PTC Therapeutics, Inc.

are in listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be a question and answer session. Today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Ellen Cavallari, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us to discuss PTC Therapeutics fourth quarter at year-end 2024 corporate update and financial results. I am joined today by our Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Matthew Klein, our Chief Business Officer, Eric Powles, and our Chief Financial Officer, Pierre Gravier. Today's call will include forward-looking statements based on our current expectations. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially. Please review the slide posted on our investor relations website in conjunction with the call, which contains information about our forward-looking statements and our most recent annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC, as well as our other SEC filings, for a detailed description of applicable risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual performance and results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these forward-looking statements. Additionally, we will disclose certain non-GAP information during this call. Information regarding our use of GAP to non-GAP financial measures and a reconciliation of GAP to non-GAP are available in today's earnings release. I will now pass the call over to our CEO, Dr. Matthew Klein. Matt?

Thank you all for joining the call today. 2024 was a year of outstanding execution across every part of the company. With our many 2024 accomplishments, we are well positioned for success in 2025 and beyond. I will now review some of our 2024 highlights and discuss some of our plans for 2025. In 2024, our customer-facing teams delivered another year of strong commercial performance. Worth quarter revenue totaled $213 million and full year 2024 revenue was $807 million, exceeding guidance. These results are a testament to our commercial teams' ability to effectively execute around the globe, even in genericized and competitive markets. With this strong commercial performance, effective OpEx management, and the rapid modernization for 150 million of the PRV received with the capability approval, we ended 2024 with over 1.1 billion in cash. And following the closing of the Novartis PTC 518 transaction, we received an additional 1 billion in January. This strong financial position enables several important things. It allows us to support our planned 2025 commercial launches, continue to invest in our innovative R&D platforms, and engage in business development activities to complement our existing commercial and R&D portfolios. In addition, in this time of uncertainty on a macro level, our cash position provides the potential to reach cash flow breakeven without the need to raise additional capital. In 2024, we also achieved all clinical and regulatory milestones on schedule. We submitted four approval applications to the FDA, all of which were accepted for review. Cability for AADC deficiency, which was approved in November. Cp at Karen for PKU, which has a regulatory action date of July 29, 2025. Translarnup and Nonsense Mutation DMD, and Vitiquinone for Phrygix ataxia, which was accepted with priority review and has a regulatory action date of August 19, 2025. These submissions create the potential to have four commercial launches in the US within 12 months. In addition, outside the US, we submitted a number of marketing authorization applications for Cp at Karen to support the planned global launch. In December, we announced a global development and commercialization collaboration with Novartis for the PTC 518 Huntington's disease program. As part of the agreement, which closed in January, PTC received 1 billion upfront and is eligible to receive up to 1.9 billion in development and sales milestones. In addition, PTC will receive a 40% profit share in the US and double digit tiered royalties for ex-US sales. Novartis will assume all development, manufacturing and commercialization costs of PTC 518 following the completion of the placebo controlled portion of the PivotHD trial. The strong economics of this deal are commensurate with the promise of PTC 518 as potentially being the first disease modifying therapy for HD. As we look forward to 2025, we anticipate several value creating milestones, including the global launch of Cp at Karen, 12 month results from the PivotHD study of PTC 518 and a number of regulatory decisions in the US and around the globe. Starting with the global launch of Cp at Karen, there's a great deal of excitement that the patient and physician communities for Cp at Karen given the significant unmet need and the strong data package generated to date. We continue to collect data that support the potential for Cp at Karen to address all key patient segments, including therapy and IE patients, patients not well served by existing therapies and patients who have failed existing therapies. Eric will provide more details on our global launch planning shortly. Also in 2025, we look forward to the potential launch of the Tiquinone in the United States. If approved, the Tiquinone would be the first therapy for pediatric phrygiatraptaxia patients and could provide an effective and well tolerated treatment option for adults with FA. Turning to our PTC 518 Huntington's disease program, in the second quarter, we plan to share 12 month results from all patients in the PivotHD trial, approximately 140 in total, which includes stage two and stage three patients. These results will include safety and tolerability data, biomarker data, including Huntington protein levels, as well as data on clinical scales, including the total motor score and CUHDRS. Based on our discussions with FDA in December, the results of this study could support Huntington lowering as a surrogate endpoint for accelerated approval of PTC 518. In summary, with our strong performance in 2024 and demonstrated ability to effectively execute across every part of the business, we look forward to an exciting and successful 2025. I will now turn the call over to Eric to discuss our commercial performance. Eric?

Thanks, Matt. Our commercial team continued its strong performance in the fourth quarter, with revenue results driven by our inline products, including our DMD franchise, despite significant challenges for both Translarna and Implaza. I want to note that Translarna remains on the market in the EU, and we continue to generate revenue in the first quarter, consistent with 2024 levels, and have even had new patient starts. And we will continue to provide the only therapy to treat the underlying disease for nonsense mutation, DMD patients, as long as it remains authorized. As Matt mentioned, Translarna is currently under review by FDA, and our experienced US team is well positioned to bring Translarna rapidly to patients, pending potential approval. Our Implaza performance was solid, as we see continued brand loyalty from physicians, patients, and caregivers. While there may be brand erosion for future generic entries, we continue to successfully defend Implaza as we prepare to expand our neurology portfolio in the US this year, with two potential new product launches. Moving to Septuaterin for PKU, we are actively preparing for the potential upcoming global launches in the US, Germany, Japan, and other key countries. We are focusing on key markets with approximately 58,000 addressable PKU patients, where reimbursement of medical therapies is available. We will coordinate a specific strategic launch sequence targeting Septuaterin access for a majority of these patients in the first 12 months of launch. The US represents the largest opportunity for Septuaterin with approximately 17,000 PKU patients, of whom a vast majority are not on medical treatments. Of those, most patients have already tried existing therapies and were poorly controlled or failed, and are currently without any treatment options other than a highly restrictive diet. The clinical efficacy of Septuaterin supports its potential to address all PKU patient segments, including patients who have failed current therapies, patients who are not well controlled or tolerating current therapies, and therapy-naive patients, including those with classical PKU. Our customer-facing teams are actively profiling main centers of excellence and meeting with key stakeholders in preparation of the upcoming launch this summer. These stakeholders include healthcare professionals, nurse practitioners, and metabolic dietitians who are instrumental to medical treatment decisions and are often the first line of contact with children and parents when diagnosed early. In addition, they also provide long-term continuity of care well into their adulthood. Our key pillars of successful commercial launch are in place for Septuaterin. First, along with the newborn screening, there is a well-diagnosed prevalent patient population, and these patients are closely tied to centers of excellence to manage their disease, even if many are not currently on medical treatment. Second, with a vast majority of PKU patients who have poorly controlled fee levels in need of effective therapy, Septuaterin's well-differentiated dual mechanism of action and clinically meaningful efficacy across a broad population of PKU patients positions its potential to become the future standard of care. Septuaterin rapidly improves feed lowering, allowing many more patients to overcome the challenges of dietary restrictions and neurocognitive consequences of the disease. Third, the clinical profile of Septuaterin has been presented to many payers who clearly understand the value proposition of more effective fee control that can be measured rapidly via lab testing, potentially reducing the time for patients to receive therapy. With these pillars in place and leveraging PTC's experienced global commercial infrastructure for rare disease, we believe Septuaterin has the potential to exceed one billion in revenue opportunities Now, turning to the VDQANON program for FA where there is a significant unmet need for all patients. Our US commercial team is preparing to expand our neurology portfolio with an upcoming launch following a potential FDA approval this summer. The current approved therapy for FA is only indicated for patients 16 and older. In the United States, there is an estimated prevalence of 6,000 patients. About one third of them are pediatric and for whom there is no approved therapy. PTC has many years of experience in neurology, especially in raising disease awareness, which can increase earlier diagnosis, benefiting all FA patients. With the potential opportunity to introduce VDQANON as the first and only therapy for children with FA, we believe disease awareness and education will move diagnosis to occur sooner and at an earlier age, providing an opportunity to slow disease progression in more FA patients. There are also many adults with FA who are currently not on or cannot tolerate current therapy. And we believe VDQANON's well-differentiated mechanism of action with long-term safety and efficacy can provide an important treatment option for these patients suffering from this devastating, rare neurological disease. This is a very exciting time for our global commercial team as we prepare for multiple new product launches throughout the year. With that, I will now turn the call over to Pierre for a financial update. Pierre? Thanks,

Eric. I will now share the financial highlights of our fourth quarter and full year 2024. Beginning with top-line results, total revenue for the fourth quarter was $213 million, including $144 million from the GMD franchise. From Florida, net product revenue in the quarter was $94 million, while in Flau'a, a net product revenue of $15 million. For RISD, fourth quarter global net revenue of approximately $415 million was achieved by Roche, resulting in royalty revenue of $58 million for PTC. Our full year 2024 total revenue was $807 million, exceeding guidance. This included GMD franchise revenue of $547 million and everyday royalty revenue of $204 million. For the fourth quarter of 2024, non-GAAP R&D expense was $116 million, excluding $9 million in non-cash stock-based composition expense, compared to $113 million for the fourth quarter of 2023, excluding $8 million in non-cash stock-based composition expense. Non-GAAP SG&A expense was $76 million for the fourth quarter of 2024, excluding $8 million in non-cash stock-based composition expense, compared to $68 million for the fourth quarter of 2023, excluding $8 million in non-cash stock-based composition expense. We have provided a wide initial total revenue guidance for 2025 of $600 million to $800 million, including inline products, potential new product launches, and royalty revenue from RISD. We plan to update our guidance as we gain greater clarity on several factors that could impact revenues, including regulatory decisions. We anticipate non-GAAP R&D and SG&A expense for the full year 2025 to be between $730 million and $760 million, excluding estimated non-cash stock-based composition expense of $75 million. Cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities total approximately $1.1 billion as of December 31st, 2024, compared to $877 million as of December 31st, 2023. In addition, in January 2025, we received the $1 billion upfront payment as part of the PTC 518 Novartis collaboration. This strong financial position provides us with the resources to execute on our strategy and to achieve all our anticipated milestones, as well as advance and expand our R&D efforts and explore business development opportunities to augment our commercial portfolio and pipeline. And I will now turn the call over to the operator for Q&A. Operator.

Thank you. At this time, we will conduct the question and answer session. As a reminder, to ask a question, you will need to press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 1-1 again. Stand by for our first question. Our first question comes from Kristen with Cantor Fitzgerald. Go ahead, Kristen.

Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking the questions. I have two. The first one is on PKU. So ultimately, the understanding out there is that diet liberalization is something that could impact patient treatment, both for naive patients as well as those on current other therapies. Do you have a sense of what is going on in the world of what the bar or the minimum that these patients would want to see in terms of liberalizing their diet to at least try subuterine?

Thanks for the question, Kristen. You highlighted one of the most important factors for individuals with PKU, and that is the ability to have a therapy that enables them to liberalize their diet, quite simply taking more protein. As we've talked about, one of the compelling parts of the CPTARIN data package that's continuing to evolve is the evidence that the vast majority of patients are able to liberalize their diet. We're gonna be giving an update on the feed tolerance protocol at the upcoming ACMG meeting next month in March, but I'll give you a sneak preview and say that we're gonna be able to show that over 97% of patients in the feed protocol are able to liberalize their diet, and about two-thirds of patients are able to get to the RDA, the recommended daily allowance of protein, and beyond, including a number of patients who are able to get to two times the RDA. What that means is not only are we enabling virtually all the patients in the protocol to take more protein, which is incredibly important for patients, any amount of diet liberalization is incredibly meaningful, but we're able, with CPTARIN treatment, to enable many, or the majority of the individuals, to get beyond the recommended level of protein for you or me. So that's not only a little protein, that really could be life-altering, and what we've seen on social media, in fact, what you called out in your note in the research that you did on social media posts related to CPTARIN is that we're hearing anecdotes from patients saying they're having pizza and hamburgers and really changing their life significantly as a result of CPTARIN therapy. And that's what continues, that evidence that we're seeing in trials, that we're hearing from social media posts, continue to support our conviction of our ability to deliver a meaningful therapy for the full spectrum of patients, including those not well-served by current therapies and those with classical BKU that are therapy-naive. So again, we continue to collect these data, and the story keeps getting stronger and stronger.

Thanks, appreciate that. We'll definitely be interested in that presentation next month. And then on freezers for taxia, I think a lot of people aren't necessarily giving this credit yet, so I'm hoping, can you give us a sense of how you're thinking about the market opportunity you laid out, specifically the patient populations that you could target, but how should we be thinking about peak sales, anything around a cadence of launch or anything that would be helpful for us to do? And I think that's a good question for us as we think about modeling that. Thank you again.

Yeah, thanks, Kristen. I'll make a general statement and let Eric comment on how we're thinking about preparations for the launch. Look, we're excited about this opportunity to be able to bring a therapy that's demonstrated to be safe and effective for the full spectrum of freezer catoxia patients, including pediatric patients for whom there's no available therapies. The data package from MOVE-FA, the long-term data from MOVE-FA study, and the earlier placebo-controlled study demonstrate that treatment's been associated with both short and long-term modification of disease progression. We also have demonstrated strong safety in the full spectrum of patients and really look forward to the potential of being able to provide a therapy for all FA patients. Eric, do you wanna talk a little bit how we're thinking about launch preparation and market dynamics?

Yes, thanks, Matt, and thanks, Kristen, for the question. First of all, to Matt's point, we're really thrilled that the FDA has accepted the file and given it priority review. For us, it means that there is a high-end met need for all FA patients. In particular, I think we're looking at three areas in terms of our immediate focus. The first is obviously the pediatric population. We have a significant amount of experience, well over eight, nine years of experience right now with pediatric neurologists. We know the key hospitals, the children's hospitals, where over one-third of these patients exist. We know that this is an incredibly important segment that has nothing. The dynamics in the pediatric sector are incredibly important and quite different sometimes than the adult. Healthcare providers and centers are really organized around these kids and these children. The parents and the caregivers are very engaged in treatment and they really want to ensure that these patients get diagnosed early. They look at the upright stability as being an incredibly valuable endpoint that is meaningful for their children in ensuring that they can maintain ambulation long-term. Additionally, these parents are really focused on high compliance. So they're really working very closely with these children to ensure high compliance and treatment follow-up and are really advocates for access to treatment. What we know about this whole segment that's very different is they're really seeking for safe and effective treatment that has limited or no monitoring requirements. The next segment really for us is in the adult population and I would say that we, as the neurology experts as well, understand that there is high-end met needs in the adult population. It's been two years since OMAD has been actually launched and there's still 80% of the patients who are diagnosed that have not had any treatment or have therapy. In addition to that, there are adults who are poorly controlled and can't tolerate those. A lot of these patients actually drop off after one or two years. So we know that there's tremendous anonymity in this population and we're really working very closely with health and health care providers to have a group of people who are engaging with the child as well as we typically have very strong relationships. And I think our role is to make sure that we get everything we need to do to ensure that we're at the right age.

Thanks, Hank.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Eric Joseph with JP Morgan. Go ahead, Eric.

Thanks and thanks for taking the questions. Congrats on that quarter progress. Three questions, I'll try to work in quickly. First, what kind of visibility do you have on the trans learner recovery? Do you anticipate a formal PDUFA date in place ahead of the decision? Second, just as it relates to your top line guidance, consistent where it was in January, I guess, how does that accommodate or factor in trans learner maintaining authorization in the EU? To some extent, do you think that's a good question? I think you should be thinking, raising or trending kind of off the lower end of guidance. And then thirdly, as it relates to VoltaPlan and the pivot HD update coming next quarter, I guess, how should investors be kind of framing their expectations when looking at measures of functional benefit given the slightly different mix in patients, including stage three disease versus the initial 12 month readout last year? Thanks for taking the questions.

Thanks for the questions, Eric. I'll take one and three and then I'll pass number two to Pierre. So on number one, we know the review of trans learners ongoing at FDA. We know that clinical site inspections are moving along and so it's clear that there is an active review process occurring. We don't expect that there'll be an official PDUFA date given the circumstances of the resubmission and why we can't guide to an official date given the fact that the reviews ongoing and clinical inspections are well underway. We remain of the belief that we should have more information and outcome in the first half of this year. Regarding VoltaPlan, we were planning in the second quarter to provide that update on the complete 12 month data from all subjects enrolled. As you point out, that'll include both stage two and stage three subjects. The key we'll look at here again is the biomarker data and then as you asked on the clinical outcome scales, we know that different outcome scales have different relevance at different stages of the disease. So for example, the total motor score is something particularly relevant for stage two patients. In stage three patients, the CUHDRS remains important as does the TFC. So I think what we'll be doing there is looking for the whole population at each of those measures, at TMS, at CUHDRS, at TFC, much as we did in the interim readout last June. And then of course, we'll be looking on a stage basis, stage two and early stage three, to see if we see a different clinical signature. But the important point is we have the endpoints in place to capture differential impact of treatment if one in fact exists. If it doesn't exist, then we can very much see the same pattern we observed with the interim readout last June. On top line guidance, I'll let Pierre talk about the inputs to that and the potential or continued trans-Lorna sales in Europe.

Yes, as it relates to our guidance for 2025, there's very limited trans-Saharan European sales in there. So as you pointed out, Eric, there's definitely room for upside there. And we will update our guidance as we gain greater clarity on several factors that could impact revenues.

Great, thanks. One quick follow up, if I could, on pivotHD. I wonder whether there's the potential for a longer follow-up from the set of interim, some set of patients reported in the interim last June. That is to say, upwards of 24 months follow-up, particularly when it comes to Huntington decline in the CSF in those patients, thank you.

Yep, Eric, the short answer is yes, it's possible, but the timing of that readout will be driven by having all of the data available for the 12-month time point. So it's just gonna be a question of how much longer term data we have available, but clearly we understand that there's a strong interest in understanding the effects on the biomarkers over time.

Excellent, thanks for taking the questions.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Kelly with Jeffries. Go ahead, Kelly.

Thank you, congrats on the quarter and thank you for taking my questions. I also have a couple for the pivotHD trial. Firstly, from the 12 months to 24 months, what kind of improvement do you expect on total motor score in the next 12 months? And UHDRS and maybe also the TFC, the total functional capacity. And also, can you help us on the info regarding the stage two and the stage three split for this pivotHD trial? Is this a relatively similar to the last interim update made up for last year? Thank you.

Thanks for the questions, Kelly. On your first question, as we move from 12 to 24 months, what we would expect to see is continued benefit and continued slowing of progression on the TMS as well as the CUHUDRS and TFC with time. And this is the, of course we have the placebo group out to 12 months, but what we fully expect to see is a continued slowing of progression relative to the placebo and relative to what would be understood of a natural history of progression. Regarding the split of patients, overall in the study, it's about half stage two and stage three. Now keep in mind, the data readout last June included only stage two patients since the initial inclusion criteria to study was for stage two and then we added the stage three patients later. So what you should expect in the readout in the second quarter this year is there'll be more patients from stage three that have new data, but the overall 12 month data set that includes the initial subjects from last June and this new readout will be a balance of two and three.

Thank you for the clarification. Thank

you.

Our next question will come from Tiago with Wells Fargo. Go ahead.

Hi, just have a follow up on PKU. Kind of one of the pushbacks we generally get from investors is the low treatment rate for those patients. So I'm curious if you were to break down the $1 billion potential that you see in the US. Part of that is an assumption on premium pricing, which we've kind of made clear, but how much of that is also the assumption on potential conversion of existing patients on therapy versus bringing patients quote unquote back to medical treatment. I'm curious how much is conversion, how much is expansion and how to think about that $1 billion opportunity. Thank you.

And Tiago, thank you for the question. It's a good question and I think one of the important things to understand is, goes back to one of the earlier questions about what's important for patients with PKU and the desire to be on therapy is often related to the ability to have a therapy that allows for diet liberalization. In the absence of a therapy, individuals with PKU rely on highly restricted, highly unpleasant diet. And so if a therapy is not able to provide the ability to liberalize that diet, there's really no motivation to initiate a therapy. And that's why we've talked about being able to access all of the segments that you mentioned, right? We know from patients who are currently on therapy and maybe having some benefit, we've demonstrated in our clinical studies and also just based simply on mechanism, we fully expect if you have a response to BH4 whether branded or generic, you're gonna have a much greater benefit from CpOteran, not only in terms of phenylalanine lowering, but also in terms of diet liberalization. And again, that's something our data substantiate. Our data also show that we're able to provide benefit to patients with classical PKU, as well as mutations thought to be quote unquote non-BH4 responsive. We've previously shared some very nice in vitro data showing that we can have a significant effect on mutations of the enzyme considered to be non-BH4 responsive. And then again, we see those mutations in patients in the affinity trial, we see that those are patients again who we can provide significant benefit in terms of phenylalanine lowering. So when you take that as a whole, we have a data package that clearly supports the ability to access all of those patients, patients who may be on therapies, we know we can actually give a more significant effect if you're currently having some benefit to BH4. If you fail BH4, you're therapy naive or have classical PKU and not currently at the clinic, we've shown that we can address those patients as well and motivate them to come back to the clinic because we can offer the benefit of being able to potentially liberalize the diet, which is what an individual PKU really would wanna have. I understand, all right, thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Brian with RBC, go ahead, Brian.

Hi, this is John for Brian, thank you for taking our question. On PKU, what is your sense on how the payers will potentially think about utilization management for those who are currently taking treatments and are looking to switch? And what about for those who are not on any treatments but probably experience in other therapies? Thank you.

Yeah, thanks for the questions, Joe. I'll let Eric talk about the work we've done with payers

as

far.

Yeah, so we have had extensive discussions with payers. We've also done significant research with both US and international payers. They absolutely see the profile of diet liberalization. They see the benefits of additional fee control. They also see important aspects in terms of quality of life and neurocognitive protection. So these are many of the things that we see with payers. Can you hear me okay? Yeah, okay, sorry. So essentially, what we're seeing right now is a willingness to pay the premium to Palinzik. But more importantly, with a large segment of the population right now, the segment that is actually uncontrolled, payers do not see any issue with going first line in those patients who are poorly controlled, failed therapies, or even those who may be on the cusp of reaching potentially the goal, but ultimately, physicians would like to have normalization and diet liberalization. So we have not had any pushback at this point in time with regards to our profile, and the payers actually see very similar things physicians do and indicate a willingness to pay a premium to Palinzik.

Makes sense, thank you. Thank you.

Our next question is from Ellie with UBS, go ahead.

Hey guys, thanks so much for taking the question. Another couple on the PKU launch. I guess, how should we think about the size of the target prescriber base? Is it centralized or dispersed? And in terms of the population, and you mentioned this a little bit in terms of Tiago's question, like the longer term, but in the near term, as you approach a commercial launch, who's the population that you think could be the most rapid adopters? And I guess, how often do these patients see their physicians? And then just last one quickly, just on the pricing, did I hear correctly you're talking about a potential premium pricing to Palinzik? Just wanna clarify if I heard that correctly in your latest commentary on pricing, potentially in PKU, thanks.

Thanks for the questions, Ellie. Let me, I'll tackle the second one, then I'll pass the other two to Eric. Eric, let's play a little bit. We've clearly mapped these centers of excellence, and one of the, that exists, and one of the important things to bear in mind with PKU is that we're coming into an established commercial infrastructure, right? There's centers of excellence, there's a well coordinated patient community and such, which makes the mapping exercise quite easy. The other thing we've done is not only make contact with physicians, but also importantly, as Eric mentioned in his prepared remarks, nurse practitioners and dietitians who are incredibly important members of the care team and often make care and prescribing decisions. And so when we talk about contact with centers, there's physician contact, yes, but there's also more importantly, longer term connection with the dietitians who manage patients' diets who are not on a current therapy. Now, when we think about those different segments in terms of what are the quote, low-hanging fruit, or where would we go first, given that we have the ability to address each of these segments, and these are each large segments, we've heard, not surprisingly, that the initial segments vary from center to center. So the important message is we are able to access all of them, there's enthusiasm at the centers to treat patients in each segment, and who will get treated first may vary center to center, but we do know that there's centers where there's already lists of, very long lists of patients that they wanna put on the drug that can come from any number of these segments. So I'll let Eric provide a little more color in that as well as talking about the pricing.

Yeah, and we actually have tremendous feedback from these centers. We have profiled all 100, actually about 103 of these centers that account for 90%. So it's very centralized at the time of when they're diagnosed at birth. And then as the continuity is they get into adulthood, so that to Matt's point, it's very, very centralized. Our medical affairs teams, our patient advocacy teams have been engaged at a number of different levels, and what we're hearing is that physicians, the dieticians, the metabolic geneticists, they immediately want to use this as first line for all the patients who are poorly controlled who have failed, and what has been a really big game changer is actually showing the data in non-BH4. They believe that these patients who are responding can get really key benefits, including getting more patients to goal and the diet liberalization component. That in turn leads to quality of life. So we've had a number of different things that we've done to prepare. We believe that many of these centers will have a number of patients in operating next week switch patients. And in addition to that, there'll be patients that are at the highest unmet needs, the ones that haven't responded to therapy. In addition to that, what we're doing is we have a disease awareness center and program right now where physicians and healthcare providers can actually opt in. So it's called PTC Reimagines PKU, and we are seeing increased enrollment every single week and month for people who opt in into these programs. And what we're doing is aligning staff and everything else to handle what is potentially a very strong bolus of patients at the time of launch following FDA approval. So there is a high degree of awareness, but also a high degree of interest in utilizing this across a broad population.

Great, thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Gina with Barclays. Go ahead, Gina.

Thank you. I have two questions. One is regarding ventricle in fractures ataxia. Did the FDA confirm that there would be no Atacom? And my second question is regarding the pivot HD data in second quarter. Since this based on your FDA feedback, this will be important data set to show the correlation between the Huntington lowering and the clinical measurement. So how would you define there is a correlation? I think for example, you have three cohorts plus 0.5 milligram, 10 milligram. Do you need to see the dose response among all these three cohorts in terms of a protein knockdown and also the correlation to the functional measurement? And I think that you did mention two different important measurements based on the stage two and stage three. And how would you look across different measurements, which would be the most important measurements for the FDA based on your feedback?

Thank you for the question, Gina. For your first question, the FDA, in the acceptance of priority review, I said they had not yet reached a decision on whether they'll convene an Atacom or not. We expect we'll learn more as the review continues either at the day 74 letter or mid cycle meeting. So we'll of course update as needed. Regarding the pivot HD data readout, as you mentioned, FDA has supported scientifically the concept of HDT lowering being likely to predict clinical benefits and then asked for us to show in the pivot data set associations between changes in HDT protein levels and clinical measures. They were not prescriptive in terms of one correlation and R squared value, which end points, but simply said they wanted to understand from the data whether we can see some associations between changes in HDT protein and changes in the clinical measures that can support that over the longer term, the observed HDT lowering would in fact lead to clinical benefit, which is the essence of accelerated approval. And of course, I think it's gonna depend a little bit on the data what we're able to show. I think one of the important take home points, as you mentioned from the interim readout last June, was the fact that we were seeing dose dependent changes on the clinical measures on TMS and on CUHDRS. That's really important because what that says is that if you're having twice as much lowering of Huntington protein, you're having a greater clinical effect. So even something as simple as that certainly supports the idea that the extent of Huntington lowering can influence your clinical course. So we believe if we can have similar type of data, that would be very supportive. Certainly if we have outliers or those that have significantly more lowering and have significantly greater clinical changes, data points like that could also be helpful. So it's gonna be a little bit of what the data look like, but I think there's a lot of different sources of association between the HDT changes and clinical effect.

Thank you. If I can make just ask a quick question. Regarding the protein lowering, did the FDA care more about the CSF? Huntington protein lowering or blood Huntington protein lowering?

So we discussed Huntington lowering as a general concept. Clearly looking at both the blood and the brain is important. Of course, it's with the understanding that the CSF changes are not a direct reflection of what's going on in the cells. And we've talked a lot about how the CSF is not a cellular compartment, but in fact the blood cells are a better reflection of what's going on within the brain cells because the drug activity is occurring on the neurons. Nonetheless, it is important to see what's going on the CSF because it does give us a read on what's going on in the central nervous system with regard to Huntington protein. So I would say it's the whole package gene is looking both at the blood, the brain and what that's telling us about Huntington lowering and then of course, and looking at the associations with the clinical scores.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Joel with Baird. Go ahead, Joel.

Hi, thanks for taking the question. This is a follow up to a question, a couple of questions ago. For PKU, you mentioned there's a long list of patients at centers with a bolus of patients waiting. Could you help us think through the cadence of when those patients could start on therapy or sepia tear and maybe what the rate limiting factors are for that? Thanks for the question, Joel. What we were alluding

to is the fact that in general, we're seeing a significant amount of market pull now, a lot of enthusiastic patients, a lot of enthusiastic physicians as well as other members of the care team and a desire to get on the therapy as soon as possible. Eric, do you want to speak a little bit of how we're thinking about cadence and ramp?

Yeah, cadence is really going to be based on how our teams are gonna be prepared to handle the physician start forms. We know that the centers we're gonna be preparing for already have a significant amount of experience with PKU medical treatments. So this is not gonna be something new. We will be working with them very closely before and then after the launch to ensure that all proper documentation will be assigned for those who actually have failed on previous therapies who are poorly controlled. That way we can minimize step edits and move directly into therapy. Our goal will be obviously to ensure that the time from the start form to the time to prescription is very, very short. And obviously part of our goal is to align our staffing and ensure that our case management will be able to handle that bolus. And we're very confident with our previous experience in handling that with Inflaza and others that we'll be able to pull a number of these patients through and triage, if you will, the demand at the time of launch.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Sammy Corwin with William Blair. Go ahead, Sammy.

Hi there, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that you still have new patient starts on translarna in Europe. And I guess I was curious if you expect that trend to continue into Q2 or how you're kind of expecting, like what the current status of translarna is in Europe. And then how are you thinking about the timing of additional meetings with FDA regarding Huntington's and when do you expect to have alignment on a registrational path going forward there?

Thanks for the question, Sammy. In translarna in Europe, look, we are in a bit of a unique situation, right? We talked about it expecting a European commission action within typically within 67 days of the CHMP opinion. I think on last count, we're at day 133. What we do know is that the European commission has voiced a desire to find a way to ensure that current patients remain on therapy. Until there's any action from the European commission, the drug remains fully authorized in Europe. And so not surprisingly, there's interest in continuing to put patients on therapy and keep patients on therapy. We've talked a lot about the fact that during this long procedure with translarna, what was very clear was a strong physician conviction and patient conviction of the benefit of the therapy, the safety of the therapy, and there's a clear lack of alternative genetically targeted therapies for nonsense mutation patients. So we fully expect there to be interest in starting new patients while authorization remains intact and continuing patients on. And again, that's what we've heard is the desire of the physicians, that's the desire of the patients. May also be the desire of the commission as they're trying to find a way to keep patients on therapy. In terms of cadence of meetings regarding PTC 518, after the data readout, I think it'll take time for us to absorb the package. We'll obviously work with our partner Novartis, and the partnership is underway, and we're quite excited of how well the teams are working. And one of the things that we talked about in selecting a partner for PTC 518 is to have a team that can bring a lot of muscle to the effort and also have this as a priority program. And that's certainly what the partnership is demonstrating. They'll clearly be desire to understand the Pivot HD data readout, and of course, they move as quickly as possible to understand from FDA the potential for accelerated approval. In parallel, all hands on deck and all efforts are moving forward with that efficacy trial planning as we speak. Based on the data we've seen already from Pivot HD, there's clear evidence that the drug is working the way it needs to work in terms of target engagement, dose-dependent Huntington lowering in the blood, what we're seeing in the CSF, and the early signals of clinical effect. We have the data in terms of exposure confirming that we have the necessary bio-distribution to have the efficacy effect over the long term that we fully expect to have. So regardless of how, of the outcome of the Pivot HD interim data readout in the second quarter, it's full speed ahead now in planning for that efficacy trial, whether that's gonna be a phase three trial under a standard pathway or the confirmatory trial under the accelerated approval scenario.

Great, and will Novartis be taking the lead on those regulatory interactions now or will it be a joint effort?

Yeah, I think, as you said, the partnership is about a joint development committee that's gonna work together on these key elements.

Great, thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Peyton with TD Cowan. Go ahead, Peyton.

Hey, good afternoon. This is Peyton on for Joe, and congratulations on all the progress in 2024. I guess you mentioned looking into exploring business development opportunities in prepared Marks. How likely is this to occur in 2025, and is this continued on all three therapies being approved this year? And then kind of building off that, how do you plan to balance that with the internal pipeline, and do you plan to bring anything else from the internal pipeline into the clinic this year?

Thanks for the questions, Peyton. Make a few comments, and then I'll pass it over to Pierre. Look, we're incredibly excited to be in a position where we're in an incredibly strong position, where we built a strong balance sheet with over two billion in cash now, steady stream of ongoing revenue, and a number of very promising prospects for future revenue on the horizon, including the PKU program, which we've talked about as really being a foundation for significant future revenue. We also have two valuable platforms, highly differentiated scientific platforms that we have, again, focused our efforts on so we can leverage the full promise of that science. I think the PTC 518 Novartis deal demonstrates once again the potential promise of splicing, the small molecule splicing as being a transformative therapy. I'm sure everyone has seen the recent New England Journal of Medicine article that just came out on a RISD showing that a pregnant mother was given a RISD and the child was prenatally diagnosed with SMA, the child was born with any signs of SMA, and in two years, there's no clinical signs of SMA. And so all of these factors really continue to confirm the promise and the potential for oral small molecule splicing for genetic disorders. We clearly want to continue to put our efforts and leverage the experience we have and the important learnings we've made. So as PTC has always done, we'll continue to populate our pipeline and commercial portfolio in a combination of our innovative products, as well as things that we in-license. And of course, as we said, as far as business development goes, we also are going to look to leverage splicing as a source of additional early stage strategic partnerships because while there's certainly a number of indications where splicing is relevant, that PTC could develop and commercialize, there's also a number of potential indications that are non-core, such as larger neurodegenerative disease and oncology, where there's a number of splicing targets and that could be a very valuable source of strategic partnerships. So I'll let Peter talk about how we're thinking about business development priorities in terms of the commercial portfolio and the additional milestones for this year.

Yes, and as Matt mentioned, so BD has always been part of PTC's growth strategy. We'll continue to do so. I think we still have a few cards to turn, obviously. You mentioned it, Peyton, based on your question, is it dependent on those three products approval? We will use it as BD. The question is, are we going to go in near-term commercial opportunities or is it going to be intermediate term? And obviously, if we are successful across the board, I think our team will be extremely busy launching three products and we welcome that challenge. But obviously, we look at more intermediate term, I think. That's the way we think about BD's multi-prong approach. Let's turn a few cards to really see in which direction we go.

Great, thank you guys.

Thank

you.

Our next question comes from Paul with Goldman Sachs. Go ahead, Paul.

Hi, everyone, this is Kaleel Klingen for Paul. Thank you so much for taking our question. I guess I'll ask about your capital position. So I see that you guys have a very strong cash position right now and if you take out the asset impairment, it looks like you guys are close to break even. I guess the Trans-Larna worry is notwithstanding. I'm curious to hear what your capital deployment plans are for the rest of the year.

Kaleel, thank you for the question. I think one of the important aspects of our strong cash position is that it was built with an understanding that we wouldn't have any Trans-Larna revenue contributions from Europe in 2024 nor 2025. So in fact, what we've been able to continue to generate revenue for Trans-Larna in Europe in 2024 and continue to see in 2025 is all upside from the very strong base capital position that we've established. So I think it's important as we sit where we are today with the strong cash position, the solid foundation of revenue we have today and the very important prospects of near term revenue in terms of the PKU program, which we've talked a lot about, potential for Friedrich Ataxia, the potential for Trans-Larna in the US is all sources of strong future growth from where we sit today. And as Peter mentioned in response to the last question, we also having this capital not only enables us to get to be cash flow break even and beyond without the need to raise additional capital. It also is sufficient to allow us to do strategic business development in a thoughtful measured approach to continue to augment near term commercial revenue as well as intermediate and long term commercial revenue.

Got it, thank you. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Tazine of Bank of America Securities. Go ahead.

Great, thanks for taking my questions. When we talk about slicing modulators in HD, can you maybe talk a little bit how your program could be differentiated from others that are also trying in HD, for example, Skyhawk has a early stage program, I think it's 0515. And then I have a few questions on Trans-Larna. So how should we be thinking about the cadence of the launch of approved in the US? Would the launches of the TMOs from Sarepta be good markers of examples on how to think about the pace of uptake among patients? How easy will it be for you to find the patients, the non-sensory patients here in the US? And then lastly on Trans-Larna, how are you thinking about the competitive landscape with the introduction of gene therapy, which does seem to be having a good initial uptake? Thanks.

Thanks for the question, Zazine. So starting with the question about splicing modulation and competition. Look, I think we've talked a lot about the essential elements to have a successful splicing molecule. One, having a high degree of selectivity and specificity for the target, having full brain bio-distribution, which is incredibly important, while Huntington's disease at certain stages is thought to be a disease of the striatum, it's a full brain disease, and if you're gonna effectively leverage the benefits of Huntington lowering, you're gonna wanna have full brain bio-distribution. So when we think about some of the more advanced therapies now, PTC-518 is the only therapy that's oral, highly selective and specific for the Huntington target, as well as achieve full brain bio-distribution. Now there are, of course, other therapies in much earlier stages with a long way to go, but I think right now we're quite confident in our leading position in the field in terms of HTT lowering and the significant differentiating factors that makes PTC-518 unique and holds so much promise, and is the reason why to date we're seeing such important evidence of Huntington lowering effect, as well as safety and tolerability. On the translorena launch question, PTC has been commercializing DMV therapy for a long time, and we were the first in the space of developing DMV therapy, so our roots are deep and we're incredibly well connected with the patient communities and the physician communities in terms of specifically capturing the market. I'll let Eric talk about it. I'll just make one important concept. This is translorena, if approved in the US, would be the only genetically directed therapy specifically for nonsense mutation DMV patients, and there are a number of the mutations with nonsense mutation DMV that fall into exons that may be relatively contraindicated or contraindicated for the gene therapy, so we believe that there's definitely room for a nonsense mutation specific therapy. Eric, do you wanna talk about our resources we have and how we would go about a launch?

Yes, and Tazine, thanks for the question. Good to hear from you. We're very excited with the opportunity, and I can only say it's really plug and play to Matt's point. We believe that already we have a very strong connection with the DMV community. We've treated thousands of patients over the last eight years, and we have a database right now of all these patients who have been treated with influenza that we can go back into and obviously provide genotyping and allow them to have access to it if they test for a nonsense mutation. We also have close to 150 patients that are in our clinical studies, and many of them have been on for almost 10 years, so they've been getting benefit from that. We would expect to convert them as well. So between the context of going into the existing database that we have, our experience within DMV, and understanding that there's approximately 10 to 15% of that, of the prevalent population that could have nonsense mutation, we're already set to be able to provide the therapy to these patients in a very rapid manner. So having that experience over the last eight years is really for us a plug and play situation.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question will come from David with Citi. Go

ahead, David. Thank you very much for taking my question. In terms of your meeting with the FDA on Huntington's in December, did they provide a framework for which clinical endpoints they want to see and what they want to see from them in an analysis?

Thanks for the question, David. They were not prescriptive. The FDA was not prescriptive. What they said is they certainly appreciate the scientific rationale supporting HCT lowering as potentially, or likely to provide clinical benefit given the fact that it's a monogenetic disease, the disease caused by the mutant Huntington protein and the wealth of preclinical and some clinical evidence showing that lowering Huntington has in fact been associated with clinical benefit. So with all of that as background, they asked us was to look at the data that we're collecting and be able to show some associations between changes in HCT levels and clinical effect. And so that they were not prescriptive in terms of specific p-value, specific endpoints, specific correlations or analytical methods, but simply said as we look at the data, can we provide some evidence that there's associations? And so we've talked about the dose dependent effects we observed at the interim cutout. And of course, that's one example that supports that the more Huntington lowering you get, the more differentiated clinical effect you could have. So those are the kinds of things we're thinking about heading into the full data readout in Q2.

Got it, thanks for that. And then towards that end, did they want to see some of that data with respect to the prior update or they just wanna wait until after 2Q?

So to be clear, what we went into the meeting in December, of course we provided them all the data that we had to date to provide them confidence that we were in fact achieving the magnitude of Huntington lowering between 20 and 50%, that in fact has been associated with clinical benefits. So that was an important part of the story as well as the dose dependent changes. Of course, they were aware that we're gonna be having data on additional 100 patients in a few months and not surprisingly, they're interested to see if these trends continue as we turn the card over on the next 100 patients.

Thank you very much for taking the question.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Joseph with Lee Brink Partners. Go ahead, Joseph. Go ahead. Go ahead. You got it.

Hello? Based on published natural history, particularly on total motor score, does that affect how you're thinking about the larger cohort of patients and your ability to show associations with Huntington lowering that the FDA is looking for? Also, other competitors in the space have switched to natural history comparisons after one year of placebo control. Is that something you're also doing? In other words, should we expect to see two year data in that smaller set of patients versus placebo or an external natural history control? Thank you.

I apologize, we missed the first part of your first question. You didn't come through. Do you mind repeating that?

Just in the smaller cohort, the 12 month data, the placebo arm looked slightly worse than what we would expect on natural history, especially on total motor score. Does that affect how you're thinking about the larger cohort of patients and your ability to show the associations that the FDA is looking for?

Okay, thank you for the question. So I think the reason we do placebo controlled studies is because they provide the best benchmark for the patients who enroll in the trial and are exposed to therapy. That's the whole concept behind a gold standard of a clinical trial that the patients would be identical except for the receipt of the, or except for receiving the intervention, in this case, PTC 518. So while it might be that the placebo group looked a bit different than natural history, I think it speaks to the fact that HD is a heterogeneous disease. And even if you have patients who are specifically, quote unquote, stage two, there's specific factors that could be driving their progression. And that's, again, that highlights the importance of having a placebo group. One of the things we did do in pivot HD was to stratify patients by what's known as the PIN score, which is a prognostic score that is predictive of how rapidly patients would progress. The reason we did that is because even within stage two, there's a number of other factors that could impact, one, a patient's baseline status in terms of baseline TMS or other scores, and two, how quickly they would progress. So I think we're not at all concerned regarding what the placebo group looked like, but in fact, we hold onto that as being very important because it is a very good benchmark of how similar patients would have done if they did not receive PTC 518. I think we're currently the only group in development right now that has 12 months of placebo-controlled data, which again, we think is very important. As we get out to longer terms, we could certainly think about the use of natural history to augment what we've observed over the first 12 months, and that's something we can certainly

do over time.

Thank you. This concludes the question and answer session. I would now like to turn it back to CEO, Dr. Matthew Klein, for closing remarks.

Thank you all again for joining the call today. We are incredibly excited about the successes of 2024 and the incredible strong position the company is in for continued success in 2025 and beyond. We look forward to the number of catalysts coming this year and sharing them with you and continuing our growth and success. So again, thank you all for joining the call and have a good evening.

Thank you for your participation today's conference. This does

conclude the program.

You may now disconnect.