uniQure N.V.

All participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's remarks, we will conduct a question and answer session. To ask a question at this time, you'll need to press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Kiara Russo, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us for Unicure's third quarter of 2025 earnings call. Earlier this morning, Unicure released its financial results for the third quarter of 2025, and our press release is available on the investors and media section of our website at unicure.com. Our 10Q was also filed with the SEC earlier today. Joining me on the call this morning are Matt Capista, Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Walid Abisab, Chief Medical Officer, Kylie O'Keefe, Chief Customer and Strategy Officer, and Christian Klempt, Chief Financial Officer. After our formal remarks, we'll open the call-up for Q&A. Before we begin, please know that we will be making forward-looking statements during this investor call. All statements other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements. They are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and information available to management only as of the date of this conference call. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements for many reasons, including, without limitation, the factors described in Unicure's most recent SEC filings. Given these risks, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, and we assume no obligation to update these statements, even if new information becomes available in the future. Now, let me introduce Matt Capista, Unicure's CEO.

Thanks, Kiara, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining today's third quarter conference call. As you know, in the third quarter, we announced positive top-line data from our pivotal Phase 1-2 study of AMT130 in Huntington's disease, the first gene therapy to demonstrate statistically significant slowing of disease progression in Huntington's disease. These groundbreaking results represent an important milestone not only for Unicure, but also for patients and families who have long awaited a potential disease-modifying therapy. As previously disclosed, we met with the FDA in late October to review our data and discuss the potential submission of a BLA for AMT130. Based on discussions at the meeting, we believe the FDA currently no longer agrees that the data from the Phase 1-2 studies of AMT130, in comparison to an external control, may be adequate to provide primary evidence in support of a BLA submission. Consequently, the timing of a BLA submission for AMT130 is now uncertain. This feedback represents a notable shift from prior communications with the FDA during multiple Type B meetings over the past year. We plan to urgently engage with the FDA to discuss next steps, and we expect to receive the formal meeting minutes within the next 30 days. While the latest FDA feedback is certainly surprising and disappointing, we continue to strongly believe that AMT130 has the potential to provide significant benefit to patients. We believe the data presented to date, widely recognized as the most compelling ever generated in Huntington's disease, provides substantial evidence of therapeutic effect. Every year, thousands of Americans die because of Huntington's disease and thousands more are newly diagnosed. We believe AMT 130 has the potential to significantly slow disease progression and exemplifies the type of transformative innovation in rare diseases the FDA has pledged to support. We remain fully committed to our partners, investigators, and most importantly, to Huntington's patients and their families, and to working collaboratively with the FDA to bring this therapy to Huntington's patients in the U.S. as rapidly as possible. We will continue to act with urgency, transparency, and discipline as we work to deliver on the promise of gene therapy to transform lives.

I will now turn the call over to Walid.

Thank you, Matt. Good morning and good afternoon, everyone. I would like to start by reiterating that the recent feedback from discussions at our pre-BLA meeting does not change our belief in the data. We continue to believe that the MT130 represents the most compelling therapeutic data set generated in Huntington's disease to date. The true highlight of the third quarter was the positive top-line data from our pivotal Phase I-II studies of ANT130 and Huntington's disease. Before I go on, I want to thank our employees, investigators, partners, and especially the patients and families who have been participating in the CHDI natural history studies and our clinical studies. It is thanks to their deep commitment and efforts that we have been able to achieve such progress. In September, we reported top-line data. The high dose of AMT-130 demonstrated a statistically significant 75% slowing of disease progression as measured by the Composite Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale, or CUHRS, at the three years compared to a propensity score-matched external control derived from the enrolled HD natural data set, meeting the pivotal study's pre-specified primary endpoint. Equally important, Patients treated with high-dose ANT130 demonstrated a statistically significant 60% slowing of disease progression at three years as measured by the total functional capacity, a key secondary endpoint. Moreover, ferrous vinyl fluid, neurofilament light chain, a well-characterized and supportive biomarker measuring neural degeneration was below baseline at 36 months in patients treated with high-dose ANT130. The top-line data from the high dose were supported by consistent results and multiple sensitivity analyses demonstrating the robustness of these findings. We believe these results provide the first clinical evidence that gene therapy can potentially alter the course of Huntington's disease. In keeping with the spirit of full transparency for the scientific and medical communities, we are working diligently on a comprehensive publication strategy starting with publishing our full data results in a well-respected peer-reviewed medical journal. As Matt noted earlier, we met with the FDA for a pre-BLA meeting in October, and based on discussions at the meeting, we believe that the FDA currently no longer agrees that data from the Phase I-II studies of AMT-130 in comparison to an external control may be adequate to provide primary evidence in support of a BLA submission. This feedback was unexpected. We believe AMT-130 has the potential to significantly slow disease progression. We plan to urgently interact with the FDA and are fully committed to working with the agency to find an expeditious path forward. Turning now to AMT-260 for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. In May, we announced initial data from the first three locations with five months of follow-up. At that time, we observed promising reduction in seizure frequency over the first five months of follow-up with no serious adverse events. This data generated enthusiasm among investigators and potential patients. We have now activated 17 recruiting sites in the United States and completed enrollment of the first three patients in the first cohort. Following a favorable review by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, Recruitment has now expanded to medial temporal epilepsy in the dominant hemisphere and the initiation of a second cohort at a higher dose per the protocol. We expect to provide updated data from the study in the first half of 2026. Moving to Fabric disease, in September, we also reported encouraging results from the ongoing stage 1 to a trial of AMT-191. which were presented at the International Congress of Inborn Errors of Metabolism in Kyoto. Across the four patients treated in the first cohort, we observed supra-physiological alpha-gal-A enzyme activity below patients successfully withdrawn from enzyme replacement therapy while maintaining stable plasma lyso-GB3 levels through the July 24, 2025 data cutoff date. These results, together with a manageable safety and tolerability profile, reinforce the potential of AMT-191 to be a one-time dose gene therapy for Fabry disease. Enrollment in the second lower dose cohort has been completed with a third cohort currently enrolling. We expect to show updated data in the first half of 2026. I will now touch on some additional pipeline updates. We have voluntarily paused enrollment in the Phase 1 to Episode 1 trial of AMT162 for SOD1 ALS based on the recommendation of the Independent Data Monitoring Committee following a September 2025 review of the preliminary data related to the safety and efficacy of AMT162 in the context of a dose-limiting toxicity that was observed in one patient in the second cohort. This event resulted in a serious adverse event determined to be related to ANT162. At this time, we will continue to collect and evaluate data from the patients treated with ANT162. To summarize, the third quarter marked a milestone for ANT130 with positive top-line data from our pivotal Phase I-II studies. Recent feedback from the FDA has introduced uncertainty into the path forward, but we believe in our data and we are focused on working with the agency to define the next steps. Now, I will turn the call over to Kylie to discuss our recent patient advocacy work. Kylie?

Thank you, Waleed. As both Matt and Waleed have said, our commitment to the HD community remains unwavering. Following our September data announcement, we experienced a groundswell of hope and support from patients, patient advocacy groups, clinicians, and scientists alike. We understand and deeply appreciate the concern and disappointment expressed by the community following our announcement last week regarding the pre-BLA meeting with the FDA. We are reminded, however, that every step of this journey, including moments like this, reflect the seriousness of our mission and the importance of getting this right for HD patients. During this period, commercial and medical teams continue to thoughtfully plan and execute with discipline and focus. Our primary focus continues to be on stakeholder engagement and education, including treatment centers of excellence, payers, and patient advocacy to best position us to be fully prepared for a strong and informed potential launch of AMT 130. Concurrently, as we have a focus on building the foundational strategy for the U.S. market, for a potential launch of AMT130. We are also looking to additional potential markets outside of the US, such as the EU and the UK. The feedback we are receiving from the physician and patient community reinforces both the high level of unmet need and the enthusiasm for the potential of AMT130. Their support continues to motivate our team, and we remain committed to maintaining open communication and collaborating with the community as we plan next steps. We believe deeply in our science, the data we have generated to date, and the impact of the therapy could have for HD patients. Now I will turn the call over to Christian for a financial update. Christian?

Thank you, Carly. I'll now be sharing financial highlights of the third quarter of 2025. Please refer to the earnings press release issued this morning. and our quality filing with the SEC for additional details. Revenue for the three months ended September 30, 2025, was $3.7 million, compared to $2.3 million in the same period in 2024. The increase of $1.4 million in revenue results from a $1.5 million increase in license revenues and a decrease of $0.1 million in collaboration revenues. Cost of contract manufacturing revenues were nil for the three months ended September 30, 2025, compared to $0.8 million for the same period in 2024. Following the divestment of the Lexic facility in July 2024, cost of contract manufacturing revenues are recorded net of revenue within other expenses. Research and development expenses were $34.4 million for the three months ended September 30, 2025, compared to $30.6 million during the same period in 2024. The $3.8 million increase was driven by an increase of $10.1 million in direct research and development expenses, of which $6.6 million related to the preparation for the BLA submission of ANT 130, offset by a decrease of $3.4 million in severance costs and a $3 million decrease in costs related to disposables, facilities, and other expenses. Selling, in general, and administrative expenses were $19.4 million for the three months ended September 30, 2025, compared to $11.6 million during the same period in 2024. The $7.8 million increase was primarily related to a $2.4 million increase in employee related expenses and a $4.9 million increase in professional fees, including $3 million in credit to support the preparation of potential compensation of the NT-130 in the United States. Cash, cash equivalents, and investment securities totaled $649.2 million as of December 30, 2025, compared to $376.5 million as of December 31, 2024. The increase is primarily related to the net proceeds of $404.2 million from our public offerings this year. With this strong balance sheet, we believe Unicur is well positioned to execute its clinical and operational priorities. We expect cash, cash equivalents, and investment securities will be sufficient to fund operations into 2029.

I now turn the floor back over to Matt. Thank you, Christian.

As you've heard today, the third quarter of 2025 was a pivotal one for Unicure, and we continue to have strong conviction in both the compelling data set and therapeutic potential for AMT 130. Our focus now is on working with the FDA to clarify next steps and determine the most expeditious path to bring AMT 130 to patients in the U.S. In parallel, we will plan to advance discussions with other regulatory agencies, including those in the European Union and the United Kingdom. As we move forward, we do so with confidence in our science, clarity in our mission, and a deep determination to make a meaningful difference for patients and families affected by Huntington's disease. Before we open up for questions, I'd like to note that because we have not yet received the final meeting minutes from our pre-BLA meeting with the FDA, and out of respect for the agency and our shared goal of advancing AMT-130 for patients with Huntington's disease, we will strictly limit our responses about that meeting to the information disclosed in our November 3rd, 2025 press release. We appreciate your understanding and are happy to address other questions you may have. Operator, please go ahead and open the call.

Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. In the interest of time, we ask that analysts please limit themselves to one question. Thank you. Our first question today comes from Joe Schwartz from Learink Partners. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Great. Thanks very much for taking my question. The treatment effect you've reported out to three years is quite large. So I'm wondering, to what extent have you stress tested the results in order to see what a very conservative rendition of the results would look like? For example, could you remind us how you constructed the external control arm to consider whether there were any potential sources of bias?

Hey, thanks Joe. Wally, do you want to answer that one? Hey guys, can you hear me? Yep. You can, I'm sorry, I wasn't sure if I'm muted or not. Yes, we can.

Yeah, thank you, all right. Thanks for the question. So actually what we have done is essentially follow a rigorous way to do the propensity score matching with enrollHD. I think enrollHD lends itself to provide fairly robust data because of the size of it, you get very good matches. And what we have done in discussion with the FDA prepared a series of sensitivity testing, evaluating propensity score matching, using different types of matching, the propensity score weighting. We've also looked at a smaller number of variables, which was part of an SAP that we have proposed much earlier in the process during the RMAT application. We looked at regional differences. We looked at, you know, comorbidities based on medication and so on and so forth. And last but not least, we compared to attract and predict a sensitivity analysis, again, as part of the pre-agreed types of sensitivity analyses with the agency. And across a variety of these analyses, the results were very consistent, demonstrating the robustness of these findings. And that's why we have really strong confidence in the results that we've seen. But regardless, if you also look at the numerical change from baseline in our patient population and compare it to a number of data that's being published by a number of studies that are run in that space in comparable patients, you see that the magnitude of the change from baseline at three years is very small compared to one would expect in placebo or untreated subjects.

Our next question comes from Yui Ear from Mizuho. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hey, guys. Yeah, thanks for taking the question. Maybe just help us understand a little bit about what happened in AMT162. Could you kind of remind us what the vectors was and whether it was similar to the other pipeline studies and along with that, What was the dose difference between the first cohort and the second cohort? Thanks.

Yeah, thanks for the question. We haven't quite disclosed all of the data about the dose so far, but with this product, we have seen previously in a compassionate use that was the case of dorsal root ganglia toxicity. a known adverse event, particularly for this route of administration. And we knew and we were monitoring very carefully with this. Unfortunately, we've seen that at the middle dose, which I can tell you is about three-fold higher than the low dose. And as a result, we backed down. But now we're monitoring the data and to see over time how this will evolve and we will have a discussion with the experts and the IDMC to determine the next steps for this program. We should be able to come back in the first half of next year with some answers on this.

And just to be clear, this is a totally different cap set than what we use in our other programs and a different mode of administration.

Our next question comes from Salveen Richter from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning. This is Lydia on for Salveen. Thanks so much for taking our question. Could you just talk to what details you hope to learn from the final meeting minutes here in the next 30 days? Thanks so much.

Yeah, I think what I would say is we don't want to speculate on what will be in the minutes. We assume that they'll reflect mostly the conversation that we had in Washington, D.C., but most importantly, you know, we hope it'll give a sense of the concerns that the FDA has and give us an outline for how to address those concerns in a subsequent meeting with the FDA.

Our next question comes from Joseph Tome from TD Cowan. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi there. Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. I guess, are you able to kind of confirm that prior meeting minute documents did confirm the ability to file for accelerated approval based on the CUHDRS? Maybe like the meeting minutes from the RMET meeting at the end of 2024, was that officially documented in what they send to you? And maybe how much detail do they go into in these meeting minute documents around the definition of the statistical analysis plan and the external comparator? Thank you.

Yes, so I can confirm that in our November 2024 multidisciplinary meeting with the FDA and the written comments that we received, the FDA stated that the data from the Phase I-II study in comparison to an external control may serve as the primary basis of a BLA submission. They also confirmed that the composite UHDRS would be considered an acceptable intermediate clinical endpoint support accelerated approval. In that particular meeting, they didn't get into specifics on the statistical analysis plan, but had recommended that we pre-specify a stats plan, and that was discussed in detail, as well as the natural history protocol in our April 2025 meeting with the FDA.

Our next question comes from Luca Issi from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Oh, great. Yeah, thanks so much for that question. Maybe, Matt, I appreciate the situation is still fluid here, but can you just talk about what needs to happen from here over the next few weeks in order for you to continue to invest capital in Huntington? I guess what I'm trying to ask here is where do you draw the line between continuing to fight this versus just give up? Any call there, much appreciated.

Yeah, I wouldn't characterize this as a fight.

I think that we are 100% committed to continuing to collaborate and partner with the FDA to determine an expedited path to submit a BLA. I think we strongly believe that AMT 130 can meaningfully benefit patients. I think feel that we have what is considered to be the most compelling data set in the field of Huntington's with three years of clinical outcomes data showing a meaningful slowing of disease progression. And we think that, you know, if there are concerns or issues that they ought to be addressed in a proper review. And so, you know, we will continue to work with the FDA to address any concerns they have. with the hope of having an expeditious submission of a BLA in the near future. That is the pathway that we're going to be focused on, and we are committed. We believe we have a drug that works. We have a patient group that has an urgent need, and we're committed to doing everything we can to bring this to them as quickly as possible.

Our next question comes from Yanen Zhu from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Great. Thanks for taking our questions. Just first a quick clarification for the ALS program. Is it intrasql delivery? And if so, is the AE, the dorsal root ganglion AE previously known to this route? Maybe just on the Huntington's program, just wondering, can you characterize how motivated or mobilized the patient and doctor community is on its issue and how that could help move the issue along? Thank you.

Okay, Waleed, you want to answer the first one, and then I'll kick it to Kylie to do the second.

Thanks, Matt. Yeah, on the first question, the answer is yes to both. So it's inter-sql delivery. And it's dorsal root ganglia toxicity, which, again, as I said, unfortunately is associated with this mode of administration, and we knew this was a risk. So, yes. Over to you, Kylie.

Thanks, Waleed. Yeah, as I just said, the patient and physician community are very motivated. They have a huge medical need and... collaboratively working together to look at how to move this forward. I think one of the things that's important is we received a big expression of hope and excitement coming out of the data. And then to have this disappointment a few weeks later is a bit of an emotional roller coaster for the community. But I think that they're working together to look forward and say, how do we bring this therapy to patients?

Our next question comes from Patrick Trucchio from H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, this is Arabella for Patrick. I was just wondering if you could clarify if you've received any EMA or MHRA preliminary feedback on accepting the same data set and external control for AMT-130 as primary evidence, and could you see XUS submission preceding ahead of FDA approval?

Do you want to answer that? Sure.

So we have not yet engaged in the UK or EMA, or MHRA or EMA. That is the plan to go next. We're prioritizing the FDA. But I will say that we are committed to work with the FDA also to continue to find a path forward and also with other regulatory agencies. And we will advance as quickly as possible on all these fronts to bring this therapy to patients as quickly as possible.

For any additional questions, please press star followed by one. Our next question comes from Paul Mateus from Spiegel. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Great. Thanks for putting me in. As it relates to the meeting, again, answer whatever you're comfortable with. But, you know, given that your dialogue here, I guess as I understand it, has been with a relatively similar group of people across the spring meeting and then last November last year, when they came out and told you that they didn't think this path was no longer supportive of a VLA, did you ask them why and what exactly had changed? And then, just separately, can you clarify for us what specific data have you shared with the FDA at this point, and have they seen more data from this three-year analysis than we have? Thank you so much.

Yeah, Paul. You know, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to comment on the details of the specific meeting. But, you know, we do hope for clarity once we do receive minutes. And to the extent that there are material updates, we will endeavor to update investors and analysts. So, I think that's the answer to your first question. And then the second question.

Oh, okay, yeah.

On the data, no, the data that was submitted to, The FDA was consistent with the data that we shared publicly a number of weeks ago. Obviously, there's some additional data like sensitivity analyses that haven't been presented, but there was no new follow-up or additional data that was provided to the agency.

We have no further questions. This will conclude today's question and answer session and today's call. You may now disconnect.