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.
spk02: Good afternoon. My name is Josh, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the VAC site fourth quarter and full year financial results conference call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question during this time, simply press star, followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, press the pound key. Thank you. I will now turn the call over to Andrew Guggenheim, President and Chief Financial Officer of VACCITE. Please go ahead, sir.
spk04: Thank you, operator, and good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to VACCITE's earnings conference call to discuss our 2021 results and to provide a business update. I'm joined today by our Chief Executive Officer, Grant Pickering, our Chief Operating Officer, Jim Wassel, and our VP of Research, Jeff Fairman. Earlier this afternoon, we issued a news release announcing our results. Copies of this and our other news releases, latest corporate presentation, and SEC filings can be found in the Investors in Media section of our website. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that during this call, we'll be making certain forward-looking statements about Backsite which are subject to various risks and uncertainties. These include statements related to the benefits of our vaccine candidates, the process and timing of anticipated future development of our vaccine candidates, including the timing and availability of top-line data from the Vax24 Phase 1-2 Clinical Proof of Concept Study, the demand for our vaccine candidates, our expected uses and sufficiency of cash and other funding to support our development programs and other operating expenses, and other statements that are not historical fact. Any forward-looking statements are based on facts and assumptions as of today, and we undertake no obligation to update them. Our actual results may differ materially from these statements. Investors should read the risk factors set forth in BackSite's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, and any subsequent reports filed with the SEC. With that, I'll turn the call over to Grant Beckering. Grant?
spk05: Thanks, Andrew. And to all of you on the call and webcast, thanks for joining us today. The past year was an extremely important one for VaxSight. We made significant advancements across our business, which remains focused on eradicating bacterial infections such as invasive pneumococcal disease, group A strep, and periodontitis. We advanced our pipeline, demonstrated the potential of our novel vaccine platform, and onboarded the right expertise to help us transition into the clinic and prepare for manufacturing scale-up and late-stage development. While we all witness the global impact of vaccine innovation on a scale not seen since the 1950s, bacterial infectious diseases have not historically received adequate attention. As a result, the global incidence of pneumococcal disease continues to climb, driven by emerging serotypes not covered by currently available vaccines. Although the available pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, or PCBs for short, are effective, the underlying chemistry appears to have reached its limit in terms of its ability to permit addition of serotypes to broaden protection without diminished overall immune responses, jeopardizing their long-term protection. Our strategy is to overcome such limitations by applying advanced chemistry and modern synthetic techniques, including the Express CF cell-free protein synthesis platform, to produce vaccines that are uniquely capable of breaking down bacteria's complex defense mechanisms while preserving immunogenicity across a broader spectrum of coverage. Our site-specific conjugation technology allows us to engineer broader spectrum PCVs designed to avoid carrier suppression in ways that we anticipate will afford our PCV franchise an opportunity to surpass the coverage of other pneumococcal vaccines. With this competitive advantage, we believe Vax24, our lead 24-valent vaccine candidate, has the opportunity to be a best-in-class PCV in both adults and pediatrics in an already $7 billion global market that is poised to undergo significant further growth. Our recent achievements with Vax24 have paved the way for a surge in momentum in 2022 as we reach key anticipated milestones. Just last week, we announced the dosing of the first participants in the Vax24 Phase 1 portion of our Phase 1-2 clinical study in adults and anticipate announcing the top line results of both the Phase 1 and phase two portions by year end. This study is designed to determine the optimal dose of vax 24 based on safety and immunogenicity and to inform how we power a future pivotal phase three immunogenicity study in adults. The immunogenicity data from the phase two portion of this study should tell us if one or more of the vax 24 doses can meet or exceed the noninferior immune response threshold on a serotype by serotype basis that is required for regulatory approval. If achieved, this milestone has the potential to represent a major inflection point for the company. We remain excited about the adult pneumococcal vaccine market given it represents approximately $2 billion in annual sales and has the opportunity to grow significantly based on a number of key factors. First, We've seen premium pricing justified for broader spectrum PCVs, including both of the recently FDA-approved products, Pfizer's 20-valent PCV, Prevnar 20, or PCV20, and Merck's 15-valent PCV, or PCV15. This validates the value associated with broader disease coverage once again. Second, late last fall, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, recommended a PCB for certain risk groups ages 19 to 64, which further expands the adult market given approximately 30% of adults aged 50 to 64 fall into one of these identified risk groups. Third, during this same ACIP meeting, there was a strong desire expressed by several committee members to lower the universal adult vaccination recommendation from 65 years of age and up down to 50 years of age and up. This move alone would significantly expand the potential size of the adult market. And lastly, by lowering the age recommendation to 50, we may see the door open to a prime boost PCB regimen in adults, which would further grow this market and provide longer-term protection to the elderly population. This could be enabled if a broader spectrum PCB, such as VAX24, were approved. which would eclipse the coverage of the older polysaccharide-only vaccine, Pneumovax 23, and could lead to its removal from the treatment schedule. So, we believe Vax24 is very well positioned in the current market and will have an opportunity to capitalize on additional growth drivers given its potential spectrum of coverage. Importantly, positive results from the ongoing Phase 1-2 study will put us in a position to trigger additional development activities with our PCV franchise. Upon completing the phase one portion of this study, we plan to expand the VAX24 program into the 65 and up population, and upon positive data from the phase two portion, into the well-established and large pediatric segment. Subject to a pre-IND meeting with the FDA, we would expect to be able to submit a pediatric IND application in the first half of 2023. As part of our PCV franchise strategy, we continue to aggressively invest in VaxXP, our PCV candidate with an expanded breadth of coverage of greater than 30 strains. This parallel investment has put us in a position to provide guidance for the anticipated submission of the adult VaxXP IND application following the announcement of top-line results from the Vax24 Phase 1-2 study. Beyond our PCV programs, we continue to make progress with our other pipeline candidates. VaxA1, our vaccine to prevent group A strep infections, is now in IND-enabling activities. We anticipate providing clear guidance on the expected timing for our VaxA1 IND application submission in the second half of this year. The global need for a vaccine to prevent group A strep is compelling in both children and adults, making this an exciting follow-on opportunity behind our PCV franchise that would allow us to once again target a large and broad population. And finally, VaxPG, our vaccine designed to treat periodontal disease, continues to progress, and we intend to nominate the final candidate by the end of this year. To support these programs, we strengthened our balance sheet by completing a $115 million follow-on offering earlier this quarter. With this incremental capital, we believe we have the resources to fund our operations for at least 12 months past the anticipated announcement of the VAX 24 Phase 1-2 top-line results, which is noted is expected by year-end. I'm incredibly proud of what we have achieved and look forward to what promises to be the most important year in the company's history thus far. I'll now turn it over to Jim Wassil, who will share additional information about Vax24, including the Phase 1-2 clinical study design and our VaxXP and VaxA1 programs.
spk01: Thanks, Grant. Before I get into the key accomplishments for Vax24 and our anticipated milestones as we advance our clinical programs, I want to reiterate what Grant shared with you about the significance of the PCV opportunity in front of us. The public health community continues to affirm the need for broader spectrum pneumococcal vaccines to prevent pneumococcal disease, an infection caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria that can lead to invasive disease such as meningitis and bacteremia and noninvasive disease including pneumonia. Our PCV franchise is intended to improve upon existing vaccines by covering the serotypes responsible for most of the remaining pneumococcal disease currently in circulation, while maintaining an immunogenicity profile comparable to, if not better than, Prevnar. With our novel technology, we believe we can go beyond traditional vaccine approaches, as well as some new technologies like mRNA when it comes to addressing bacterial diseases. As a result, our objective is for Vax24 to replace the collection of standard of care vaccines with a single broad spectrum PCV that includes all of the serotypes covered by the currently marketed vaccine. Now let's turn to the significant progress we have made with Vax24 and what's to come. In the fourth quarter of 2021, we completed the manufacturing process for the Vax24 GMP drug product and submitted our IND application to the FDA. With the Vax24 Phase 1-2 clinical study now underway, we expect to announce the top-line safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity results by the end of the year. Upon receipt of these top-line data, we'll have a good indication of the probability of success of Vax24 for the adult indication. Now I'm going to walk you through the Phase 1-2 key study objectives, design, and success criteria. This is a randomized, observer-blind, dose-finding, controlled study designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of Vax24 in healthy adults. Phase 1 portion will enroll approximately 64 healthy adults aged 18 to 49 to assess the safety and tolerability of each of three Vax24 doses and compare it to PCV20, the standard of care selected for our study. Participants will be randomized equally into four separate arms, and will be evaluated for safety eight and 29 days after dosing. The DMC will evaluate these data, to which we will remain blinded, before making a go-no-go decision to enable us to proceed to phase two. Based on our preclinical data and product profile, we anticipate the safety and tolerability of Vax24 will be generally consistent with that of Prevnar, a vaccine with more than one billion doses administered worldwide. The Phase II portion is significantly larger and will enroll about 800 healthy adults aged 50 to 64. We will evaluate immunogenicity along with safety and tolerability for the same three doses of VAX24 and compared to PCV20. Immunogenicity will be assessed based on the antibody response using IgG and OPA for the 20 serotypes in common with PCV20. For the additional four serotypes contained in VAX24 and Pneumovax23 but not in PCV20, Immunogenicity will be measured based on a four-fold rise in antibody titers. Participants will be randomized equally into four separate arms, and approximately 28 days after participants are dosed, samples are collected to assess immunogenicity. Our top line data will be based on the results as of this one-month assessment, as well as the safety and tolerability observations throughout this period. For immunogenicity, our goal is to show non-inferiority versus CCB20 on a serotype by serotype basis. which is the regulatory approval requirement for a Phase III study. We may see some stereotypes in Vax24 outperform PCB20 and set a new bar for providing protection. It's important to remember that this is a proof-of-concept study, so there are a range of potential and acceptable outcomes, as we have seen with other FDA-approved PCBs. All participants in the Phase I-II study will be followed for a total of six months after dosing to assess safety and tolerability. Ultimately, this study will help determine the optimal dose of Vax24 relative to PCV20 and how we power the pivotal Phase III immunogenicity study. In a Phase III study, a primary endpoint will assess non-inferiority versus the standard of care based on OPA, a measure of functional antibody responses against pneumococcus on a serotype-by-serotype basis. Non-inferiority is defined as greater than or equal to 50% of the opal responses to the lower limit of the confidence interval relative to PCV20. This is the same endpoint that served as the basis for the recent FDA approvals of PCV15 and PCV20 in the adult population. For these approvals, as well as the prior approval of PCV13 in infants, field efficacy studies were not required. We plan to pursue the same path for FACS24 with regulators. This study is just the beginning of multiple milestones for VAX24 as we continue to build momentum. To add to our body of data in adults, we plan to conduct a second phase two study. This is in adults 65 and older upon the successful completion of the phase one portion of the ongoing trial. The top line data from this study is anticipated in the first half of 2023. As Grant noted, We also plan to move into the pediatric segment with an IND application submission in the first half of 2023, sending positive top-line data from our ongoing clinical study and a pre-IND meeting with the FDA. VaxXP is also an important part of our strategy, as it includes strains that cover over 90% of pneumococcal disease currently circulating in the U.S. Preclinical data presented last fall during ID Week showed VaxXP exhibited conjugate-like immune responses for all 31 serotypes, as demonstrated by IgG immune responses that were superior to polysaccharide-based vaccines and comparable to Prevnar 13. Additionally, all serotypes in VaxXP elicited a T-cell-dependent immune response, as demonstrated by the increase in IgG titers post-boost. As Grant noted, we continue to invest in this program towards an INV filing. Beyond our PCV franchise, our VaxA1 program also leverages unique features of our platform technology. FaxA1, our novel conjugate vaccine candidate designed to prevent infection caused by group A strep, targets a white space where we have an opportunity to break new ground and address substantial disease in both adults and children. Group A strep is a pervasive disease that results in 700 million cases of illness each year. It's one of the leading infectious disease-related causes of death and disability worldwide with an estimated 500,000 deaths globally. Yet the majority of group A strep infections lead to pharyngitis, commonly known as strep throat, which is highly prevalent in school-aged kids. Studies have indicated that antibiotic resistance to group A strep has significantly increased over the past decade, leading the CDC to categorize group A strep as a concerning threat. BAC-A1 leverages a proprietary conserved polysaccharide antigen conjugated to a group A strep-specific protein carrier. Our site-specific conjugation technology allows us to precisely bond the polysaccharide to the protein carrier avoiding both the T-cell and B-cell epitopes so as to optimally present both the polysaccharide and protein to the immune system. We look forward to providing guidance on the anticipated IMD submission timing in the second half of 2022. With that, I'll turn it over to Jeff to provide a FaxBG program update.
spk06: Thanks, Jim. FaxBG is our novel therapeutic vaccine candidate designed to treat periodontal disease. It leverages a key application of our cell-free protein synthesis platform, which is the ability to make tough-to-make protein antigens. Periodontal disease impacts approximately 65 million adults in the United States. Globally, severe periodontal disease affects 10 to 15 percent of the adult population, resulting in productivity losses that are estimated at nearly $54 billion per year. VaxPG targets Porphymonis gingivalis, the key pathogen responsible for periodontitis. VaxPG incorporates protein antigens that we believe are uniquely enabled with our technology due to their inability to be produced in conventional production vectors either at all or at sufficient yields to permit commercial scale supply. We continue to make progress on our early stage work for this program and as Grant shared, are planning to nominate a final VaxPG candidate by the end of 2022. Beyond our named programs, we continue to leverage our novel platform to develop new vaccine candidates to prevent or treat bacterial infections. Express CF cell-free protein synthesis platform and strain-promoted click chemistry allow us to produce vaccines that are uniquely capable of breaking down bacteria's complex defense mechanisms while preserving immunogenicity. Numerous papers were published in 2021, which have validated our platform approach. I would now like to turn the call over to Andrew, who will provide a financial update.
spk04: Great. Thanks, Jeff. I'll briefly cover a few financial points before turning it over to Grant for our closing remarks. With respect to the income statement, The details of our fourth quarter and year-end 2021 results and the reasons for the variances to the comparable 2020 periods are reflected in our 10-K filing and summarized in our press release. In summary, the year-over-year increase in R&D expenses was primarily the result of an increase in costs related to our VACS XP program and headcount growth, partially offset by a decrease in VACS 24-related costs. The increase in G&A expenses was driven primarily by costs associated with our headcount growth and our first full year of operations as a public company. As we look forward, we expect a substantial increase in 2022 expenses over full year and Q4 2021 annualized levels, particularly in R&D. The expected significant increase in R&D expenses is primarily a function of advancing Vax24 into the clinic scaling up our manufacturing activities in anticipation of a VAX 24 Phase III program, and IND enabling activities for VAX XP. Turning to the balance sheet and cash runway, we continue to maintain a strong balance sheet. We ended 2021 with $273.1 million in cash, cash equivalents, and investments. And earlier this year, we completed a follow-on offering in which we raised an estimated $107.6 million in net proceeds. Going forward, we expect that our balance sheet will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through at least 12 months past the announcement of the top-line data from our Phase 1-2 clinical study of Act 24 in adults. We will continue to remain disciplined in our allocation of capital based on our priorities and progress. With that, I'll now turn the call back over to Grant for some closing remarks before we open up the line for Q&A. Grant?
spk05: Thanks, Andrew. What we have achieved over the past year has been remarkable. Given the level of complexity associated with manufacturing a 24-valent PCV, and I would like to recognize the entire VACC site team and our partners at Lonza for their many contributions. The coming year is an important one for the company, and we will remain focused on executing the Phase 1-2 VAX24 clinical study to announce the anticipated top-line data by year-end, expanding the VAX24 clinical program into additional populations, and preparing for manufacturing scale-up and late-stage development, investing in VaxXP to ensure optionality with our PCB franchise, and continue to make progress with VaxA1 and VaxPG. We look forward to sharing further updates as the year progresses, and appreciate your interest by joining us today. With that, let's take some questions. Operator?
spk02: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to register for a question for today's question and answer session, you will need to press the one key on your touchtone telephone. If your question has been answered and you wish to withdraw your polling request, you may do so by pressing the pound key. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before entering your request. One moment, please, for our first question. Our first question comes from Pavan Patel with Bank of America. You may proceed with your question.
spk07: Hi, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions. So my first question is, what would management view as a highly positive outcome from its phase one adult vaccine study? And what are the key parameters with which management will judge the success of the trial? And then for the multivalent pneumococcal vaccine development, what are your latest thoughts on the sort of product profile needed to facilitate a Shingrix-like winner-takes-all market scenario?
spk05: Thanks for that question, Pavan. Was that it? Yep. Yeah. Okay. Very good. So two parts to that one. I'll let Jim Wassil, our Chief Operating Officer, answer the question with regard to what we would consider a success out of the Phase 1-2 study. Jim, you want to go ahead?
spk01: Sure. So in the Phase 1-2, as I said on the call, we're going to be starting with a Phase 1 safety analysis, and then we're going to be shifting quickly into Phase 2. For the Phase 2, we will be doing a comparison of the immunogenicity between our VAX24 and PCV24. I think what we are expecting is because of our platform, because of our site-specific conjugation, that we're going to be able to achieve a geometric mean ratio that is at least as good, if not better, than PCV20 on a serotype-by-serotype basis. And that's what we'll be looking at. Obviously, we'll be doing a dose choice to move into Phase III, so we'll be making the choice of which dose to move forward But just to mention that even if we aren't able to demonstrate superiority on a serotype by serotype basis, the FDA has set a requirement of having at least half the serotype response as the standard of care to be able to move forward to a phase three and ultimately to licensure. So even if we're not able to achieve superiority, we believe we've got a large room where we can make a sufficient immune response and move forward. Great.
spk05: And then with regard to the second part, as it relates to potentially getting Vax24 on track for a preferred recommendation, a la Shingrix's recommendation relative to Zostavax. Yeah, I mean, I think there are two key aspects of Vax24. why we think that Vax24 is well positioned to potentially obtain a preferred recommendation. And that is the relative incremental coverage that Vax24 could provide over and above PCV20. So the 10 to 15% advantage that Prevnar20 had relative to the 15-valent vaccine from Merck, which allowed it to be recommended as a standalone vaccine, you know, is similar to the amount of coverage that we would expect to have over and above the 20. So that's one aspect of the reason why we have a level of confidence. But then there's an important additional dimension, which is the current standard of care recommendation in adults from the ACIP is either PCV20 or PCV15 plus Pneumovax. So the reality is that the current coverage of either of the PCBs are not adequate to fully cover the 23 strains that are in Pneumovax. And that older polysaccharide-only vaccine continues to be part of the regimen. And with a 24-valent PCB like Vax24, it would entirely eclipse the coverage of Pneumovax23 in a way that could allow the ACIP to remove that vaccine altogether, which would obviously simplify the regimen to a single vaccine altogether and would open the door to a prime boost for PCVs in the adult population, which of course is the same approach that we use in children. And that's been a key sticking point that's prevented a lowering of the universal recommendation age below 65. You know, there were discussions at the last October ACIP meeting where they discussed lowering the age down to 50. But there was real anxiety about having pneumobacs used in a way that could interfere with a boost with a PCV later on. So if we can deliver that kind of incremental coverage, which we believe we will, and be able to remove Pneumovax from the regimen. We think that could be a compelling argument that could justify a preferred recommendation in the adult market. Thank you so much.
spk07: Yep.
spk05: Thanks, Bob.
spk02: Thank you. Our next question comes from Luis Chen with Cantor. You may proceed with your question.
spk00: Hi. Congratulations on all the progress this quarter, and thanks for taking my questions. So first question I had for you is, ASIP recommendation aside, how do you think you will effectively compete with some of these larger companies in the space? And then secondly, how do you see the market playing out if both your VAX24 and VAXXP make it to the market? How do you plan to market two of them together? And then last question I have for you is just how did you think about that four-fold rise in antibody titer corresponding to good efficacy in the Phase II portion of your Vax24 study? Thank you.
spk05: Great. Thank you, Louie. I think that was a three-part question. So how are we going to compete with the oligopolists? How would we think about Vax24 and VaxXP potentially coexisting and then the fourfold rise piece? So maybe I can take the first two parts of that and then ask Jim to comment on the rationale for the fourfold rise piece. So, yeah, I think, you know, obviously Pfizer and Merck are extremely formidable competitors who have a very vested interest in maintaining their stake. But I think, you know, the way that we view this is there has been substantial precedent over the years for broader spectrum vaccines usurping lesser valent vaccines. And we've seen that time and time again, whether it was trivalent to quadrivalent flu vaccines, whether it was Gardasil versus Cervarix in the HPV market, which led to the greater coverage from Gardasil eventually resulting in a withdrawal of use of cervix in the U.S. altogether. So, you know, the path that we're on is one where we are able to leverage the same basic components that have resulted in such an effective approach to prevent these types of bacterial infections. But we found a way to put us on a path to produce broader spectrum versions of And so for us, if we're able to deliver along the lines of what I just described in terms of what would justify a preferred recommendation, it should put us in a position to have a compelling case to the key decision makers, both from a regulatory perspective and then a conduct perspective through the ACIP. If we can deliver that kind of profile and if we can deliver the sort of volume that would allow for a supply of a universal recommendation sort of magnitude, I think it'll put us in a really strong position. And this is not a market where you need to deploy thousands of sales reps to drive adoption. It's really critical singular bodies in each sovereign nation that are making these decisions about coverage. So I think we're well positioned and we've been well capitalized and we're not going to sell ourselves short, but that's kind of how we're thinking about it in this moment. Obviously, we've got a long way to go. As it relates to Vax24 and VaxXP, you know, we've realized that we do have this unique ability to add incremental coverage without facing the same immunological diminution that the conventional chemistry has resulted in. And so We do have VaxXP, you know, waiting in the wings, if you will. But in terms of actually bringing the products to market, you know, you do have this cascade that occurs by virtue of initially developing these vaccines in the adult population. It's a shorter path. It's a single dose in this moment, as opposed to the pediatric indication where they receive four vaccines over a 15-month period. So it naturally puts adult pace of development ahead of infants. So you could imagine a scenario where if everything goes as we hope, where Vax24 could obtain initially an adult approval and recommendation, followed by an infant approval and recommendation, and then VaxXP could come in thereafter in adults and then again cascade into infants. So there is a natural progression to how these work, and that's why we want to keep VaxXP within striking distance, because these vaccines have been so effective historically that when you vaccinate with them, those included strains are effectively taken out of circulation, and it only makes those incremental strains more epidemiologically relevant. And that's the rationale behind VaxXP as a fast follower, and that's how we see them cascading into the market. But to have both in the same indication would be unlikely. It would be more of a replacement sort of strategy. So if that answers the first two parts, I'll ask Jim to comment on the fourfold rise approach. Sure.
spk01: Thanks, Grant. For the fourfold rise, it's sort of a two-part answer. The first is we looked at the recent approvals of PCV20 and PCV15. PCV20 used a comparison of non-inferiority versus Pneumovax to determine whether or not they could get licensure. However, PCV15 looked at fourfold rise, so they looked at a statistically superior fourfold rise versus PCV13. So we had two options available to us based on precedent to be able, we felt, to get an approval for Vax24. Now with the ACIP in October, making a recommendation, we were going to do the comparison, and we still are doing a comparison against PCV20. Well, the recommendation is to use PCV15 and Pneumovax or PCV20. Since PCV20 is our comparator, we decided to use that and to go with the four-pole rise, and we believe that that, based on the regulatory precedent as well as the recommendation by the ACIP, will give us good indication of success for Phase III.
spk05: Okay. Thanks, Luis.
spk02: Thank you. And as a reminder, to ask a question, you'll need to press Star 1 on your telephone. Our next question comes from Joseph Stringer with Needle & Company. You may proceed with your question.
spk03: Hi. This is Ben Ricard on for Joey Stringer. Thanks for taking our question. Just one about sort of the COVID-related impacts. If you could just talk about – any potential impacts on the upcoming VAX-24 trial based on having a larger-than-anticipated winter COVID season or a smaller one coming up? Thanks a lot.
spk01: So this is Jim Wassel. I'm overseeing the clinical program as well. We don't expect COVID to have an impact. Our initial study is in 18- to 49-year-olds, and the healthy 18- to 49-year-old cohort is sufficiently large that we don't foresee that we'll have any issues with enrollment. The phase two is age 50 to 64, same thing, sufficient cohort there. Our main exclusion criteria for enrollment is actually not having an experimental vaccine either before, during, or six months after. Given that the majority of individuals have already received all their COVID shots, we are able to enroll sufficient subjects without having any exclusions. So we feel we'll be able to move along just as fast as we originally anticipated.
spk05: Yeah, and it may be worth pointing out, Ben, that, you know, there isn't a seasonal component to executing these trials. You know, one of the nice aspects of developing a follow-on pneumococcal conjugate vaccine is that These are just studies focused on safety and immunogenicity. So there isn't an infection rate component to this. We don't have to follow the subjects who've been vaccinated to confirm that they don't contract a strep pneumonia infection. These are just immunizing the subjects and following them for 30 days in this phase one, two study. The phase two study in particular where we're looking at the immunogenicity. So, we don't need to run those big field efficacy studies that are the convention when you have to show efficacy. These are validated surrogate immune endpoints. So, that's not an aspect of executing these particular trials. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Ben.
spk02: Thank you. And I'm not showing any further questions at this time. I would now like to turn the call back over to Grant Pickering for any further remarks.
spk05: Well, I just want to thank you all for your interest and for participating in the call today, and have a good rest of your week. Thank you very much.
spk02: Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Disclaimer