Welcome to the Viking Therapeutics Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results Conference Call. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded today, July 23, 2025. I would now like to turn the conference over to Viking's Manager of Investor Relations, Stephanie Diaz. Please go ahead, Stephanie.

Hello, and thank you all for participating in today's call. Joining me today is Brian Lian, Viking's President and CEO; and Greg Zante, Viking's CFO. Before we begin, I'd like to caution that comments made during this conference call today, July 23, 2025, will contain forward-looking statements under the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements about Viking's expectations regarding its development activities, timelines, and milestones. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially and adversely, and reported results should not be considered as an indication of future performance. These forward-looking statements speak only as of today's date, and the company undertakes no obligation to revise or update any statement made today. I encourage you to review all of the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning these and other matters. I'll now turn the call over to Brian Lian for his initial comments.

Thanks, Stephanie, and good afternoon to everyone listening in by phone or on the webcast. Today, we'll review our financial results for the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2025, and provide an update on recent progress with our development programs and operations. In the second quarter, the Viking team continued to focus on the execution of our core clinical strategy. During the first six months of 2025, the company advanced both its VK2735 oral and subcutaneous programs further in clinical development. With respect to the subcutaneous formulation, in the second quarter, we announced the initiation of the VANQUISH Phase III registration program evaluating VK2735 in patients with obesity. We are excited to have these important studies underway. Earlier in the year, we also announced both the initiation and the completion of enrollment in a Phase II trial evaluating the oral tablet formulation of VK2735 in subjects with obesity. We are encouraged by the study's rapid enrollment, and we expect to announce the results of this trial later in the year. Also during the first six months of the year, Viking made progress with its newest program evaluating a novel agonist of the amylin receptor. These compounds have demonstrated promising benefits on body weight and metabolic profile in in vivo models. We look forward to filing an IND for this program in the fourth quarter of this year. Finally, an important milestone that was achieved during the first six months of 2025 was the announcement of a comprehensive manufacturing agreement to provide VK2735 API as well as fill and finish capacity to support the potential future commercialization of this compound. I'll have additional comments on our operations and development activities following a review of our second quarter and six months financial results. For that, I'll turn the call over to Greg Zante, Viking's Chief Financial Officer.

Thanks, Brian. In conjunction with my comments, I'd like to recommend that participants refer to Viking's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which we expect to file shortly. I'll now go over our results for the second quarter and first six months of 2025, beginning with the quarter. Research and development expenses were $60.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2025, compared to $23.8 million for the same period in 2024. The increase was primarily due to increased expenses related to clinical studies, manufacturing for our drug candidates, preclinical studies, stock-based compensation, and salaries and benefits. General and administrative expenses were $14.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2025, compared to $10.3 million for the same period in 2024. The increase was primarily due to increased expenses related to stock-based compensation and salaries and benefits, partially offset by decreased expenses related to legal and patent services. For the three months ended June 30, 2025, Viking reported a net loss of $65.6 million or $0.58 per share compared to a net loss of $22.3 million or $0.20 per share in the corresponding period in 2024. The increase in net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2025, was primarily due to the increase in research and development expenses and general and administrative expenses noted previously compared to the same period in 2024. I'll now go over our results for the first six months of 2025. Research and development expenses were $101.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to $47.9 million for the same period in 2024. The increase was primarily due to increased expenses related to clinical studies, manufacturing for our drug candidates, stock-based compensation, and salaries and benefits, partially offset by decreased expenses related to preclinical studies. General and administrative expenses were $28.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to $20.3 million for the same period in 2024. The increase was primarily due to increased expenses related to stock-based compensation, legal and patent services, and insurance, partially offset by decreased expenses related to third-party consultants. For the six months ended June 30, 2025, Viking reported a net loss of $111.2 million or $0.99 per share compared to a net loss of $49.6 million or $0.46 per share in the corresponding period in 2024. The increase in net loss for the six months ended June 30, 2025, was primarily due to the increase in research and development expenses and general and administrative expenses noted previously, partially offset by increased interest income compared to the same period in 2024. Turning to the balance sheet, at June 30, 2025, Viking held cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments of $808 million compared to $903 million as of December 31, 2024. This concludes my financial review, and I'll now turn the call back over to Brian.

Thanks, Greg. I'll now provide an update on our clinical pipeline and development programs, starting with our lead obesity program, VK2735. VK2735 is a dual agonist of the glucagon-like peptide 1, or GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, or GIP receptor. Viking is advancing both subcutaneous and oral formulations of VK2735 for the treatment of obesity. Prior Phase I results for the subcutaneous formulation of VK2735 demonstrated promising safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics, with treated subjects demonstrating up to approximately 8% weight loss from baseline after 28 days of once-weekly dosing with no signs of plateau. Based on these results, Viking initiated a 13-week Phase II study called VENTURE designed to evaluate the safety and weight loss effects of VK2735 in subjects with obesity. The VENTURE study successfully achieved both its primary and secondary endpoints, with subjects receiving VK2735 demonstrating statistically significant reductions in mean body weight from baseline ranging up to 14.7%. The study also showed VK2735 to be safe and well tolerated through 13 weeks of dosing, with the majority of treatment-emergent adverse events characterized as mild or moderate. Adverse events generally occurred early in the course of treatment and were primarily related to the expected gastrointestinal effects resulting from activation of the GLP-1 receptor. These results, as well as additional data from the study's follow-up visits, were highlighted in the presentation at the 2024 Obesity Week Conference. This presentation showed that subjects receiving VK2735 maintained the majority of their weight loss through follow-up visits occurring up to 7 weeks after the last dose of VK2735 was administered. This included the 2.5 milligram weekly dose, which was the lowest dose evaluated, for which over 90% of the initial weight loss was maintained 7 weeks after the last dose was given. In a subset of participants, an evaluation of plasma levels of VK2735 was conducted at various time points following completion of the 13-week dosing period. We believe the pharmacokinetic results from this study support the potential for once monthly dosing in the maintenance setting, and the company plans to further evaluate a monthly dosing regimen later this year. Based on the VENTURE Phase II study results, and following receipt of feedback from a Type C meeting with the FDA and a subsequent end of Phase II meeting with the agency, the company advanced VK2735 into Phase III development for obesity. To this end, last month, we announced the initiation of the VANQUISH Phase III registration program. The VANQUISH studies consist of two trials evaluating VK2735, one in adults with obesity and one in obese or overweight adults with type 2 diabetes. Each study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of VK2735 administered by subcutaneous injection once weekly for 78 weeks. The VANQUISH-1 study is targeting enrollment of approximately 4,500 adults with obesity or adults who are overweight with at least one weight-related comorbid condition. The VANQUISH-2 study will target enrollment of approximately 1,100 adults with type 2 diabetes who are obese or overweight. Participants in both trials will be randomized to one of four weekly treatment arms of 7.5 milligrams, 12.5 milligrams, 17.5 milligrams, or placebo. The primary endpoint of these trials is the percent change in body weight from baseline for participants receiving VK2735 as compared to placebo after 78 weeks of treatment. Secondary and exploratory endpoints will evaluate a range of additional safety and efficacy measures, including the percentage of patients who achieve at least 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% body weight reduction. Each study will include an open-label extension, allowing participants the opportunity to continue receiving treatment following completion of the primary dosing period. We are excited to have these important studies underway, and we will provide further updates on their progress as warranted. During the second quarter, Viking also continued to advance its oral tablet formulation of VK2735. The company believes a tablet formulation could represent an attractive treatment option for those who may prefer to initiate treatment with an oral therapy or for those seeking to maintain the weight loss they've already achieved. An important differentiator for our obesity program is that it includes both a tablet formulation and a subcutaneous formulation that utilize the same molecule. We believe this may mitigate potential safety or tolerability challenges that can occur when transitioning patients from one treatment to another. In a prior Phase I study, the oral formulation successfully achieved its objectives, with cohorts receiving VK2735 demonstrating dose-dependent reductions in mean body weight from baseline ranging up to 8.2% after 28 days of daily dosing. As with the subcutaneous formulation, the initial weight loss observed in the Phase I oral study showed encouraging durability with up to 8.3% reductions in body weight from baseline observed at follow-up visits through day 57, four weeks after the last dose was administered. The oral formulation of VK2735 also demonstrated encouraging safety and tolerability through 28 days of once-daily dosing at doses up to and including 100 milligrams. The majority of observed treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate, with most reported as mild. Similarly, all observed gastrointestinal adverse events were reported as mild or moderate, with the majority reported as mild. These results were presented at the 2024 Obesity Week Conference last November. Based on the Phase I results, earlier this year, the company announced the initiation of a Phase II study of oral VK2735 in subjects with obesity. This study, called the VENTURE-Oral dosing study, is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and weight loss efficacy of VK2735 dosed as an oral tablet once daily for 13 weeks. The primary endpoint of the study is the percent change in body weight from baseline after 13 weeks of treatment. Secondary and exploratory endpoints will evaluate a range of additional safety and efficacy measures. In March, the company announced that enrollment in the VENTURE-Oral dosing study had been completed. The trial enrolled approximately 280 adults who are obese or who are overweight with at least one weight-related comorbid condition. Participants were evenly randomized to one of six dosing arms or placebo. We look forward to reporting the results from this study in the second half of the year. In addition to our programs focused on incretin analogs, Viking continues to advance a series of novel agonists targeting the amylin receptor. Early data for this program have supported the thesis that activation of the amylin receptor represents an important additional mechanism for regulation of appetite and body weight. During the second quarter, we continued to make progress with this program, and we expect to file an IND with the FDA in the fourth quarter of the year. To support our pipeline, Viking continues to maintain fiscal discipline and a strong balance sheet. As Greg reported, the company had more than $800 million in cash as of the end of the second quarter. This provides us with the runway to complete our planned Phase III trials for VK2735 in obesity, as well as to aggressively pursue the development of our additional programs. In conclusion, the first half of 2025 was an exciting period for the Viking team. With respect to our VK2735 obesity program, we announced the initiation of the VANQUISH Phase III registration program, including trials in patients with obesity and obesity with type 2 diabetes. Also during the first half of the year, we announced the initiation and completion of enrollment in our Phase II VENTURE-Oral dosing study. We believe the rapid enrollment we've observed in our VK2735 trials speaks to a continued strong demand for new and differentiated weight loss therapeutics. We remain on track to announce the top line data from the VENTURE-Oral study in the second half of the year. With respect to our amylin agonist program, we continue to make progress toward an IND filing, and we expect to submit to the FDA later this year. Finally, our balance sheet remains strong, providing the runway to support the advancement of VK2735 through Phase III clinical trials, as well as to make progress with other key programs. This concludes our prepared comments for today. Thanks for joining us, and we'll now open the call for questions.

Your first question comes from Ryan Deschner with Raymond James.

In the Phase I oral study, you reported fairly strong dose dependence regarding satiety and decreased appetite. Wondering if you would expect additional increase in patient satiety or decreased appetite durations longer than 28 days in the Phase II oral study, particularly for the lower doses? And then I have a quick follow-up.

Ryan, yes, thanks. You would expect there to be some evidence of satiety as weight loss progresses. But we really don't know. What we've seen in other studies is that it's a somewhat inconsistent signal. It doesn't always track dose or weight loss. But it did, as you point out, in the Phase I study. So we'll see what it does in the Phase II, but it is a little inconsistent across other studies.

Got it. And then in the Phase IIa readout, will this necessarily include data from all cohorts, specifically the maintenance dosing arm at top line?

Yes. Yes, thanks. It will include all of the cohorts. It's a parallel cohort study. So they will all be available at the same time. And that's going to be a really interesting cohort. The cohort that doses up to 90 and then comes back to 30 for the remaining four weeks. Yes, that's going to be really interesting cohort.

And your next question comes from Joon Lee with Truist Securities.

Seamlessly transitioning from subcutaneous to oral VK2735 for maintenance is really attractive. Do you have an oral dose in mind for the monthly dosing study due to start in 3Q? And will you have Phase II oral VENTURE data out before you start the monthly dosing study?

Yes, thank you, Joon. We do not have a dose determined yet because we are still awaiting the Phase II oral data. Those data will be crucial for deciding on the maintenance doses. While it would be ideal to have that information before we begin the maintenance study, it is not strictly necessary, as the switch to oral administration occurs after a significant amount of time. There is also a process of increasing the dose to a higher weekly level. So while having that data would be beneficial, it is not essential.

And your next question comes from Mayank Mamtani with B. Riley Securities.

Congrats on the progress. So in your Phase III VANQUISH trial, you have a top dose of 17.5 mg and you look to go a slower titration schema. Could you maybe talk a little bit about your rationale for going up from 15 mg there? And maybe just the schema, titration schema relative to your prior Phase II trial?

Thank you, Mayank. In the 13-week study, we observed strong tolerability and promising efficacy at 15 milligrams, and this held true across all doses, particularly at 15 milligrams. We believed there was some potential to increase the dosage without significantly impacting safety or tolerability. Therefore, we proposed moving forward with that higher dose, which was approved. The titration scheme also appeared effective with a three-week interval in the initial study. Since individuals have varying sensitivities, we considered that extending the interval to four weeks between adjustments might benefit those who experience tolerability challenges, allowing for an additional dose at the same level if needed. Thus, we decided that transitioning to a four-week block would be appropriate. This approach aligns with current practices seen in commercial products, and both factors influenced our decision.

And is there a scenario in VENTURE-Oral that may compel you to study oral formulation as a frontline therapy? And also like a late-stage development, which could look as expansive as ArfA.

Yes. Thanks. Hard to say. I mean, we really need to see the data before we map out the next steps. I mean, yes, there is a scenario that it could be a frontline therapy, but it's premature without really having a good look at the data yet.

And your next question will come from Jay Olson with Oppenheimer.

Congrats on the progress. For the Phase III VANQUISH programs, have you started patient dosing? And can you share any rough predictions on how long you expect enrollment to complete?

Yes, we are dosing. And I think it's just premature to make those timing projections. The study is a month or so old, so it's difficult to know what the real ramp is going to look like. But so far, a lot of interest, a lot of enthusiasm, and we're happy with the way it's looking right now.

Okay. Great. And if I could squeeze in one follow-up for the subcutaneous monthly maintenance study. Are you planning a randomized withdrawal design?

No. No. People will be titrated up to a high dose and then just transition to a range of monthly doses or a selection of daily oral doses. That's kind of the general scheme.

And your next question comes from Hardik Parikh with JPMorgan.

Just a two-part question on the oral program. So on the study that's underway, I saw that the arms with target doses of 60 milligrams or higher have essentially six weeks of titration and then seven weeks on the target dose. Just wondering if you could provide any details on the specific titration doses that you plan to use? And then the second part is just wanted to get your updated thoughts on the possibility that the oral program can advance straight to Phase III, similar to the subcutaneous.

Yes, thank you, Hardik. For Phase II, if you're starting at 60 or higher, the titration occurs in two-week increments. For example, from 30 to 60 to 90, this is done in two-week blocks. For 120, it takes 32 weeks, moving from 60 to 90 to 120, also in two-week increments. Whether we can proceed to Phase III is still uncertain. We need to review the data first; ideally, we would like to move forward, but we aren’t sure yet until we see the results.

And your next question comes from Mike Ulz with Morgan Stanley.

Maybe just a follow-up on the maintenance study. And I don't know if you can give us a sense of how many cohorts you're considering at this point? And then also maybe how you're thinking about the duration of treatment here?

Yes. Thanks, Mike. We haven't given a lot of detail there. It's a complex and sizable study and so probably bigger than the VENTURE-Oral study as far as the number of arms because you're going to transition some people to a monthly injection and then others to a daily oral, and we'll have a weekly oral in there as well. So it's a sizable study, reasonably complex. The post-transition, so when you transition the monthly or the daily oral, that's going to be a few months around a three-month window there. So you get some feel for what the PK and what the body weight curve looks like. But we'll have more detail when we initiate the study.

And your next question comes from Steve Seedhouse with Cantor.

Just want to follow up on the decision for the oral to move into Phase III. A couple of questions about that. One is, do you need to meet with the FDA again? Or did you sort of satisfy any questions or anything that needed addressing in your last meeting prior to starting the subcutaneous Phase III study? And then also more generally, just how you're thinking about sort of the efficacy and tolerability hurdle that you'd want to see ultimately to decide on pursuing that through a Phase III study?

Thank you, Steve. The oral IND is different, and if we decide to move into Phase III, we would likely schedule an end of Phase II meeting. The subcutaneous option isn't really beneficial to us. Regarding efficacy and tolerability, it's tough to make predictions. The Phase I results were quite promising for both, but this involves a longer dosing window and is also larger with a different titration scheme. It's difficult to determine the next steps based on the current data until we have more information.

Right. Okay. Can I just ask also, it looks like the Street is not exactly modeling the R&D expense line accurately. Can you just maybe provide some guidance on how you expect separately, the clinical trial expense, the manufacturing expense, which is a component now, and just the overall R&D line to evolve for the rest of the year?

Steve, yes, I think our R&D expenses will be going up a bit here in the third and fourth quarter compared to the second quarter, maybe by 25% to 33% up basically from here forward. But that's the guidance I'd provide there. And it's a mix, like you said, of clinical trial, manufacturing, and other topics.

And your next question comes from Roger Song with Jefferies.

I have two questions regarding the upcoming oral Phase II data. Can you provide some insights on the high dose compared to the maintenance dose, as both will help guide the next steps for oral treatment, whether stand-alone or as maintenance? Additionally, for the maintenance study, are you contemplating a weekly dose for the oral treatment, considering its half-life, and possibly a lower dose for subcutaneous administration on a weekly basis?

Yes. Yes. Thanks, Roger. So we are looking at a weekly with the oral in that upcoming study. And we're not going to get too far into the details, but that will be one cohort. With the high dose in the oral relative to a maintenance dose, I'm not sure you're referring to a maintenance dose with the injectable versus the high dose oral or a maintenance dose with the oral versus the high dose?

Just the oral Phase II, the maintenance cohort, you have the one cohort have the from high to the low cohort.

Yes, the highest dose in the Phase II study is 120 milligrams, which you gradually increase to 120 milligrams. The maintenance cohort goes up to 90 milligrams for, I believe, four weeks and then reduces to 30 milligrams for the remaining five weeks. The maintenance dose is significantly lower than the highest dose.

Yes. Just in terms of expectations for the weight loss and then tolerability and what you want to see as you move forward with those regimens?

Yes, we have mentioned before that it's difficult to predict outcomes. We observed 8% at 100 milligrams in the 4-week study. If we achieve 8% in this context, it would represent some of the best oral data seen at that timeframe. Therefore, our benchmark might be in the mid-to-high single digits, around that 8% range. Regarding tolerability, this is a complex issue. In the Phase I study, we noted exceptional tolerability, but in the Phase II trial with the injectable form, we did experience some initial nausea and gastrointestinal tolerability issues, which are expected due to the mechanism. However, these symptoms diminished almost immediately. By the second dose and beyond, tolerability significantly improved. Thus, we need to analyze the trend of any gastrointestinal adverse events in the forthcoming data. It’s challenging to categorically state that a specific percentage will be positive or negative; instead, we should assess the overall treatment experience concerning adverse events. That will be the key focus moving forward.

And your next question comes from Biren Amin with Piper Sandler.

I want to understand the 78-week duration for the Phase III trials. Given you need 52 weeks for maintenance dose per FDA draft guidance, should we assume the titration period in the Phase III is 26 weeks? And then the second question is it's, I think, been close to a month since the Phase III started. When can we expect to see the trials posted on clinical trials?

With the second question, I would say shortly, very soon. And with the first question, yes, it's 52 weeks plus the titration window. That's how you get to 78.

Got it. And then maybe if I could have a follow-up. Brian, you talked about the oral data; if it potentially reads out really favorably, that there's a potential to go to Phase III. How long would it take to manufacture the oral clinical supply if you make that decision?

I don't think that would be a gating factor. We have multiple batches sort of in progress at any given time. So Phase III supply would not be gating for the initiation of the Phase III study there. How much we'd have on day one, I don't know, but that wouldn't be a gating factor.

And your next question comes from Andy Hsieh with William Blair.

Just a follow-up on Biren's question earlier. If I do some quick math on the 78 weeks, subtracting 52 weeks gives us 26. Also, you mentioned a four-week block earlier in this call. I'm curious about what's in that block that prevents it from being divisible by four. Additionally, regarding the VANQUISH dosing scheme, it appears to be somewhat staggered compared to Zepbound. Clearly, you're increasing the doses, and I'm hoping there's some differentiation in terms of the extent of weight loss. However, I'm also wondering if there's a reimbursement motivation for implementing a staggered dosing scheme.

I'm not sure I understand the second part of your question. We would expect that if it is safe and effective, the reimbursement would be similar to other approved agents. There wasn't any significant consideration in our trial design regarding this. As for the titration window, it is 26 weeks for the early doses and then 52 weeks for the final post-titration doses.

Let me clarify the situation regarding reimbursement. We are hearing from physicians that if patients are not on the maintenance doses of 5, 10, or 15 for Zepbound, there is a possibility that their insurance coverage could be withdrawn.

Yes, yes. I hear you. Yes, we've heard that as well. But I think that in that case, the 7.5 would be a really attractive option for maintenance, if that's the dose they would choose to pursue long term. But I would expect all of them to be reimbursed. And those intermediate doses, that's one of the reasons we did choose three is just to have multiple options of approved levels. So I guess in that sense, it did feed into the design. But the levels I thought were chosen really based on the potential for good safety, tolerability, and efficacy.

And your next question comes from George Farmer with Scotiabank.

Brian, can you comment a little bit on how you're thinking about the placebo patients in the VANQUISH study and how you can continue motivating them to remain on study? Imagine after a while, if they're not losing weight they'll rationalize that they're probably getting the placebo and may hop off? And then second, can you talk a little bit more about your amylin program and how you think it's differentiated from the others that are out there?

Thank you, George. The question about placebos is quite challenging, particularly in lengthy studies. We are promoting a calorie-restricted diet with guidance on diet and exercise, which may help some individuals to varying extents. Regular appointments with their clinician and investigators resonate well with certain participants; they appreciate face-to-face interactions. A significant factor that may encourage the placebo group to stay involved is the opportunity to join an open-label extension after the trial concludes. Every participant receiving a placebo will qualify to transition to an active treatment arm, and we believe this will serve as a positive incentive for continued participation. However, it remains a challenge in any extended obesity study. And the amylin program, yes, yes, from what the internal standards we use are some known amylin agonists. I think we're competitive on appetite reduction, food intake reduction, body weight reduction. So we don't have any human tolerability data yet. But from the efficacy side, I think it looks very competitive thus far in the animal models that we've looked at. So a little premature to make further predictions there, but it looks interesting.

And your next question comes from Justin Zelin with BTIG.

Congrats on the progress. Brian, for the Phase II VANQUISH programs, can you talk about how you would use auto-injectors in the study and if you would need like a bridging study for the auto-injectors?

Yes, thanks, Justin. Good question. We will be transitioning people to the auto-injectors early next year. So that's the plan. We will conduct a bioequivalent study in the meantime that compares the auto-injector to the vial and syringe. So that's the current plan.

And your next question comes from Yale Jen with Laidlaw & Co.

This is a bit about the competitive landscape regarding orals, specifically the upcoming Phase III data on orforglipron that Lilly is expected to report this quarter. How do you anticipate this will affect your oral product presentation in the same timeframe?

I’m not sure, Yale. We’ll have to wait and see what the data shows. I found the Phase II data for orforglipron to be intriguing. We’ll see the results of this longer study. It’s difficult to predict, but it seems reasonable to assume that the sector and the indication can support multiple agents due to the market opportunities. Therefore, we believe that one oral agent won’t dominate the space, and we’re not overly concerned about the introduction of another one.

Okay, great. And maybe just squeeze one more. In terms of the calcitonin receptor, it seems now talking about that today too much. Was there any change in the status?

No, we're quite balanced in terms of calcitonin and amylin. In our experience, achieving a balance tends to lead to better weight loss outcomes. When we leaned towards one side or the other, it didn't seem to affect food consumption as positively as when we maintained that balance. I'm not sure if it has to be exactly 1:1, but as we approached that ratio, we observed improved overall body weight and food consumption metrics. So in our case, it involves both.

As we are nearing the conclusion of today's call, our final question will come from Thomas Smith with Leerink.

This is Nat Charoensook on for Thomas Smith. So for the amylin agonist program, what does it have to show in the Phase I trial, especially relative to the VK2735 data to warrant continued development in obesity?

Yes, we want to observe the effects on body weight and understand the tolerability profile as well. Fortunately, we've moved away from the mindset of racing to meet a 4-week benchmark and then declaring a winner with the best drug in the class. The field has evolved from that somewhat misguided focus on 4-week data. We will assess the trajectory and examine the safety and tolerability, and then decide from there.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Stephanie Diaz for any closing remarks.

Thank you again for your participation and continued support of Viking Therapeutics. We look forward to updating you again in the coming months.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.