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.
spk03: Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Roy Vant Second Quarter Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question and answer session. Instructions will follow at that time. If anyone should require operator assistance, please press star zero on your touchtone telephone. As a reminder, this call may be recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today's conference call, Mr. Paul Davis, you may begin.
spk10: Good morning, and thank you for joining today's call to discuss RoiVant's second quarter results and business updates. I'm Paul Davis, the head of communications at RoiVant. On the call today, we have Matt Klein, our chief executive officer, who will be presenting. We also have Richard Pollack, our chief financial officer, Frank Torti, our Vant chair, Eric Banker, President and Chief Operating Officer, Mayuk Sukhatme, President and Chief Investment Officer, and Todd Zavodnik, the CEO of Dermavand. For those dialing in by a conference call, you can find the slides being presented today, as well as the press release announcing these updates, on our IR website at www.investor.royvand.com. We'll also be providing the current slide numbers as we present to help you follow along. I would like to remind you that we will be making certain forward-looking statements during today's presentation that reflect our current views and expectations, including those related to our financial performance and the potential attributes of our product candidates. We strongly encourage you to review the information that we have filed with the SEC, including the earnings release and Form 10-Q filed this morning, for more information regarding these forward-looking statements and related risks and uncertainties. We will begin with Matt Klein, who will review key business updates across Roivant and Vance, including updates from Dermavant, Immunovant, and Aruvant, and we'll provide a financial update. We will end the call with a Q&A session. And with that, I'll turn it over to Matt.
spk12: Thank you, Paul, and good morning, everybody, and thank you for joining our first earnings call ever in Roivant's history. It's a pleasure to be talking to you today and to be sharing some updates about the business. Before I talk about the quarter, I want to start on page four with just a reminder of who Roivant is and why we're excited about the business that we're building. What we've said since the beginning of Roivant's history is that we're here to redefine what a big pharma company can be from end to end, focusing in particular on a novel talent model in which we're organized as a family of small, nimble, entrepreneurial biotech companies that we call Vance, as well as focusing on using computational tools and data in a differentiated way to improve the discovery, development, and commercialization of new medicines. On page four, I highlight some of the key highlights of our business. Starting with, we have a number of VAMPs with quite a broad pipeline and a number of different technologies that we think enable us to do better in our business. We are well-funded with a $2.5 billion cash balance at the end of the September quarter. We have, and we'll spend some more time later today talking about it, a full chip-to-clinic discovery platform with, we believe, best-in-class computational capabilities for simulations, molecular dynamics simulations, which enable us to do a better job at discovering, in particular, in the field of novel protein degraders. We have a collection of public equity stakes in Vance and other businesses that we've built over time of $940 million value, plus additional private holdings, including an approximately 12% stake in DataVance, which is a business that we built to solve an important healthcare data problem, the siloing of healthcare data that we needed in order to improve our own clinical development. And as you may know, earlier this year, we merged DataVant into a company called Siox Health. And in that transaction, we received $320 million in cash proceeds, as well as this approximately 12% ownership stake, assuming a $7 billion value for DataVant, which was the value implied by the investments made by Goldman Sachs and Sixth Street in that transaction. And DataVant is now a business with $700 million in top-line revenue that we expect to grow over time. So that's an ownership stake that, in addition to providing strategic value to Roy Venter, We're excited to have it to continue to optimize. And finally, most importantly for us as we're planning to build a pharma company, we have what we believe is a strong clinical development track record, having run nine registrational phase three studies in total, eight of which I've read out positively. And our VANT model has now resulted in four FDA-approved products, all of which advanced launch by Roivant and now owned by our partner, Sumitomo Danipan, by SumitoVant. On page five is a little bit of an outline for the topics we're going to cover today. Starting with an update on our commercial plans with some further information about our expected launch of tapinaroff in psoriasis with further opportunity in atopic dermatitis. And I'll talk a little bit about progress in our clinical development pipeline, including initiation of at least four phase two or three trials in 2022, with seven trials expected to be ongoing by the end of that year. I'll provide a brief overview of our small molecule drug discovery platform with our computational capabilities and integrated wet lab, again, focused on the field of targeted protein degradation. I'll give an update on our financial performance for the quarter, including our cash balance of $2.5 billion, as well as some other key metrics. And I'll end by providing just a couple of highlights for things that we expect to be important drivers of growth and opportunity for the business in the future. So thank you very much. And as Paul indicated, there'll be an opportunity for Q&A at the end of the call. So with that, I'm going to start on page seven with a discussion of Depinarov, Dermavance topical therapy for the treatment of psoriasis, where we filed our NDA and where we expect a PDUFA action in the second quarter of 2022. So this is a medicine that obviously we are extremely excited about, and we view it as an incredibly promising therapy for psoriasis patients. We feel that it differentiates along five key attributes. The first is treatment effect. We showed strong data in our phase three program, which read out in the summer of 2020, including statistically significant performance in all of the key endpoints, including endpoints typically used to measure the performance of systemic therapy. And then perhaps even more exciting, we demonstrated continued improvement and a high degree of disease clearance, about 41% of patients achieving complete disease clearance of PGA score of zero in our long-term extension study, soaring three. That gets to the second important attribute of dupinaroff, which is durability, the continued performance on therapy with no evidence of tachyflaxis during our long-term extension study. The third important differentiating attribute of dupinaroff is its primitive effect. And so in our long-term extension study, and we'll talk a little bit more about this data, which was presented this quarter, when patients in our long-term extension study cleared their psoriasis when they achieved a PGA score of zero, We took them off therapy and monitored them, and we saw a mean duration of remittance, that is, they stayed clear or mostly clear, for 130 days, so over four months, which is something that, in our opinion, is effectively unheard of in topical therapy. And then finally, on safety and tolerability, this is a therapy that avoids many of the safety and tolerability issues associated with the current mainline therapy for psoriasis treatment, namely topical corticosteroids. with no treatment-related serious adverse events in any of our studies or across 2,200 patients enrolled in 18 clinical trials, with an AE profile consistent with all of our previous studies, and with critically no duration of use or skin location limitations, which again is different from the current approved category of topical corticosteroids. So these are five attributes that we think are important to Finneroff's differentiation. On page eight, I provide a reminder, which I think most people are familiar with, which is that the PITROF is really a two-in-one program targeting the two largest markets in immunodermatology, psoriasis, where I mentioned we expect an approval decision in the first half of 2022, as well as atopic dermatitis, where we currently have a registrational clinical program underway that I'll talk about a little bit later. And these are markets that are expected to reach over $30 billion in the U.S. and over $40 billion globally by 2026. I want to remind everybody that topical treatments serve as the bedrock of dermatologic treatment in America today and represent 83% of all U.S. prescriptions written by dermatologists in 2020. So this is a type of therapy that we expect will be incredibly impactful to the psoriasis community. I don't think I need to provide much of a reminder on page nine, given the common nature of both of these diseases, but these are a brief overview of what both psoriasis and atopic dermatitis look like. And I'll say briefly that I personally am a psoriasis patient. And so I experience many of these symptoms myself and have for most of my adult life. On page 10, I want to highlight briefly some data that includes both data we put out some time ago as well as new data we presented at EADV this quarter, which is the results of our Soaring 3 long-term extension study. So this was a study that monitored patients on therapy up to a total of 52 weeks. And in particular, I want to highlight one of the effects of Spinarof that I am most excited about, which is that 41% of patients treated with depenirof in the program achieved a PGA score of zero that has completely cleared their psoriasis. And this effect was consistently observed both for patients who entered the LTE trial clear or became clear during the LTE study. So this is a significant and repeatable effect that we saw in our phase three study, in our extension study, that was exciting to us. Now, equally important on page 11 is some additional data that, again, we presented at EADV, the Dermavant team presented at EADV, which is that once we took patients off therapy, and I mentioned this at the beginning of the call, but I'll describe it again. When patients in the long-term extension study achieved a PGA score of zero, we took them off therapy and monitored them without treatment to see what happened. And we observed a significant remittive benefit. These patients stayed clear or almost clear for a mean of 130 days. That's across 312 subjects who entered with or achieved a PGA of zero during the extension study. The mean duration of that remittive benefit was 130 days. So these are patients that are going on to pin her off, are clearing their psoriasis disease burden, and then are remaining well for a long time, which is significantly different than, for example, what you observe with corticosteroids, which have a rebound effect and you cease treatment. And we'll talk more in a moment about the overall profile of corticosteroids and how we differ. So on page 12, and this is something that I personally am very familiar with, As you may know, the current mainline therapy for psoriasis patients is topical corticosteroids. So my medicine cabinet is filled with tubes of partially used topical corticosteroids. This is really standard therapy for all patients. And corticosteroids have some significant limitations. You can't use them for a long time because they cause thinning of the skin. They don't have a durable effect. There's sort of a tapering off of benefit. When you go off therapy, you tend to rebound quickly with psoriasis flare-ups. And there are safety and tolerability issues, which are the reason that they have duration and location of use restrictions, where you can't use, for example, the most potent steroids on parts of the skin that are already thin or sensitive. So, Depenirof effectively addresses basically all of these limitations. We have efficacy that is as good or better than what has ever been observed in studies of topical clonal steroids. We have true on-therapy durability, where our drug continues to work better the longer the patients stay on it in our extension study. We have a remittive effect. So when patients go off, unlike the rebounds that you observe with topical corticosteroids, our patients stay clear for a long time. And then we have safety and tolerability profiles that are, frankly, in our view, more benign by a significant amount than what you see with topical corticosteroids without the skin thinning effects and other issues. And that means not only can you stay on therapy chronically, you can stay on to pin her off for a long time. And we observed that, as I said, in our 52-week study. but you can use it anywhere you want on the skin. And so, for example, my most severe psoriasis is in my outer ear canal. You can't use a potent corticosteroid there, but Depenirof has no location of use limitations. Now, all of that is to speak to Depenirof's possibility as a sort of mainline therapy for the treatment of psoriasis. Obviously, systemic medicines for psoriasis have received a lot of attention from the dermatologist and investor communities over the past decade or so. Now, the other thing that we observe is Even when patients ultimately with severe psoriasis or moderate to severe psoriasis get put on a systemic therapy, two-thirds typically receive a new topical prescription as well. And in addition to dupinaroff's possibility as a mainline therapy for these diseases, we also see it as a good partner along with biologics and systemic therapies in that setting. So I've been speaking mostly here to dupinaroff and psoriasis where we expect a first approval decision. I'll highlight on page 13 that we are also currently running a phase three program in atopic dermatitis. The study design is shown here on phase three. We began this study earlier this year, and we said we expect to see data from the study in the first half of 2023. So a significant expansion of the possible patient population. And as a reminder, this study includes a number of patients, includes patients all the way down to age two. And so we think it's potentially an important expansion of the patient population. once that data comes out. On page 14, as a reminder, we have already conducted several phase two studies into PNROF in atopic dermatitis, and we showed the results of our phase two data on page 14, which achieved statistical significance at a week eight endpoint. So we're excited about the prospects for that drug in the atopic dermatitis study. The thing I'll end with on Dermavant on page 15, and you'll have a chance to hear from Todd in the Q&A, is in this area, and this is indicative of the Vant model as a whole, one of the keys to the success of the Vant model is our ability to recruit extraordinary leadership teams with deep therapeutic area-specific expertise. And I could not choose a better example from our portfolio than Dermavant, where Todd and his team have extraordinarily deep experience In the field of dermatology, they have overseen multiple blockbuster product launches across a number of companies, and they are working hard every day to prepare for a Dependados launch pending our approval decision. So, you know, I have a chance to hear from Todd during the Q&A today, but I think we are incredibly optimistic about the prospects for this program, given the quality of the team that is leading it. So from here, I'm going to go on to the next topic for today, which is I'm going to talk about progress at our development stage pipeline, including reminding people of the breadth and some of the major programs that are in late-stage clinical development. So on page 17, as a reminder, you can see our development stage pipeline, which includes a number of therapies. And, you know, per the flexibility afforded by the VAMP model, you can see that these span different therapeutic areas. They span different modalities. We have biologics. We have topical agents. we have oral small molecules, we have antibodies, a number of different kinds of agents across therapeutic categories, and that's some flexibility that we feel is afforded to us by the VANT model. So I'll start on page 18 with a reminder on the progress at Botoclumab, which is also known as IMBD-1401, our anti-FCR and antibody being studied at Immunovant. So Immunovant, as you know, is also a public company and has provided their own updates recently We are excited for this market. We think anti-FCRN is an important fundamental biological target affecting very large patient populations and diseases mediated by pathogenic autoantibodies. And we think Botoclumab in particular has some key differentiating attributes, including a true simple subcutaneous route of administration with a simple straightforward injection, and it was designed for that route of administration from the very beginning, And it was one of the theses on which we then licensed it. And then flexible dosing potential with the possibility to obtain deep, rapid IgG suppression in the short term and with the ability to adjust that IgG suppression with flexibility in the long term. And that's the sort of thing that winds up being quite important in the treatment of these patients with these diseases. As people often think about induction and they think about rescue therapy, they think about other sort of flexible attributes of dosing that we think are going to matter in the indications that are relevant here. So what we've said, what ImmuneVent has said and remains true is that we are finalizing our plans to initiate a number of clinical trials in the Toclomab next year. And the final piece of that is we are awaiting feedback from the FDA, which we expect this quarter, on our proposed trial designs. And so ImmuneVent will provide an update before the end of this year on that feedback from FDA and on our plans. And we look forward to providing that update and to continuing this program and development in important diseases. I will next, starting on page 19, talk a little bit about our event, which is our event developing gene therapies for rare diseases. And in particular, we have two therapies there. One is RO1801, a lentiviral gene therapy for sickle cell disease, which we think has unique potency, driven by a modified, by delivery of the gene for a modified form of fetal hemoglobin. We'll talk more about the efficacy that we observed But in particular, it allows us to get even better anti-sickling properties and therefore even better clinical outcomes than fetal hemoglobin alone. And it allows us to do so with less expression of the gene and therefore critically, and we'll spend a few minutes on this, with reduced intensity conditioning rather than the full myeloablation required by other programs in development. So we'll talk a bit more about that program. And then the other program in our event, ARU 2801, is an adenoviral gene therapy for hypophosphatasia, which has shown in preclinical data durable increases in tissue nonspecific alkaline phosphatase through 18 months. And it has the possibility to be a one-time prescription or a one-time therapy to replace chronic enzyme replacement therapy as standard of care with IND-enabling studies currently ongoing. So I want to talk a little bit on pages 20 and 21 about the efficacy that we've observed in our first four patients in our phase 1-2 study in RO-1801. And as a reminder, we began process development and improvement work between patients 2 and patient 3 when we in-licensed this therapy from Cincinnati Children's Hospital. As you can see on page 20, these were patients that were quite sick at baseline with a significant number of pre-treatment vaso-occlusive events over the two-year period before. And these are patients that had failed a number of different pre-treatments, including hydroxyurea many different kinds of supportive care, transfusions, and so on. So these are six severe sickle cell patients. And what you can see on page 21 is that we observed a dramatic improvement in the condition of these patients. Even the first two patients on the original academic manufacturing process observed a near-complete elimination of vaso-occlusive events. And to date, and we provided this update in our R&D event in September, we have observed no vaso-occlusive events in these patients through 18 months in the case of patient three and through 12 months in the case of patient four. So effectively a complete clinical cure of the symptoms of sickle cell disease. So something that we are extremely excited about. Now, on page 22, what you may know from following the field is there are a number of other people developing promising genetic medicines for the treatment of sickle cell disease. And there are exciting gene therapies and there are exciting gene editing approaches out there. The key difference for our therapy, and this is something I highlighted a moment ago, It was originally designed with the idea that this modified form of fetal hemoglobin would allow us to use a reduced intensity preconditioning regimen. And so all of the other therapies that we are aware of with clinical data have demonstrated that data using an intensive myeloablative regimen using busulfan as a myeloablative preconditioning agent. Whereas our therapy, because of this modified form of fetal hemoglobin, we have been able to dose using a reduced intensity conditioning using a melphalan-based regimen. And why does this matter? I mean, in short, the patient experience on this melphalan-based conditioning, most of the tolerability issues associated with any of these therapies actually relate directly to the preconditioning. And in the case of Gusulfan, these patients are spending dramatically longer in the hospital. So that's 44 days on median versus somewhere between zero and five days for melphalan, with the possibility that this will be an outpatient procedure by the time our product is approved. We are seeing a significantly reduced risk of ovarian failure. Remember, these are young sickle cell patients, you know, 30 to 40 percent instead of 70 to 80 percent. And one of the major risks associated with the busulfan is it's enormously immunosuppressive. And so these patients are at significant risk of secondary infections. And the much, much, much faster recovery time for melphalan-based preconditioning significantly reduces that period risk. And then busulfan has also, in studies, been associated with secondary malignancies over time, and that is also a significant issue associated with busulfan-based preconditioning. So our prediction is that these differences will matter enormously to the sickle cell patient community and make for a very differentiated profile, even amongst the curative genetic medicines in development for sickle cell disease. So As we've mentioned, this is in our Phase 1-2 study right now. We continue to enroll patients in that study. We expect to continue to enroll patients into next year. We will provide updates on this program as we get new data, including that Investigator Poonam Malik is making a presentation with some additional data on our patients at the ASH conference in the coming weeks, and we are excited to continue to provide those updates, and we expect to put RO1801 into a pivotal study in the beginning of 2023. So across our portfolio, we expect to initiate at least four phase two or three studies in 2022, including, as Immunomant has guided, multiple pivotal studies in betoclonab across multiple indications, as well as, and we have not spent a lot of time talking about this program, but we will start doing so more in the new year. We remain on track to initiate our phase two trial of namilamab, our anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody in sarcoidosis, at kind of ant in the first half of 2022. And that's an important disease with poor current treatment options and comparatively many patients. And so it's something that we are, again, looking forward to speaking more about, as well as a phase two trial in LSVT-1701, which is our novel endolysin for the potential treatment of staph aureus bacteremia that, again, could address significant unmet need. And we're excited to begin that trial next year as well. So Moving on from our development stage programs, and we look forward to continue providing updates as we have them, I want to provide a reminder about our approach to drug discovery, which is also an important pillar of our strategy on a going forward basis. And as a reminder, first of all, much of our clinical pipeline historically in many of the programs we talked about today has been assembled by in-licensing. So we often, we take a target and opportunity-based thesis approach to figuring out which programs to add to our pipeline. And we have teams at Roivant that are responsible for boiling the ocean, looking for new therapies, the massive species we've identified. And as we've said, over the past several years, we've repeatedly gotten excited about targets and opportunities where when we look for programs to in-license, nothing quite fit the bill. And so we started to invest a number of years ago in a discovery platform that could complement our in-licensing efforts and allow us to work on a broader set of programs that we've identified. And so on page 25 is sort of just a schematic of what that platform looks like. And critically, it includes both, we believe, a leading computational discovery platform combining molecular dynamics and AI and machine learning that allows us to do free energy calculations and simulate biological motions, including agonism, including searching for novel allosteric binding sites, all kinds of bias signaling, and as well, and I'll talk about this in a moment, as what we believe is the most precise simulation of ternary complexes, which is the combination of a protein and E3 ligase necessary to achieve protein degradation. So to make predictions of the important ingredients in successfully degrading a protein, which is one of the reasons we are focused on the area of targeted protein degradation. Now, in addition to the computational platform itself, we believe we have world-class teams focused on this area. From the computational side, folks like Woody Sherman, our chief computational scientist, who comes to us via the acquisition of Silicon Therapeutics and who has been responsible for, worked at Schrodinger for a long time, building many of the most important tools out there in this area, and has now built the next generation version of our molecular dynamics engine with his team at Royden Discovery. And then an extraordinary team of wet lab chemists and wet lab biologists and biophysicists working to complement that engine across a number of different facilities that enable us to generate novel biology, chemistry, and biophysics data, which, critically, our computational platform has been specifically designed to ingest and incorporate. And that feedback loop, the combination of world-class wet lab biophysical data with world-class computational tools, we think provides real differentiation, A, vis-a-vis other computational companies that don't necessarily have the ability to integrate that wetland data, as well as vis-a-vis any of the other degrader companies, for example, that haven't made this kind of investment in computational tools. So it gives us a unique position in the degrader landscape. So on page 26, I highlight one of the important features there, which is our ability to simulate, and I mentioned this before, binding and stability of ternary complex formation which we think has the potential to be very important in structure-based design of novel protein degraders. So this is, we think, the most accurate simulation ever made of the position and confirmation of the combination of an E3 ligase with a protein with a degrader so that we can start to make predictions about which degrader designs will most effectively recruit and stabilize ternary complex formation and which of those in turn will maximize the probability of magnitude degradation. So We are already actively using these tools in a number of our degrader programs, and we show on page 27 our discovery stage pipeline. So we spoke previously about our development stage pipeline. We have a number of programs between proteovant and rovent discovery across principally degrader, but also occasional other small molecule inhibitor modalities across targets ranging from highly clinically validated targets like our antigen receptor degrader program, which We expect it will be the first of our degrader programs in the clinic in 2022 to other programs across the pipeline in a combination of biologically validated and novel targets where we think we have an opportunity to be either first or best in class. So excited to continue to provide updates on our discovery efforts as we advance these and other programs through preclinical discovery. So I want to say a word on page 29 about our financial results for the quarter. So first of all, our consolidated cash and cash equivalents increased this quarter from $2 billion as of June 30th to $2.5 billion as of September 30th. And that increase was really driven by three things. It was driven by the closing of our SPAC transaction. It was driven by the funding of the second $100 million investment in Proteavance by SK Holdings. And it was driven by the $320 million in cash portions that we received at the time of the closing of DataVance merger with Siox Health that I talked about earlier. As far as our expenses for the quarter, so our adjusted non-GAAP R&D expense for the quarter was $104 million. Our adjusted non-GAAP G&A expense for the quarter was $69 million. And that led to a net non-GAAP adjusted loss for the quarter of $169 million. And I'll highlight that probably the most significant adjustment we made this quarter is that we had a relatively significant $370 million one-time share-based compensation expense charge that was related to the closing of the SPAC transaction. And so that was one of the adjustments that we provided. And you can see a full gap to non-gap reconciliation in the appendix of this presentation. And then finally, as I said, we've had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $2.5 billion at the end of the quarter. with debt of approximately $200 million, almost entirely related to commercial milestone obligations at Dermavand for Topinov. And then we had 684 million approximately common shares issued outstanding as of November 10th, 2021. So before we turn to Q&A, I just want to remind everyone of a couple of opportunities for relatively near-term growth that we expect to speak more about in the coming weeks and months. And so on page 31, you can see a schematic of Roivant today. There are many VAMPs in our portfolio, and we've only had a chance to talk about a few of them today. So we look forward to opportunities, including conference presentations and other forums, to speaking about more of our development activities and more of our VAMPs generally. One VAMP that I am particularly excited about is Genovant, which has been called out on this slide, where we have an LNP platform that is working on novel next-generation LNPs to deliver nucleic acid therapeutics. And we're working in a number of important scientific collaborations to advance that field. And we have an extraordinary team there, dating back to some of the earliest chemists involved in describing and manufacturing lipid nanoparticles, as well as some really exciting scientific collaborations in a broad IT estate. And then the other area that I would flag that we have not talked about today, but we expect to do so in the near future, is the launch of a number of potential new events around in-licensing activity, around programs that we've identified that we think are interesting. In fact, we've mentioned today that we've in-licensed one such program that we're going to talk more about in the near future, but there will be others as well. So I'm excited about those updates to come and excited to share them. As a final reminder on page 32, I just want to highlight the rich series of catalysts that we have upcoming in the next year And that includes, as mentioned, the FDA approval decision on tapinaroff for psoriasis, as well as upcoming top-line Phase III data in our tapinaroff trial in atopic dermatitis. It includes a complete set of updates on betoclomab, IMBT-1401, and Immunivant, including the reinitiation of multiple clinical programs, as well as announcing new indications and beginning those clinical programs as well. And then continued updates from our ongoing Phase I-II trial at Aravant and more detail about our initiation of our Phase III program there multiple other trial initiations, and multiple different opportunities to provide data coming out of our preclinical discovery activities. So we are excited about the quarter and the year ahead. We think we will continue to have a number of important updates, and we look forward to taking every opportunity that we can to communicate them. And at this point, I want to thank everyone for taking the time for listening today, and I want to wrap up the presentation portion of this and hand the call back over to the operator for Q&A. So thank you, and I look forward to taking your questions.
spk03: Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, press the pound key. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from Robin Kornoskos from TrueWiz Securities. Your line is open.
spk06: Great. Thanks for taking my question, and congrats on the first earnings call. A few. So, number one, to pin her off, You noted that a lot of patients, and maybe you could restate the percent of patients, when they go on their biologic, they also maintain them on the topical. When you're thinking about pricing, and I know you said you haven't decided yet, how much does that factor in to that decision, and what's your latest thoughts on pricing, given Insight's pricing strategy? And the second question is on the IT lawsuit with Moderna. Could you give an update? on the case, maybe give us a sense just legally what kind of news flow we'll hear over the next six months. Thanks.
spk12: So I'll start with the Topinov question. Thanks, Robin. Thank you for joining the call. I'll start with the Topinov question, and then I'll come back to the Genovent question. So I'll give Todd a chance to answer most of this question, but I'll just say, first of all, for all the reasons we mentioned, I'm really excited about what Topinov can do, even in sort of main or first-line therapy with psoriasis patients, so not just in that concurrent setting. And as you said, we haven't given guidance on price, but there's a pretty wide envelope from the lower prices of generic corticosteroids today to a Tesla at $3,500 a month, I think, and some of the other therapies at higher prices. So we have a wide range to look at. I'll hand it over to Todd to give his thoughts on the two questions that you asked. Hey, thanks, Matt.
spk02: Good morning. Hey, Robin. How are you? Thanks for the questions. I think the first response you had asked, just to repeat, I think as Matt shared, pretty much known in dermatology, two-thirds of biologic therapy, two-thirds are receiving a topical medication concurrently. So in all of our advisory boards, it's very well shared that this is just a normal practice within dermatology, keeping in mind that for tipenerof, our label is obviously the mild, moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. And, again, in our study, we took a look at mild at 10%, 80% of the patients moderate, and 10% severe, where really the majority of prescriptions reside in mild to moderate. So for us, it's just, you know, when we talk to physicians, it's a wide-open opportunity of where tipenurop will be used across the spectrum for patients. I think your second question on pricing, yeah, we have time, and it is exciting to go back to Matt's first point, which is we're bringing not only a novel mechanism of action to the space, but we're bringing a target product profile with that novel mechanism that is unmatched. So when you look at efficacy, you look at the durability Matt talked about, and then really the remittance, that's really where physicians will share. This is a topical with biologic-like properties. and then safety and tolerability. So for us, really, we need to take a look at that. When we look at recent medications that were brought to market with black boxes and you're seeing prices in the $1,900 range, we're just going to take a look and do the work that we need to do and price it accordingly because the other key point to take away is it's not only the five attributes that differentiate to Penroth, it's really the two-in-one transformational asset that it is. So it's this crossover mechanistically between psoriasis and AD. So we have some work in front of us.
spk11: Thanks, Todd.
spk12: And maybe to take the Genovent question, so as I think you know, Robin, the pending legal process is around these appeals in the IPR process. So back in 2018, Moderna filed IPRs against a number of Arbutus-Genevant patents. And after a number of those IPRs were decided in Genevant's favor, there was an appeal hearing in October on the patents numbered 069 and 435. You know, I will say Arbutus and Genevant scientists have been leaders in this field for two decades, and we have strong conviction in the strength of the patent portfolio. There's a number of different outcomes that could come from that appeal decision. I think we would expect it on sort of standard timeline. It can be measured in a small number of months. But I think it would be difficult and potentially inappropriate to speculate on what the outcome of those appeals could be. And we're looking forward to providing an update once we've got it on what that looks like in the process from there.
spk06: Okay, great. Thank you again for the question. Todd, do you have to do a combo study? For combo use, when you go on your biologic, do you have to do any study? I know steroids, it seems like that seems easy to do. Just you have to do additional work to get that use once you launch. That's it. Thanks.
spk02: Yeah, Todd, please. Yeah, okay. No problem, Matt. No, Robin, I think at the end of the day, like I shared, our study was versus placebo with the indication for mild, moderate, severe, so all of plaque psoriasis. I think the dermatologists will just get there, and I think it's just natural practice. treatment regimen of what we've been shared with in our advisory boards. I think it's been shared with all companies that are innovating in the non-steroidal space, which is where this whole market is shifting as we look to the future. So I'm sure that within the phase four, the investigated, initiated programs, they'll be looked at, but it's not something we need to do. We're not going to be promoting it. I think the dermatologists have just educated us that this will naturally happen because it's been happening well before us even coming to market.
spk11: Thank you. Thank you, Robin.
spk03: All right. Our next question comes from Douglas Chow from H.C. Wainwright. Your line is open.
spk08: Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. Just first maybe on tapenoroth. I'm just curious, you know, how do you see the product or do you see the product being used differently in psoriasis versus tapenoroth? meaning do you see it being used in combination with biologics more in one versus the other, or frontline therapy in one versus the other? And does that affect or sort of influence how you think about pricing? Thank you.
spk12: Yeah, thanks, Doug. Appreciate the question, and thanks for talking on the call. I think your question is, do we see depenerof as being used differently in psoriasis versus atopic dermatitis? And, yeah, I think that's a good question for Todd.
spk02: No, thanks, Doug, for the question. No, look, I think we see Tipenirof being used first line, I think, for patients with psoriasis. I mean, and that's what we're going to be promoting it for in the mild to moderate category where the majority of prescriptions start. I think that the beauty when you launch a product like Tipenirof with, again, these five attributes and a novel mechanism of action that make it totally different is you we're not asking the market to change. We're not asking physicians to change anything they're doing because the majority of patients have already failed on steroids. They've been looking for a product that's non-steroidal, that has efficacy of a class one steroid, but is also being able to be used anywhere on the body for any length of time. And when you stop medication, you're able to provide a benefit where patients are staying clear for a median timeline of up to 130 days. So for us, I think, Doug, you're not asking people to change what they've been doing. You're asking them to increase the level of standard of care to the new future, and that's what Tipenaroff is bringing. I think you're going to see that across psoriasis, and you're going to see the same thing across atopic dermatitis.
spk08: Okay, great. That's really helpful. And Matt, just as one follow-up, just as you think about the pipeline and the development of the business, how do you feel that sort of scaling and just given how broad your pipeline already is and between the discovery engine as well as further business development, at what point do you think you need to maybe sort of pump the brakes a little, just make sure that as a business you don't get ahead of yourself? Thank you.
spk12: Yeah, thanks, Doug. That's a good question. Before I jump to that, just one more comment on the Topinaroff question you had asked. I think an important point about that Topinaroff AD study is it does go down to patients all the way to the age of two, And I think the point there is to provide the kind of flexibility to dermatologists, and this is exactly the point Todd was making, the kind of flexibility they are used to with the existing drugs. So now to your question about sort of expanding the pipeline. You know, I think the short answer to that question is when you think about our history, and I think this is not unique to Royvan, you know, at any given moment, it feels like you are you're always constrained by something relative to what you want to do. And it feels like you flip-flop between being constrained by talent, and I think that's sort of to the scale question, being constrained by capital, and being constrained by the number of available opportunities that are exciting. And, you know, I think we've always felt one of those constraints over time. I feel that we are in a very fortunate capital position right now. And And recently, we've seen some really exciting opportunities come across our desk that we're excited to pursue and excited to share. So I think the main constraining factor to us is to make sure that we can assemble advanced leadership teams fast enough in order to take advantage of the opportunities we see. And I think what you'll see as we bring in new programs is making sure that we're doing so, stooling up leadership teams, including internal and external talent, quickly. And I think as long as we can keep those three things kind of In lockstep with one another, we see significant opportunity to further grow from this point. Now, part of that is the Vant model, and the one thing I would say is, you know, we are a company approaching a major commercial launch with Finneroff, and the reason that I feel comfortable focusing on other things is because we have such an extraordinary team at Dermavant able to launch that product, and we have high conviction in their capability. I think that just gets to our proven track record in recruiting people like Todd and the team around. So that's kind of how I feel about that. Thanks for the questions. Good questions. Thank you.
spk03: Our next question comes from Yaron Werber from Cohen. Your line's open.
spk09: Hi, guys. Thanks very much for taking the questions. Congrats to the team. This is Brendan on for your run. Another one, just another quick one, sorry, on to pin her off from us. Obviously, a lot of interest here in the asset across the board, but just really wanted to kind of poke a little bit and see what else you can maybe tell us about your interactions with FDA since the filing. Obviously, the agency seems a little overwhelmed lately with just kind of everything that's going on there. So really any color you can give us on your discussions and meetings with them throughout the process, maybe site inspection progress, et cetera, any of that would be really great.
spk12: Yeah, I think, in short, our interactions have been positive and uneventful as you would want. Todd, I don't know if there's anything in specific you would add to that.
spk02: No, no, Jeroen. I think, you know, on Eventful, I think their feedback has been back and forth positive, and we're wholly on track for everything we need to do for a mid-2022 review.
spk09: Okay, great. And if I could just squeeze one more in just actually about Immunovant also. I know a lot of this is a little bit up in the air here, but kind of just trying to get some of your thoughts on I guess, first, where you're at in discussions with FDA on botoclumab, really what are the final pieces of feedback you're looking to receive to kind of get these studies up and running again? And then really just maybe kind of your strategy for the expansion opportunities here. Obviously, there's some clear efficacy, but you have some other players going on. So really kind of just trying to see where you see the best opportunity for the drug. Thanks.
spk12: Yeah, thanks. It's a good question. It's something we're paying a lot of attention to. And obviously, Immunivant has commented a fair amount on this publicly as well. You know, we are excited for the breadth of the possibility for the program. The flexibility there is an incredibly strong attribute. The ability to dose relatively higher and get deep, fast IgG suppression or dose relatively lower and maintain a stable level of IgG suppression. I think there's a lot going for us in that, and that combines well with the other truly differentiated attribute of our program, which is none of the other programs really have the same level of a simple subcutaneous injection that we do. So we think the program is well positioned. We think there are indications in which our ability, our potency, our ability to dose higher and get to steep IgG suppression quickly will matter. We think there's indications where the flexibility, most indications the flexibility is going to matter. So I think you will see when Immunivant is prepared to disclose its trial designs you'll see, I think, optimizing for all of those features, and it's something that we feel strongly is necessary to do in order to maximize the potential for the program. You know, in that context, obviously, we wouldn't want to sort of announce a strategy for a specific clinical program until we've gotten sign-off from FDA for what that looked like. And so, you know, FDA is expected to provide feedback to us this quarter. It's been, I would say, a sort of normal course interaction with them so far. It's not like we've received any particular information one way or the other, but we expect to receive that feedback and provide it in due course this quarter. And I would say once we've gotten that feedback, we should be able to provide just a more fulsome update on our strategy across indications because it will give us a pretty clear sense for what our trial designs might look like.
spk09: Okay, great. Thanks very much, guys. Thank you.
spk03: Our next question comes from Jeffrey Porsche from SBB Learning. Your line is open.
spk01: Thank you very much, and congratulations from us also on the IPO and the new quarterly call. Three questions, if I may. First, on to PINROF. The FDA has certainly surprised us recently with the caution they've shown with respect to labeling, even for topical agents, most obviously with Obsolera. Is there, should we expect there to be any form of warning language in the Topinov label associated with exposure or even very high levels of exposure to the active? And then secondly, a couple of financial questions. Do you have any intention to change the current ownership structure with respect to Immunovant or Aravant? And then lastly, Richard, Is your $175 million or so expense rate for Q3 the right basis for Q4 and for us to be modeling for next year on a quarterly basis, or are there some trends that we should be aware of? Thank you.
spk12: Yeah, thanks, Jeff. Those are all great questions. I appreciate them. I'll take them in turn, and I'll give Todd a chance to comment on the question as well. From my perspective, and again, Todd, chime in if you feel differently, I think it's hard to comment on the specific content of a label without having had that discussion with FDA. But I think there's certainly nothing that we've seen in our data that would suggest anything like what you see with Opsilor or otherwise. And I will say, it's very hard to detect, meaning we have very sensitive assays for systemic absorption of Depenirof, and we see basically no systemic absorption. It's very hard to detect, even on picomolar assays, any level of systemic absorption of the therapy. That's kind of where we are with data. Todd, anything you would add to that? No, sounds great. Yeah. So that was the... Go ahead, Jeff. No, that's great. Thanks. So that was the first question. The second question was, do we expect to change anything with respect to our ownership structures of Immunovant or Aravant? So I would say... You know, we made a significant investment in Immunivant during this fiscal quarter. That investment was designed to do two things. One is, as you might imagine, a signal that we think it's an attractively priced opportunity and we wanted to own more of it. And the other is, as I mentioned, it's important that those studies be run to maximize the opportunity for flexibility and to maximize the number of indications that we can pursue in a competitive field. And so we wanted to make sure Immunivant was well capitalized to do that. We are enthusiastic about the prospects for that program and would like to continue to be a major owner of it. And then with Aravant, it's obviously wholly owned by Roivant with the exception of the piece owned by Cincinnati Children's Hospital. I don't at the moment see any near-term need to change that, but we are opportunistic and we'll keep an eye on the possibilities as that sort of continues to develop. And then the last question was for Richard about the the cash, and I'll hand it over to him in a second to see if he has any further comments. The one thing I'd just note is remember that that $175 million includes our fully consolidated expense, so that includes immune advanced trial expenses as well. And my only other comment on this is just remember that because we're in the business of running large phase three studies, some quarters that will be higher, some quarters that will be a little bit lower, depending on which studies are ongoing. But in general, you know, I think you can sort of watch our financials as they develop. Richard, I don't know if you'd say anything else.
spk07: Yeah, we haven't provided any guidance at this point. I think I would just want to point out on slide 23 that we expect initially at least four Phase 2-3 studies in 2022. So I think depending on how the feedback plays out from the FDA and how those studies end up, when they end up running, that will certainly, you know, drive a lot of the impact going forward.
spk12: And, Jim, I think we'll be able... As we initiate clinical programs, we'll be able to give you a sense for what we expect at the cost and how long we expect them to take.
spk01: Okay. Thanks. Appreciate it. For sure. Thank you.
spk03: Our next question comes from Dennis Ding from Jefferies. Your line is open.
spk00: Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. I guess I have two questions. Number one, can you please help frame for you know, how to think about or even value some of your past BDs and non-therapeutics, particularly like Silicon Therapeutics, LocalVant. Can you just provide some clarity on, like, how does exposure in these areas contribute to Royvan's overall story, particularly over the long term? And then as a follow-up, can you just comment on the internal bar or criteria that you guys use when considering BDs? building out additional VANs, and are there any interesting areas or technologies that you guys are seeing right now? Thank you very much.
spk12: Yeah, thanks, Dennis. Appreciate the questions. They're both really good questions. So on the first one, on the sort of non-therapeutic investment, I would say there's probably two different categories there. You mentioned LocaVant, and I put DataVant in the category of tools that we have built to make us better at developing new drugs and that help us design development strategies better or help us run trials better and that we have made commercially available to other partners. So I think, you know, both of those tools get directly at our ability to be faster and more effective at drug development than we would be without them. And so there's a sort of direct strategic benefit from them. But I would also just highlight that the outcome with DataBank is, I think, a pretty good indication of our ability to also generate financial value from those opportunities. So, you know, we had put about, I think, $42 million of cash into DataVant. In the merger with SIAX, we took $320 million of cash out, and we still own, you know, at the assumed $7 billion value, 12% of the company. And I sit on that board, and we are focused on maximizing the value of that and continuing to get the strategic benefit from it. I think it's a pretty good example of what we're shooting for in sort of the tools area, where we can build tools that make us better and also generate financial value. And, you know, on the Silicon Therapeutic side, I think it's a little bit different in the sense that that got to be one of the core pillars of our drug discovery efforts. We think it gets to our ability to discover and design really as engineering professionals. new small molecule-like drugs in a differentiated way. And there, I'd say, from a value perspective, I just think about some of our comps who are doing similar work, like, you know, like a Relay or like a Schrodinger using those platforms for their own drug discovery activities. And then, you know, we are one of the relatively few, first of all, that combine both ML-based and molecular dynamics-based approaches. And then also, that combine those tools with specific wet lab expertise, including in chemoproteomics and the field of target protein degradation. And I think the combination of those data will be differentially powerful for us. You know, you mentioned internal criteria. I think we have a pretty long track record of investment at this point. So you can see generally the kind and the breadth and the scale of opportunities that we like to look at. I will say the longer that we've been around, the better our opportunity set has been. So we're repeat partners with a number of our both big pharma and academic partners, they view us at this point as a partner of choice. We get access to some of the most important programs in their pipelines that they want to continue developing with a high-quality partner. So I think the bar has gone up over time, only in the sense that our opportunity set has improved. We remain flexible as respect to indication. We remain flexible as respect to therapeutic modality. And it's one of our business principles that we've talked about publicly. We remain contrarian, and so I think you will continue to see us going into exciting programs in areas that are important to our partners and, you know, that may be, you know, on one side of the boat if everyone's on the other. So thank you. It's a good question. Thank you.
spk03: Our next question comes from Nina Vitrico. Your line's open.
spk04: Hi, this is Dina on for Nina. Thanks for taking my question. I just had a quick question about are you advanced And what is the current manufacturing turnaround time, and is there any additional optimization ongoing on that front? Thank you.
spk12: Yes, so we are continuously optimizing our process there, and it's an important part of any gene therapy development. We are in the process of tech transfer over to Lonza as a commercial CDMO and are looking to do our best to incorporate that into our pivotal program. So it's an incredibly important area for us.
spk11: Frank, I don't know if there's anything you would add to that.
spk13: I think it's well said, Matt. We view it as a place for continued iteration and improvement up to a point, and then obviously we want to lock it before we launch the pivotal program. I do think that COGS has been an issue for some gene therapies in the past, and we're focused on you know, not just the clinical performance, but the overall product profile that we can deliver there, including the cost of that product to deliver what we think will be, you know, potentially curative efficacy for a broad array of patients with much improved side effect profile. So that's where we're headed at present.
spk11: Thank you. Appreciate the question. Yeah, thank you.
spk03: There's no further question this time. You may continue.
spk12: Great. Well, thank you, everybody, for joining this morning. As I said, it's exciting to do our first earnings call as a public company. I've enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to doing more of these and continuing to provide updates on our business at conferences and other forums. So thank you again. Appreciate all the good questions. I'm looking forward to speaking to everyone soon.
spk03: This concludes today's conference call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.
Disclaimer