This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk01: Good morning. My name is Melissa, and I will serve as your conference call operator. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this call is being recorded. Joining me on the call today will be Dr. Pete Saltzman, Chief Executive Officer of Immune Event. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that today's conference call will include certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements regarding Immunovet's plan to initiate two Phase III clinical trials for beta-climate in TED in the second half of calendar year 2022 with an expected top-line data readout in the first half of calendar year 2025, and it's planned to initiate a Phase III clinical trial in MG by the end of June 2022, with an expected readout in the second half of calendar year 2024. ImmuneVance plans to develop Betaclimab across a broad range of autoimmune indications, the potential efficacy and safety of ImmuneVance product and candidate, Immunovant's expectations regarding the timing, design, and results of its clinical trials, including the timing of future data readouts and the announcement of additional indications, and whether, if approved, beta-climab will be successfully distributed, marketed, and commercialized. All forward-looking statements are based on estimates and assumptions by Immunovant's management that, although Immunovant believes to be reasonable, are inherently uncertain. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those that Immune Event expected. For more information, investors are encouraged to review Immune Event's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the SEC on June 8, 2022, and Immune Event's subsequent filings with the SEC. Any forward-looking statements speaks only as of the date on which it was made. An immune event undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Now I'd like to turn the call over to Dr. Pete Saltzman. Thank you. Dr. Saltzman, please go ahead.
spk05: Thank you, Melissa, and thanks to everyone for joining the call today. I'm very excited to share that Immunivant recently achieved alignment with the FDA Division of Ophthalmology to move forward with a pivotal program in thyroid eye disease, or TED. This is a big milestone for Immunivant, and we now plan to initiate two placebo-controlled Phase III trials for TED in the second half of 2022. We expect to have top-line data for these trials in the first half of 2025. TED is the second pivotal program we have announced for betopimab and represents a first-in-class program with an exciting market opportunity. As we heard from physicians and as we discussed at our R&D day this past March, there has been a paradigm shift in the treatment of TET. As many of you know, the FDA approved tepratumumab in January of 2020, which is now the only FDA-approved treatment option for thyroid eye disease. When new medications are approved for a disease with high unmet need and a historical lack of innovation, then some patients who are already under the care of a physician can rapidly gain access to the new medication. In addition, these types of approvals raise awareness of the disease among other patients who may not yet be under the care of a physician or specialist. The growing patient awareness also impacts physician decision-making and the market expands. We've seen this unfold in thyroid eye disease. The market opportunity continues to grow as the awareness of the disease continues to expand, and we believe this will be the case for quite a while. similar to the steady market growth experienced in other immunology markets after the first big innovation. At the same time, the TED market has some very unique features. The disease itself is heterogeneous and therefore lends itself to complementary mechanisms of action. Fixed duration of dosing, specified in the FDA labels for TED, also supports the development of new and complementary mechanisms of action. The net result is what we believe to be an exciting opportunity for patients and for Botoclimate. Today I will introduce our TED Phase III clinical design and focus on the important points of differentiation for metoclomab in thyroid eye disease. I'll start by reviewing some of the fundamental biology for how metoclomab may work in TED and why we believe that TSH receptor autoantibodies are key drivers of Graves' hyperthyroidism and of TED. In the top row of the figure, anti-TSH receptor autoantibodies circulate in the body and bind to the TSH receptors. In the rightmost figure, the autoantibody is binding to a TSH receptor in the thyroid gland. This activates the thyroid follicle, increasing cellular metabolism and the release of thyroid-related hormone. Of course, this is not the end of the story since TSH receptor antibodies can circulate in the blood and bind to other target cells that also express the TSH receptor. In the middle figure, the autoantibodies are shown binding to the TSH receptor in the periorbital space where they activate orbital fibroblasts. This leads to proliferation of the periorbital tissue and differentiation of these fibroblasts. In the absence of the topramab, anti-TSHR antibodies are recycled back into the blood by the FC receptor and endothelial cells. They remain present to recirculate and reengage receptors throughout the body. Note that beside the TSH receptor, the insulin growth factor 1 receptor, shown on this slide in blue, and adjacent to the TSH receptor, also plays a role in the pathophysiology of the disease. Once an autoantibody binds the TSH receptor, there is crosstalk between the TSH and the IGF-1 receptors, and the engagement of both receptors leads to activation of intracellular pathways linked to the clinical signs and symptoms of TED. So this crosstalk between the TSH receptor and the IGF-1 receptor appears to be crucial to the pathophysiology of the disease. As most of you likely know, butoclumab reduces circulating IgG by binding to the FC receptor and inhibiting FCRN-mediated recycling of IgG that normally takes place in endothelial cells. I'll review some data later in the presentation regarding betoclomab's observed impact on anti-TSHR antibodies in TED patients from a prior study. Although preptosis is a prominent and important feature of thyroid eye disease, TED is actually a heterogeneous condition. Indeed, patients experience a variety of symptoms. This slide includes pictures of two different people with thyroid eye disease that together provide an example of how TED can vary patient to patient. Both people in these photos have proptosis, but the degree of inflammatory changes differs between them. The patient in the top panel has much more eyelid edema and conjunctival redness than the patient in the bottom panel. The symptom heterogeneity is common in TED. We also found that even with treatment, Patients with active TED report making substantial lifestyle modifications. Based on our market research, 80% of participants reported making moderate or major lifestyle modifications despite ongoing systemic therapy to which they were responding. The patients we surveyed were between 30 and 60 years old, reflecting a prime working age range consistent with the TED population. In fact, the impact on work life was highlighted as particularly challenging as participants reported difficulty working on electronic devices, difficulty driving, and challenges engaging in social situations. When we asked participants to rank their most important treatment goal, there was not a single top treatment goal shared across the patient population. Rather, the most important goal varied patient to patient. While improving proptosis by two millimeters or more is clinically significant and very important, there are symptoms other than proptosis that can be an even higher priority for certain patients. We believe it's possible that medications with different mechanisms of action will address different symptoms in different ways and can therefore be complementary in the treatment paradigm. As I mentioned in my opening comments, Tepratumumab has made a meaningful impact on the treatment of TED since its launch in early 2020. The launch has probably improved diagnosis rates in TED and has certainly reframed the urgency to treat compared to the historic watch and wait approach that was frequently applied. This sort of post-launch market development is common for a disease that hasn't had any innovation in a long time. In addition to this favorable market growth, which we expect to continue, the TED market also has some unique features centered around the fixed duration of dosing specified in the FDA labels. Fixed duration of dosing is uncommon in immunology, but common in ophthalmology. In fact, we believe that FDA labels for TED will continue to specify a dosing duration defined by the length of the controlled period of the clinical trial. This is important because the dosing duration specified in the label may be insufficient for many patients. As noted here in the OPTIC 48-week off-treatment follow-up period, 44% of TPEZA patients who were preptosis responders at week 24 in OPTIC were not preptosis responders at week 72, highlighting an opportunity for additional treatment. We believe this opportunity is ideally suited for a new mechanism of action, not only because reimbursement is often strictly limited to the frequency and duration specified in the FDA label, but also because TED is a heterogeneous disease that is likely amenable to complementary mechanisms of action, Such complementary treatment in series will, of course, be longer, and so a simple subcutaneous route of information, of administration, becomes even more important, at least for one of the medications.
spk08: So what is the bottom line?
spk05: How many TED patients do we believe could benefit from a therapy with a new mechanism of action? We estimate this total addressable population in the U.S. to be between 8,000 and 18,000 patients annually. Assuming success in our pivotal program and product approval, we anticipate some patients would be treated first with betoclumab. When comparing potential product profiles, many patients and physicians in our market research selected a profile like the one betoclumab may have for patients on the moderate side of the moderate to severe active TED spectrum. A product given by simple subcutaneous injection without hearing loss issues and with solid proptosis efficacy even if a bit less than TPEZA on this dimension, is attractive as initial therapy for patients on the moderate end of the moderate to severe spectrum. This group makes up about half of the potential addressable market for a new mechanism of action. The second logical group is made up of patients who respond well to TPEZA but have some residual symptoms at the end of their 24-week course of treatment or who relapse at some point off treatment. This group also makes up about half of the potential addressable market for a new mechanism of action. Collectively, we believe 8,000 to 18,000 patients in the United States could be candidates for treatment with betocumab, and this may even be complementary to TPEZA's growth. So we see this as a very exciting market that is really just beginning to show its full potential. Now I'd like to briefly review our clinical development with TED to date. The data on this slide is from a cell-based assay that looks specifically at those autoantibodies which stimulate the TSH receptor, not just those antibodies that bind to it. This is important because some autoantibodies bind the receptor, but they don't stimulate it, and it's really only the stimulatory antibodies that are important to the pathophysiology of TET. The primary graph shows the dose-dependent decreases in stimulatory autoantibodies that were observed with 12 weeks of dosing and the gradual recovery of autoantibodies after the dosing period. Data in the table on the right side of the slide shows the percentage of subjects in each group whose stimulatory autoantibodies came down into the normal range based on the cell-based functional assay. The upper limit of normal in this assay is 140, and getting below 140 indicates a seroconversion where the level of stimulatory autoantibodies is no longer considered different than what is observed in control serum. So over a 12-week period, the observed level of seroconversion was highest in the 680 milligram arm. This was one of several data points leading to our final study design that includes an initial 12 weeks of dosing with 680 milligrams delivered subcutaneously. This slide shows exploratory proptosis data from the same study. As a reminder, the data on this slide is from week six of our TED Phase IIb trials. Although the primary endpoint for this prematurely terminated trial was not significant at week 12, we selected week 6 for this post-hoc analysis because it represents the latest time point with the largest amount of patient data available prior to dosing being stopped due to the voluntary pause. At this early time point of week 6, the observed preptosis response rate was numerically higher at the higher dosages. Again, all treatment was weekly by subcutaneous injections. This slide shows CT scan data that I find very intriguing. CT scans were done in a few centers and were interpreted by a specialized central reader. This graph shows data for all subjects who had a baseline CT and who also had an end-of-treatment CT scan after completing 12 weeks of dosing. As you can see on the y-axis, the bars show percent change from baseline in total extraocular muscle volumes. Looking at week 12 CT scan data on this slide, we observed a suggestion of a dose-dependent effect on muscle volume with a 30% reduction of total muscle volume observed in the 680 milligram Botoclomab group. We observed numerically smaller decreases in other Botoclomab groups, while placebo subjects increased slightly on average. Of course, these are exploratory endpoints in a small number of patients. At the same time, the readings were done by a blinded central reader, and this is the complete CT data set from the trial. Overall, we believe that data from our prior TED trials are very encouraging for our pivotal development program in botoclumab in thyroid eye disease. We also believe that these data suggest that higher levels of IgG suppression may be required initially, and that leads to our trial design. Whereas our 340 milligram weekly dose provides IgG lowering typical of other anti-FCRNs in development, Our 680 milligram weekly dose has consistently shown IgG reduction around 80% with subcutaneous dosing, something unique to bitoclomab within the anti-FCRN class. This initial 12-week dosing period with 680 milligram adds differentiation beyond even first-in-class. As the ophthalmology division of the FDA has provided guidance that two pivotal trials are required for new medications in TED, we've designed two identical studies to run in parallel. We expect to enroll approximately 100 subjects for each trial with two-to-one randomization to either bitoclumab or to placebo for a 24-week treatment period. Subjects randomized to the bitoclumab arm will receive 680 milligrams of bitoclumab delivered weekly for the first 12 weeks, followed by 340 milligrams of bitoclumab delivered weekly for the next 12 weeks. The key inclusion criteria are similar to other pivotal programs in TEDD. and the primary efficacy endpoint will be measured as proptosis responders at week 24 versus placebo, where responders are defined as a greater than or equal to 2-millimeter reduction from baseline in proptosis in the study eye without deterioration in the fellow eye. As I mentioned previously, this design takes advantage of Botoclumab's specific attributes, namely the deep IGT reduction and simple subcutaneous route of administration. We plan to initiate these Phase III trials in TED in the second half of calendar year 2022 and expect to have top-line data from both trials in the first half of 2025.
spk08: Finally, here's a review of our overall development program for BotoclMap.
spk05: We plan to initiate our Phase III Myasthenia gravis trial later this month. And as a reminder, this Phase III MG trial represents our first pivotal program with BotoclMap, with top-line data expected in the second half of calendar year 2024. Building on our progress in MG and TED, we plan to engage with the hematology division of the FDA to discuss development for warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia. We also expect to announce two new indications as previously committed by August of 2022. Beyond MG and TED, we're planning to initiate a pivotal trial in one more indication in 2022, bringing the total to three pivotal trials expected to be initiated in calendar year 2022. This development plan reflects the enthusiasm our team has for the NTF-CRN space in general, and for Botofamab in particular. Thank you so much for your time, and with that, I'd like to open it up for questions.
spk01: Thank you. At this time, we'll be conducting a question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star 2 if you'd like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. Our first question comes from the line of Robin Karnarskas with Truist Securities. Please proceed with your question.
spk02: Hi, thank you for taking my question. First, can you just talk a little bit about in your market research about, I think you mentioned in the beginning that for some moderate patients, that patients, if it has a similar profile to TPEZA, which I think You're seeing around maybe 83% for the primary employee that you could see a use as a first-line therapy. So what sort of market research was done around thoughts around why you choose one product over the other and what would make a patient or a doctor do that? And the second question is for follow-up, do you expect that the FDA will give you a similar label? I assume that you say it will be around six months. Do you think there's any flexibility there? big eyes, anything like that. Thanks.
spk05: Thanks, Robin, for those questions. I appreciate it. So for the first question, with regard to the market research, just to go into a little bit more detail there, the market research we conducted, it was relatively recently conducted, so it was in the U.S. It was after the launch at Tepesa, and patients in the market research had active thyroid eye disease across the spectrum from moderate to severe. And they were on systemic therapy with either steroids or Tepeza with about an even split in terms of medication between both of those groups. They all actually reported, 100% of them reported improvement in their symptoms. But 80% of them, as I mentioned, reported that they were still making moderate improvements. or even more than moderate lifestyle modifications in spite of improvements with therapy. Then there was a section of the market research where we asked them to consider product profiles. So for Tepeza, the product profile was just equivalent to the FDA-approved label. For betopimab, the profile included what I mentioned. So subcutaneous route of administration, a proptosis efficacy that was a little bit less than TPEZA, and the lack of any hearing loss as an assumption in that product profile. And when comparing those two product profiles, you know, different people chose different things, and across the spectrum, actually, some people chose the TPEZA profile, some people chose the Pitocomab profile. But there were more people on the moderate side of the spectrum who tended towards the betoclumab profile. And I think that's consistent with just treatments of a lot of conditions where when someone has a very, they're very, very severely impacted, then the outstanding efficacy that Tepesa has demonstrated is probably going to lead to that being the first choice in spite of any adverse events. On the other hand, for someone who's impacted, for sure, but a little bit more moderate, they're more drawn to a profile that provides efficacy, but with potentially less safety issues and no irreversible safety issues. So that was how that split came out. And the subcutaneous route of administration also played a pretty big role, I have to say, in spite of the fact that these were people who were being treated with a systemic course of therapy and were aware that the total duration of therapy was only six months. To that point, with regard to the label, our interactions with the Division of Ophthalmology strongly suggest that they have a really standard approach to development programs in TED and are likely to have a very standard approach to labeling. So I think the key tenets of the TEPEZA label will be reflected in any other product that's approved for thyroid eye disease that has a similar program, meaning a 24-week placebo-controlled program.
spk02: Got it. And just as a follow-up, do you think you'll be allowed to have patients that have previously been on Supeza? Would there be a washout period? And, you know, also, I was going to ask you just around the guidance for 2025 data, given the shorter timeframe for the trial, what is your assumption for enrollment seems slower, given that there's more awareness of the disease?
spk05: Right. So, in terms of the timing for the trial, our enrollment assumptions for these two trials, which should be run in parallel, is sort of halfway between the actual experience of the two TPEZA trials for their first trial and the second trial. The second trial was obviously faster. They had sites up and running, and the first trial was positive. So those two things, I think, were an accelerator for the second trial compared to the first one. So we took a position sort of down the middle. There's no question that the approval of TPEZA has generated additional awareness, and we do expect to enroll patients in the U.S., in spite of TPEZA being on the market. But there will be a little bit, you know, there's always more competition when you have an approved product, which is true for now, at least only in the U.S. And that leads a little bit to the first question, which was, will we include patients who were previously treated with TPEZA? And we will not for the pivotal program. Our goal with the pivotal program is to have as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as with regard to the patient population as Depeza had in there. So that's a rationale for having naive patients in our pivotal trial. That could be an opportunity for a future phase four trial or something like that, but for the phase three trial, it will be patients who are naive to any biologic therapy.
spk02: Okay, great. Thank you.
spk08: Yeah, you're welcome.
spk01: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Derek Arkela with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.
spk06: Hey, good morning, and thanks for taking the questions and thanks for the update. Just a couple from us. Different track, though. I mean, I just wanted to kind of get your thoughts, Pete, on, you know, the recent kind of failure in Weha from Fos-Dimatinib and how that might, you know, kind of enter your thinking about, you know, moving forward in Weha with Bataclomab and thinking about the opportunity there. And then second question is, Just on the cash guidance out to 2025, does that assume that you have cash through the top line TED data? Thanks.
spk05: Yeah, great questions, Derek. I'll ask the first one. The second one first, yes. That's an easy answer, easy and direct answer. The first question is very interesting, and that call is happening, I guess, in parallel to this one. I did have a chance to review the press release. which had a fair amount of information this morning. And as I'm sure you saw, there is a big variation in the placebo response rate by geography, whereas the response rate for Fostamatinib by geography was relatively similar. Why might that be? I think, you know, in any trial in immunology where there's a potential to use non-steroid immunosuppressant therapy, which was allowed, I think at least one of them was allowed in the Phase II trial, the protocol for which it's been published. I'm not totally sure about the Phase III trial, but I would guess there might be a similarity there. Non-steroid immunosuppressants, as you know, one of their big limitations is they take a long time to work. That's a big limitation clinically. It's also something that can cause issues in clinical trials if you have someone in the placebo arm whose non-steroid immunosuppressant therapy is just kicking in midway through the trial. This is an area where we've gotten a lot of nuanced feedback from investigators across our clinical trials, particularly the ones that have a longer duration, but it actually applies everywhere where these medications are used. So it's possible that that might explain it. the placebo response rates that they saw in Eastern Europe or in some of those geographies seem much higher than, again, what hematologists are telling us one would expect in a true placebo arm. So then you wonder if the concomitant medications are kicking in and causing a confounding there.
spk06: I guess, and how does that kind of like factor into your thoughts about going into Waha, you know, now that maybe that competitor is not there versus, you know, the undisclosed indications?
spk05: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, I think the, you know, first thing is to make sure the trial design is really carefully done to the points I was just making. In terms of Waha, you know, with or without Fos-Matinib, we're really excited about this opportunity because there's there's just been a lack of innovation in Waha. The therapies that are mostly used are steroids, actually, even more so than non-steroids, at least within the major markets. You know, moderate doses of prednisone with occasional blood transfusions, which is really just not a very satisfactory long-term solution to come up with a targeted therapy. And even if hostamandib had reported positive results this morning, it is an oral therapy, but the The GI side effects, I think, you know, may be limiting for chronic use. So, you know, this is – I'm not sure it changes a lot. Our thinking is centered around what the TOCA map can do, which we believe, you know, could be pretty exciting in Waha.
spk08: Got it. Thanks for the question. Yeah.
spk01: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Thomas Smith with SVB Securities. Please proceed with your question.
spk08: Hey, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions.
spk07: Just a couple on the plans in TED. Can you give us a little bit more visibility into some of the regulatory dialogue and achieving alignment here with FDA? Like, were there any discussions around the need for a lipid management program in TED? And I guess, where did you guys settle on that?
spk05: Great question, Tom. Thanks for asking. We will apply the same identical safety and monitoring program to the TED clinical trial as we have previously discussed for MG, the same narrow exclusion criteria for people who have a baseline LDL greater than 190 or who have existing cardiovascular disease and have an LDL greater than 160. As with the myasthenia trial, should a patient come into the trial on a statin, that's fine. and we would expect that there'll be some patients who have controlled hyperlipidemia on a statin just based on the broad prevalence of that in the population, and that's not a problem. However, there won't be any statin use initiated during the clinical trial, and there won't be any unblinding due to LDL excursions. So the discussion was straightforward and similar to the one with the neurodivision for our MG program.
spk07: Okay, got it. That makes sense. And then maybe following up on Robin's question on the target of patient enrollment, you know, you've highlighted the potential role in patients with maybe less severe disease, more on the moderate end of the moderate to severe spectrum. Is there anything specific in the inclusion-exclusion criteria for these phase three studies that could drive maybe greater enrollment of a more moderate patient population on the disease severity spectrum?
spk05: No. In fact, it's probably a little bit the opposite in the sense that there's a four clinical activity score, four, which is common, versus dropping it to a three or something like that. And so the population is really the same. It's the moderate to severe population. And often people who are enrolled in clinical trials just generally are a little bit more severe. I mean, that's totally fine. I mean, we expect to have good efficacy in the more severe group on that moderate to severe spectrum. What I was discussing really related more just kind of to clinical decision-making. If you have two different products, they have a different profile, and you have a spectrum of patients, you know, physicians will generally pick sort of a sub-profile that they prefer for one product, sub-profile patients that they prefer for one product and a sub-profile for the others. That's just kind of natural. And the moderate to severe TED patients, that's a large and heterogeneous pool. So I think it's actually going to be relatively straightforward for physicians to make a decision that works for each of them clinically to decide where they would use betoclumab first, where they would use tepezifirst, assuming betoclumab's approved. I think in the end of the day, many patients will end up getting both, which is what I meant by a complementary therapy giving in series approach. and the question then is which one do you get first and you know that I outlined our thinking in terms of how those decisions will be made but individual clinicians will probably vary in their decisions there okay got it that makes sense and then just maybe lastly on um on enrollment there are a few other programs out there that could also be enrolling later stage studies in TED
spk07: Just as you think about kind of the geographical and regional enrollment, I know you mentioned, Pete, that you expect to get some patients from the U.S., but do you have a sense for kind of regional breakdown between the U.S. and Canada versus Western Europe versus Eastern Europe at this point?
spk05: I don't have detailed projections by country yet, but we do expect all regions to be important, and that was true in our previous 2B trial, and we're looking to be as expansive as possible in all of our pivotal trials to ensure that anywhere there's a good clinical trial site that we have an opportunity to tap into that pool of potential patients, given the you know, competing trials across a lot of rare diseases. So that's definitely something we're looking at just generally.
spk08: Okay. Got it.
spk07: Makes sense. All right. Thanks, Pete.
spk08: Appreciate you taking the questions. Yeah. Thank you, Tom.
spk01: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Douglas Saw with HC Wainwright. Please proceed with your question.
spk04: Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Just maybe, Pete, in terms of that work that you did that sort of suggests that there are you know, so that moderate patients might get some more traction as first-line therapy. I'm just curious from the, I think you mentioned tolerability as a key attribute for Pataclumab in terms of its trackness. I'm just curious what the relative tolerability, is there anything in particular that came out in terms of the market research, any particular tolerability issues that were appealing to physicians?
spk05: Right. So both lists, that's a great question, Doug. I appreciate you asking it. So both with just band patients, we did highlight in the potential product profiles that we were testing that in the Botoclumab profile, there could be changes in LDL and that some physicians may choose to monitor, even though there's not monitoring in the trial that leads to unblinding in the clinical setting. That could be the case. And that didn't seem to be something which led to... you know, any negative perception with regard to decision-making on the part of physicians or preference on the part of patients. Outside of the blood monitoring, which for these types of patients with thyroid eye disease is done regularly anyway because many of them have, you know, they're euthyroid in the trial, but many of them are being treated to maintain their euthyroid state. So they're used to getting blood draws for thyroid function levels. Outside of the blood draws that may be required, you know, the anti-FCRN class as a whole and Botoclumab specifically has been generally well tolerated. So some of the adverse events that have been reported consistently for Tepeza, you know, for some people are a tradeoff, particularly when they have another option. So that was kind of how the decision-making went in that market research.
spk04: Okay, great. And then just Do you anticipate you'll have, you know, the MG Phase 3 completed? Do you anticipate needing additional sort of safety extension data to potentially file in TED?
spk05: Yeah, so all these, you know, every division has slightly unique but generally similar requirements for safety exposures. And so, you know, we work with each division to understand them and, you And the good news is that consistently across the FDA, safety exposures can be cooled. So having patients being studied in different indications, those safety exposures that we'll have, for example, in TED, outside of our TED BLA, patients in the MG program can be submitted and vice versa. So that's helpful in terms of meeting the safety database requirements.
spk04: Okay. And then just one final one. I think you indicated that, you know, of, you know, one, you expected to initiate an additional pivotal trial by year end, potentially one from the two indications that haven't been disclosed. I mean, how are you thinking about sort of that risk-reward in terms of going into indications in pivotal study where you haven't necessarily done as much clinical work previously?
spk05: Right. That's a great question, Doug. The decision on whether to go directly into a pivotal trial or a pre-pivotal trial, in some ways, the second question is an important question. The first most important question we ask ourselves is, what are the indications we want to develop? This may be slightly obvious. And there, we're looking at the degree of unmet need, the size of the patient population, think is addressable for a new therapy, and then the probability of technical success that you highlighted in your question. And when we're thinking about the probability of technical success, we consider not only our own data, but also data from other anti-FCRNs, since they're such a good biomarker, obviously, for anti-FCRN development programs. So then having selected a pool of indications, and we have a leading list that's long and reasonably prioritized beyond the three that we've disclosed, then the next question is whether to go straight to pivotal, which is great for long-term value creation because you get faster to BLA, or whether to do a pre-pivotal trial, and that has the advantage of generating some additional catalyst data, but also for certain indications has the chance of advancing our scientific understanding and making our pivotal program stronger. I think ultimately, you know, having a really, really strong result in your pivotal trial, you know, that's the most important thing. If you can avoid an issue like what Rigel's announcing this morning by having, you know, your inclusion-exclusion criteria a little bit more optimized, then that's going to be desirable. And for some of the individuals where there is a little bit less scientific information, we need to do that approach, and that would be the most value-creating So, you know, that'll be the most important thing is which indication, and the second most important thing, whether it's corrective or pivotal.
spk08: Okay, great. Thank you so much. You're welcome.
spk01: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Yatin Saneja with Guggenheim Securities. Please proceed with your question.
spk03: Hey, this is Evanon for Yatin. Thanks for taking our questions. Two quick ones for me. First, can you remind us what the bar is for TED? And second, what gives you confidence to move forward in TED, given some of the prior mixed results that you've seen?
spk08: Yeah, great question, Devin.
spk05: So I think the bar for efficacy is equal to or greater than what you see with steroids. And the steroid data is not as robustly characterized as TPEZA data, obviously, which had two very well-controlled pivotal trials. But generally, steroids have an efficacy on proptosis response of around 50%. So I think anything between the steroid and the TPEZA result is where the efficacy bar lies for a new medication with a strong tolerability profile like we believe the TOCLMAP will have. Our confidence really comes from triangulating a lot of information. So, you know, our 2B trial, we had to pause it midstream, which made the data difficult to interpret. We had a lot of patients who had a varying degree of exposure throughout the trial. So rather than looking at it as you would evaluate a pivotal trial, where you first look at the primary endpoint, is it statistically significant, and then which gated secondaries hit, we looked at it more as you would look at a proof-of-concept trial, where you triangulate a lot of the information to see if there's consistency across various clinical scores and biomarkers and whether there's dose response. That's, I think, one of the most important things when making a decision for a proof-of-concept. And because if you see inverse dose response or something like that, then you wonder if the results that you're seeing in a smaller trial are spurious. Across a lot of biomarkers and... radiologic markers and clinical parameters, we saw that we observed a dose response, as I highlighted a little bit in the slides today and even in more detail at our R&D day. So that gives us a strong conviction that we have an effect here and that we're likely to hit the bar that I outlined in terms of efficacy.
spk03: Got it. Thanks. And maybe if I could, just one quick follow-up. For that post-hoc proptosis data, what proportion of the total patient number in each arm is included in that analysis?
spk05: Yeah, that's a tricky question to answer because what do you put in the denominator? You put everybody who was ever randomized, everybody who finished the week 12. There were some people that got to 11 weeks and not 12 weeks. So, you know, I think just generally there's about half as many people that got to week six as to, you know, the later, say, week 11 or week 12. So it's a smaller number of people, sort of a half to two-thirds, depending on how you – what you put in the denominator.
spk08: Got it. Thanks, Pete. Very helpful. Yeah, no problem, man. Okay.
spk01: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our question and answer session. I'll turn the floor back to Dr. Salzman for any final comments.
spk08: Thanks, Melissa.
spk05: And thanks again, everyone, for joining us this morning. We're really excited by this unique first-in-class opportunity in TED, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to discuss it with you all this morning. Goodbye.
spk01: Thank you. This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.
Disclaimer