect more favorable to UroGen for 1 or 2 over JELMYTO. Jeff, do you want to add anything?

Yes, I believe the percentage for JELMYTO will stay consistent with the wastage provision. Naturally, as our sales increase, this will be influenced. However, I don't anticipate significant variations with 340B; it does fluctuate quarterly. I want to emphasize that 102 should not be affected by either of those factors, as the bladder can expand and we can administer all of 102. Therefore, we will not face issues there, and since most of this will ultimately be administered in the clinic, it will not be significantly affected from a 340B perspective.

Okay. Okay. That's good. And then last question, maybe for Mark, in terms of development pathways for next-gen products, 103 and 104. I guess what will it take to get these products to market? Are you contemplating just single-Phase III studies for each?

Matt, thanks. So I think it's probably a little bit premature for us to say exactly how this is going to play out because we are, as you know, not only developing information about 301 for monotherapy, but the basis of this program is really a combination program using 2 drugs of different types. So it might be a combination immunotherapy with 2 different immunomodulators, immuno plus chemo. So we know we're going to have, as Liz has alluded to earlier, safety data and a Phase II recommended dose later this year, and we'll report on that for 301. But as we elaborate more data on the combinations, we'll probably be able to talk a little bit more about what the development pathway looks like for the most promising of these combinations. It's probably as much as I should say, but Liz may want to comment as well.

No, nothing additional, unless you, Matt, you had any additional questions. Just making sure you were talking about 301 and not 103 and 104.

Yes, I had kind of targeted 103, 104, but...

I'm sorry.

Yes, I had misheard it.

Yes, I know. I apologize, yes, single Phase III studies, smaller than what we were acquired from our original approvals, smaller, for example, than ENVISION, but we expect Phase III studies to be adequate to achieve approval for those new next-generation products for both JELMYTO and for 102. Sorry, I misunderstood the question.

Yes, we anticipate that the approval process will be significantly faster since we won't need to enroll as many patients. We expect to complete our enrollment for 102 in 2025, followed by follow-up and filing in 2026 for UGN-103, which is the next generation of UGN-102.

Our next question comes from the line of Leland Gershell of Oppenheimer.

A couple from us. First, the company in the past has said that there's sort of a 50% bar with respect to the 3 and 12 months durability data from ENVISION. I'm just wondering how we should best interpret what that means when you say bar and how we should think about that number versus the higher numbers that you mentioned on this call with respect to the level of enthusiasm for urologists to adopt 102? And then just another question for Mark. I wasn't sure if you would mention when you would see the data, and if it's clinical data for 301. I would like to know when we might see that.

So Mark, do you want to talk about sort of the 50% that we've always talked about kind of our expectations that would be great and then answer that or add-in.

Sure. Leland, to clarify regarding the bar, as many have heard Liz mention before, when we initiated the 102 program, we projected a 50% figure that we believed would be clinically meaningful. Conversations with urologists and our clinical perspective indicate that a lower number could still be clinically meaningful for managing this recurrent patient population. However, the 50% figure was our initial projection. As you pointed out, the data from our clinical trials actually exceed that 50%. Additionally, remember that ENVISION, unlike ATLAS, primarily involves recurrent patients. In the ATLAS subgroup of recurrent patients who underwent prior TURBT, the durability data reached 66% at the significant 12-month follow-up. Therefore, as Liz mentioned earlier, we consider a mid-60s figure to reflect our goals and be consistent with our past experiences. So, the 50% was a projection, while 66% is what we've empirically observed in our clinical trials. We aim to see similar results in ENVISION. Lastly, regarding 301, we expect to provide safety data and recommend a Phase II dose later this year. The exact timing is uncertain, but we anticipate having it available by the SUO meeting at the end of the year, where we would likely present those findings. I hope that clarifies things.

And then one more, if I may. Given other chemo agents like the gemcitabine-docetaxel regimen and I think, BCG Naive High Grade shown to have benefits. Wondering if you're looking at other chemo agents as part of the gel formulation for greater dwell timing and perhaps better results?

Liz, do you want me to talk about that?

Yes, please go ahead and I'll add at the end.

So yes. So Leland, if I understood you, the question is, had we thought about putting gemcitabine in the gel? And the answer is we've certainly talked about this. Liz may want to comment on some of the commercial and IP issues related to that. But we know from a formulation perspective that our chemists are able to formulate a lot of different drugs in the gel. As we've said before, we know we can do combination therapy as well where we can put more than 1 agent in the gel. So we certainly had that conversation. But again, I'm going to defer to Liz in regard to any future plans regarding the formulation of gem in the gel.

The comment I want to make about gem specifically is that there will not be any IP protection by the time we reach the market, so gemcitabine in our current gel will not be pursued. However, we are actively exploring various other agents that are either available or in development, considering all stages and types, including chemotherapy, targeted agents, or viruses. We are conducting a comprehensive assessment to determine our next product, especially as we focus on high-grade disease. The 301 program is particularly significant in this area because we have long IP with CTLA-4, which allows us to explore combinations that can leverage this IP as we transition into high-grade disease. We are examining many possibilities for both low-grade and high-grade disease, and the complexities of bladder cancer are not widely understood. Different patient populations respond in various ways, as illustrated by the TAR and CG data. Therefore, we will pursue multiple products across these diverse patient types. We look forward to sharing more details later this year as we establish our priorities. Additionally, we anticipate the opportunity to move UGN-102 into high-grade disease, targeting both unwilling and unable segments within the broader low-grade, low-risk patient population. Our focus will remain on our next-generation products, which benefit from extended IP that enables us to do more with UGN-103 and UGN-104. I hope this provides clarity.

Our next question comes from the line of Paul Choi of Goldman Sachs.

This is Khalil calling in for Paul. I guess a quick confirmative question for us and then a quick follow-up. You mentioned that the potential commercial launch of UGN-102 might be more rapid than JELMYTO just given the prescriber overlap and slightly higher sales force. Just wondered if you could maybe add some granularity on that and maybe just confirm that, that's what you're trying to say. And then for 301, you mentioned that you might provide some safety data later this year. That's for the monotherapy data. Any granularity on the timing of when you might provide an update regarding the combinations and just maybe some more granularity on your general idea about expansion into higher-risk populations or high-grade disease?

Sure. Yes. I'll just turn it over to Mark to talk about 301 and sort of what our expectation is there and then Jeff can answer the first question. So sorry, going backwards, but go ahead, Mark.

Yes, certainly. As mentioned earlier in the call, the 301 program is focusing on high-grade disease. As many of you may know, when we consider patients with high-grade disease, a logical direction for this program would be to target the BCG unresponsive or refractory population. Regarding the timeline for data on the 301 program, we anticipate having updates by the end of the year, with combination data expected sometime in 2025. We haven't provided specific details yet, but we will share any available information about efficacy and safety data for those combinations in 2025. My expectation is that the program will initially focus on a BCG refractory patient population for various reasons, as that appears to be the most logical starting point for addressing that group of patients.

Thanks, Mark. And Jeff, you just want to talk about the adoption of UGN-102?

Yes. The primary feedback we receive regarding JELMYTO is about the patient population. Physicians, especially in light of the data presented at AUA, express strong optimism about the four-year long-term follow-up. However, the main challenge we face is the limited number of patients they have. This will not be an issue with 102. Our market research indicates that instead of seeing only two to three patients a year with JELMYTO, they now have two to three patients each month who are classified as intermediate risk. The most prevalent comment isn't really an objection; it's more about liking what they hear clinically about JELMYTO but stating they don't have many patients. This concern will no longer be a factor. Additionally, as Liz mentioned earlier, the operational effort is much easier. These facilities already manage BCG days and gemcitabine treatments, with nurses or extenders administering doses, which fits seamlessly into their existing operational routines. Consequently, much of this will be administered in the clinic, minimizing the bureaucratic hurdles associated with hospital formulary approvals. While we will certainly assist facilities that prefer to administer it in a hospital setting and help get it on formulary, the operational demands are significantly different, and the concern of not having enough patients will disappear.

I'm showing no further questions at this time. I'd like to turn it back to Liz Barrett for closing remarks.

Thank you. Thank you, operator. Thanks again for everybody joining us today. I just want to reiterate how excited we are with the data that was just presented at AUA. It was a great AUA for us. And very importantly, as I mentioned and Mark as well, we're really looking forward to the data event on June 13. So hope to see all of you there, although virtually, but I hope to see you there. So have a great day. Operator, you can now disconnect.

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.