NovaBridge Biosciences

Good morning and welcome to the Novabridge Biosciences first half 2026 corporate update and financial results call. At this time, all attendees are in a listen-only mode. A question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. As a reminder, this call is being recorded and a replay will be made available on the Novabridge website following the conclusion of the event. Some of the statements made on this call will include forward-looking statements within the meanings of the U.S. Private Securities and Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results could differ materially from those stated or implied by these forward-looking statements due to risks and uncertainties associated with the company's business, including those set forth in the risk factor section of NOVA Bridge's annual report on Form 20F for the year ended December 31, 2025, and any other filings that are or may be made within the SEC. Please also carefully review the forward-looking statements disclaimer in the slide deck that accompanies this presentation. In addition, our statements are based on information available to us as of today, August 20th, 2026. Novabridge undertakes no obligation to revise or update any statements or information to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this conference call. I'd now like to turn the call over to Dr. Srishti Gupta, Chief Executive Officer of Novabridge Biosciences. Please go ahead, Srishti.

Thank you, Tara. Thank you everyone for joining us today. For those of you who have not yet had the pleasure to meet, I'm Srishti Gupta, Chief Executive Officer at Novabridge. It is really an honor to be here. I joined the company in July, so this is my first earnings call as CEO. Before discussing our first half results and our portfolio progress, I'd like to spend a few minutes sharing why I joined Novabridge and how I think about the opportunity ahead of us. Throughout my career, whether as a physician, a healthcare advisor, a board member, or most recently as a CEO of a global biopharmaceutical company, I have been motivated by a simple belief. Exceptional science only matters if it reaches patients. Too often though, promising medicines never reach their full potential. In many cases, the challenge is not the quality of the science itself. The challenge is advancing that science through development, regulatory review, financing, and ultimately commercialization. That is what attracted me to Novabridge. I believe the company has an opportunity to occupy a differentiated position in today's biotechnology landscape. Our goal is straightforward, to identify promising new medicines, advance them efficiently, and pursue the path that gives each program the best opportunity to succeed. We are working to bridge the gap between exceptional science and patient impact. Next slide, please. The opportunity to do this has never been greater. Today, more promising new medicines are being developed around the world than any point in our industry's history. We are especially seeing this in Asia, which has become an increasingly important source of new medicines and global licensing activity. But the point is not where the science originates. Where a medicine starts is becoming less important than how it is advanced. We believe that the capability is becoming increasingly important across our industry, and NovaBridge is well positioned at the intersection of innovation and translation. Next slide, please. NovaBridge has three key strengths. First, access. Through our relationships, networks, and experience, we believe we can identify promising opportunities, including therapies that others may overlook. Development expertise. We have the experience to advance programs through clinical development, generate meaningful proof of concept data, and make informed decisions about the best path forward. And third, capital allocation discipline. We do not believe that every potential new therapy should follow the same path. The right development, financing, or partnering strategy should be determined by the needs of the program. Structure should follow the asset and not the other way around. For us, this is not just a theoretical framework. Our two lead programs already demonstrate different aspects of this approach. GIVA Stomach reflects our ability to advance a promising program towards registrational development. BIS 101 reflects our ability to identify an attractive opportunity, acquire it, and build a focused organization around it. Next slide, please. Let me make this more concrete through our lead oncology program, GIVA Stomach. Beyond the promise of the medicine itself, I believe Givastomic demonstrates what disciplined execution can accomplish. Since the initial Phase 1b data presentation in July 2025, we have rapidly advanced the program towards a potential registrational path. Next slide, please. What stands out to me is the pace of progress over the past year. During the first half of 2026, we reported updated Phase 1b results initiated our global randomized phase two study and made important regulatory progress. Following our type B meeting with the FDA, we announced that Givastomig may be eligible for an accelerated approval pathway in first line HER2 negative, CLAUDIN 18.2 positive, PD-L1 positive gastroesophageal cancer. And in June, the FDA granted fast track designation for Givastomig in combination with nivolumab and chemotherapy. Taken together, these milestones have increased our confidence in the development pathway for the program. Looking ahead, we expect to present the updated Phase 1B dose expansion data at ESMO in October, and subject to ongoing planning and financing activities, continue to target initiation of a Phase 3 study as early as the fourth quarter of this year. Next slide, please. Let me now turn to why we're excited about GIVA Stomach. As we look at the competitive landscape, we believe GivaStomach has the potential to become an important first-line treatment option for patients with HER2- called an 18.2-positive gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Three characteristics really stand out. First is the strong activity when added to standard immunochemotherapy. In the Phase 1b study, we observed encouraging response rates, disease control, and progression-free survival across the combination cohorts. Second, there's activity across a broad range of CLOD and 18.2 expression levels. Responses were observed across both higher and lower expression groups, which could support applicability across the broader patient population. And third, we believe practical adoption matters. Gevastomic is being developed as a conventional antibody therapy that can be integrated into existing treatment practice across a broad range of care settings. Taken together, we believe these attributes support the potential for Givastomic to become a differentiated first-line treatment option and reinforce our continued focus on advancing the program towards registrational development. Next slide, please. I would like to turn to our ophthalmology program. PHYS 101 is being advanced through Visara, NovaBridge's majority-owned ophthalmology subsidiary. We identified ophthalmology as an area with significant unmet need, particularly for therapies that can improve durability and reduce treatment burden. PHYS 101 became the foundation of that effort. We acquired what we believed was a differentiated asset and assembled an experienced ophthalmology leadership team, including the appointment of Dr. Jeff Nao as Chief Executive Officer of SARA to lead the next phase of development. Today, VIS 101 remains our lead ophthalmology program, and we continue to evaluate additional opportunities within the field over time. Next slide, please. We were initially attracted to VIS 101 because of a simple observation. In retinal vascular disease, outcomes have improved dramatically over the last decade, but treatment burden remains a significant challenge for patients and physicians. We believe durability remains one of the most important opportunities for innovation in ophthalmology. VIS 101 was purpose-designed to address that challenge. It is the only tetravalent VEGF-A and ANG2 peptibody with two binding sites for each target and a molecular design intended to provide both robust inhibition and extended durability. That differentiated profile is what initially attracted us to this therapy. Positive Phase 2a top-line results from earlier this year demonstrated improvements in visual acuity, reductions in retinal thickness, durable treatment responses, and a favorable safety profile. Based on those results, we're preparing to initiate a Phase 2b study in the second half of this year with the goal of further defining the optimal dose and advancing the program towards global Phase 3 development. Together, Jeeva Stomig and Biz101 illustrate two aspects of Dover Bridge's approach. One reflects our ability to advance a promising medicine through development. The other reflects our ability to identify attractive opportunities, acquire differentiated assets, and build focused organizations around them. These are the programs on which we're primarily focused today, and we believe both have important milestones ahead. With that, I'll turn the call over to Kyler to review our first half financial results.

Thank you, Srishti, and good morning, good evening, everyone. Nice to meet you, please. As of June 30, 2026, Novabridge had approximately $216 million in cash and investments, consisting of approximately $191 million in cash and cash equivalent and approximately $25 million in equity investment at fair value. Notably, this is a debt-free balance sheet continuing to be strong, which provides us with meaningful financial flexibility as we execute our strategic priorities. As you can see on this slide, our current financial resources are expected to support Novabrate through a number of important clinical and strategic inflection points across the portfolio. For Givastomic, this includes updated Phase 1b dose expansion data at ECMO 2026, completion of enrollment in the Phase 2 first-line gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma combination study, and the potential initiation of the Phase 3 registrational program as early as year-end 2026. Looking further ahead, our current runway extends through the anticipated Phase III interim data readout in 2028 for GVS-Dolny. Our financial position also supports continued development of Phase 101, including initiation and interim data readout of the Phase IIb Neurovascular AMD study and the planned Phase III initiation, as well as additional clinical milestones across the broader portfolio. As Srishti discussed, disabling capital allocation is a fundamental strength of the NovaBridge strategy, and we intend to deploy capital thoughtfully around programs and opportunities where we believe we can create meaningful value while maintaining the flexibility to pursue the financing, partnering, or corporate structure best suited to each asset. We believe our current balance sheet puts us in a strong position to execute that strategy while advancing the portfolio through multiple important value inflection points. With that, I'll turn the call back to Srishti for closing remarks. Srishti, back to you.

Thank you, Kyler. Next slide, please. I want to highlight the catalyst we expect investors to be watching over the coming quarters. For Jeeva Stomach, our near-term focus remains execution across the broader development program. Key milestones include updated Phase 1b dose expansion data at ESMO, continued advancement of our randomized Phase 2 study in first-line gastric cancer, initiation of a Phase 3 study as early as the fourth quarter of this year, subject to ongoing planning and financing activities, and continued enrollment of our biliary tract cancer and pancreatic cancer cohorts. For VIS 101, we're preparing to initiate the Phase 2b program in the second half of 2026 and continue advancing the program towards global Phase 3 development. As I reflect on the first half of 2026, what excites me the most is not only the progress of Jeeva Stomig and Viz101, but what those programs represent. Jeeva Stomig and Viz101 followed very different paths, but both reflect the same underlying objective, identifying promising medicines and helping them reach their full potential. They represent two aspects of the Novabridge approach. In one case, we are advancing a promising oncology program towards potential registration. In the other, we identified an opportunity in ophthalmology, acquired a differentiated asset, and built a focused and talented organization around it. Beyond Jeeva Stomig and Viz101, our portfolio also includes programs such as Raji Stomig and Uli Litimab, where development programs are currently being led by our partners. While our primary focus remains on GIVA Stomach and VIS 101, we continue to monitor the progress of these programs and look forward to future data readouts. Looking ahead, our priorities are straightforward. Advance GIVA Stomach and VIS 01, deliver on the milestones in front of us, and continue strengthening the organization to support future growth. Ultimately, I joined Novabridge because it was built to identify promising medicines, advance them thoughtfully, and give them the best opportunity to reach patients who may benefit from them. We are still early in that journey, but I'm encouraged by the progress we have made so far. Next slide please. With that, Tara, we'd be happy to take questions.

Great, thank you, Srishti. So yes, at this time, we will be conducting a question and answer session with our speakers. To our analysts who have joined us live, please use the raise hand feature to indicate you have a question. Please hold for a brief moment while we pull for questions. So our first question comes from Dana Graybosh at Lyric Partners. Please go ahead. Hi, thank you.

Thanks for the question. I wonder if you could talk a bit more about the future growth platforms and why we should have confidence that Novabridge is particularly differentiated or well-suited to take advantage of European gaps and maybe you could give us some examples of what you mean by that and also women's health. I guess they're both very different from Jeeva, a highly innovated IO asset, and Vasara. Thank you.

Thank you, Dana, for the question. I just wanted to let everyone know that in addition to Kyler and myself, I'm joined by Mark Hagler, our chief commercial officer, Dr. Phillip Dennis, our chief medical officer, and Jeff Nao, the CEO of Visara. So in case there's questions, we have our executive team here today. And Dana, on your question, I'll start and I'd love to turn it over to Mark as well. But I think as we think about our future growth platforms, for us, it's really the combination of the capabilities of having both the business development as well as the internal clinical development. and not to be able to do either one of those things one-off but to repeatedly do those things over and over again to combine strong BD function with a strong internal clinical development function so that we can take assets to their next value inflection point on their journey to become medicines. You asked specifically about European gaps. So we're in early days on our strategy on Europe, but we have been in conversations with several European commercial organizations on how to combine the strengths of a BD team, which is looking at a broad range of innovation, which especially is innovation that is differentiated at the clinic level and can be differentiated in comparison to comparators. and how to combine our functions, potentially even our clinical development for early regulatory milestones with their strong commercial capabilities and their market access. So we haven't quite identified Parts of the therapeutic area we would like to combine our efforts on, but there is definitely a strong amount of interest right now on bringing innovative assets in that have yet to be introduced into the broader market reimbursement systems for the European context. Before I go into the women's health question, maybe Mark, I'll turn it over to you from a commercial standpoint to maybe comment a little bit on how you think about our differentiation combined with commercial capabilities.

Sure, thanks very much, Srishti. Yeah, I think there, I'll speak a little bit about the unmet need in Europe as well. I think that's, MFN has provided an opportunity within the European markets. There's certainly a lot of interest from European companies to partner. So Srishti's had a number of conversations already. And it's a, A fertile market, I would say. Again, it's very early and the final rules for Globe and Guard have not been released, but we've already seen a number of large global pharmaceutical companies launch in the U.S. and not file in the EU. So there's certainly opportunity there from our perspective. Srishti?

Thank you, Mark. So, you know, Dana, just to kind of wrap up on the European partnership examples that we're thinking about, we're very much thinking of it as a partnership where we combine our skills with their skills. And they have not had the need slash ability yet to invest in large scale BD functions in this part of the innovation landscape. So that's part of what we would like to do. And for many organizations, I think they struggle on how to allocate financing towards R&D when it hasn't been put into budgets. And so we also have the capabilities to host and advance things from an R&D perspective. We're still learning and we're very early days. We haven't commercialized anything in terms of our portfolio. So we see this as a combination of our strengths and their strengths. And then maybe to move on to the women's health question. Again, this is an area of high unmet need. We have not seen a lot of innovation in either those therapeutics or potential therapeutics for areas that are really focused on sort of women-specific disease areas. For example, endometriosis or menopause or polymetabolic ovarian syndrome. and we also haven't seen a lot of necessary innovation in terms of the areas that are predominantly affecting women or disproportionately affecting women so osteoporosis, osteopenia, sarcopenia, autoimmune and so as we look at some of the MOAs that are in the innovation landscape we see potential to bring those forward in a variety of indications including things that have not yet been addressed. We see also a lot of interest from financing partners to find that type of innovation and continue to advance it. So specific areas that we're tending to look at right now are endometriosis, menopause, can we innovate in the injectable fertility space, which has been heavily dependent on injectable drugs. How do we think about what used to be called polycystic ovarian syndrome, now PMLS? So those are types of areas that we're thinking about, as well as osteoporosis, osteopenia, and sarcopenia, which are disproportionately affecting women. So we're looking at a range of mechanisms of action, and we're trying to think about how we would advance those MOAs towards potential therapeutics. Any follow on, Dana, before we take another question?

Maybe just to confirm the Europe point. So because of your unique BD capabilities in China, this is really a fast follower. So a U.S. or global company focused on the U.S. market and you see ability with lower clinical risk to take great assets from China and fast follow and launch potentially at a lower price in the Europe market. Is that fair?

Yeah, I think that I would summarize it as three things. I think differentiation is very contextual. So what we've been looking at in terms of differentiation at a global market is almost sort of a misnomer. Differentiation in the European market is really differentiated compared to the standard of care that's reimbursed within the system. So you could say it's a fast follower or you could say that it's a be better, but it's an improvement over what the national reimbursement systems are actually willing to pay for in terms of broad patient access. So this is for us sort of the number one entry point is how do we think about where these therapeutics can come in compared to the standard of care. The second for us is the idea that when we're looking at data and generating our data through our clinical development team, we're hopeful that we can leverage data that's generated for at least in early parts of the for phase one, phase two data that's generated outside of Europe in order to advance the regulatory pathway forward. I think the third thing for us is that we would love to combine that with low cost potential manufacturing, which doesn't have such requirements to be localized to Europe per se. And so the combination of finding an unmet need where the standard has not and have been advanced for innovation with a regulatory pathway that's efficient because of the types of data that we can leverage as well as a manufacturing that can result in overall cost of goods which could fit into these national health systems. We're hoping to work with commercial partners with their market access teams on integrating some of that type of innovation into the systems in which they're already operating.

Maybe one follow-up just to make it concrete. Is there like a great example from a competitor where you think that something that these three criteria and you'd look to that to be this is what good will look like? Or is this more a vision on the future?

I think, well, we're seeing a couple of things. I mean, recently, Menorini announced a deal with the GLP-1 company coming out of China, knowing that that has been sort of a challenging reimbursement context for many countries, whether it's the obesity criteria, the diabetes criteria, how to integrate GLP usage into the national health systems at scale has not sort of consistently been done. So I'm guessing as Menorini is working up that clinical development program, they're going to do a comparator-based trial so that they can actually figure out how to get that through market access in the European five countries in which they're operating. But that for me is sort of a signal of, hey, we recognize that we're behind on innovating. I find it very interesting, just living in Europe myself, that PCSK9 inhibitors are not nationally reimbursed in many contexts. Overstatens. And so how do you think about what is driving that? It's probably cost, right? To be able to get a government to want to pay for that level of innovation or what they perceive as sort of a costly innovation for an entire population of people So how could we figure out how to bridge that in order to bring an innovation that is a highly effective innovation such as a PCSK9 inhibitor into a health system? So those are the types of examples that are more in the sort of cardiac primary care. But I'm sure as we think about even more specialized areas that have biomarker-driven strategies where the data can translate because the screening has been biomarker-driven, can we do more in other areas? But that's a little bit around how we're thinking about Thank you.

Thanks for the questions, Dana. Our next question comes from Andres Maldonado at HC Wainwright. Please go ahead, Andres.

Hi, everyone. Congrats on the progress and thanks for taking my questions. Just to put everything together, I think pieces of this question have been answered, but, you know, Thus far, since you've screened over the 700 assets, but very few advance in that algorithm, can you talk to date, what commonly kills the opportunity thus far in the screening? Has it been just pure biology, clinical translatability, some of the economics you spoke to? I guess if you take a snapshot of the funnel that you guys use to screen some of these compounds. It would be great to get a sense of some of the puts and takes of the algorithm here. And more importantly, Dr. Gupta, how you've maybe advanced that funnel or changed that funnel since you've been at the company.

Thank you Andres for the question and thank you also for joining. It's a really good question and I think as we've evolved our executive team, we're sort of also signaling the types of things that matter as we do asset screening. So I think two areas that really jump out to me In our asset screening is moving away from what would be sort of a economically, financially driven, almost a fund model of trying to see how you get, how do you underwrite an early asset and figure out how to generate financial value from it to being able to say we're really kind of high conviction that we're bringing in something that has the potential to really have positive patient impact. So the two areas that I think we've been seeing some of the most sort of discerning parts of our BD evaluations evolve in the last months have been around clinical development programs. So what does it take to get to a next value inflection point? How do we get there? Which regulator? How strongly do we believe in this? Not off the existing data per se, but actually as we think about having to evolve that data to generate the totality of data that we would use for its registration. And what kind of investment does it take to get to that level of data? So we see a lot of signal sometimes from early POC data from Phase 2a, but what would it take to actually generate that at scale How do we advance that? And then where do we think the next value inflection point we could either get a strategic partner to be excited about or a financial partner to come in and help us continue to advance that? Or where do we have our own conviction that we see enough of the value in the data to move the program forward ourselves? I think the second area that I've seen most of the discerning sort of criteria come in in the BD team has been with commercial. So several months before I joined, we hired Mark Hagler as a chief commercial officer to the point that we really need to see a pathway for getting these potential therapies to patients. and how do we navigate the health systems in the markets that we're really most excited about for these potential therapeutics to get them to patients? And what does that mean in terms of where does it differentiate for the physician in the clinic for the payers? What kind of pathway do we think it would have to take in terms of prior authorization? How many barriers do we think we're navigating to go outside the standard of care or the sort of norm in terms of the payer landscape? to get this potential therapeutic to patients. And if we don't think that the label that we could generate will be differentiated, could we generate additional data that actually could be there that we could use with payers and with physicians through MSLs? And if we don't see that path very clearly, I think that's another reason that we sometimes kind of move away from an asset.

Great. Now that's very helpful. And maybe a follow-up. So, you know, using Visara as kind of the model for the first, you know, installation of the hub and spoke kind of infrastructure. So, you know, Visara is, I guess, maturely owned today, but have you discussed, you know, financing it separately? And ultimately, you know, how should investors think about, you know, a subsidiary level Thank you for joining us.

Thanks for that question. I'll also let Jeff jump in on that one. But before Jeff jumps in, I think for us, we don't think there's a prescribed pathway that fits every single potential therapeutic. And so in the Visara case, we followed a pathway because we also share that asset. We're a major shareholder of this subsidiary, but we also have others in there, including the originator. with Afamed. And so, you know, we're trying to follow the best pathway for it. In terms of the economics for us versus, you know, as for our shareholders, right now we're majority shareholders and we want to continue to bring in others to advance the program. It has to go through a phase two B, which is being conducted with our partner Everest, but eventually the phase three program will be designed to carry forward. We don't know if this looks like a crossover into an IPO, which could be a very much an option for a company like Visara. We have been talking about expanding that portfolio into other assets, so it very much has the characteristics of becoming a standalone ophthalmology company. but as well you know there is the differentiation that as it becomes more clear in the phase 2b I think we're open to the optionality that a strategic partner may be interested at that and the asset at that stage so what we have is maximum flexibility and we're trying to design around where we think the asset has multiple potential paths for exit. Jeff do you want to add anything and then maybe Kyler on if there's anything to add but Jeff do you want to talk a little bit about how you're thinking about building out Visara and

Yeah, sure. I think the maximum flexibility comment is appropriate. There's a number of options for taking the company forward. But as you can imagine, retina assets are not cheap. It does take cash to develop those as we move forward. What I would say is the Visara team, once built here and bringing that ophthalmology expert... All of these people have expertise, has been able to partner well with Novabridge on the BD and search side of things. And so we are looking at other assets to continue to build out Visara into what I think will ultimately be a mid-stage pharma company. to answer your question, will there ultimately be dilution? It's quite possible at some point in time we would need to raise cash and Novabridge has the option to invest or not. And What I would say, though, is we plan on developing and creating a company that will far outpace that dilution from the standpoint of value to the shareholder. I'm excited about what we're building here. I think once we unveil everything that we're working on, you'll be able to see the full scope, but the power of the Ophthalmology Expertise with Visara, and then the BD Search and Evaluation Expertise with NovaBridge, I think, will come to fruition once you see everything that we're building.

Great. And if I may, I'll sneak in one quick question on Givostomic. In the context of the prior FDA interactions and the guidance they've given you in terms of perhaps some broad efficacy measurements. Does that also apply to PD-1, low, clod, and low populations? And ultimately, what efficacy would you need to see before committing to the pivotal development for that group?

Phil, maybe this is a great place for you to jump in.

Sure. Thanks, Srishti. So Andreas, great question. Our FDA interactions were focused on the PD-L1 positive population, for which the three checkpoint inhibitors in the US have an indication. So we have not discussed the PD-L1 less than 1% with them, and I think As you know, we have PD-L1 less than 1% in our ongoing phase one. And I think as this data matures, we'll be able to make other decisions in terms of lifecycle management in that other group of patients less than 1%. Great.

Thank you very much. Thanks for the questions, Andres. So we had a few come over the webcast. The first one reads as follows. The first-line gastric cancer landscape is becoming increasingly competitive with multiple CLDN 18.2 directed approaches in development. As you think about givostomag strategically, where do you see the opportunity for it to differentiate from existing and emergent therapies, and how is that influencing the development strategy?

Thank you, Tara. Mark, do you want to jump on this one and then maybe Phil can add anything?

Absolutely. Thanks, Srishti. So you're absolutely right. Claude in 18.2 is clearly becoming an important and is an increasingly competitive target in first line gastric. Zolbituximab has validated both the biology and the commercial opportunity, but we believe there's still substantial room for differentiated approaches, specifically those that can reach a broader patient population, integrate easily with the current standard of care backbone, and offer a favorable treatment experience. Jivastomig was designed as a Clawdin 18.2 directed immune amplifying bispecific antibody. And unlike approaches restricted to tumors with high Clawdin 18.2 expression, our studies have enrolled patients across a much broader range. In fact, one plus staining and as little as 1% of cells In the data that we've reported publicly to date, we've observed responses across all CLAWDIN 18.2 and PD-L1 expression levels. And we're very encouraged by the early efficacy and tolerability of Givastomig in combination with Nevo and Folfax. Again, publicly, we've noted that at the 8 mg per kg dose, the combination produces a 75% ORR, notably with tumor reduction in 51 of 52 valuable patients and a preliminary median PFS of 16.9 months. Now, these are single-arm data and obviously require randomized confirmation, but the depth and consistency of tumor control, we believe, provides a strong rationale for frontline development. Another potential differentiator is practicality. I'm a big believer in this in terms of lowering the barriers to commercial adoption. So Jivastomig is being developed directly on top of the established standard of care. It's a simple hang-and-go infusion. There's no dose titration required, no mandated two-hour post-infusion observation period. So chair time will be very predictable. There'll be certainly less nursing operational burden. So the adoption in high-volume clinics we believe will be and many more. So those are the attributes that are shaping our development strategy. I'll let Phil talk a little bit about that in a second. But our goal is to establish, broadly speaking, to establish whether Jeebus Domain can deliver meaningful benefit across a broad Clawton 18.2 positive population while preserving the tolerability and usability required in a first line setting. As I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of modalities being developed against the Clotin 18.2 target, including ADCs, T-cell engagers, cell therapies. And those will all ultimately probably play an important role, but, you know, payload tox, cytokine release syndrome, step-up dosing, logistical complexity, those ultimately will likely affect where they fit in the treatment sequence. So Phil, do you want to add to that?

Yeah, let me add one component, Mark, which is I have a pretty extensive history in late stage development in big pharma and lots of regulatory interactions. And I think what differentiates Jeeva and Jeeva's development is The depth of regulatory input that we have received to not only define paths for accelerated approval, but also really giving us very clear criteria on what does clinically meaningful look like. And this has allowed us to design a very lean study that as we project into the future, I think personally that we are commercially very competitive in terms of when our study would read out with competitors. So I think that's another key thing is the depth and quality of our regulatory interactions.

Great, thank you. So this concludes today's Q&A session. I will now turn it back to Srishti for closing remarks.

Thank you, Tara. Thank you, everyone, for joining. As I said earlier, I know we're early days in our broader strategy. We're very committed to not just describing our model well, but more importantly, moving forward on the execution of our programs for Givastomig, the advancing of our data set, and the building of our portfolio in Visara, and making sure that we can show that we are able to build out in our next areas. So please stay tuned. We're looking forward to meeting many investors as we are on the fall investor circuit. And as always, please reach out to our team if you want to set up time. Thank you again for joining.