Newsfilter article unlocker

Hello, and welcome everyone joining today's Arcturus Therapeutics presentation. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, you will have the opportunity to ask a question during the question-and-answer session. To register to ask the question at any time, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. Please note this call is being recorded, and we are standing by if you should need any assistance. It is now my pleasure to turn the meeting over to Neda Sefarzadeh, Vice President, Head of Investor Relations, Public Relations, and Marketing. Please go ahead. Thank you, Operator. Good afternoon and welcome to Arcturus Therapeutics presentation. Today's call will be led by Joe Payne, our President and CEO, Dr. Alan Cohen, our Chief Medical Officer, Dr., Marshall Summer, a recognized expert in rare diseases and OTC deficiency, and Dr. Pat Trevacula, our chief scientific officer. Before we begin, please note that today's call may contain forward-looking statements. Such statements are based on current expectations and assumptions, and actual results may differ. Please refer to our filings made with the SEC, including the risk factors contained therein, for more information. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-thinking statement. And with that, I will now turn the call over to Joe. Thank you, Nita. Before we turn to the data, I want to frame the four key messages you will hear today. First, ARCT 810, our mRNA therapeutic candidate to treat OTC deficiency, has generated preliminary Phase II clinical evidence that supports our core therapeutic hypothesis that with generally safe and well-tolerated repeat dosing, we can produce biomarker changes consistent with improved urea cycle function. Second, we introduce Lunar 2.0, a new standard in mRNA delivery, producing greater than 30-fold higher protein expression in non-human primates across two different studies with two different mRNA payloads. Third, the LUNR 2.0 delivery platform has been incorporated into our OTC deficiency program. We call this mRNA therapeutic candidate ARCT 2601. As advised by the FDA during our Type C meeting in June, we plan to integrate ARCT2601 into the ongoing ARCT810 Phase 2 study this year. Lunar 2.0 is expected to help us achieve lower, less frequent dosing and shorter infusion times. And fourth, our mRNA therapeutics platform, together with engineered mRNA and proprietary AI-enabled computational design capabilities, creates opportunities to expand our liver franchise into PKU, gout, and additional indications. Today's message is straightforward. Clinical validation today, a compellingly more powerful delivery platform going forward, and multiple new opportunities made possible with this new platform to create substantial value. Alan, I will turn the presentation over to you. Alan Guttmacher Thanks, Joe. Good afternoon and thank you for joining. Today I'll walk you through ARCT810, our Lunar OTC messenger RNA therapeutic candidate for Ornithine Transcarbamylase Deficiency. The ARC is simple. First, the disease and why current standards of care and clinical management options fall short. Then I'll review Arcturus' clinical program to date, including the preliminary findings from our U.S. Phase II study, summarizing safety, biomarkers, protein intake, and what this means for urea cycle function. Let's begin with the disease and the biology that makes messenger RNA a rational approach to consider and develop as a next-generation therapeutic option. Protein metabolism constantly generates ammonia, which is toxic to the brain even at modest levels. But through the urea circle in the liver, ammonia is converted to urea, preventing ammonia buildup in the blood. Ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency, or OTC deficiency, is the most common urea cycle disorder, affecting roughly 10,000 people across the United States and Europe. With deficient OTC enzyme expression or activity, if individuals consume a normal protein-containing diet, ammonia will accumulate in the body, leading to potentially irreversible neurological damage, and even coma or death. Today's standard of care asks people suffering with OTC deficiency to adhere to a strict low-protein, high-fluid diet and use ammonia scavenger medications to keep ammonia levels low. That regimen is demanding, and it still does not reliably prevent life-threatening ammonia spikes. For severe patients, liver transplantation unfortunately remains the only cure. That is the unmet medical need that Lunar OTC is designed to address, to deliver messenger RNA to the liver, restore expression of the OTC enzyme, and reactivate urea cycle activity so ammonia is detoxified in the bloodstream before it causes harm, while potentially mitigating or forestalling the need for a liver transplant. With that in mind, let's look at ARCT 810's clinical trial journey. Here's a summary of the clinical development program for ARCT810 thus far, from first in human studies through phase two. Phase one was first initiated in 24 healthy adult volunteers, where ARCT 810 was observed to be safe and generally well tolerated. We then moved into a phase 1b single ascending dose study in 16 adults with OTC deficiency, testing doses from 0.2 to 0.5 milligrams per kilo, again with a clean safety and tolerability profile. Phase two moved to repeat dosing. Our placebo-controlled study in the UK and Europe enrolled adolescents and adults at 0.3 milligrams per kg with a total of six intravenous infusions every two weeks. We observed that ARCTA10 continued to be safe and generally well-tolerated across multiple repeated administrations. Limited glutamine measures suggested an early clinical signal via a reduction in the treated group versus placebo, an early signal of potential efficacy. With this support of early clinical data, we then initiated a phase two study to evaluate two doses, 0.3 and 0.5 milligram per kilo, over five intravenous infusions every two weeks. I will now share with you the preliminary data from this recently concluded Phase II study. The Phase II program was an open-label, U.S.-based study investigating the safety, PK, and efficacy of ARCT810 at 0.3 and 0.5 milligrams per kilo over 10 weeks with a four-week observation follow-up period after discontinuation of study drug. Eight adolescents and adults with confirmed OTC deficiency were enrolled, four individuals per dosing cohort. For four weeks prior to dosing, participants were required to be on a stable, protein-restricted diet as well as continue their standard of care medical management, including all of their typical medications. In this phase two study, we observed that ARCT810 continued to be safe and well-tolerated across repeated dosing at both the 0.3 and 0.5 milligram per kilogram doses. There were no serious adverse events and no adverse events of special interest, and most importantly, no hyperammonemia events observed in either dosing cohort. Every study participant had at least one treatment emergent adverse event, but the large majority were mild to moderate, and the most common were headache, transaminitis, and infusion-related reactions, each in two of eight participants. Two grade three events occurred, both asymptomatic transaminitis, and both resolved with that intervention after study drug was stopped. One discontinuation was the result of an intravenous infiltration and a subsequent injection site reaction, a procedural event rather than a systemic drug effect. Based on these safety and tolerability findings, we are overall pleased with the safety profile of ARCT at 10. Regarding the phase two study measures of efficacy at both the 0.3 and 0.5 milligram per kilo doses, we measured several relevant biomarkers and clinically meaningful functional measures for people with OTC deficiency. Effects in the urea cycle impact protein metabolism and lead to a buildup of ammonia in the bloodstream, which also unfortunately can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause transient and more permanent injury to the brain and central nervous system. When the nitrogen load increases, glutamine levels also increase. These two biomarkers of urea cycle function are routinely used in the clinical care of those with OTC deficiency to assess urea-cycle activity and serve to direct clinical decision-making and management. As such, we measured both ammonia and glutamine level in the blood. We also measured OTC activity by looking at the formation of urea cycle byproducts in a metric called relative urea function. Since these biomarkers are influenced by the consumption of protein, referred to as the protein load, we additionally examined how dietary protein intake compared in study subjects pre- and post-ARCT A10 administration. The table on the right shows the baseline characteristics of seven individuals who received more than one dose of ARCT810. The current Phase II study focused on adolescents and adults with OTC deficiency, and given the X-linked recessive genetics pattern of the disease, all of these adult subjects were not unexpectedly female. Nearly all participants were also on nitrogen scavenger medications at baseline, which is typical of most individuals with OCC deficiency. We had all study subjects remain on their usual standards of care, including all of their dietary restrictions and medications. The first biomarker we will examine is ammonia. As mentioned, it is imperative to keep ammonia levels low to prevent neurological damage. To achieve this, many individuals with OTC deficiency are on ammonia scavenger medications, not unexpectedly, most of our study participants were on these medications as well. At all reported ammonia measurements illustrated here, participants in both the 0.3 and 0.5 milligrams per kilogram cohorts were on the same amount of ammonia scavenger medications. Thus, we would anticipate stability, or a flat line, in ammonia levels across the study period. At 0.3 and 0.5 milligrams per kilo, we observed that mean first morning fasting ammonia levels were generally similar or lower than baseline values. Of clinical importance, after either the 0.30 or 0.50 milligram per kilogram dose of ARC-TA10, all individuals were able to achieve and maintain normal plasma ammonia levels. Glutamine is a physiologic repository of excess nitrogen, but like ammonia, too much glutamine can be toxic. Like ammonia, glutamine is an important measurement of urea cycle activity, often being used in clinical practice to direct diet and medication adjustments. In OTC deficiency, plasma glutamine can be elevated even when ammonia levels are normal, persistent nitrogen excess and impaired urea cycle activity. Thus, glutamine can be a very useful and highly sensitive indicator of nitrogen burden and urea circle activity. All study participants had elevated glutamine levels at baseline, even though most had normal ammonia levels. Following ARCT 810 treatment, all participants experienced a reduction in glutamine levels, with mean glutamine levels falling below baseline at both 0.3 and 0.5 milligram per kilogram dose levels, roughly 15 to as much as 25% less than prior to ARCTA10 treatment. Following the introduction of ARCTIA10, we not only observed a significant reduction of glutamine level across all individuals, but during the one-month post-discontinuation of ARC-TA10, we observed a reversal of this reduction, with glutamine levels at the end of the follow-up period being similar to those observed prior to initiating ARCTA10 study drug. These two graphics compare the cumulative changes in ammonia as well as glutamine observed for both 0.3 and 0.5 milligram per kilogram ARCT-A10 doses studied. Additionally, it is worth noting that tighter error bars observed for both the ammonia and glutamine measures at the higher of the two administered doses of ARC-TA10 at the 0.5 milligram per kilogram dose. Our preliminary conclusions are that we have observed what appears to be drug-specific changes in glutamine, a sensitive indicator of urea cycle function, following initiation of ARCT810 at both administered doses. Since changes in protein intake can impact glutamine levels, we examined the change in average protein intake per kilogram body weight per day after ARCT 810 treatment compared to baseline protein intake to verify the observed reductions in glutamine were not due to reductions in protein intakes. The guidance given to study subjects was to keep their protein intake stable throughout the study. However, we found that participants generally took in more protein while on ARC-TA10, as evidenced by the columns pointing upward. And in fact, the majority of individuals in our study took in more than 25% of their baseline protein intake at some point during the treatment period. This data suggests that individuals who normally restrict their protein intake due to not only adverse biochemical effects, but also because of the adverse symptoms they feel, such as nausea, headache, and GI upset, were likely experiencing greater protein tolerance on ARCT810, allowing them to take in more protein. Further evidence is the observed decreased trend in protein intake back to near baseline levels after discontinuation of ARCT10 at the end of the dosing period. In the context of increased protein intake, ammonia levels were stable or lower, and we also observed decreased glutamine levels. Both changes in these biomarkers support increased urea cycle activity following administration of ARCT810. To summarize, in this recently completed U.S. Phase II OTC deficiency study, ARCT 810 was generally safe and well-tolerated across five repeat infusions at both dose levels with no serious adverse events. Ammonia normalized in all participants and glutamine declined in all participants. And all of this occurred despite protein intake rising above baseline. Together, these findings support the core hypothesis that with administration of ARCT810 in adults with OTC deficiency, restoring OTC enzyme expression in the liver can restore urea cycle activity in people living with ODC deficiency. That's the foundation for the next stage of development. It is now my honor and privilege to introduce Dr. Marshall Sommer, who is an internationally renowned expert in the urea cycle disorders and who, in the balance of his illustrious career, has contributed significant clinical and scientific advances in our understanding of the genotypic nature as well as the clinical and metabolic phenotypes of OTC deficiency. Dr. Marshal Sommer, thank you for joining us today. to share your thoughts on the current management of OTC deficiency and to share you thoughts on our development program and our progress thus far. Thanks, Alan. You've just seen the Phase II data, so let me tell you what a metabolic physician takes from it. The result that persuades me is glutamine. Every participant entered the study with an elevated glutamine despite a normal ammonia, which is precisely the profile of the patient we call well-controlled. Glutamine fell in every participant on drug, and it returned toward baseline when dosing stopped. I remind you that glutamine levels are what we track long-term to determine patient stability. That on and off pattern appears to be drug effect, not variability. The ammonia decline was a genuine surprise. These were stable patients on unchanged scavenger doses where a flat line is the expected result. and the half milligram cohort in particular moved. My conclusion is that ART810 is safe, it's tolerated, and it works. And I would expect a quarter or more of eligible patients to be early adopters. And I'm now turning this call back over to Dr. Pad Chivukula. Thank you, Dr. Sommer. I'm the Chief Scientific Officer at Arcturus Therapeutics. You just heard a metabolic physician say there's three things about ARCT 810, that it's safe, that it's tolerated, and it works. So the question is no longer whether an mRNA medicine can treat OTC deficiency. The question is how much better can we make it? And that's what I'm here to show you. For 13 years, my team has been tackling one problem. How do you get this fragile strand of RNA from a while into human liver cells, keep it stable for long enough and have it survive to be effective. Today I want to tell you about the biggest step forward we've made in that problem. We call it Lunar 2.0. I'm going to show you data, but first I want start with the problem itself, because you can't appreciate the answer until you see what we've been losing. Every IV mRNA medicine in the world, ours, anyone's, starts as a nanoparticle containing four lipids. An ionizable lipid is the one that does the real work. A structured lipid called DSPC, cholesterol, and a PEG lipid code that's on the outside that keeps the particles from sticking to each other. Wrapped inside is mRNA, the instructions for a protein we want the liver to make. Within minutes of the infusion, the peg coats sheds, and something rather elegant happens. A protein already circulating in your blood, ApoE, apolipoprotein E, lands on the surface of our particle. The body then uses Apo E, containing nanoparticles, to bind to the LDL receptors on hepatocytes, and the cell internalizes the whole particle into a membrane called the endosome. After this point, we're winning. We've made it to the right cell in the right organ. And this is where the story turns. The endosome is a sorting room. As it acidifies, the ionizable lipids pick up positive charge, disrupts the membrane, and the mRNA slips into the cytoplasm where the ribosomes are waiting. Well, that's the theory. Here's the reality. Only two to five percent of that mRNA that enters the cell ever gets out the rest is shuttled to the lysosome and is degraded think about that 95% of the delivered dose is thrown away by the cell after we've done all of the hard work of getting it to the right cell type and the right organ that's the rate limiting step that's the step that we've been trying to optimize for a decade so lunar 2.0 is at the heart of a new ionizable lipid a next-generation ATX lipid and I want to show you the experiment that we have done and set it up properly because the design is what makes the numbers believable we took non-human primates three animals per group, and gave each a single one-hour IV infusion at 0.3 milligrams per kilogram. And that's a clinically relevant dose. The mRNA encoded human erythropoietin. Why EPO? Well, EPO is a secreted protein, and the liver makes it. It appears in the blood, and we can measure it simply with a blood draw. And 48 hours later, we can do that. No biopsy, no interpretation. It's the cleanest yardstick in the field. Everything on this chart is relative to our own first-generation lunar lipid, the ATX2. That's the baseline of one. We also ran two clinically approved lipids as a benchmark, ALC315. The lipid in an approved mRNA vaccine, and it comes in at 2.2 fold over ATX2. And the ATX126, the lipid encostate, our own approved self-amplifying mRNA vaccine that comes in at 14. And then lunar 2.0, roughly 40 fold. Same mRNA, same dose, same infusion. The only thing that's changed is the ionizable lipid. The liver made 40 times more protein. Now, there's two ways to think about a 40-fold enhancement. You can make 40 times More Protein at the same dose, or you can make the same protein from a fraction of the dose. Just hold on to that second one, and I'll come back to it. Dr. Summer already told you what OTC deficiency is and what it does to the families. So let me show you what an extra potency does in an animal that actually has a disease. This is an SPF ash mouse model, an animal with only a trace of working OTC on a high protein diet, which is a stress state. Weekly IV administrations, untreated, every animal dies within a month. On the left is where we start from, the ARCT810, our current drug. At one milligram per kilogram, it protects them. And that's the bar. And now the same OTC mRNA delivered with Lunar 2.0. That's the ARCT 2601. At 0.3 milligrams per kilogram. A third of that dose. Every animal is alive. And at day 63. And 80% are still alive at day 70. And when the study ends. Look at where the dosing stops. Five doses finished around day 28. Everything after that line is the drug no longer being there. And at 0.3 milligrams per kilogram, every animal is still alive four weeks later. That's not just more protein. That is protection that outlasts the dosing. At 0.1, a tenth of that dose, they hold for 42 days. And then, of course, they decline. That's what a 40-fold basis in an animal model with the disease. So that was the mouse. Now let me show you the same question asked in a primate with the actual human enzyme. Same design as the EPO study, three animals per group, one hour infusion, 0.3 milligrams per kilogram. But this time the payload is the real thing, the human OTC mRNA. And because OTC is an intracellular enzyme, it's not a secreted one, we couldn't just draw blood. We took liver biopsies at 48 hours and measured the human OTC protein directly by mass spectrometry. The comparator here is ATX95, the lipid in ARCT810. And we just showed you the phase 2 data on that. That's the baseline of one. The SM102, the libid in another approved mRNA vaccine, comes in at 2.5. the ALC315 at 5.3 and LUNAR2.0, the lipidin ARCT2601 at 38-fold in non-human primates. Two different proteins, one secreted, one in the blood, and one locked inside the cell. Two different ways to measure, a simple blood draw and a liver biopsy. Two different baselines, and the answer comes back the same, roughly 40-fold more proteins. That's why it tells me that this lipid is really what's doing the work, and it's not just a quirk of the acid. A new lipid, of course, raises new questions, and it really is one of the first ones all of us would ask. Is it safe? We have three clinical studies so far, each run head-to-head against ARCT 810, a rodent safety study, a non-human primate tolerability study, and biodistribution. Here's the headline, that nothing in this package separates the ARCT2601 from ARCT810. No new findings in the rodent study, no new findings in the primate study. And one difference we did see in the biodistribution, that lunar 2.0 lipids clear faster from tissues than the other one. And that, of course, runs in our favor. I want to be careful with my words. Again, all of these are non-GLP studies. They're supportive, not definitive. The pivotal GLP studies is on its way, and ultimately, we'll rest on that. And that reads out in November. So here's the practical question. How do you take a new lipid into patients without resetting the clinical clock to zero? And that was the conversation we had with the FDA. In June, we had a type C meeting on ARCT 2601. The question we put to them was whether we could leverage the platform, the CMC package, the non-clinical data, and the clinical experience we have already with ARCT 810, and the answer was yes. And it went further than that. The FDA agreed that ARCT 2601 can be added as an arm to the ARCT 8010 study that's already running. And again, we just presented on that. and we will evaluate safety PK biomarkers in a small subset of patients. And if the initial data are favorable, we will proceed to an adequate, well-controlled pivotal trial. In practical terms, three to six patients age 12 and up with elevated baseline pneumonia dosing inside the existing study. And then in the second half of 27, The patients, this is what the drug has always been for, a phase 2-3 pediatric study, age 0 to 6, neonatal onset, severe late onset disease. The whole point of the extra potency is lower dose, given less often, and this is the plan to prove that it works in people. again every mrna lnt therapy targeting the liver has to be infused and that's the real bottleneck for patients for families or the clinic that has to find the chair today our drug is 0.5 milligrams per kilogram diluted into 250 milliliter bag run over three hours for a child with urea cycle disorder on a repeat schedule. That's a morning out of school every single time and a parent's morning out-of-work with it. Near-term, our objective with the potency, it should allow us to go to 0.3 milligrams per kilogram in about 40 milliliters, roughly an hour. That is the case we're building and that's closest to our hands. With LUNO 2.0, of course, we're also trying to target the 0.15 milligrams per kilogram in five milliliters with a syringe pump under five minutes ready to use right out of the vial. My team is working on the formulation now. But the logic is pretty simple. It's the same in both columns. The lipid lets us drop the dose. A more concentrated product lets us dropped the volume. You multiply the two and an afternoon in an infusion chair becomes a few minutes at the end of a routine appointment. And that's the direction the potency really opens up. How far can we get and how fast is what we're working on now. So that was delivery that I spent quite a bit of time on. But delivery is only half of the mRNA medicine. The other half is the payload, the sequence itself. We've always designed our own sequence, and we've always screened our payload. What's changed is that this work can now be done computationally at scale, at speeds that wasn't available to anyone a few years ago. So we're bringing that capability in-house. We just announced we're acquiring MyNeo, a computational immunologic company that's based out of Ghent. What comes with them is two published peer-reviewed algorithms, NeoMS, which predicts which peptide gets presented on MHCs across HLA types, and NeoIM, which depicts T-cells and how it reacts to them. a platform of 10 AI modules already running with pharma partners, a production workflow, not just a demo, and the MyNeo team itself, a capability we would have spent years hiring into San Diego. And this goes straight into construct design for both Lunar and Star. Codon choices, UTRs, and parts of the sequence that describe how much protein you need for how long, all of this will get incorporated. And it lets us screen express proteins for immunological hotspots computationally before we pick candidates rather than after. Now this brings us to the next two programs I want to show you, PKU and GOUT. Both are enzymes replacements. So the rule becomes screen before you select, Better candidates design faster with fewer wasted cycles at the bench. So where do we go from here? We've taken the two capabilities I've just described, the AI-guided mRNA design and the Lunar 2.0 delivery platform, and asked, which liver disease do they open up? The answer we've landed on is PKU. There is roughly one in every 10,000 to 15,000 babies born with it. The liver enzyme that converts phenylalanine into tyrosine is missing. And without a working PAH, phenylaline builds up, crosses into the brain, and untreated can cause severe irreversible intellectual disability. We catch it at birth on newborn screening, and we manage it with diet and a handful of approved drugs. none of them are perfect. Patients still live on protein restriction, and many of them can stay on it. Our approach, the same logic as OTC, an IV mRNA that has the liver make the working PAH. Replacing the enzyme activity, these patients don't have the cell. But here is where this has been hard and difficult to do with mRNA. PKU is not like OTC. In OTC deficiency, you're fighting an acute crisis, and even partial enzyme activity keeps a patient out of the hospital. PKUs, you're managing a metabolite every single day for a lifetime in a patient who's otherwise well. To replace that diet, you don't need a little enzyme, you need a lot of enzyme, and you need it to last. That's the potency problem. Until now, the LNPs simply weren't potent enough to get there at the dose and a schedule a person would accept. Lunar 2.0 is changing that equation, and I'm going to show you the data on the next slide. This is the slide where it comes together, and it comes together in two stages, because mRNA and the lipids are two separate problems, and we had to solve them both. Stage one is the mRNA itself. These are PKU mice, a single dose, one milligram per kilogram, and they followed plasma phenylalanine for a week. The shaded band is the range we're trying to get to in patients. The dashed pink line is a published PAH sequence. That's our benchmark. It drops phenylalanine into the range, and by day three, it climbs back up. Then watch our own generations. Gen 1, the black line. It's out by day two. Gen 2 holds on to it for four days. Gen 3, five. And Gen 5, the light purple line, holds on to phenylalanine in the range for six to seven days from a single dose. This is the sequence working. Same delivery, same dose, same animals, expression, and durability engineered directly into the mRNA itself. Stage two is putting that optimized mRNA into LUNAR 2.0 and asking what happens in the primate liver. A single IV administration at 0.5 milligrams per kilogram, and we measure PAH protein in the liver. At day two, the liver is producing human PAH at 44%, the level of endogenous human Pah. That's the dotted line at the top. And the number I care about most is day seven, 16% still. That dashed green line is the therapeutic threshold. Roughly 10% of the endogenous is where you'd expect clinical benefit. A week after one dose, we're still above it. So a sequence that holds for a week in a lipid that reaches the liver 40 times better than the one before it, this is what I mean by coordinated optimization. You don't get it by just fixing one of them. and a week in a mouse is not a week in a patient. Metabolic rates scale with body size and the larger animal clears these enzymes more slowly. So allometrically scaling, the same construct should last considerably longer in a human than it does in a mouth. Dosing every two weeks is what we're confident this gets us to. We're striving for monthly and that's the goal. We think for further optimization we think we can reach it. The second program is gout. I like this one because it's something every person in this room is missing. Every other mammal on the planet makes an enzyme called uricase. It breaks down uric acid into something soluble and is simply excreted. We don't. Humans and great apes lost it. Somewhere around 15 million years ago that gene was switched off. We still carry it as a pseudogene. So uric acid becomes our terminal metabolite, and it runs several times higher in us than a dog or a mouse. Most mammals sit between 0.5 and 2 milligrams per deciliter. A healthy human, 3.5 to 7. And above 6.8, that red line, uric acid stops dissolving and it comes out of solution. It crystallizes in the joints and that is gout. 9.2 million patients in the United States. 200,000 of them fail every oral drug we have. So therapeutic rationale is straightforward. Deliver an mRNA encoding your case to the liver and restore enzyme activity with a human enzyme that's no longer there. We are introducing not a novel biology, we're just reconstituting a pathway that mammals already use. It is expressing an enzyme delivered directly into hepatocytes, which is exactly the kind of payload Lunar 2.0 was built for. And this is exactly the kind of payload that's where MyNeo works and earns its place. Your case is a foreign sequence to the human immune system that has been a central challenge for every your case therapy that has come before. So this is the program where we are screening the construct computationally before we select a candidate rather than discovering the answer clinically. That's the platform working the way it's meant to be. The delivery, the sequence design, and the immunological screening pointed all at the same problem. So now let me leave you with four things. Potency. Lunar 2.0 makes roughly 40 times more protein in primates' liver than the lipid it replaces. It did it twice with two different proteins, measured two different ways. The ARCT 2601, highly potent, no new safety signals, and an FDA-agreed path into a study that's already running, integrated into our ongoing phase two by end of this year. Lower dose means faster infusion, three hours today, an hour within reach, and a single syringe pump as the goal. And PKU and Gout again uses the same platform, engineered mRNA, potent delivery using our computational screening expertise, opens the set of new liver indications. If you remember one line, this is one. More protein from less mRNA. Lower dose, shorter infusions, new indications. 13 years ago, we started Arcturus to solve the delivery. Lunar 2.0 was a result that changed the way we thought what could be achieved. And once you see that, you start asking which diseases we can go after. I think this is where delivery stops being a bottleneck. Thank you. Now I'll turn the time over to Dr. Sommer for his comments. Thank you, Pad. The Next Generation Platform is the part of the program I'd pay closest attention to. A greater than 30-fold improvement in potency is a change in kind rather than degree. It moves the objective from supporting the urea cycle to correcting it, and it buys headroom that can be spent on elevated enzyme expression, duration of efficacy, or extending the dosing interval. Once-monthly dosing is the variable that determines real-world benefit. These families already manage protein at every meal and scavengers several times a day. Interval drives enzyme persistence, and persistence is what changes outcomes. If close to full correction is obtained, diet becomes normal, and scavengeurs should not be needed. Multiple benefits from that in growth and development. So I will state my expectation plainly. I believe AHRQ 2601 has the potential to become the standard of care, particularly in severe OTC deficiency, and I expect this platform to read through to a long list of liver-based rare diseases, where roughly 70% of patients are children. Thank you for your attention. We'll now pass the call to the operator for Q&A. Thank you. If you'd like to ask a question, press star 1 on your keypad. leave the queue at any time press star 2 once again that is star 1 to ask a question and the interest of time we ask that you please limit your questions to one question and we'll pause for just a moment to allow everyone a chance to join the queue and we will take our first question from miles mentor with William Blair please go ahead your line is now open hi thanks very much for taking the questions and for the update um now you've been talking with with regulators and it seems like you've got alignment here with amending this phase two to include 2601 ending the the actual glp studies uh look look clean i'm wondering whether you talked about uh endpoints particularly as it relates to you know know maybe a potential accelerated approval for the the program i think previously you've you know focused being on glutamine uh reductions but there's obviously some interesting sort of like protein exposure data that you're generating here which you know might increase the importance of dietary relaxation as an endpoint just wondering whether you've got any more regulatory clarity about the uh the pathway moving forward here from an endpoint's perspective thanks very much. Hey, thanks, Miles. And this is Joe. We definitely did get some additional regulatory feedback through a pair of type C meetings earlier this year, and they elevated the importance of ammonia as an endpoint, especially in pediatrics, and definitely open to glutamine as an endpoint in adults. But I'd like to turn the time over to Alan to comment further. Sure. So, let me just add to what Joe pointed out. If you look historically at what were the measures, the biomarkers, and the endpoints that have resonated and are important to the FDA, as Joe mentioned, durable suppression of ammonia, durable reduction in glutamine, and also as we are starting to see evidence of here an ability to maintain metabolic stability and perhaps evidence of improved protein tolerance and consistency over many dosing cycles. So these earlier studies were really fairly brief, and they were not intended to modify protein intake or have any impact at all on standards of care, such as ammonia stabilizers. However, the possibility of wanting to look at those over longer periods of time in a patient population that's stable and where we have sufficient time to introduce our new construct, I think is exactly the kinds of endpoints that will be not only meaningful to patients, but will resonate with the regulators, and they're the sorts of measures that are going to be necessary. Thanks, Miles. Thank you. And we'll now move to Pete Stavropoulos with Cantor Fitzgerald. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Yeah, hello. Congrats on the progress, and thank you for taking my question. In the slide, just for clarity, in the slide deck for regulatory and clinical plan, it says advance the phase two into pediatric study in the second half of next year, ages zero to six. Is this the population you're going to focus on solely, or will you do studies around those greater than six and adults? You know, how should we be thinking about this, and, you know, and what needs to be done to sort of move into that younger population, and how prevalent is it? Yeah, a couple things. Yeah, 2601 is intended to service the entire population, however, the initial focus is on the largest unmet need, which is pediatrics. Alan, maybe you could comment further. Yeah, sure. You know, it's quite possible that it would make sense from our enrollment criteria perspective to include 6 to 11-year-olds. As you know, in the study that we currently did, we studied 12 to 18 in the adolescent age group and then 18 and above for adults. Metabolically, the kids that are at highest risk and the ones that are requiring liver transplants or unfortunately sustain neurological damage and succumb to their disease before school age are obviously those most severe from birth to six years. That's really going to be our focus, but it's quite possible that it may make sense to include six to 11-year-olds, and that'll be some of the further discussions we'll be having as we finish designing our trial and move it forward into the clinics in the second half of next year. Thanks, Pete. Thank you. And we'll move next to Lillian Zongo with Lering Partners. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Hi. Good afternoon, and thank you for the update. Coming back to the Phase II data from the U.S. study, could you provide a bit more color on how the baseline was assessed for both glutamine and ammonia? How many times were the baseline measured and at what time interval? And also, how should we think about the magnitude of change that will be considered clinically relevant in terms of both change in glutamine in ammonia? And how are those changes that we are seeing comparing to natural history for patients in restricted diet and ammonia scavenger? There's a lot there, but with respect to baseline assessment, why don't you start, Alan? Go ahead. Yeah, sure. There was a lot loaded into that question. We did a screening in a baseline of glutamine and ammonia as well as a baseline dietary assessment, and counseling by our dietician to make sure that over a period of time coming into the study, the patients were in fact maintaining their protein intake and they were following the regimen that had been prescribed and recommended by their physicians, as well as continuing to stay on their baseline meds. And then around the times of the infusions, we had patients come back in and we were remeasuring glutamine, ammonia levels, et cetera, throughout the course of the five-dose study. So we think we got enough points on the curve and enough individual measures that we were able to follow the patients adequately. But obviously, in a longer study with a slightly larger patient population, we have the latitude to get, I think, a greater breadth of information, particularly if we're going to want to do the things that I spoke about just a few moments ago, getting patients to, in more controlled way, liberalize their protein intake over time. So we give them a greater protein challenge, which speaks directly to ureogenesis. And then also the possibility of working with their physicians and having them decide if it was appropriate to back off on some of the ammonia scavengers if the patients are on them to see if they're even necessary anymore. The goals for this would be to show that patients have a stable, refunctioning urea cycle, and those are really the best ways to measure these. Hopefully, that answers your question. Yeah, thanks, Lily. Thank you. And we'll move next to Yanan Zhu with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Well, great. Thanks for taking our questions and congrats on the progress. I was wondering, you know, the Luna 2.0 seems to have a much higher potency, 40X. I was wandering, A, whether that's due to delivery to the liver or purely due to endosomal escape. And then, but the dose that you showed in NHP seems to be only three times lower than the older LNP. So I was wondering, could we or should we expect even further reduction in dose given the 40X or 30X potency increase? And then lastly, once you put the 2601 into patients, how soon can we see data, and how do we appreciate the better, the improved potency in the data? Is that going to reflect in even deeper glutamine reduction or some other aspect that you aspire to? Thank you. Great. A lot there. I'll unpack it and then allow Pat to comment as well. Yes, Pat implied and communicated on the recent presentation that endosomalytic disruption or escape, endosome escape, was the area where that was the most opportunity to optimize the technology, and that's where we feel we got a lot of traction with Lunar 2.0. with respect to the target profile of A10 was looking like 0.5 mgs per kg every two weeks, as we expected, right? The TPP for 2601 has not been disclosed yet, but you can imagine that with a 40-fold improvement in primates, or 38 to give the exact number, that you can target 0.3 mg per kg or less, and once a month or less in less time in chair, right, so there'll be an appropriate time to provide more granularity on the tpp or the target profile for 2601 but i want to focus most of my answer on how soon the data i want to remind everyone that what we're doing here with 2601 is simply integrating it into the present 810 study and this is per advice by the FDA and a handful of patients. So this isn't expected to, you know, change the budget or the timeline. If anything, with respect to the timeline to approval, we've always learned, especially in OTC deficiency, that phase three enrollment cadence is key. And we believe and make sense that a better product will accelerate that cadence. And so that's the objective of 2601, is to simply integrate it into the path that's already established per the advice of the FDA and evaluate it in a small handful of patients that can get people excited and help accelerate our Phase III enrollment. Now, I'm going to turn the time over to Pat to address... Yeah, I think one part of your question was about the biodistribution. In terms of this lipid, the LULA 2.0 versus the previous generation, both of the bioddistribution are similar. So both get into the liver using the APOE mechanism. So because of that, the distribution is the same. The only thing we're changing is the endosomalytic activity. Hopefully that helps. So, so both go to the liver about the same percentage. One is just better at getting out in a nutshell. Joe, can I comment on one thing? This is Marshall. Yes, please. Yeah. You asked if the glutamine levels would go even lower. Actually, the glutamine levels achieved in the current study actually return to normal levels. The body has sort of a homeostasis there. So you wouldn't expect to see the glutamines to go lower. You'd just expect them to stay in that nice normal range right there. Sorry, that's all I needed to add. Hey, thank you for the comment. Thank you. And we'll move next to Seamus Fernandez with Guggenheim Securities. Please go ahead. Hi, this is Evan Wang. I'm from Siena. I had a follow-up in terms of the ARC2601 program and just the dose selection there. Just curious if I'm understanding it correctly that the planned Phase 2 dose is that 0.3 mgs per kg over one hour. That's highlighted in the slide. Curious what's informed that dose level and if there's an equivalent 810 dose level there. Then I did have one follow- up. And just in terms the speed of onset benefit we're seeing here, it does look like we're We're seeing some degree of pneumonia benefit each visit. Glutamine, I see, really seems to have a benefit at day 35-ish, but wasn't sure if that was the first measure or if there's some multi-dose time course of seeing benefit here. Thanks. Sure, and it's a reasonable question, Evan. Whenever you see a 40-fold improvement, at least in the primates, in this specific example of OTC as a 38-fold movement, we can apply that to efficacy, safety, or convenience, but we've already showcased the efficacy and safety of the platform. So we're emphasizing initially convenience, meaning less frequent dosing, less time in chair, and a potential in-home administration. We believe that this will help provide a more patient-centric product and accelerate enrollment in Phase 3, especially in pediatrics. So that's the initial focus. We haven't provided a specific TPP is what you're inquiring. There will be an appropriate time to do that, likely after the formality of getting this approved and fully integrated by year-end. It'll be an appropriate time to give more granularity on the specifics of the protocol and the TPP. Thank you. And we'll move next to Yigal Notomavitz with Citigroup. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, Joe and team. Thank you for taking the questions. Could you speak a little bit more about the new formulation? Because you're moving from 250 mil, you know, it's 0.5 mg per kg to 40 mil at 0.3 mg per kg, which seems just by rough calculation, you know, a step up of about maybe 3x in concentration, you know, for the average individual. So is there something additional, in addition to the better properties on the endosomal escapee reference, you Is there something else going on that gives you advantages in terms of having a higher concentration in the infusion to give you the shorter time? And then what's going to happen with 810? As you say, you're folding in the new 2610 into the existing study. So is 810 still going to feature as a path potentially or not? Thanks. Right, right. So the plan forward is to simply integrate 2601 into the ARCT 810 pathway. So it's like passing the baton to something that will carry this forward, a better product. I remind people that the mRNA sequence is the same in 810 and 2601. So we're simply modifying a portion of the formulation and proceeding. and it's a meaningful difference because of what you've seen in the primate comparative data but uh and and it'S also important for us to leverage the convenience element so if there's room for improvement beyond dose selection and size of administration we can always look at um you know the duration you know like how frequent the administration pad did you yeah And then the other point is the infusion timing. Of course, we've been working on optimizing the formulation for all of these many years as well. We've learned a lot with our cost of commercialization and how to concentrate the drugs. So there's two levers we can pull. Obviously, reducing the dose reduces the ultimate amount we need to infuse. And then the second lever is the excipients and the stability of the LNP, which can determine the ultimate concentration that we need to infuse. So we've done both of those, and ultimately we're going to adapt that into this product. Hopefully that makes sense. Thank you. And we'll move next to Adam Walsh with Roth Capital Partners. Please go ahead. Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions, and thank you for the update. So the FDA agreed you can proceed to an adequate and well-controlled pivotal if the 2601 data are favorable based on the preliminary safety, PK, and biomarker data. How is favorable defined across all three in your mind? And then what can you say about the size, duration, and whether one pediatric study would support a filing? Thank you. Well, favorable is a subjective term. We definitely want to evaluate what 38X in primates means functionally and practically in terms of real-world benefit. But with respect to the meat of your question, I'll pass it on to Alan. Yeah, so at the end of the day, I think what's going to inform us the most as to the size and scope of the study and the nature of what patients to best focus on initially in the study is going to be this next cohort of patients that we're going to start enrolling into the first part of next year using the new construct. And if I understood your question correctly, the goal here would be to construct ideally a single, if you think about the patient population, let me go back just for a minute. You know, we're talking about a universe of about anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 total patients living in Europe and the U.S. with this disease. Of those, upwards to almost 6,000 to 7,000 of them are 18 and over. Adolescents are averaging about 1,000. And then after that, it's the balance of the rest of the patients, which is about maybe 1,500 to 1,700 patients. So right now, based on the question that we had earlier, it may be advantageous for us to include a small subset of pre-adolescent, adolescent children just to get the enrollment up. But by and large, as long as we can continue to work with the agency and there's a general understanding that what we're observing in adults is relevant for what's going on metabolically in children, and we establish pediatric safety exposure, PKPD activity using ammonia and glutamine and ureogenesis measures, I think really then we should be able to negotiate a program size and scope and ideally a single study that will be supportive based on the FDA's most recent pediatric extrapolation guidelines, which really encourage modeling smaller pediatric study numbers when disease and treatment responders are thought to be sufficiently similar. and we believe that the medical literature and the evidence supports that the disease that's observed in young children, adolescents, and adults is no different. It's just a level of severity and an inability to maintain ammonia control as sufficiently in the youngest children. So hopefully that answers your question, but obviously all of this will be driven by the additional data that we engender with the 2601 construct in this first population, and then reexamining it and sitting down with the agency and getting final agreement on what constitutes a sufficient study. But I think we have a sense also based on what Ultragenyx has worked for their DTX301 study required, and that was exposure of about 18 stable adult patients to get approval of their OTC deficiency therapy for stable adults. So we think that the size and scope and nature of what we're anticipating will fall within the range of what's been the most recent precedent established for that program. Thank you. And we'll move next to Whitney Ijim with Canaccord. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Just one, can you remind us what's known about or whether or not the endosomal escape pathways are the same in hepatocytes versus bronchial epithelial cells. I'm just curious if there's read-through for Lunar 2.0 to the CF program, and if we should be thinking about potential for kind of like an optimized product switch there as well. Thanks. No, it's a great question. You know, Pat and his team has done an exceptional job optimizing hepatocyte delivery and improving on endosomalytic disruption or endosomescape, and you are smart to acknowledge or identify that the biochemical process to break out of the endosome of a bronchial epithelial cell is considerably or even dramatically different. Normally in a hepatocyte, the end chromosome escape process involves the acidification or the process that occurs as the endosome ages, that the additional protons will protonate the lipids and make it active to break out. But in bronchial epithelial cells, it's a different biochemistry. It's trade secret to Arcturus. We've already optimized and went through that optimal process for the CF program. So it's the long way of saying the optimization process that we've applied to Lunar 2.0 for the liver is not relevant to what we're seeing in the bronchial epithelial cells. We've already had, we went through that optimization process already for that program. Thanks. And we will move next to Mayank Montani with B. Reilly Securities. Please go ahead. Hi, Tim. Thank you for taking the question. This is Amin on for Mike. On ammonia, has the FDA given you any guidance on what they want to see for durable suppression between doses? And, you know, what are you expecting there with 2601? And then just to follow up, if you can comment also on the pivotal trial start timeline here. Thank you. Yes, we're definitely anticipating lower and less frequent dosing with 2601. We have to prove that here relatively shortly, but that's the expectation. Whether how meaningful this is, I actually wouldn't mind to hear from Dr. Sommer on this. How meaningful is periodic versus sustained ammonia suppression? Sure. Thanks for asking, Joe. So here's what I would say about this. A couple of things. For the types of patients that we're studying, particularly in the adolescent and adult patients, ammonia tracking is really not where we make a lot of our clinical decisions. We actually do it more off of glutamine because these patients are essentially pretty stable. So, you know, whether the ammonia is 30, 40, 50, somewhere in that range. That's not something we clinically react to. However, the glutamine level, which is sort of the buffer pool for nitrogen before you get to elevated ammonia, if that is actually staying stable, then that is actually a great signal that you have room to work with diet, you know, reducing scavengers, different things like that. So, you know historically everyone's kind of focused on ammonia and what we've discovered, I've been in the urea cycle field now for gosh over 40 years is that ammonia is a fickle measure one thing we do though is when we do measure it we do first morning fasting ammonia levels that's shown to far away be the most reliable and obviously it's something we'll be tracking and looking at but I would expect to see more signal around glutamine that's actually going to be clinically relevant did that answer your question uh yes it does thank you thank you okay thank you and we will take our last question from yell jen with laid law and company please go ahead your line is now open good afternoon and thanks for taking the questions and congrats on the progress uh just a two quick one here the first one is in terms of from ACAN of three hours to one hour in the 2601 in terms of the infusion time, does the frequency of infusion also change as well for the subsequent part of the study? And also, in terms 2601 data, would that be available in the first half of next year? or what might be the context of data possibly to be presented? And thanks. Yeah, with respect to guidance, we've indicated by our app near year end that we'll be fully integrated this 2601 program into the Phase 2 track that's presently housing ARC TA10. So the integration process will be completed by year end as the guidance. With respect to the scientific question, Pat. Yeah, again, you know, when we go to the person-human studies, we'll be dosing at a dose we know it's going to be effective, and ultimately we'll be looking at all the biomarkers that we also tracked with the 810 product. So I think we're going to compare similar doses and looking at the biomarks and looking at the trend and the durability, and all that data will inform us the frequency, and ultimately we decide to go with lower dose or maybe dose sparing for longer durations. And all that will be informed after the first few patients that we look at the data from. And, Pat, this is Alan. If I can just add one more element. It's sort of understood, but it should be said the goal here is to try to optimize convenience for families and for patients. So, if we're able to widen the dosing interval to something more along the lines of monthly or greater, that would certainly be welcomed by the patient population, and that's the feedback that we've gotten from the patient community, from experts like Dr. Summers and others. Great. Thank you. Thank you, this concludes our question and answer session. I will now turn the meeting back to Joe for closing remarks. Hey, thanks, everyone, for participating on the call. There was a lot today on this call. I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to catch up with investors going forward. Don't hesitate to reach out to our team for any remaining questions, and we'll get back to you as soon as we can. This concludes today's meeting. We appreciate your time and participation. You may now disconnect. Thank you.