Newsfilter article unlocker

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Sean Larmond, Head of US Mid-Cap Biotech Equity Research here at Morgan Stanley, and welcome to our Global Healthcare Conference. Before we begin, make you aware of some important disclosures, and for those disclosions, visit our website at www.morganstanley.com forward slash research disclosers. And if you do have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. For this session, we have the pleasure to host from Denali Therapeutics, their CEO, Ryan Watts. Thank you, and a pleasure to house you. Great, great to be here. Yep. A couple of macro questions to begin with. Ryan, we were just debating it then. Like, how is the rise of China-originated innovation changing, if at all, your competitive positioning and your R&D and BD playbook? Yeah, I mean, I think that it's a great question, and it's an irrelevant question, And it's a question that we ask at really two levels. One is a biotech community, and specifically here in the U.S., how do we view China from a competitive perspective? And then, in our case, talking about it around invention and the blood-brain barrier specifically. And I think there's varying views, and I often refrain from talking too much about my general feelings about either politics or regional considerations, but I will say that my general impression is that competition is almost always considered, in my opinion, a good thing because it will ultimately lead to the very best medicines for patients. And the more competition there is, the more invention there is in order to either stay ahead or to find the next best medicine. And that's ultimately who wins in that category are the patients. Now, as a company, you view it a little differently. You'd love to be, you know, on an island and have a technology that no one else in the world has. And, that technology is essentially, you know, needed and no one else can access it. But, that's not how biotech works. We all live in this biotec world. And when something shows promise, almost everyone starts pursuing it. From big pharma to midsize biotech, even academic labs will start going into it. And that's when I look back 20 years ago, when we started working on blood brain barrier, there was essentially very few or no one working on it. There were a couple academic labs and some obscure companies that were working on Blood Brain Barrier technologies. And so we picked this up 20 years ago, this is prior to the founding of Denali, and just made everything that was in the patent literature and that had been published and asked, do any of these technologies get medicines into the brain? And usually what happens is if there's not a lot of people working on it, what was first published doesn't really work. And people tried the same thing. They made it, it didn't work. That's not where we are today. So with blood-brain barrier technologies, you're now seeing the first FDA-approved medicine in Ablea, which we launched earlier this year. You're seeing exciting data in Alzheimer's disease where you can take a standard antibody and put a blood-brain barrier technology on it and get three times faster plaque reduction. And as a reality to that, everyone's going to start pursuing it, including in China. And the question is how to stay ahead, how to continue to invent. But I think importantly, when you're pioneering a field, it's important to really lay that solid foundation with great science, but recognize you should fear the competition. But if you're not if you don't have competition you're probably going in the wrong direction and i my expectation is that china's competition is just going to heat up including in the blood-brain barrier space and i think ultimately it should be great for patients sure thank you ryan and moving on to another macro consideration ai adoption so so how are you uh adopting or implementing ai in your business and is there an example you can give us where it's changed a decision a cost a pos on a program yeah so yeah i mean it's a timely question as ai starts to take over the world even you know in an unmonitored way we i think like many have started to experience the absolute value in efficiency and in some cases accuracy but really efficiency of ai and i think the most important thing is to take repetitive tasks or tasks that may be prone to bias and implement AI in that context. You can do that in the preclinical setting. You could do it in the clinical setting. I know for me personally, I use it all the time in terms of my analysis. I like, I actually sometimes like to compare or even compete with AI to see, do I have the ability to still make those independent decisions that, you know, maybe my project and Claude couldn't make. And the reality is it's extraordinary. It really accelerates the mundane. I don't know yet if it's going to accelerate the actual fundamental discovery. And part of that is because you need the data to train it. And biology's complexity is such that I don' t know if we have enough data to really train to have that independent thought. But that doesn' t matter. Like in our world, especially now, we have a proven platform, and that platform we need to apply. So application, with example, is a great place to use AI. So we use it in all aspects of our business. In fact, we reward it, we accelerate it, we find any way we can use it. But I think there are areas where it's more advantageous than others, and I think it's really those repetitive tasks where you're looking for consistency. Sure, sure. And I'm asking these questions across all our companies, but this last one is probably very interesting for you, particularly because denialists just crossed that threshold from being clinical to commercial stage. So which policy variable, is it FDA, Medicare negotiation, MFN, tariffs or global pricing, matters most to your economics? And what have you changed, if anything, because of it? Yeah, I think in some ways I want to say that we had the foresight to do this, but maybe we did, maybe we didn't. but we decided to onshore manufacturing in the U.S. And part of it is, if you look at the cycle of invention and application across biotech, it was the case that everyone externalized manufacturing. I mean, why build your own manufacturing? It's expensive, it takes time, and what ended up happening is what used to be inexpensive and super efficient to outsource manufacturing has become extraordinarily expensive Because when those are made available, what happens, those companies are trying to really maximize their margins in the way that they interact with biotech. And so we made the decision now four years ago to onshore manufacturing. And I think as a result, you know, something like tariffs really matters because you're buying raw material and, you want to do, and so you're looking for obviously a paradigm in which you can reduce costs. And it's been great for us. I think the flexibility, the speed, and what we manufacture, which are biologics, which, you know, there are many CDMOs that do this. Ours are actually fusion proteins that are unique. We end up having to build our own parallel teams for process development for Ablea, our first product launch. It was just much easier for us to bring that in-house. And I think we're at a point where it's an advantage to do your own manufacturing, I think, here in the U.S. Sure. Thank you. And on to Denali's specific questions, but Avlayer, a year ago was pre-commercial, now it's been launched. And what can you tell investors about, it's the first transport vehicle therapy for neurological symptoms in Hunter, but what can You tell us about the differentiation to the standard of care and why you think there'll be ultimately a displacement of the standard of care with Avlayar? Yeah, so I think it's important first to describe briefly Hunter syndrome and what the standard of care is. Hunter syndrome is one of many mucopolysaccharidoses or MPS diseases. It's a monogenic disease, a loss of enzyme function. And what happens is lysosomes become dysfunctional. It's an lysosomal storage disease. And now, I think 30 or plus years ago, it was discovered that you can take these lysosoma enzymes, you can manufacture them, and you can inject them systemically and a fraction of what you inject gets taken up into cells and starts to restore lysosomal function. These are the enzyme replacement therapies. And it's been decades since that was discovered. And this was a really important class of medicines. But the challenge with all of those enzyme replacement therapists is that they cannot access the brain. So of the totality of MPS patients, 70% of them have some type of neurologic dysfunction. It's probably greater if you include hearing. It might be as high as 95% have some neurologic manifestation. And so the standard of care does not cross the blood-brain barrier. These enzymes don't get into the brain, and hence there's this big unmet need. And I'll just give one example. So in Hunter syndrome, about 70% of patients upon diagnosis have neuronal pathic disease. So they have complete enzyme loss of function. And those patients on standard of carer will live on average to about age 15. So they'll, you know, initially learn how to walk and talk, and then by age 5, 6, 7, 8, they'll lose the ability to walk, or sorry, lose theability to talk. Some will be able to walk and have other dysfunction, toileting, and that's on the standard of care. And the reason is that the nervous system is degenerating. In the case of Sanfilippo, which is another disease we're working on, that degeneration is super rapid. It's like Alzheimer's of childhood. It is a very rapid neurodegenerative disease. And there, there's actually no standard of care because basically it's a neurologic disease and the standard enzymes don't get into the brain. And so ultimately what Avalaya is engineered to do, it's hitching a ride with an iron transporter. It can treat the whole body. That's important. So we've replaced the standard of carer, but it crosses the blood-brain barrier, addressing the neurologic manifestations of disease. And I think the data that supports that was published earlier this year in the New England Journal. And obviously, that went into the broader context of the filing with the approval in March and now the launch of Ablea. Sure. Thank you. And maybe talk about when the neurological deficits start associated with Hunter and the optimal time for intervention. And you mentioned patients living to 50. But I imagine that the earlier the intervention, the better the long-term outcomes. And that data will play out over time. Yeah, so I think you nailed it, which is earlier is better. I think our data shows that. In fact, we presented data recently that shows neurofilament, which is a marker of neurodegeneration. If you intervene early, the NFL goes down more rapidly. If you intervene later, you still get normalization, but there's a delay in the time before you actually halt the neurodegeneration, probably because there's not a lot of neurogeneration that's happening. But I think, you know, again, without newborn screening, which is really where we have to go, we have a country newborn screening for all of these diseases, especially if you have medicines that can really impact. If you're getting diagnosed at age two, usually it's ear infections, you know, there's changes in, like, skin features and facial features, but the newborn screening is the way to go. And when we think about the Avalaya launch, you Most of our patients right now are switching from standard of care to Avalaya, but there are a percentage of patients that are newly diagnosed, and even better if they come out of newborn screen and can start taking this medicine in their really early life and hopefully have a normal life. Sure. And as the, I guess, newborn screening proliferates, do you think estimates of the epidemiology may go up, or do you Think that it's a fairly well-observed disease? I think it's well observed, and the reason for that is that eventually patients get diagnosed. Hunter is a very severe disease, and so you'll miss it, but by age two, three, and sometimes even four, and maybe in the attenuated patients a little bit later, but you know, it's diagnosed. And even on standard of care, just restate that at 15 years of age is the average lifespan of someone with severe disease. So that's happening. I don't think you're going to see the numbers go up, but we hope that the prevalence goes up because this medicine will have a big impact on on life and and and other aspects not just neurologic which is a big a big piece of that sure thank you and you know so far we've seen a q2 revenue i think was about 3.6 million you've guided to our q3 at 10 to 12 of that 10 to 12 you know are you able to tell us how many patients are new starts versus reimbursement conversions if that question makes sense and and what particular um you know a rare disease i imagine you have a pretty good hold on on uh you know how the revenue is going to look for quarter to quarter as you get to the end of the quarter that makes sense yeah yeah let me just i'll i'll ask a question just to make sure i get it exactly right so new starts meaning also including switches from elliprase versus those that convert from the phase one to trial correct Yeah, okay. I mean, right now, the vast majority of our patients are all new starts. Our goal is by end of year to switch patients on the phase one, two trial to commercial. So that's going to happen over time. But really out of the gates, it's new starts and so I don't really have a percentage on that. And we did something a little bit unusual. We guided to revenue on a quarter basis. We thought of all the different metrics that are useful and it's a little complicated in Hunter syndrome because it's weight-based dosing. Obviously, we have a dose escalation. And the simplest thing is that to take away that mystery, we guide it towards what we think will be revenue in Q3. We'll likely do the same in Q4, and then we'll reassess what we're going to do for 2027. But obviously, this is a great starting point for us. I think really importantly here is this is not a single product story. It's really the platform that has been validated by this product, Avlea, and it's now application across many disease areas. And so we think that the commercial execution is critically important, and we can build an enzyme franchise that will create a lot of value for patients and obviously for Denali and hopefully for shareholders. But in reality, these numbers don't really matter today. It can we execute. And I think for us, what's been really exciting is to see that commercial team execute. It doesn't have to be a big team. It's an ultra-rare disease. And certainly, you know, with the label the way that it is, we're in, I think, a really strong place in the initial launch of this medicine. Sure. Thank you. And how should we think about the shape of the launch into 2027 without drawing on specific numbers? But do you think it's going to be kind of a rapid conversion of a prevalent pool or a sort of slower ramp over sort of four to six quarters? Yeah. It's actually early innings, so we don't know how that's going to look. I'll tell you what our dream is. Our dream is to try to hit a plateau as fast as possible. We want to get as many patients in the U.S. onto medicine. We then want to work on the next third of patients outside the U. S. that can benefit from, I think, this transformative medicine. The final third is probably going to be unlocked with our COMPASS trial as we think about Europe in particular, you know, and I think there that's as much about reimbursement as anything. And so our goal, the S-shaped launch in part is not the patient starts as much as it is, you know, dose escalation and growth and, as you see, a broader range of weights on drug. Sure. Thank you. And maybe think about some of the prescribing dynamics behind Avlayer, and I think there's more than 50% of commercial lives and 14 state Medicare programs now have coverage. What's the typical timeframe from treatment to first infusion? And where does the access still break down, if at all? Yeah, so the short answer is it's variable, obviously from state to state and from clinic to clinic. And I think the two most, I mean, there's really three components. One is everything we can do to assess, but there's a limit to that. It's really the physician and the families that drive. And that's been probably the most inspiring thing to see in this community is the drive to get these young patients, these young boys on medicine, driven by their families and the physicians. And so we don't, like, again, early innings, we don'T have, and I don'T even know if it's relevant, the revenue is ultimately what we calculate, but it's been exciting and inspiring to see that level of motivation to get access to medicine. Sure, sure. And I think you've mentioned 375 eligible eligible U.S. pediatric patients out of a potential of 500. So where's that other 25% and what's the realistic addressability of the market? I mean, the other 25 percent is essentially adult. And if you think about the prevalence of the 500 patients, the long term, you start to see that shift from 70% neuropathic to 30% attenuated to then about 50-50 because the attenuate patients live much longer. So that's where the other portion of patients, and they're obviously, they're not covered by label, a lot of interest from that community, and there we hope to unlock that with the COMPASS trial data. Sure, and maybe talk us through the conversion from L-oprase, you know, how does that dialogue go? Yeah, so I think the conversion from L-operase, I mean, number one, you go back into the clinic. That's the process as you go through the dose escalation process. The 47 patients that were on the phase one, two trial, you know, those patients eventually are now at home infused, and that's the goal. So you go back to the clinic. And that we had assumed would probably be a barrier, but the motivation, again, from families and physicians to see the benefit that Ablea can offer treating the neurologic manifestations. And part of that is just making sure we get to the optimal dose. and we just haven't seen that as a big barrier now there are probably going to be some patients that are less severe or families are not as motivated as they've kind of hit you know a comfortable position of where they are and that's i think where there'll be work to be done okay and still thinking about some of the launch dynamics yeah how concentrated is the prescriber base ryan and and how many treatment centers are needed to reach most eligible patients yeah it's pretty concentrated in sort of what we call centers of excellence in different parts of the united United States. In fact, often families will relocate to be adjacent to those centers. And so that's critical. Many of them were involved in the Phase I-II trial, have a lot of experience with Ablea now. But then there are other areas where it's less so, and that's where work also needs to be done. It also comes down to how connected the families are with the MPS community. But I think we've estimated like 80 to 100 centers of excellence, of which we know many of them and and engage with many of them. That includes also worldwide, but it's pretty concentrated. And on worldwide, I think you've estimated 2,000 patients. Right. And what's the ex-US filing sequence, and does Compass gate those assumptions? Right. So, again, if I look at the entire Hunter market, I Think of the US, I Think Of Europe proper, and then rest of world. And you can access most of rest of the world now, and we're in that process of doing that with the data from the Phase I-II trial, with the accelerated approval, and with Europe, it's going to be unlocked, ultimately, with Compass. And so really like a third, a third of third. And why do we have that type of visibility? It's because there's a standard of care for the last 20 years, and we have an idea where that medicine is prescribed and where it's used. Sure, sure. I do have some more of layer questions, but I want to skip forward. You know, giving said validation of the platform, I want to make sure we get to some of these other programs given we've got 13 minutes. So on DNL 126 in San Felipe, so Transport Vehicle Platform has its first validation. So how should investors view Denali now? You know, is this a single asset launch story or biologics delivery platform for new medicines with scale? Yeah, so this is Zavinifusp Alpha, or it's what we call Zafi. So we have its generic name. Simple. We had TIVI, now we have Zafi. TIVi is now Ablea in terms of its commercial name. So Zaf이 is, you know, we've presented eight patients' worth of data at World this year. Those eight patients were really dose-finding, and it was really insightful because unlike Hunter, there's no standard of care. So this is the first time that we're really exploring, and we can't really use a standard looking at what's out there. We explored every other week dosing. frankly to be optimized for patient families and what we discovered is that actually weekly dosing is much better tolerated than every other week dosing and that's because it's an enzyme and these patients have no enzyme and enzyme replacement therapies you have to build tolerance so you need drug on board that was point number one you can look at like the study design the way that we presented it at at world and this is some detail that wasn't really expressed at world but i i think it's really interesting in addition to that we can drive a better dose with that weekly weekly dosing. What we're able to achieve is greater than 80% reduction in CSF heparin sulfate. Patients can achieve normalization. Those that don't have, like you see with most enzyme replacement therapies, anti-drug antibodies, and so modulating that is, I think, a key aspect. We also see that six out of seven patients had normalized GM3, which is a downstream biomarker. And so those are the eight patients that allow us to really think about the dosing regimen and the dose. We then expanded to an additional 12 patients. Those patients are completing the 49 week now. And then we go through the, and that was all pre-specified with the FDA as we thought about heparin sulfate as the biomarker to drive accelerated approval. So we, this program was selected for the start program. We engaged with the FTA quarterly in defining the path for approval for this medicine. And now we're in the process of like officially locking the database, going through that process, preparing for the BLA filing. And we look forward to sharing new data at World next year, which is basically the additional patients on that trial. We then also plan to launch this medicine from our own commercial manufacturing in Salt Lake City. So this is part of what we were talking about before, one of the biggest factors for us building our own manufacturing. That'll be the rate-limiting step for the PLA filing, but we're looking forward to 2027 and filing on Zafi. All right. I think you've just answered my next question, but I'm going to ask it anyway just to make sure I've got it. But, you know, on 126 produced an 80% reduction in HS in the CFS, but does Avlion materially de-risk the accelerated approval process in San Felipe OA, or must the FDA independently validate the surrogate in the disease? Yeah. So I think for the surrogate itself, heparin sulfate, and the belief that it's reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, that's really solid. I think what the FDA does is it reviews every application independently. And so the precedent is very important. I think it substantially increases probability of success as using this biomarker, including in San Filippo. And the FDA got that. I mean, you can see what's happened over the last year and a half. I mean, I love sitting on this stage today versus last year and all the uncertainty as we're thinking about the path to approval. But our review division has been fantastic. They're rigorous. You know, we spent probably three years arguing why heparin sulfate and CSF actually would be reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. And it was, frankly, the community that came around and the community being the treating physicians, you know, families and gathering with the FDA to say, this is why heparin sulfate is the biomarker to predict clinical benefit. So that foundation is laid. And so I think the future for Zafi is just defining the clinical, the to-be-marketed dose, getting the data, showing that, and then designing, importantly, and now very soon beginning our phase three trial to confirm efficacy. So that's going to be key. I think that's the bar that the FDA holds, and we understand why that's a case. Sure. And just a question on the competitive positioning. So UX111 could establish a one-time gene therapy ahead of a potential launch of Zafi. So how do you think about the competitive positioning of Z afi? Yeah. So just to restate, there are gene therapy competitors in Hunter and in San Filippo. What's unique about this particular gene therapy is it's delivered systemically, not to the brain. And we just feel like there's going to be unmet need even on gene therapy, so there's probably room for multiple, and that's how we thought about it with Hunter as well. You know, part of it is heterogeneity, but also we have biomarkers, and the biomarkERS can tell us are you really driving robust CSF reduction, and if you are, great, but if you're not, we have this medicine that can really drive that with SAFI. Great. Thank you. Moving on to ATV-MAP-T and ATV A-beta programs, which are super exciting, but, you know, Have they validated the TFR-mediated transport for enzyme in a lysosomal disease? You know, what does that generally de-risk for oligonucleotides and antibodies in neurodegeneration? And what remains, you know, target or modality specific? Yeah, so I think that the blood-brain, if you look at the history of blood- brain barrier discovery, it was 1989 when the first paper was published using a transferrin receptor technology to get a medicine in the brain. And now fast forward to 2026 to the FDA approval. I mean, I don't want to say it's embarrassing. I don' t even know what I was doing in 1989. But, you know, that' s not unusual for drug discovery and drug development. It' s a long road where you' re really defining the right properties to drive this. And so I think in many ways that FDA approval very much just unlocks the field of BBB back to our original question around competition. everyone's going to start going after we already see that we already know that but specifically for the transport vehicle it's it's very important to now go after other targets and we're we're i mean we have endless number of exciting targets to use the transport vehicles for first it's in enzymes now it's an alzheimer's and there are many others that there's interest in and we can do that in different ways we can do it through partnerships we can it through small efforts within within denali they're you know academic partnerships and you'll see some of that and you're seeing that really blossom throughout the field but in alzheimer's disease in particular we now have a validated approach and we can put it on the antibody we put on oligonucleotide so antibodies we already know we've done one antibody already we worked on trem2 way back when we saw fantastic biomarker data like really robust activation at about 160th naked antibodies approaching him so we know it's going to get in brain we also know that from some of the roche data. The oligonucleotides is just the like untapped potential, also highly competitive because now we know transferrin receptor works and getting these oligonucleotides in the brain will be really exciting. So instead of having to do intrathecal delivery, which has its limitations with biodistribution and, you know, everything that comes along with having to inject in the spinal cord, you can give systemically. So these are the two approaches in Alzheimer's targeting a beta you know people have known about this target i think 1991 was when app was first sort of discovered as a as a gene in in alzheimer's disease uh and tau the other like histological hallmark of of alzheimers and those are the two targets that we're going after sure and and on those programs you know which would you have the high conviction of and i do believe that we going to see data for both programs next year that's right and what data would you be looking for to justify broader development of either. Yeah, so these, the data next year is around dose. It's like, what's the right dose to engage the target? So in one case, we want to remove amyloid plaque. In the other case, We want to reduce tau expression. And I mean, I think no one would argue with me that right now, the clinical data points really strongly towards amylloid as being a positive target. Now, there's some people that still question, I Think prevention is going to be key early intervention removing amyloid before you have cognitive decline is going to be key but the way that the data plays out right now is that it appears that plaque forms 20 years before we have cognitive decay and then you start to see tau pathology rise and it rises several years and then its pathology correlates with cognitive decline so it seems that a beta is upstream and it in many ways accelerates tau spreading histologically and so they're both i think very promising targets and i think much like a lot of disease areas that are complex like cancer and otherwise going after multiple targets and the way i describe it is that a beta is the trigger and tau is the executioner and in there both will be important targets you need to get rid of the trigger you need to get rid of the executioner then you have a set of accelerators or contributors that many of which are like immune modulators but those are the two real hallmark targets sure wonderful thank you Ryan and moving on to FTDGIN which you're calling DL593 data let's move to the first half of 2027 to allow for longer neurofilament follow-up what would constitute a convincing package you know progranulin restoration alone or or do you need uh nfl movement yeah so we i mean i think in that this particular program i put in the category of high risk but really high reward and part of it is it's a neurodegenerative disease but it acts like a lysosomal storage disease from a biological perspective it's very similar to what we're seeing with hunter and san filipo in the sense that the biology is a lysosomal biology. There's a set of lysosoma biomarkers. This is a hemizygous haploinsufficiency of loss of one copy of granulin, which codes for progranulin, a protein that produces like seven and a half granulins. And the idea is just like Hunter and Sanfilippo, restoring progranulin with a protein replacement. And it acts, frankly, it acts a lot like an enzyme in terms of its lysosomal function. So there I think the data and the science is pretty clear. The challenge is that it's frontal temporal dementia, which is not Hunter or Sanfilippo. They're a little bit more challenging to diagnose these patients, to say the least. And then it's a genetic subpopulation of FTD. And when we look at the biomarkers, we realize that unlike heparin sulfate that's tenfold or 20-fold elevated in Hunter and San Filippo, respectively, the biomarkers in a haploinsufficient disease are much more modest. They're like 10%, 15%. They're not big differences. But NFL is about four-fold elevated. So this is a real biomarker, a real biomarker of neurodegenerative disease. And then our experience with NFL is that it can take time. So you can restore the lysosome, but in six months you're asking a lot to see NFL decline. And so we just said, you know what, before we see any of the data, let's focus on a big signal-to-noise, a high-risk-benefit sort of paradigm, and we can do that. We wholly own the program now. It gives us the ability to make the decision, and now we're focusing on NFL as the end point for that. Awesome. So two Alzheimer's programs, one on FTD. What's your thoughts around ongoing internal development of those programs versus partnering with Big Pharma, given that particularly Alzheimer's would be big studies? Yeah, and the other program that I'm equally excited about, which we haven't mentioned yet, which is Pompeii. And so I bring that up just because there is a set of enzymes that we can develop on our own. We now have a commercial team. We can hopefully launch multiple enzymes. And I think with these Alzheimer's programs, they're definitely the programs that we've had the most incoming interest, not surprising. These are huge indications, a lot of rationale, a little bit of information. lot of competition, a lot of other cool approaches being taken around, like, you know, blood-brain barrier technologies. And that interest remains high. I mean, I love a world where we're able to launch our enzymes, generate enough revenue, develop an Alzheimer's portfolio, launch an Alzheimer's. That would be brilliant. That Would be brilliant for Denali. But I think realistically, we will continue to be opportunistic about the right partner. And That partner would have to be someone who shares our vision for the right risk-taking and has a set of resources that we don't have. Certainly, global is one consideration. Great. Thank you, Ryan. Now, I do have time to circle back to this Adlai question. You may have already answered it, but how does Compass support the adult label expansion? And, you know, with the current prior to advanced urological impairment, language apply to adults? Yeah. Okay. So, two separate questions very quickly. So Compass has cohort A and cohort B. Cohort A is ages two to six, and it's really focused on the neurologic manifestations. The other cohort is up to age 26, and that's looking for comparability with alloprase. What's certainly the case is that even adult patients that are attenuated have neurologic manifestations. Hearing, absolutely, and that's some of the most robust data we've generated is looking at hearing benefit. But in addition to that, you know, cognitive decline in those aspects. So it's really an area of unmet need, and we're excited to see the data and move Ablea forward. Sure. Well, we're right at time. Is there anything I didn't ask that I should have, Ryan, or a message to leave the audience with? Yeah, I think I'll just end, you know. For us, the story is our first product, which validates our platform, which drives our pipeline. And that platform is the transport vehicle. We're very excited to be in this very competitive field and seeing, you Know, a number of companies explore biologics for the brain, something that, you know, was started in the late 1980s, and now we can bring it forward. Wonderful. Well, thanks for your time today, Ryan, and thanks, everyone, for listening. Thank you.