Cytokinetics, Incorporated

Good afternoon and welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to Cytokinetics' first quarter 2024 conference call. At this time, I would like to inform you that this call is being recorded and that all participants are in a listen-only mode. At the company's request, we will open the call for questions and answers after the presentation. We will allow for only one question per participant and ask that you adhere to this request. I will now turn the call over to Diane Weiser, Cytokinetics Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon and thanks for joining us on the call today. Robert Blum, President and Chief Executive Officer, will begin with an overview of the quarter and recent developments. Thaddee Malik, EVP of R&D, will provide updates related to Affie Campton, focused to Sequoia HCM, Forrest HCM, and recent interactions with FDA. Stuart Kupfer, SVP and Chief Medical Officer, will provide additional updates regarding the ongoing clinical trials of Afikampton, Maple HCM, and Acacia HCM, and will also discuss progression of CK586 and our emerging pipeline. Andrew Callows, EVP and Chief Commercial Officer, will speak about commercial readiness activities for Afikampton. Sung Lee, our new EVP and Chief Financial Officer, is with us today, but just listening alongside us. as this is his first day at cytokinetics. Robert Wong, VP and Chief Accounting Officer, will provide a financial overview of the past quarter. And finally, Robert Blum will review our corporate development strategies before closing the call by reviewing expected key milestones for the year. Please note that portions of the following discussion, including our responses to questions, contain statements that relate to future events and performance rather than historical facts and constitute forward-looking statements. Our actual results might differ materially from those projected in these forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those in these forward-looking statements contained in our SEC filings, including our current report regarding our first quarter 2024 financial results, filed on Form 8K that was furnished to the SEC today. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements after this call. And now, I will turn the call over to Robert.

Thank you, Diane, and thanks for joining us on the call today. In the first quarter, we made substantial progress executing on our muscle biology-focused portfolio anchored by the broad development program of Affy-Campden. On the heels of positive top-line results from Sequoia HCM, our pivotal phase three clinical trial of Affy-Campden in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, we are running at full throttle in preparation for an ambitious set of presentations and publications scheduled to occur over the course of the year. In addition, we are laser focused on regulatory submissions in the second half of the year, continued conduct of the ongoing clinical trials program, accelerating our commercial readiness activities and further expanding our pipeline. While top line results of Sequoia HCM announced last December included a comprehensive high level view of the safety and efficacy of Affy Campton, a priority of ours is to present more fully the results from Sequoia HCM at a major medical meeting. Recently, we announced that that forum will be the European Society of Cardiology's Heart Failure 2024 Congress in Lisbon next week, Monday, May 13, where we will have three late-breaking clinical trial presentations related to Sequoia HCM. Along with the primary results, we have two other late-breakers with data from additional analyses from Sequoia HCM on which fatty will elaborate. He will also lay out the steady stream of presentations and publications that we anticipate sharing related to Affy Campton throughout 2024, as we believe will nicely elaborate on its next-in-class profile. During the first quarter, we also engaged meaningfully with FDA ahead of our planned submission of an NDA for Affy Campton in the third quarter of this year. We convened two meetings with FDA in the month of February including a first meeting to review the results of Sequoia HCM and a second pre-NDA meeting to cover specific topics related to our submission. We are pleased with the agency's feedback and we look forward to additional discussions to occur this quarter, which will address specific questions we are posing relating to potential REMS scenarios. We've also been preparing for our planned submission of an MAA with EMA expected in the fourth quarter of this year. Moreover, in 2024, many other work streams and activities were pushed into the next phase of execution, notably commercial readiness activities, which Andrew will speak about in more detail. And while Sequoia HCM represents the forward edge of the Phase III development program for Affy-Campden, We now have two other ongoing Phase III clinical trials evaluating Afikampton, which each represent additional opportunities to expand the clinical evidence use case and hopefully reach more patients in need. Of course, we're also continuing our ongoing open-label extension study, FOREST-HCM, to collect longer-term data on the safety and efficacy of Afikampton. And as Stuart will elaborate, Maple HCM, the phase three clinical trial of afecamptin, as monotherapy compared to metoprolol as monotherapy, is expected to complete enrollment in the third quarter. This trial will provide an evidence-driven answer to the question clinicians are beginning to ask with the emergence of cardiac myosin inhibitors. That is, which drug do we initiate first? Maple HCM may be an important opportunity for afecamptin as we hope it may inform a critical change in treatment practice, as could be outlined in emerging guidelines. Stuart will also share an update on ACASIA-HCM, our Phase III clinical trial of afikamtin in patients with non-obstructive HCM. And he'll also describe a third late-stage clinical trial called CEDAR-HCM, which is now open to enrollment in a pediatric population of patients with OHCM. we're especially pleased to maintain a strong financial position at the end of the first quarter alongside of our maturing R&D programs. As I'll speak to in more detail later in this call, we believe that we are in an advantage position in terms of our options for accessing diversified capital to further fuel our science for the benefit of patients and to deliver increasing shareholder value. And lastly, We were pleased to recently announce that we had finalized our search for a new CFO. And as you hopefully saw from the 8K we issued, I'm pleased to welcome Sung Lee to our team. When we began our search, we had several key criteria for the ideal candidate, including previous experience in both large and mid-sized biopharma companies, global commercial finance experience, and a track record of innovative financing deals. Sung brings all of that and more, and we couldn't be happier to have him join our team. Prior to cytokinetics, Sung was CFO of Veer Biotechnology and also Morphosis AG and Sangamo Therapeutics. Previously, he built his career expertise over 14 years at Gilead, where he served in various roles, obtaining leadership expertise in tax, accounting, operations, and IR. You will hear from Sung on our Q2 earnings call, and for those of you who don't already know him, you'll soon have a chance to meet him at upcoming conferences and one-on-one meetings. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Fatih, please.

Thanks, Robert. Top of mind for all are our late-breaking clinical trial presentations next week at Heart Failure 2024 in Lisbon. The presentations include, of course, the primary results of Sequoia HCM, which will provide a complete view of the results related to the baseline characteristics, primary and secondary endpoints, subgroup analyses, and select exploratory endpoints. There will also be two additional late breakers on other data analyses from the trial. One will elaborate on the dosing and safety experience in Sequoia HCM, and another is a deep dive into the improvements in exercise capacity affected by Affecantin based on a detailed review of the CPET data. These presentations will not only expand on what was in the top line press release, but go further in providing an in-depth look at this very rich data set and its implications for clinical practice. As Robert mentioned, our presentations next week represent only the beginning of our plan to fully dissect the results from Sequoia HCM and build a comprehensive picture of the differentiated profile that continues to emerge for Apicampton. We have an aggressive plan that starts with HFA and lays out, over the course of the year, a series of presentations and publications that will further elaborate on the efficacy and safety of Afikantin. You can expect presentations at the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the American Heart Association meeting, as well as accompanying publications in leading medical journals. These include deeper dives into the echocardiographic, Kansas City cardiomyopathy questionnaire data, CMR data, cardiac remodeling, and biomarker data, as well as an integrated analysis of efficacy. We look forward to sharing more as the year progresses. Shifting to forest HCM, last month at ACC, we shared additional 48-week data from 46 patients with obstructive HCM and forest HCM that show the treatment with Avicampton is associated with sustained improvements in resting and Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract gradient, NYHA functional class, NT-ProBNP, and measures of cardiac structure and function. Furthermore, occasions of low left ventricular ejection fraction were very infrequent and were not associated with treatment interruptions or heart failure events. These data continue to reinforce the safety and efficacy of longer-term treatment with afecamptin and OHCM. With nearly 300 patients currently enrolled in forced HCM, We look forward to reporting more longer-term data in the future. Importantly, during the quarter, we had many opportunities to engage with KOLs and treating clinicians in the community to discuss the results generated to date from the program for Apicampton. Feedback has been incredibly positive, and we believe that once presented and published, the full results will reaffirm this enthusiasm. Specifically, our therapeutic medical science liaisons have interacted with over 500 healthcare professionals and completed profiling of physician practices with HCM treatment programs. At the same time, our managed healthcare medical science liaisons engaged integrated delivering networks, or IDNs, around the results of Sequoia HCM and finalized work to build our payer clinical value narrative. On the regulatory front, As Robert mentioned, during the first quarter, we held two meetings with FDA ahead of our NDA submission. During the second quarter, we plan to engage FDA once again, this time for a Type B meeting focused specifically on potential risk mitigation. While this is a topic that came up in both of our previous meetings, this next engagement affords us the opportunity to elaborate on the safety and pharmaceutical properties of Apicampton, discuss their potential impact on different approaches to manage risk, and gain insight into FDA's perspective on these matters. In these discussions with FDA, our position is that the benefit-risk profile of Apicampton merits an approach to risk mitigation that's reflective of the safety profile of Apicampton as demonstrated in Sequoia HCM and Forest HCM. Altogether, we remain optimistic and believe these discussions will inform our proposal for a differentiated approach to risk mitigation in our NDA. As we've previously shared, we're planning for a rolling submission for the NDA, which will provide FDA the opportunity to begin their review of completed modules. We expect to begin and complete the submission during third quarter. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there is a tremendous amount of work that goes into an NDA and our teams are working diligently towards this very important milestone for the company. Meanwhile, we're also preparing our marketing application which we expect to submit to EMA in the fourth quarter of this year, and are coordinating with our partners Yixing and China to support their plans to support an NDA as well. During the quarter, we're pleased to welcome a new head of regulatory for Europe, who will lead regulatory strategy and product registration in Europe and support the launch readiness activities. While Sequoia HCM is taking center stage at the moment, It's followed and supported by additional clinical trials and development program for afikemptin that we believe have the potential to expand the utility of cardiac myosin inhibitors. I'll hand it over to Stuart to elaborate more on these additional clinical trials, as well as provide an update on our earlier stage clinical development pipeline.

Thanks, Fatty. I'll start with our two ongoing phase three clinical trials. Maple HCM and Acacia HCM. We believe both of these trials have the opportunity to expand the potential benefit of afucampin to additional patients with obstructive and nonobstructive HCM and to elevate afucampin in treatment guidelines. Maple HCM, which is evaluating the potential superiority of afucampin as monotherapy compared to metoprolol as monotherapy in patients with obstructive HCM, is on track to complete enrollment in the third quarter. Over 75% of our global sites are activated, and we're expecting sites in China and South America to join Maple HCM soon. By the end of the second quarter, we expect to be at approximately 50% of target enrollment and foresee a large increase in enrollment in the third quarter. The results from Sequoia HCM provided a strong tailwind for enrollment in our ongoing trials, including Maple HCM, and we've observed strong enthusiasm from sites for completing the trial and getting us across the finish line. We expect Maple HCM to read out in 2025, around the time when we hope to be commercially launching Afikampton, and if positive, we'll provide the evidence base to potentially position Afikampton in guidelines for use as first-line therapy in obstructive HCM. Acacia HCM, the pivotal Phase III clinical trial of Afikampton in patients with symptomatic non-obstructive HCM, is also entering what we will expect to be a rapid phase of site activation and enrollment. During the second quarter, we're meeting with many of our investigators and study staff at their sites around the world. And we recently held a successful investigator meeting in San Francisco. Given positive results from cohort four of Redwood HCM, clinicians are enthusiastic about the promise of Apicampin for the potential treatment of patients with non-obstructive HCM. And we look forward to continuing enrollment this year towards a goal of completion in 2025. Turning our attention to another important patient population, just this morning, we announced the start of yet another clinical trial of afucantin called CEDAR-HCM, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and open-label extension evaluating the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of afucantin in a pediatric population with symptomatic obstructive HCM. CEDAR-HCM will enroll two cohorts, approximately 40 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, will be enrolled in the initial cohort. A second, younger cohort of up to 10 children aged 6 to 11 years will begin enrollment after data from at least 20 adolescent patients supports safety and dose selection in the younger cohort. In the cohort of adolescents, the treatment regimen for apicampin will be the same as that for adults. That is, once daily doses of 5 to 20 milligrams individually selected based on echocardiographic parameters. Primary and secondary endpoints will be evaluated after 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. The primary endpoint is change in valsalva, left ventricular outflow tract gradient, and secondary endpoints include change in resting gradient, pharmacokinetic print measures, cardiac biomarkers, and symptoms. After 12 weeks of double-blind treatment, all patients will roll over into an open-label extension. While pediatric HCM may be rare, it's associated with a high risk of heart failure and serious arrhythmias. HCM tends to present similarly in children and adolescents as it does in adults, and is associated with shortness of breath, fatigue, and poor exercise tolerance, impacting overall quality of life. We're optimistic, given the results from Sequoia HCM in adults, that epicampin may prove promising for this key segment of the HCM population. During the second quarter, we'll also be starting a Phase I study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of afecampin in healthy Japanese participants to advance our global clinical program in that geography. Additionally, during the first quarter, we advanced CK586, another cardiac myosin inhibitor, in development for the potential treatment of a subgroup of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, or HF-PETS. Earlier today, we announced top-line data from the Phase I study of CK586, which showed that CK586 was safe and well-tolerated in healthy participants with generally linear pharmacokinetics. These findings are supportive of advancing the program to a Phase II clinical trial, which we expect to begin in the fourth quarter of this year. We plan to present the data from the Phase I study in more detail at a medical congress in the second half of the year. We believe CK586, which has a different mechanism of action than africansin, has the potential to further unlock the potential biology of myosin modulation for patients with high unmet needs. Finally, further work continued in the past quarter on our earlier stage programs that we expect to mature from our lab into the clinic later this year and next, extending beyond muscle contractility to the areas of muscle metabolism and energetics. These emerging programs are an important part of our long-term vision as we continue to pioneer the field of muscle biology and pharmacology. And toward that end, we're pleased to be sponsoring a dedicated muscle biology symposium here in South San Francisco next Friday called CLIMB, Contemporary Landscapes in Muscle Biology. This one-day event will bring together scientists, researchers, and emerging professionals to share innovative research in the field of muscle biology. The goal of this gathering is to foster collaboration, facilitate networking opportunities, and promote scientific interdisciplinary dialogue with the ultimate goal of driving advancements in the understanding and treatment of muscle-related diseases and disorders. With that, I'll turn the call over to Andrew.

Thanks, Stuart. After sharing top-line results from Sequoia HCM at the end of last year, in the first quarter, we began the design and build phases of our go-to-market strategies. We worked to refine our mark development campaign, which we plan to launch at HFSA later this year and initiated the design and build of our comprehensive patient support services program, as well as our specialty distribution strategy. We continue to strengthen our commercial team with new hires, including a U S patient marketing lead and ahead of Germany, which if approved as a first European country, where we plan to launch happy camping in 2024, hiring in our commercial organization and in Europe will remain modest with more higher expected in 2025 and 2026, gated to regulatory milestones in the US and EU and reimbursement levels on a country by country basis in the EU. On that topic, we are pleased to continue to see more positive health technology assessments for the CMI class during the last several quarters, including from Germany, France, and the UK, which signals a potentially positive forecast for the future reimbursement of Affy Campton across key countries if approved in Europe. During the quarter, we continue to build the value proposition for Affy Campton for various stakeholders, including payers and HTAs by generating data around health economics and outcomes research, or ATOR. In the first quarter and recent weeks, our team published and presented eight ATOR abstracts on topics including the impact of ethnicity, sex, region, and payer healthcare coverage on outcomes in HCM, medical therapy usage post-septal myectomy, and long-term cost of care for patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM. Our findings around patient outcomes and costs related to obstructive HCM further underscore the clinical and economic unmet need for this growing patient population. Looking ahead, after we present and publish the primary results from Sequoia HCM next week, we will continue engagement with U.S. payers. Our payer and medical account team began dialogue with every major payer in 2023. And beginning in Q3 of this year, we plan to initiate pre-approval information exchange with every major payer to review the results of Sequoia HCM so the payers understand the clinical meaningfulness of the results as well as the cost and outcome burden of obstructive HCM. I'm pleased with our progress for commercial readiness so far in 2024. As I've spoken to before, the obstructive ACM market has a highly concentrated customer base, which is typical to specialty cardiology. Unlike biopharma companies that have come before us who did not perform to market expectations, we believe our focus on specialty cardiology, anchored by Affy Canton, should enable us to successfully reach the subset of cardiology cardiologists who treat approximately 80% of the obstructive HCM patients. We believe that we are uniquely advantaged for success and we're keeping our foot on the gas across our commercial readiness preparations this year. Just as our company successfully built a formidable R&D organization that cultivated the robust pipeline we have discussed today, we're well on our way towards building an equally outstanding commercial organization poised to stand shoulder to shoulder with our highly respected R&D colleagues. Together, we are pioneering new frontiers of success driven by our shared vision and mission to help patients. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Robert Wong.

Thanks, Andrew. We ended the quarter with approximately $634.3 million of cash on the balance sheet, which represents two years of forward cash runway, including capital we expect to be available to us under our deal with Royalty Pharma upon satisfaction of conditions. Our first quarter 2024 R&D expenses increased to $81.6 million from $79.4 million in the first quarter of 2023, primarily due to spending on our cardiac myosin inhibitor programs offset by lower expenses for our skeletal muscle programs in the prior year. Our first quarter 2024 G&A expenses were $45.5 million down from $49.7 million in Q1 2023 due primarily to higher pre-commercial expenses in the prior year. With that, I'll hand it back over to Robert Blum.

Thank you, Robert. As you've heard, our cohesive biology anchored by cardiac myosin inhibition continues to drive shareholder value and growth as we execute on our plan to advance to the next tier of biopharmaceutical companies. In the near term, we remain focused on elaborating on the positive results from Sequoia HCM in presentations and publications, as well as preparing for the successful launch of Afikampton, if approved, in 2025, while also continuing to invest in expanding our promising pipeline directed to our plans to build a specialty cardiovascular franchise. In 2024 we've been focused on parallel opportunities to sustain and grow our company by diversifying access to capital and strengthening our balance sheet. And we're prepared to execute on a series of primarily non dilutive transactions, such as comes with partnering and structured financial engineering. We hope to have more to say about these initiatives as they come to closure and commit to ensure not only access to diversified sources of capital, but that we also focus to capital efficiencies as we deploy capital towards advancing our pipeline and emerging commercial business. Our priority remains our ongoing business development campaign for AFI Campton in Japan. During the quarter, we continue discussions with multiple parties and with momentum, we hope to consummate a deal. We're also looking at restructuring and expanding current financial instruments and deals to lower our overall cost of capital and potentially monetize additional R&D progress. We expect to remain diligent about the different levers we can pull as could be enabling of us in a principally non equity dilutive manner to continue to augment shareholder value and may also consider equity financing at the right time as part of a broader capital access strategy. Shaping our business conduct today and into the future is our pledge to corporate responsibility. And recently, we were proud to release our second annual Corporate Responsibility Report, which highlights our actions and progress against our goals of keeping patients at the center of our work, advancing a high integrity, diverse and inclusive culture, and supporting sustainable communities. As we look at our longer term goals and vision, which will be articulated in our Vision 2030 early next year, The company we aspire to be is a sustainable commercial enterprise with an enduring R&D organization. Our vision is to maintain our pioneering leadership in muscle biology and pharmacology and grounded in financial stewardship and doing what's right for the patients we serve. Now, I'll recap our upcoming milestones. For Afikampton, we expect to present the primary results from Sequoia HCM at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure 2024 Congress next week. We expect to submit an NDA to the FDA in Q3 2024 and an MAA to the EMA in Q4 2024. We expect to complete enrollment in Maple HCM in Q3 2024 and continue enrollment in Acacia HCM throughout 2024. We expect to continue enrollment in Cedar HCM in 2024 and to begin a phase one study of Affy Campton in Japanese Healthy Volunteers in Q2 2024, and we expect to continue advancing our go-to-market strategies for Affy Campton. For CK586, we expect to present primary data from the Phase 1 study on a medical meeting in the second half of this year and to start a Phase 2 clinical trial in Q4 2024. And for preclinical development and ongoing research, we expect to initiate clinical development with another muscle-directed compound later this year, as well as continue our research and expanded muscle biology activities. Operator, with that, we can now open up the call, please, to questions.

Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star 11 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. In the interest of time, we do ask that you kindly limit yourself to one question at this time. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. And our first question will come from Charles Duncan from Cantor Fitzgerald. Your line is open. Hello, Charles.

Sorry. Hi, team. This is Asea on for Charles. Thank you for taking our question and congrats on all the progress made in the quarter. So we have one question on CK586. So based on the phase one results released this morning, what will be the starting dose and escalation strategy for the phase two clinical study? And also, how do you plan to monitor for safety and efficacy in this study?

So it's a bit premature in light of the fact that we haven't announced the design for the phase two study, but maybe Fatih and Stuart can speak in general tones about how we think about dose escalation and the types of assessments that we might be considering for the phase two study.

Yeah, I mean, I'll just say that, you know, all the doses that are in the press release were well tolerated. We didn't find a maximally tolerated dose. We didn't need to push it that high. We've had a clear pharmacodynamic response, and that was enabling of us to decide on how to proceed to phase two. I think we'll have more to say on specific doses and things, but you can expect phase two to be really a dose-finding study in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, those that will resemble patients that we'll study in phase three. And right now, in terms of monitoring and the dosing schedule and how we're going about it. I'm going to probably remain quiet on that until we are ready to be more forthcoming with those details.

But what you can expect is that we're borrowing from learnings as it relates to afikampton in NHCM for application to CK586 in HEF-PEF. And we believe that there are similarities in patient populations as well as endpoints for clinical evidence of effect. So we'll have more to say about that later in the year.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you. And our next question will come from Paul Choi from Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open. Hello, Paul.

Hi Robert, good afternoon and nice to see Sung again here and continue working with him. My question is on Maple and with regard to your timing comments, with the trial to be enrolled by third quarter this year, you presumably will have access to a cut of the data, let's say by as late as middle of next year. So my question here is, Do you have any plans to submit any interim or partial cut of the data or maybe even the full data as part of either a safety or efficacy set in consideration as part of your NDA filing, either to bolster your case for your proposed REMS and or label? If you could comment on that, that would be great. Thank you.

Good question. I'll ask Paddy to comment.

Yeah. So, you know, the trial will remain blinded until it reads out in 2025, but that said, you know, during an NDA review, there's something called a 120-day safety update. And so we'll be submitting aggregate safety data from ongoing trials like Maple and Acacia, as well as updated safety and efficacy data from Forest HCM. So there will be more data, if you will, to consider and to cement if the safety profile of Afikampton during the NDA review.

Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Thank you. And our next question will come from Kripa Devarakonda from Truist Securities. Your line is now open. Good afternoon.

Hey, guys. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Robert. Thank you so much for taking my questions. You know, Maverick Hampton is still in early stages of launch, and I may be jumping the gun here in terms of, you know, we have to wait for Appy Campton to get approved. But just thinking a little bit long term, if approved, Appy Campton would still have a significant proportion of the market left to penetrate, but was wondering about the potential of patients to switch from Maverick Hampton to Appy Campton if they're either concerned about the safety or not satisfied with the efficacy. That may not be your base case. but was just wondering if there is a possibility.

So it's interesting. I think analysts have been polling opinion leaders about that very matter, and we'll leave that to the equity research community to make its own conclusions from those surveys. But it's certainly our primary strategy to be expanding the category for Affy Campton as could be applicable to a broader array of patients and physicians who prescribe for those patients, and not otherwise to focus on patient switches. But maybe I could ask Andrew to speak about how he's thinking about the broader category, growth and penetration.

Yeah, Robert, maybe just to build on what you described. I mean, we're expecting the vast majority of the market, addressable market to still be available. and really just educating physicians and broader cardiology on afecampton. And then so they can inform and make an informed decision around treatment of a patient. We're not going to be communicating or marketing switches at all. If that happens, that would be through the physician-patient dialogue.

You know, we're trying to be good students. I apologize. We're trying to be good students of, other cardiovascular brand launches and next-in-class strategies and how that ultimately serves patients and shareholders. And I think it's incumbent upon us to be focused on where cardiac myosin inhibition still has application to a broader array of patients ultimately in order to be able to fulfill our science and mission.

Got it. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Tess Romero from JP Morgan. Your line is open.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Hey, Robert and team, thanks so much for taking our question. So, you know, we saw that you have an upcoming meeting with the FDA this quarter. Curious on your latest thinking on what you will provide us all in terms of how that meeting goes. on your interactions around a risk mitigation plan here. And like will there be a disclosure before you begin the NDA filing or not and what could that look like? And then second quick question is just on the epidemiology side for HCM. You know, we attended ACC and one of our key takeaways was around the focus on improving diagnosis. Where are you today on the right number, what the patient number is that could be addressable at the time of a launch? And how does this number expand if one includes the pediatric population? Thanks.

Sure. So I'll tackle the first one. Maybe Thaddee will add something to that. And then we'll ask Andrew to comment on numbers two and three. As it relates to our strategy, we do not intend to provide feedback on a play-by-play basis with regard to regulatory interactions. especially as it relates to REMS. We do expect to come out of the meeting with FDA with clarity on what we might choose to do in connection with the potential REMS, and we'll give some general update with our next earnings call, but not otherwise after the meeting itself. We believe that it's in the interest of transparency to at least provide some general updates, but not so specifically as that may affect the actual review and discussions we're having with FDA. And as you know, ultimately, it won't be until perhaps a mid-cycle review that the FDA gives us a sense of what they're thinking, and that's ultimately what's most actionable. And it'll be at that point if this drug hopefully will be approvable, that will be in a negotiation around a potential REMS or other risk mitigation strategies. So I don't think it's in anyone's interest to foreshadow that before we've even submitted the NDA. Fatty, anything you want to add to that?

Yeah, I'll just add I think that, you know, these conversations in general are mostly just directional. not commitments in any sense. They are helping FDA get familiar with the data as we see them. They'll obviously need to do their own review. And so, you know, any disclosures would not necessarily be that useful because things will change over the course of a review. And I don't think we want to be confusing folks in terms of, you know, what directions things are moving.

To be clear, however, We do expect to float different scenarios, different risk mitigation strategies as could read on a potential REMS. And it won't be until after that meeting that we make a decision about how to approach that in the course of submitting an NDA in Q3. And with that, maybe I'll turn to Andrew to answer questions two and three.

So on the diagnosed, so I'll just stick to obstructive HCM. There's 200,000 patients today diagnosed, and of those, 130,000 would be eligible for treatment as defined by New York Heart Class 2 or 3. Like most rare diseases, that number in terms of the true prevalence is likely underrepresented where many patients are not diagnosed, but probably the true prevalence is three or four times that number. It's also not uncommon once an available treatment is on the market. Guidelines are updated to include that available treatment. There's education and publications by pharmaceutical companies. You'll start to see those rates go up, and we're expecting that to be the case. In terms of the pediatric population, so of the 200,000 obstructive HCM diagnosed patients in the U.S. and Europe is similar, there's around 6,000 to 8,000 pediatric patients with HCM. So I'm assuming that probably we don't have a breakout of New York Heart Class for the pediatric population, but I'm assuming it's probably 50 to 60% of that population would be eligible for treatment. So hopefully that answers your question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. And as a reminder, we do ask that you kindly limit yourself to one question at this time. And our next question will come from Rowana Ruiz from Lerink. Your line is open.

Good afternoon.

Afternoon. Hi, everyone. So a follow-up on the CDER HCM trial in pediatric patients. Could you talk a bit about the unmet need there for an agent like Affy Campton in this particular segment of the HCM market? And how long might it take to actually complete that trial? And do you have any thoughts on the regulatory path forward, assuming that you have positive data from CDER?

Yeah, so, you know, I think the pediatric population is not as large as the adult population, but there's a significant unmet need. You heard Andrew comment on it, on the size. They don't have generally the same, they have the same types of treatment options available to them that adults do, but Surgery is a much less preferred option in that age group, if you will. The availability of a myosin inhibitor, I think, would be quite meaningful as an option for these patients who, when they manifest disease at an early age like this, it can be quite aggressive. So we may also, over time, be able to generate information that looks at how potentially the disease is stabilized as opposed to progressive And in this subgroup, that may be more amenable because their disease may progress more rapidly. I think when you talk about any pediatric patient population, you know, the FDA in general is very accommodating to trying to move those things as quickly as possible through the review process. We would expect these data to be positive just given the you know, the main endpoint is reduction of the left ventricular outflow tract gradient. And so once we have these trials, then we're not really guiding it to how long it'll take, but we think it'll go fairly quickly.

We can file this as part of a supplemental NDA.

Got it. Thanks.

Thank you, Ron.

Thank you. Our next question will come from Salim Syed from Mizuho. Your line is open.

Hello, Salim. Hey, Robert. Good afternoon, everybody. And I'd like to all extend my welcome and congrats to Sung. It's good to reconnect, Sung. I guess on 586, if I can, I know you're not, maybe this is for Fatty, providing any details exactly on the Phase 2 design, but is there anything in particular, Fatty, from the Phase 1 trial that you learned that how this compound could potentially differentiate from the myocardial 224 compound and the read across there into how a trial could differentiate from their current phase two study?

It's a challenging one to answer, Salim, because we don't really know very much about 224 and we haven't told you very much about 586. I guess I'll just say, and then maybe I can ask Stuart to expand a little bit, but Our goal is to make dosing of 586 simpler than an apicamptin, and we think it has some unique properties that may enable that, as we have seen in Phase I. Stuart, do you want to maybe elaborate a little bit?

I think the only thing I'll really add is that CK586 was designed to target what we consider more vulnerable populations. you know, these patients with PATH had many comorbidities, you know, perhaps more risk of some decreases in ejection fraction, for example. And we think CK586 has properties that would make these patients more manageable and less prone to that or other risks. And so, again, those details would be more forthcoming.

okay got it thank you very much thank you thank you and our next question will come from jeff hung from morgan stanley your line is open hi robert and team hi robert and team uh thanks for taking my question and congratulations on your new role um for cedar what are the expectations for the dose range that's likely to be sufficient for most pediatric and adolescent patients if they end up being a similar dose range as the patients from sequoia Would you expect a higher rate of ejection fraction excursions because of the differences related to age? Thanks.

Stuart, do you want to take that one? Hi, Jeff.

Sure. Thanks for the question, Jeff. So as you mentioned, you know, the doses in adolescent patients are the same as the doses that we're studying in adults between 5 and 20 milligrams. And, you know, again, what's important is that the dose selection is individualized. based on achievement of target gradient and maintenance of a normal ejection fraction. In terms of younger children, the key question will be really, you know, what is a safe starting dose? And the plan will be to, you know, as I mentioned, evaluate, do an interim analysis, evaluate 20 patients, adolescent patients, pharmacokinetics and safety and determine For the younger children, what is a safe starting dose? That's the basic strategy. And so with that in mind, an individualized dose selection, we anticipate that the benefit-risk ratio in children will be just as good as we're observing in adults.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next question will come from Mayank Mamthani from B. Riley Securities. Your line is now open.

Good afternoon, team. Thanks for taking our questions and also pleased to see some join the team. This may be on the next Monday's ESC Heart Failure Congress data. Could you clarify if we could get the patient-level safety analysis relative to maybe what we saw at the top line? And also obviously curious to see how much of the, you know, the dose titration and the responder rate of patients staying at, you know, higher efficacious doses is helpful to having that PVO2 number that is, you know, seems to be on the higher side and not connected to the baseline characteristics that we had initially thought. If you could clarify that, that would be great.

Yeah, hi, Mike. I mean, I think most of your questions will be addressed in those presentations. Remember, there are three of them. One will speak a lot about dosing and safety, and so we'll, you know, show the characteristics of patients at the various doses and how safety was related to that. You know, with regards to peak VO2, can't really comment. I'm not sure that there is a dose-specific analysis, but You know, you have to remember these patients were not randomized to dose. They were randomized to a dosing strategy, and they achieved a dose based on their individual response to the drug.

And so in that way, we, in a lot of ways, consider them just all part of the same dosing strategy. Got it. Thanks for the English.

You're welcome. Thank you. Our next question will come from Jason Butler from Citizens JMP. Your line is open.

Hi. Thanks for taking the question, and congrats on all the progress. Just wondering if you could give us an update on regulatory progress for China and what next steps are there. Thanks.

Hey, Jason, I'll take that one. You know, in light of that, we're making very good progress, but we aren't in a position yet to be specific until such time as we and Zhijing, our partner, are aligned on setting those expectations. So I do hope that we'll be able to say something with the next earnings call.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question will come from Jason Zemanski from B of A. Your line is now open.

Hello, Jason. Good afternoon. This is Cameron for Jason. So you've discussed the potential of a novel RAN that's based on a risk algorithm.

I mean, could you kind of elaborate a little bit on what this could look like? You know, have you received any feedback from regulators on this point? And then if you could maybe touch on your base case assumptions currently for Number of echoes likely to be required in both titration and then in the maintenance setting as well. Thank you.

Sure. It's premature to speak to the second part of your question. The number of echoes is a function of conversations that we're still going to be having with FDA. But I think there's no scenario by which we expect a similar REMS. I think in light of the fact that the dosing strategy employed Sequoia HCM and continuing in forest HCM is itself differentiated and therefore that ties to the risk mitigation strategy. It's I think going to be clear that there will be a different kind of REMS program and with that We expect to have conversations with FDA about what that could look like in a concrete way, as we'll be informed by how we might approach risk mitigation in an NDA submission. And there are different ways to approach risk mitigation, as you know. Some of that can be handled by labeling. Some of that can be handled in an informational REMS. Some of that may require in a TASU REMS. And the current cardiac myosin inhibitor is the subject of an Atasu REMS. And our objective is to understand how FDA thinks about risk in light of not just the EF excursions, as seems to be the focus of Wall Street, but also as pertains to ADME properties, drug-drug interaction properties, pharmacokinetic properties that speak to half-life and shape of the curve with regard to pharmacodynamics. All these things factor into how one approaches risk mitigation. And I do think we're going to be in a position, as is our base case, to have a differentiated profile for risk mitigation. I think that's the best I can do today, but we do hope to have more to say down the road.

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Carter Gould from Barclays. Your line is open.

Hey, Robert and team. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the question. I'm going to ask you a bit of an unfair one in that the AHA and ACC HCM guidelines dropped this afternoon, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you probably had a good sense of what was going to be in there. So I guess at a high level, is there anything in there that's surprising? And maybe just at the risk of provoking Diane and the operator, when you think, I guess for Andrew, when you think then about the importance of guidelines down the road conveying that differentiation between Mavacampton and Affycampton, how important is that based on all the prior kind of case study work you've done? Thank you.

Yes, so good on you for noting that those guidelines dropped just today. I will ask Fatty and Andrew both to comment from their perspectives in light of your questions. And you did get a grin out of Diane, by the way.

Well, I saw the guidelines drop into my inbox two hours before this call and actually didn't see that until the middle of this call. So just a I'll do my best to answer your question, which having scanned them briefly, you know, I think they, number one, they are referring to a class of myosin inhibitors, and they, nothing really surprising, I would say. They follow sort of the same approach that the EMA, the EESC guidelines did, kind of placing cardiac myosin inhibitors as following first-line therapy of beta blockers. So for patients who fail first-line therapy like that, that's why we are conducting MAPLE potentially to show that there are advantages to starting cardiac myosin inhibitors first, and hopefully those data will inform future guidelines. You know, there are some specific things where they conflate issues with cardiac myosin inhibitors that are actually compound specific and not cardiac myosin inhibitor specific. I won't delineate those, but I think if you read them, you'll figure that out. And so some of that may in the future need to be sorted out. And, you know, we'll just have to do our best to ensure that that information is in the hands of the people who do the guidelines. We certainly weren't aware of what was in the guidelines. We don't you know, participate in that process. But we can make sure that the data is available to them.

And I expect... I'm sorry, Spidey.

Go ahead, Nander.

Yeah, the only thing I maybe was going to add to your question was around the guidelines. Certainly, that's credibility when talking to physicians around evidence. It certainly adds credibility to payers to cover, especially if it's a first-line therapy. Additional studies certainly give more strength to a guideline as well. And I think probably extremely important is if a guideline, as an example, talks about, say, first-line therapy because of data like Maple, having that data and that evidence and being able to talk to physicians about it as compared to not having that evidence and not being able to talk to physicians about it I think is a big difference. You know, so I think the guideline helps, you know, maybe to summarize with credibility to various stakeholders, and probably most importantly, it lets us as a pharmaceutical company talk to physicians and payers about the evidence relative to Aficampin if we get approved.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question will come from Yasmeen Rahimi from Piper Sandler. Your line is open.

Thank you, team, for all these great details. I guess as we're going into the Cardiology Heart Failure Congress here on Monday, you have spoken about how the more you look at the data, the better it gets. Do you think on, like, I guess the question that people have going into Monday's data release or full data, the scholars are surrounded is, Will it become even more clear that Avicampton wins on efficacy, not only just on its safety product profile? I would love to kind of get your color around that. And I'll jump back into the queue.

So to be clear, we did not conduct a head-to-head comparison of Avicampton with Mavicampton, and it would not be appropriate to imply that we did. With that said, we believe the profile of afecamptin in sequoia as it relates to efficacy, safety, convenience, and all those things that factor into its next in class profile will be supported by the evidence as would be indicative of our belief that afecamptin can become the cardiac myosin inhibitor of choice ultimately if approved. With that said, that's ultimately for you to determine once you see the data. The results will be available not just in presentations but in publications and not just at the European Heart Failure Meeting but throughout other meetings later this year. And I do believe that these results are reaffirming of our expectations.

Thank you so much. Looking forward to Monday.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Akash Tiwari from Jefferies. Your line is now open.

Hey, this is Amy on for Akash. Thanks so much for taking your question. Just one on TK586. Do you think the drug will need LVEF monitoring and what are you seeing in your healthy volunteer data that either supports or doesn't support this requirement? Thanks so much.

I'll maybe take that one. I think

You know, we developed CK586 as potentially the means to dose this in HF-F patients without echo monitoring, routine echo monitoring. That said, we need to produce the data that eventually supports that, and I think it's premature to know for sure whether we'll achieve that or not. The profile that we saw in Phase 1 was contributory toward that. And so, you know, we'll know more as we explore this drug more in phase two.

Got it. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Our next question will come from Serge Bellinger from Needham. Your line is open.

Hello, Serge. Hi. Good afternoon, Robert. meetings with the FDA so far and another one coming up, I guess, later this quarter. What are your current thoughts regarding the potential for a priority review or an adcom? Thanks.

Yeah, so neither of those are in our base case assumptions. We believe that as a next in class profile, it would be more exceptional to assume priority review. It's certainly possible, but that's not something that we're banking on, so to speak. And as it relates to an adcom, we don't expect one, but one can be surprised by those things. And for the fact that the data are, we believe, quite compelling, there's already very effective cardiac myosin inhibitor on the marketplace that did not have an ADCOM. I think it would be unusual to now have an ADCOM for a next-in-class compound, but I guess it's theoretically possible. It's not our base case assumption.

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you. And our next question will come from Ash Verma from UBS. Your line is open.

Hey, thanks for taking our questions. I had to... So regarding just the presentation on Monday, like from your perspective, what do you think is the bar for the LVE at less than 40% events from the Sequoia study? What level of LVE at less than 40 would give you the conviction that the FDA could actually indeed be discerning in viewing your safety profile as differentiated from chem dials? And then second, Yeah, on the OSCM market, just in the long run, do you think fundamentally there is a lot of diagnosis expansion that you could drive? OSCM is sometimes compared to ADDR by investors, and that has seen pretty significant diagnosis expansion. Just if you can frame what's the difference between the two. Thanks.

So I might ask Fadi to speak to the comments about ES below 40, but recognizing our top line press release, already speaks to some of those matters.

Yeah, I was going to say that, you know, as we said in our top line, that we didn't have any treatment discontinuations for EF less than 40%. And, you know, the protocol mandated those if they were observed at the site. We'll expand on that in the presentation, I suppose. But again, I don't think you know, N of zero or one is going to be any, be all that contributory, if you will. Things that don't happen are good to know, and they're certainly supportive of the safety profile. We've never had, you know, an event of heart failure due to Aftecampton, and, you know, treatment interruptions have been almost non-existent. And so, I think overall those are all very promising things with regards to the potential labeling down the road.

And I don't think we understood your second question, which I guess we'll entertain.

Yeah, just like quickly, I mean, in terms of like just the diagnosis expansion of OSCM, right? I mean, one could argue that, yes, it has a high unmet need, but the mortality or morbidity burden is not as high as something like ATTR, which has seen a significant diagnosis expansion. So do you believe that in the long run, you could potentially drive a lot of diagnosis expansion? I mean, Bristol has been doing a lot of DTC and other marketing campaigns, still not driving any kind of a meaningful infection on chemzios. So just trying to understand if this market is sort of where it is, or could we see like material expansion in the long run?

Yeah, I don't think the disease burden here is defined by mortality incidence as much as symptom burden and other matters that read on functional life and quality of life. And it's very clear that patients who receive a cardiac myosin inhibitor are very adherent and compliant with their therapy. Look at the data for chem xyose. These are patients who are benefiting substantially from receiving a new therapy and want to stay on that therapy. And I do believe that that's ultimately going to be defining of what could be the opportunity for category expansion. Andrew, anything you want to add to that?

Yeah, I would say that's probably part of the remit of what we're doing in AQOR. If you think about some of the secondary endpoints like improvement in New York Heart Class Association, improvement in KCCQ, reduction for the need of septal therapy and surgery. All those speak to improvement in health outcomes and improvement in cost savings. So I think you'll start to see some more publications and us talking to that and then merging that with large data sets to show the impact it can have on larger populations. So, it may be not as obvious as something as TTR, but it's certainly something I think you're going to see over time that the expertise that we have at HEOR around this area will certainly lead to what you're describing.

Thank you. And our next question will come from Sean McCutcheon from Raymond James. Your line is now open.

Hello, Sean.

Hi, guys. Hi, Robert. Thanks for squeezing me in. Can you comment on the patients you'll enroll in the Phase 2 study for 586, or maybe what subsets you think have the clearest pathophysiologic rationale and how you're thinking about the Phase 2 in terms of parsing the hep-pest subsets and maybe broad strokes on the size of the opportunity in those restrictive populations?

Thanks. Yeah, sure. I'll ask Stuart to answer that, but in sort of general terms. I'll just mention ahead of time that, as Robert said earlier, you know, the NHCM patients that responded so well in the Phase II study kind of provide a human model of the type of HFPEP patients we'd want to study with CK586, and maybe Stuart can expand on those characteristics generally. Okay.

Yeah, thanks, Patty. I think that's right. We believe that for a subgroup of patients with severe diastolic dysfunction may be in large part driven by patients with hypercontractility, and some of these patients develop ventricular wall thickening, just like patients with non-obstructive HCM. And so the outcome in patients that we observed in Phase II and the Redwood HCM, but non-destructive HCM, really reads, you know, informs potential benefit, an improvement of diastolic function in the subgroup of patients with HF-PATH. And so we'll be looking, we'll be evaluating patients who have, you know, a relatively high ejection fraction, some degree of ventricular wall thickening who are symptomatic. and having functional and symptomatic heart failure symptoms related to their disease to see if those patients could benefit from treatment. So that's generally the population we'll be targeting.

Andrew, do you want to speak in general terms approximately around how we're thinking about the subsets of HFpEF from a prevalence standpoint?

Andrew, you might be on mute.

Yeah, HFPEF is just all probably from our press releases around half of the overall market. We're describing here as a subset of HFPEF in the upper range of ejection fraction. I think once we start to learn more in phase two, we'll probably hone in more of exactly the size of that subset where the cutoff is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I am showing no further questions from our phone lines. I'd now like to turn the conference back to Robert Blum, President and CEO, for closing remarks.

Thank you, operator, and thank you to the analysts for some excellent questions. We're excited to have shared this update with you, especially as pertains to our expanded focus on the development program for Affy Campton. And at the same time, we believe that we're being good financial stewards as we think about capital diversification and capital deployment and efficiencies. And we're looking forward to updating you on continued progress, including with our presentations next week, Monday, May 13, at the European Heart Failure Meetings and afterwards. We thank you for your interest in cytokinetics, and we'll look forward to the next earnings call. Operator, with that, we can now conclude the call.

Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.