Scholar Rock Holding Corporation

Good morning and welcome to Scholar's Rock second quarter financial results and business update call. All participants will be in listen only mode. After the company's prepared remarks, call participants will have an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star, then one and one on your touchtone phone. To answer your question, please press star, then one and one again. Please note this event is being recorded. Before we begin, I'd like to point out that we will be marking various statements about Scholar's Rock's expectations, plans and prospects that constitute forward-looking statements for the purpose of the safe harbour provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any forward-looking statements represent our views only as of today and should not be relied upon as representing our views as of any future date. I encourage you to go to the investors and media section of our website to find our most -to-date SEC statements and filings. A recording of today's event will also be available on our website should you want to re-watch at a later date. I would now like to turn the conference over to Jay Baxter, President and CEO of Scholar Rock. Jay, please go ahead.

Thank you, Sandra. Good morning and welcome to our Scholar Rock's second quarter 2024 business update. On behalf of our team, I'd like to thank you for joining our call. Turning to slide four, the focus of today's call is to highlight our exciting progress in 2024. After my introductory remarks, Jane Marantz, our Chief Medical Officer, will provide an update on our development programs, including a review of the 48-month data from TOEPAS, our Pythagormab Phase II proof of concept study, followed by Mo Katanani, our Chief Scientific Officer, who will review the progress with our SRK 439 program in obesity. I'll close with a summary of upcoming milestones and then open the call up for questions. Moving to slide five, we've made terrific progress over the first half of 2024 and we're on track to achieve all of our key milestones on time or ahead of schedule. The progress with our SMA program has allowed us to continue to advance toward commercialization, a goal that is coming closer into view for our lead product, the Pythagormab, as we remain on track to report the top line results for SAFIRE, our Phase III registration study in Q4. Thanks to the focus and dedication of our study team and the incredible support from our investigators, their clinical study teams, and the families participating in SAFIRE, we are now only a few months away. At Scholar Rock, selectivity was foundational to our approach in designing a Pythagormab and is the hallmark of our differentiated platform. Our research team has been incredibly productive and has delivered and continues to deliver a portfolio of potential medicines that are highly differentiated and with -in-class potential. We focused our leading anti-myostatin programs in areas where we believe we can make substantial advances in care, creating new possibilities for those living with SMA and with obesity, high value therapeutic areas that provide unique opportunities to fuel our growth. It is an exciting time at Scholar Rock. We are at a point in our trajectory where the next 12 to 24 months will be transformative. Turning to slide 6, as a reminder, the scientific foundation for our company was based on deep structural insights that allow us to harness the therapeutic potential of the TGF-Beta superfamily growth factors by hitting the right target at the right time, avoiding unwanted toxicities, and potentially maximizing efficacy. As shown on slide 7, we've applied this highly selective approach and produced a robust pipeline of innovative and differentiated products. Starting with our anti-myostatin programs, Scholar Rock was instrumental in bringing myostatin back into the forefront as a therapeutic target. With the Pythagormab and SMA, we've reestablished myostatin as a neuromuscular target and our emerging data with SRK439 suggest the -in-class potential to address the muscle loss associated with GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment, leading to sustainable healthy weight management and obesity. For our TGF-Beta1 programs with SRK181 and Immuno-Oncology, we have pierced the immunosuppressive armor to overcome checkpoint inhibitor resistance. And for our latent TGF-Beta1 selective monoclonal antibody for fibrosis, now referred to as SRK373, we applied our deep structural insights and antibody engineering expertise to solve a monoclonal antibody designed to uncouple the pro-inflammatory from the pro-fibiotic effects of TGF-Beta1 with the potential to be -in-class in indications such as IPF for TGF-Beta1 and inflammation are key drivers for the disease. As further evidence of our capabilities, we have an elegant monoclonal antibody blocking RGMC, a validated target for unrestricted anemia, and we are excited to advance another neuromuscular program to development candidate for my internal research as we embark on our next wave of innovation. Moving to slide 8, we have been disciplined and focused in our efforts to advance the pipeline to key developmental milestones across all of the therapeutic areas. Starting with neuromuscular disorders for our lead program, epitagromab, the upcoming redot for SAFIRE is just around the corner and we look forward to reporting out the results in Q4. SAFIRE was designed to meet regulatory requirements for approval and to demonstrate both a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference in the primary endpoint of mean change from baseline in the Hammersmith score at 12 months compared to placebo with the ability to capture at least a two-point difference. SAFIRE was optimized for clinical success based on the TOE-PAS Phase II proof of concept study and we're excited to share TOE-PAS 48-month data on today's call. As you will hear from Jing in more detail, the updated TOE-PAS data continue to impress demonstrating sustained clinical benefit through 48 months. The sustained benefit over 48 months is particularly noteworthy when considering the long-term results of nucinursin-treated patients from the Cherry Shine study recently presented by Finkel and colleagues at Cure SMA where the initial functional gains seen with nucinursin show a decline over time highlighting the progressive nature of the disease and the need for additional treatment options such as epitagromab, a muscle-directed therapy. In addition to the sustained functional improvement, the updated data continued to reinforce the safety and tolerability of epitagromab with over 90% remaining on treatment and no new safety findings. Taking together, the 48-month data further reinforce our confidence in SAFIRE study and the potential for epitagromab to improve the lives of those living with SMA. A successful SAFIRE study will allow epitagromab to serve as the foundation for building a neuromuscular franchise and we are planning to extend our efforts in SMA to children under two as well as expanding into other neuromuscular indications. For our cardiometabolic programs, we believe our highly selective approach to blocking the pro and latent forms of myostatin can meaningfully contribute to healthy weight loss management. We formally announced our entry into the cardiometabolic area less than 10 months ago and we've wasted no time in moving our programs forward. Starting with EMBRAISE, our randomized phase two proof of concept study in obesity, assessing epitagromab in combination with a GLP-1 agonist, it is ahead of schedule and we are now positioned to complete enrollment in early Q4 and have updated our guidance for the top line results to Q2 2025. As you'll hear from Mo, the non-clinical data generated to date with SRK439, our novel anti-myostatin, continues to support a potential best in class approach for preserving muscle mass leading to healthy weight loss management. The data presented at ADA add to the body of evidence demonstrating an increase in lean mass and reduced fat mass regain with SRK439 following withdrawal of the GLP-1 receptor agonists. For our -BETA-1 programs with SRK181 and immuno-oncology, we've demonstrated proof of concept and proof of mechanism and overcoming checkpoint inhibitor resistance and we look forward to discussing the next steps with FDA at our end of phase one meeting. For SRK373, our selective latent TGF-BETA monoclonal antibody for fibrosis, we are excited about the best in class potential in indications such as IPF where -BETA-1 and inflammation are key drivers for disease and we look forward to advancing the program to IND. The strength of our platform affords us the opportunity to consider these high value opportunities and to thoughtfully grow and advance our pipeline. It is exciting to see what has become possible given our insights into targeting the TGF-BETA super family of growth factors. Turning to slide nine, as external validation of our innovation, our cutting edge research is increasingly being recognized by the global scientific community. In the last two months alone, our data have been featured at the annual conferences for the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Diabetes Association and most recently our unique selective latent -BETA-1 monoclonal antibody SRK373 was featured in science signaling as further proof of our structural insights leading to potential best in class therapies. As shown in slide 10, we have delivered on all of our key milestones to date and are looking forward to our next major milestone, the top line results for SAFIRE and Q4, a very exciting time at Scalarog. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to our Chief Medical Officer, Jing Marantz, who will provide update on our development programs followed by our Chief Scientific Officer, Mo Katsunani, who will walk us through an update from our research team. Jane?

Thank you, Jay. If we can turn to slide 12, Molly, we have three programs in the clinic. In June, as Jay mentioned, we have updated clinical data on our -on-one program that was featured at an oral session at ASCO. On today's call, I'll focus on the progress of our SMA program, including an update on the 48-month data from TOEPAS and the EMBRACE study in obesity. To start on the left, we have a differentiated approach of selective muscle targeting based on deep insights of how skeletal muscle is regulated. Translating this into the clinic, we saw from the TOEPAS trial substantial and durable benefit across broad SMA patients. Leveraging the learnings TOEPAS, our pivotal study is designed for clinical success. Lastly and importantly, with over 200 patient years of exposure, the safety profile to date has been favorable. With over 90% of our patients with non-embedded SMA remaining on study, both of these observations support the potential for long-term use. Turning to slide 13, before I share the updated data, it's helpful to take a look at the natural trajectory of patients treated with SMA targeted therapy. As Jay mentioned, that recent CuresMA meeting in June, Dr. Finkel and colleagues presented the long-term outcomes data from the Cherish Shine study, which enrolled SMA patients treated with Neusnursin. The orange lines represent the trajectory of patients initially randomized to Neusnursin. As clear from these graphs, motor function as measured by Hemmersmith improved initially. After one to two years, Hemmersmith started to plateau, and over time, it started to decline. The solid orange line on top represents the subgroup of patients who did not have any scoliosis surgery, whereas the dotted orange line represents those who underwent scoliosis surgery during the study. Scoliosis is an abnormal and progressive curvature of the spine that's part of the SMA disease pathology. The condition is commonly managed with surgery. Scoliosis surgery is well known to be a confounding factor that impacts the motor function assessments. Therefore, it's not at all surprising for you to see that the Hemmersmith decline faster for those patients with scoliosis surgery. For this reason, we'll focus on our discussion on data for those without scoliosis surgery. To put things in context, patients enrolled in our TOEPATH study had on average two years of prior Neusnursin treatment that's well into the interval where the Hemmersmith score is expected to plateau or decline. The blue shaded area highlights the relative period of Neusnursin exposure similar to that of TOEPATH patients. Focusing on this solid orange line within this period, over the course of four years for patients without scoliosis surgery, the Hemmersmith score declined greater than one point. The key point here is that despite treatment with a highly effective therapy, the natural trajectory of patients is that of progressive decline after the initial increase. Turning to slide 14, it is in this context I'd like to provide a preview of the updated motor function data from the TOEPATH trial at 48 months. Similar to how we previously shared our 24 months and 36 months data, these bar graphs represent the motor function outcomes measured by Hemmersmith for the pooled non-ambulatory SMA patients ages 2 to 21 on the left and the 2 to 12 subset on the right. Hemmersmith is a validated scale designed specifically for SMA that measures the gross motor function. As mentioned before, scoliosis surgery is the known confounding factor assessment for the surgery after the surgery are censored in our analysis. You can see from these graphs that Hemmersmith continues to improve. The increase that we see at 6 and 12 months was maintained over the course of 48 months. Knowing that the motor function of these patients would otherwise decline at this point of their treatment journey, it is reassuring to see that the motor function benefit that we saw earlier was sustained over the course of 48 months. Turning to the next slide, similar trend was observed for RUM which focuses more on the upper limb function. The improvement in RUM seen at 6 and 12 months continued to strengthen over time and was maintained over 48 months, both in the 2 to 21 group and in the 2 to 12 subset. For patients who are non-ambulatory, continued improvement in their upper limb function is particularly important as it represents their ability to perform activities of daily living, such as their ability to lift a cup or push a button. Turning to slide 16, so taking together the updated TOEPAS data with sustained clinical benefit, consistency of findings and favorable safety profile with low discontinuation rate reinforces our belief that a pitical map has the potential to provide substantial benefit to patients with SMA by directly addressing the underlying muscle pathology. We plan to share additional detail at future medical meetings. Turning to slide 17, notes on the learning of TOEPAS, our pivotal SAFIRE study was designed for clinical success. Here you can see the study schematic to highlight just a few key points. The main advocacy of the population for SAFIRE reflects the population in TOEPAS that showed transformative potential. The primary endpoint is Hemmers-Smith at 12 months, the same as TOEPAS, and the 20-meg dose was chosen based on sustained target engagement and clinical benefits observed from TOEPAS. The trial is designed to demonstrate both statistically and clinically meaningful difference with the ability to capture at least two-point difference on Hemmers-Smith versus Pasebal. Importantly, we have been able to engage with both the FDA and EMA and align with them on key aspects of the study design. This design balances the objective to optimize for clinical success with our effort to be broadly representative of the patient population we're trying to serve. Knowing the natural trajectory of the SMA patients instead of progressive decline over time, despite the initial improvement seen with SMN therapy, we're encouraged to see that clinical benefit from TOEPAS continues to hold. So taken together, we're optimistic about our goal to bring this potential medicine to patients. Now turning to our cardiometabolic clinical program on slide 18, obesity is recognized as a significant need. The rapid adoption of semaglutides and trisapatite has brought about profound benefit to patients with obesity. A key issue that has risen is the significant loss of lean muscle mass associated with its use. Aside from -to-day physical function, muscle plays an important role in energy metabolism and glucose homoestasis, and therefore maintaining appropriate levels of lean muscle is essential to healthy living. As a company with deep expertise in muscle, we're uniquely positioned to address this on-met need. To that end, I'm incredibly proud of our team that worked hard to enable us to initiate the EMBRAISE study ahead of schedule. We're seeing great momentum in our enrollment and now expect to report top line in Q2 of next year. The primary objective of the study is to demonstrate the effect of a selective mild stat inhibitor to preserve lean muscle in the setting of obesity. We also want to confirm that the safety and tolerability profile in the obese population remains favorable, that's supportive of long-term use. And lastly, we're interested in understanding the potential effect across a number of exploratory endpoints, including the effect on metabolic profile and physical function. So, to conclude, the study schematic is shown here. Overweight or obese patients are randomized -to-one to either the combination of a pituitary map plus a GLP agnist or the combination of placebo and a GLP agnist. Treatment duration for the combination is 24 weeks. The primary endpoint is lean muscle mass change from baseline by DEXA scan at 24 weeks. Second, there are endpoints include safety and tolerability, PKPD and other weight loss parameters. Exploratory endpoints on metabolic profile and physical function are also included. The study includes an additional assessment at 32 weeks so we can get a preliminary read of the durability of effect, in other words, the potential effect to attenuate rebound weight gain. With this, I'm delighted to introduce Mo, our Chief Scientific Officer, to show you the exciting science behind our differentiated approach.

Thank you, Jing, and good morning, everyone. Next slide, please. I'm going to start with this slide that emphasizes the points made by J and Jing earlier. We have a highly differentiated platform that is producing innovative and very selective candidates. Combined with our translational expertise, focus and passion, we have translated these innovations to success in the clinic across many therapeutic areas to benefit our patients. First, we developed a particular map, our selective Antelope and Mystatin for SMA, proved its efficacy in translational mouse model, tipped it to the clinic, and as you heard earlier, we have very promising data from our topaz trial in SMA patients where we saw substantial and improvement in motor function over 48 months with superb safety profile, and we look forward to seeing our Phase III SAFIRE trial data in Q4. Second, we developed SRK1 at 1, our selective Antelope and TGF Beta 1 antibody to overcome primary resistance to checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced solid tumors. We have shown its efficacy in multiple preclinical translational models, took it to the clinic where we showed promising efficacy across multiple tumor types in our Phase IB Dragon trial, as was highlighted in our recent oral presentation at ASCO. Moving to SRK439, our selective Antelope and Mystatin antibody that is designed for obesity. We showed its ability to preserve muscle mass and improve the metabolic profile during GLP1-induced weight loss in multiple studies in translational obese mouse models. We will be highlighting data that we recently shared in an oral presentation at the American Diabetes Association on this call, and we look forward to filing an IND in 2025 and advancing into the clinic. Finally, we developed SRK373, our selective highly differentiated Antelope and TGF Beta 1 antibody that has the added selectivity of inhibiting TGF Beta 1 only when presented in the matrix of tissues, but not immune cells. Given this unique mechanism, a potential efficacy and safety advantage in fibroidic diseases. We showed efficacy of this molecule in multiple translational fibroidic disease models, including lung, renal, and liver fibrosis. This was recently highlighted in a publication featured on the cover of Science Signaling, and we look forward to filing an IND in 2026 and testing this unique and differentiated mechanism in the clinic. Slide 22. Focusing on SRK439, we have strong scientific validation and clinical evidence that gives us confidence in its potential to drive healthier weight management during GLP1-induced weight loss. We have shown pre-clinically in a translational obesity mouse model that SRK439 leads to preservation of lean mass during GLP1-induced weight loss, solving one of the biggest challenges in this area. This was also accompanied by improvements in metabolic profile, namely an additional 20% reduction in blood glucose levels on top of the reduction seen with GLP1 treatment alone. That data was shared at a Keystone meeting earlier this year. We also showed pre-clinically that treatment with SRK439 leads to an increase in lean mass and attenuation of fat mass regain following GLP1 withdrawal, leading to improved body composition. This addresses another key challenge of GLP1 receptor treatment, namely the durability of effects after treatment cessation. We will highlight some of that data today. Finally, in a pre-clinical -to-head study in the same diet-induced obesity model, we showed that SRK439 is superior to the non-selective receptor antibody that is currently being tested in the clinic. As highlighted earlier, muscle is critical for overall health, and the ability of SRK439 to preserve muscle during weight loss highlights the potential it can play in driving healthier weight management and better outcomes in obese patient population. Next slide. In addition to loss of lean mass during weight loss, another key challenge of incretin or GLP1-induced weight loss is the durability of effect and the loss of benefits upon cessation of treatment. This slide highlights the ability of SRK439 to address this challenge in translational obesity mouse model. The graph on the upper left shows lean mass in different treatment groups during -glutide-induced weight loss or upon semi-glutide withdrawal. As you can see in the blue bar, semi-glutide treatment led to considerable lean mass during the treatment phase of 35 days as expected. Co-treatment with SRK439 led to the preservation of the lean mass during the semi-glutide

treatment phase, as you can see in the green line. In addition, animals treated with SRK439 had significantly

higher lean mass after discontinuation of semi-glutide if you compare the green line versus the blue line between days 35 and the end of the study. The lower graph shows the fat mass change during the study. Cessation of semi-glutide treatment on day 35 leads to rapid rebound effect and fat mass regain as expected. Co-treatment with SRK439 led to attenuation of the fat mass regain following semi-glutide withdrawal, as you can see when comparing the blue line for semi-glutide along alone and the green line for SRK439. This slide shows the behavioral body composition in the SRK439 treated animals versus controls upon semi-glutide withdrawal at the end of the study. In the graph on the left, animals treated with SRK439 had higher proportion of lean mass after cessation of semi-glutide treatment as you can see in the green bar versus the blue bar. In addition, if you look on the significantly lower regain in the fat mass percentage versus the IGG control in the blue bar. Hence, SRK439 treatment led to a more favorable overall body composition at the end of the withdrawal period. This highlights the potential of SRK439 in addressing a key challenge in the GLP-1 induced weight loss by supporting a more durable weight management with a more favorable and healthier body composition. Slide. This is data we recently shared during our investor event in May where we highlighted the competitive profile of SRK439 versus the non-selective MySTIAN approach of another model. This is a -to-head study in the translational diet induced obesity mouse model and the graph is showing the percent change in lean mass upon semi-glutide treatment. As expected, semi-glutide led to significant reduction in lean mass as you can see in the blue bar on the left. SRK439 treatment led to preservation of lean mass dose-dependently and with doses as low as .3 mpKg as you can see in the bars in green. Muscle preservation was achieved at significantly lower doses than the anti-active interceptor antibody where we see lean mass preservation only at the highest dose tested of 20 mpKg as you can see in the bars in green. It is worth noting that we see equivalent lean mass preservation at the 1 mpKg dose level of SRK439 versus the 20 mpKg dose for the anti-active receptor antibody. Treatment with SRK439 also was associated with enhancement of fat mass loss. This highlights the competitive profile of SRK439 with superb efficacy in preserving muscle mass and enhancing loss of fat mass while avoiding the potential liabilities of non-selective approaches. This also supports a -in-class subcutaneous profile versus SRK439. Next slide. Finally, we are leveraging our expertise in myosin and the ability to develop anti-myosin antibodies with exquisite selectivity to test our hypothesis and inform our obesity program. Since a particular map is already in the clinic, it allows us to test this hypothesis really quickly in a clinical setting through our EMBRACE proof of concept study. This will demonstrate that a selective anti-myosin has the ability to preserve lean mass and influence metabolic parameters in the context of obesity during GLP-1 induced spay loss. We announced during our investor day back in May that we initiated the trial ahead of schedule and the trial isn't rolling well. So we now anticipate top-line data in the second quarter of 2025. We will use our learnings from the EMBRACE trial to inform and potentially accelerate the development of SRK439 where we expect to file an IMD in 2025. Now I'll hand it back to Jay.

Well, thank you, Mo. So in closing, it is an exciting time for ScholarRock. We have met or exceeded all of our goals to date, including conducting a prime pre-submission meeting with EMA in preparation for our European submission for a Pythagormab, initiating EMBRACE, continuing to advance SRK439 to IMD, and we're looking forward to the top-line readout for SAFIRE as our next activities in preparation for commercialization. Overall, a great time for ScholarRock. That concludes our formal presentation. Sandra will now open the call up for questions.

Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To answer your question, please press star 1-1 again. We will now take the first question from the line of Michael Yee from Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Hello, good morning. Thank you guys for the update. We had two questions. First, obviously, you are reading out in SMA, the pivotal study, and some others are also reading out all around the same time. I guess I just wanted to understand your view on one of the competitors, Roche, because I think their antibody is similar. I just wanted to understand if you have seen or believe there are any differences in that study design or readout, how to think about that as it relates to your readout also coming around the same time. On the obesity side, I wanted to first understand, are you stratifying with terzepatide and SMA? I notice you are offering both, and those drugs do have different effects. I wanted to know if you are stratifying, and do you expect that your drug will completely eliminate the lean muscle loss, and that is your base case for both of those drugs in your readout? Thank you.

All right, so Michael, maybe I'll go ahead and tackle this. This is Jay. I'll tackle the first question about the upcoming readouts. Clearly, we are excited to report out our top line in Q4. What we have seen as we follow our others in the space, Roche in particular, they continue to suggest that they are going to report out from their early phase of the study, so they are really establishing dose and effect, as opposed to reporting out their top line phase 3 trial, which is ongoing. The most recent update that I am aware of is that they are targeting somewhere in the 2026 or beyond phase. I think it will be interesting to see their results, but clearly in a different place, and to remind them they are studying only with RISDAPLAM, where we are agnostic to both Nissenersen and RISDAPLAM. With respect to EMBRACE, Jane can answer, but since I am going to comment, no, we didn't stratify by semaglutide or terzepatide in this concept study. We are interested in seeing the effect on both. We think we should have an effect on both, similar to our SMA program. We think we should be agnostic to treatment. We will see. I think ultimately the amount of preservation for lean muscle will be interesting. I think what you saw from Mo is that the data presented at ADA were very impressive, because it did show that we did actually maintain and preserve, and then of course we saw continued increase in lean muscle mass upon succession. I think those results likely will be reproduced in clinic, but again we are running the proof of concept to see. So looking forward to telling you the top line results. I am glad we are going fast. The team is impressive. We have accelerated the enrollments and looking forward to reporting our top line for both.

Thank you. Thank you. We will now take the next question. From the line of David Nierengarten from Woodford Securities, please go ahead.

Thanks for taking the question. It's on epitomograv and SMA. When you look at the longer term data, is there any effect that should be attributed to the children aging or are you confident in the potential still from the base case or from background therapy, from the historical clinical studies?

Thanks. Maybe I will start if King wants to add about the historical data. It's really interesting. I think the beauty, David, as I see it with the epitogrammab program is that given the safety and tolerability, that this can be chronic treatment for children with SMA. If we think about physiology for maintaining and enhancing muscle growth and function, it would be optimal to see that continue through growth and development of these children as they get into young adults and hopefully maintain their activity of daily living and in fact, if not, improve it further. I think it's likely a combination. I think the fact that we are continuing treatment is to the good. Again, what Jing said is very, very encouraging. We are very impressed as we continue to see the maintenance and sustained effect over time, particularly in light of the decline that you see with Nusineursin. I don't know if Jing wanted to add to that.

I think you covered most of it, Jay. A couple of things to add. One is that mechanistically, I think Jay pointed out this as well, mouse deading has been a large body of literature that really speaks to the effect of the mouse deading regulating muscle throughout life from early development all the way through adulthood. That has been well documented. An application of mouse deading has had no documented negative effect. That's true in animals and in humans. That's point number one. Point number two is that the question, I think Jay addressed this, there is probably a component of the development. However, what's really important is that the patient population that I showed you and Dr. Finkel and colleagues presented are very similar patients. If you look at the topaz patients from the patient age, the duration of prior therapy and also the type of patients enrolled in baseline functional status, all of those things point out that these patients are very similar. Compared to what these patients are otherwise expected to do, we're very encouraged to see continued benefit hold. Thank

you. We will now take the next question from the line of Etzer Darwood from BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks for taking a question. Just a couple here. As we approach the top line, I just wondered if you had any updated insights on potential access or pair dynamics for the use of the PedigreeMap to standard of care? Will you need data in hand for more productive conversations? As you advance SRK 373, 4-5, and look across your TGF data portfolio as it grows, how are you thinking about continuing to develop these assets relative to the focus anti-myostatin things?

Yeah, very good. Let me start with the top line and pair interaction. We've had preliminary pair interactions we've shared in previous calls and of course we continue to do that. I do think that there is the prior precedent set with the current therapy, so I do think that gives us some insight into the value of functional gains in these children and the ability to add and enhance that. Of course, we'll continue with more pair interactions as we have the top line data. As you point out, of course, that gives us a more rich and robust discussion, but I do feel from what I've seen so far, very pleased with the preliminary interactions and the recognition that these children need additional care. I think that is further reinforced by the updated data that we've seen from Cherish and Shine. It's really interesting. We've talked a bit about what to expect from the natural history. We've been looking for sources to give us information around it. We've said repeatedly that we expected it to plateau the Nusenersen effect, but we did believe everything we've heard and talked to from the community and in physicians, there is an inherent progressive nature to this disease and in fact the long-term data show that. That's the evidence behind what we've been believing. If you put that together with the data that we're sharing with Topaz, where we're able to maintain and sustain, I think that will translate well into the payer interaction. Then with respect to the pipeline and where to go next, I spent some time on this call talking about the pipeline. I've been here now going on two years. I love the pipeline. I love what Mo and team have done and it's really finding the opportunity to really further advance. I think our strategic decisions to go into the anti-myostatin spaces will prove to be very good as we see the upcoming SMA data and the obesity data feel very good about the -Beta-1 data. It's extraordinarily interesting to me. I think what we started to highlight, programs that I've touched on but really not spoke a lot about, I think we're coming into a phase of our growth as a company that we will have more and more opportunity to further invest behind the pipeline. What I believe really holds enormous promise and great value. More to come as we go forward for the year. Again, to be clear to everyone listening, first and foremost, very focused company. Very deliberately focusing on myostatin and I'm really pleased with the team and their dedication to get us close to the readout for SAFIRE. It's really very exciting. It's a very good time for us.

Thank you.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of test. Romero from JP Morgan. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Jayantin. Thanks so much for taking our question. The first question from us is on the longer-term data that you presented this morning. Can you tell us a little bit more about the distribution of the inputs on the hammersmith and what might be driving that meetup from 36 to 48 months, particularly in the 2 to 12 age group? Just curious, how wide has that range of observation been and has this increased or decreased with time? Then the second question we had was just if you could let us know what percent of patients have seen at least a three-point of improvement for the age 2 to 21 group. I think it was about 39% as of 36 months. Then if I can just ask on timing for SAFIRE, is there any clarification you can give us on time between last patient out, which I think would be in September, and a possible top-line result? Can you give us any kind of like what needs to be done in that timeframe? Thanks so much.

Yeah, so, Jayantin, maybe I'll tackle those. You have really good questions about the granularity around the updated 48-month data. And as Jing mentioned on the call, we have plans to really advance that and get that at a medical meeting where we can go with much more granularity about the detail, the distribution, the percent that have achieved a three-point change. Just recall when we were asked about 48-month data at the beginning of the year, we were planning, we know this is an important data set, we were planning to do it just not now. We were able to do it now, frankly, because the team has just been so incredibly driving toward getting us in good shape for SAFIRE. I didn't want to distract them from the SAFIRE data. That's critical to us. The 48-month data is really important, but on a priority list, SAFIRE took priority. They're delivering beautifully tests, so that allowed us to update the 48-month data. So as Jing said, this is a bit of a snapshot, so more to come. We'll give you more detail as we get this in front of a medical meeting. And then that goes to your second part of the question, not to distract this team from where they're going and how to get there. The classic is we've got to clean and lock the database and be sure that the data meets all the quality checks that we have to for registration. So there's some established timeframes in there. I'm not going to give any more granularity on the timing in Q4, just to say this team is driving to get us there as quickly as possible with high quality to be able to allow us to really stand behind the integrity of the data. They've done a fabulous job to date. And I hope you get energy from me on this call. These teams are really driving. We are driving. We're focused. We're delivering. So we'll get it as soon as we can test, coming soon, as I said in my remarks.

Okay. Thanks so much for taking our questions. Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Gary Natchman from Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Good morning. So the SAFIRE Phase 3 study is only after 12 months, but if positive, do you think the label could potentially include some of this longer-term data from Topaz that's pretty compelling and really important for these SMA patients that could also help the case with the payers? And then secondly, just on obesity, if you'll have data from EMBRAISE in the second quarter of next year, how soon will you be able to file the IND for 439? I'm assuming it's soon after, but what would the gating factor there be? Thank you.

Yeah, good question. So let me start, Gary, with the first one about the long-term data from Topaz.

Clearly,

we find these data of interest. And like you, I think they're meaningful for a variety of perspectives. From the regulatory perspective, you think about it, the safety and tolerability is essential, and that will clearly contribute to our safety profile and expect to see that for the FDA and EMA looking for that data to help them with that benefit-risk assessment. And we will do everything we can to optimize the opportunity for that to be in the regulatory review to support the application. Where we move to the payer piece, I think, as you know, in those interactions, publication data, the additional data that we have, that entire data set will be open and available to them to review. And to add to your comment, because I do think it's important, we think about the benefit for patients that is sustained over time. My past experience in the payer interactions, that that's a meaningful data point that patients continue to benefit. So we'll definitely maximize that in those interactions. And then from the SRK 439 program, again, these are in parallel. So Simone and his team, we're really driving toward the IND. We're doing the IND-enabling tox work. So that is kind of maybe the gate to it, do we get that done? But it's on track and on schedule. And as we shared at the beginning of our discussion and our journey into the obesity space, we're targeting sometime mid-year next year. So they'll be pretty concurrent, although with the speed with which the EMBRACE team has enrolled, it's likely we'll report those data out in advance. It will certainly support the target in our strategy, which will be helpful. And we'll include that in the IND interactions.

All right, great. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Sri Kripa Devarakonda from Tris Securities. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Thank you so much for taking my question. I

know you just started enrolling for the obesity study with EpineutraMab. It looks like you're seeing better enrollment than expected. I was wondering if you can provide a little bit more color, if possible, on what sort of patients seem to be the target for this. And also, you're targeting the certain ratio between overweight and obese patients. Does it matter? And given the, just following up on an earlier question, the terzapotide and semaglutide, they have slightly different profiles. So is there anything you took into account in terms of trial powering assumptions about the distribution between terzapotide and semaglutide? Thank you.

Yeah, good question. So, Kripa, this is Jay. Maybe I'll start with the trial design and then have Jing add on to it and talk about sort of the patient population that's being included in this study. Again, this is a proof of concept study. So we really want to be able to kind of see an effect on that preservation of lean muscle mass. I think to your points, terzapotide and semaglutide both have the effect. I think the speed with which you see that decline differs between the two. And so there may be some difference in terms of when you can detect our ability to preserve that. But I think seeing the effect on either of those groups would be helpful. So we considered it, but we didn't really, as the earlier question came from, on the call, we didn't stratify by that for the study, but we believe that we'll be able to demonstrate the effect that we expect to see. And then Jing, about the population that we've included in the EMBRE's study.

Yeah, so, Kripa, we did not strive for a particular ratio for the overweight versus the obese population. Just importantly, the objective for the study is really to have a quick proof of concept, as I mentioned, really just to kind of assess the ability to preserve lean muscle in the context of GOP agnist. And as to your second question about the ratio between, you know, the difference between semaglutide and terzapotide, our view is to, you know, we do not think there's a fundamental difference between those two. If you look at the degree of weight reduction, I think terzapotide probably has a greater degree of weight reduction, but the overall safety profile are quite similar between the two. And the proportion of the lean muscle loss in the context of GOP1 are very similar between the two. Their ability to kind of reduce cardiovascular risk, and both studies have showed that. So in our view, it's basically, it's more thinking about the pathway of those GOP agonism to, you know, lose weight, but then lose muscle along that, and how do we counter that so we can preserve lean muscle? That's really the primary objective, and the trial is set up to do that. And so therefore, that's our focus.

Okay, great. And then just one more follow-up question on that. So, this is a proof of concept study. Your primary endpoint is change from baseline and lean mass by DEXIS-CAN. By the time you're ready to do a pivotal trial, do you expect any update or change in FDA guidance in terms of how to develop, you know, muscle preservation drugs, or do you think you have all you need at this point of time?

Yeah, Kripa, this is Jay. I think the answer's going to be, it's going to be an evolving field, and I think FDA will begin to take into consideration the strategies to really have healthy weight loss management. Although, as you know, I think regulatory change tends to be delayed, so whether we get greater insight as we go forward remains to be seen. Having said that, I feel very good about the information we've received to date from the FDA. I think we need to demonstrate clinical benefit in addition, and I think as you see from Moe, and what really gets me excited is we're walking through what Moe and his team are doing on the non-clinical data. I'd just ask you to take a look at that. It's starting to foreshadow where we could take this medicine, right? We have an effect on glucose metabolism. That's a clear measure of clinical benefit. The data at the ADA showed that we preserve the lean muscle. In fact, we maintain the lean muscle and, in fact, increase the lean muscle mass upon withdrawal of maglotide, and we mitigate the weight rebound, the fat rebound. So you're seeing opportunities where what we've been saying is sustainable, and I think we can find strategies either on the maintenance side or in combination to really position, I think, those trying to lose weight to not lose it at the expense of muscle, which plays such a critical role in metabolism.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We will now take the last question from the line of Mark from TD Cohen. Please go ahead.

I think for taking my questions, a lot of them have already been answered, but maybe to follow up on Mike's question right at the beginning, just on these kind of differences between the molecules and the trial designs in SMA, do you guys view that those differences are so significant that they're very likely to lead to completely different outcomes for trials in terms of just outright failing to reach such a significance or succeeding in other cases? Or do you think these are likely to be just more subtle aspects of the overall kind of profile that you're able to market to, that each company might be able to market to in terms of how big that efficacy signal really is and obviously the safety profile? Then I'll have a follow-up question after that.

Yeah. Okay. Sorry, Mark. This is Jay.

Yeah, so talking about the differences in the profiles of the programs, because I got a side distraction as you were answering the question. I want to make sure I got it correctly in terms of what's expected to be seen from each of the different profiles.

Yeah.

Is

it significant enough that it's going to be very important to success failure or do you view it's more subtle as to just how impressive the data is going to be?

Yeah, it's really interesting. I mean, to start first and foremost, again, I made a comment about we're treating children and young adults and we have plans to move even into earlier ages, under two, right? So if you think about that, as everything we've said about our strategy, safety really trumps. You've got to be able to have a safe therapy. You've got to be able to administer it. It's got to be able to be administered without regard for growth and development. And we've been able to demonstrate that across. So safety is really paramount. I think that there is differences in terms of each of the strategies, but I like our strategy on the safety side. So let's start there. I think with respect to kind of what to see from the efficacy side, again, I think we've selected the Hammersmith scale for a reason. It was what's used for Nussenaursen. There are other motor scales, but quite honestly, from the field, I believe this is the gold standard and we're really looking forward to reporting out our data against that gold standard measures. So I think that's important. I think the tolerability, which is linked back to safety, but the tolerability will be critical as I think about it from a payer interaction and our ability to commercialize. We have seen very little, if any, drop from our topaz data going forward. That really is impressive. I recall from a previous setting that I was in and the CEO at the time would make a comment that he doesn't know what the median duration of treatment is because patients are still on. So if you just think about the implication to that, I think we're really doing well. I'm not sure that's true across the other programs. We'll see. But I like where we're going. And then the final point is I do like that we're agnostic to treatment. I think that is really important. This is an established market with several players. We have an opportunity, as you'll see going forward, to really show this in the background of gene therapy, not just SMN upregulating therapy. I think that is a really good place to play because we're neutral in terms of the choice. And I think that maximizes our opportunity to go forward. So all of those things together, I feel really good about where we are. And frankly, like you, looking forward to being able to tell you the top line results.

Okay. That's helpful. And then just, obviously, we're hoping that the trial will be positive. But can you just ask what else you may need to gather to be ready to file that BLA? Is it really just the data and writing it up? Or are there other things on the CMC side that still need to come in-house?

Yeah. As you know, with most applications, this is a work in progress. The beauty of it is that we've been preparing the BLA over the last 12 to 18 months, to be honest. There's sections that you complete and do. The non-clinical sections, that work is done. Those reports are written. They're being included. The CMC team is doing their CMC work and PPQ runs and getting all that stuff. So that's running beautifully. And then the clinical team is really working to populate the modules. There's some things that we will incorporate. The topaz data was raised earlier by Gary. Definitely, we're going to include that in our application. But that data, while it's evolving, we have enough to put in there. So all of that is coming together beautifully. We were pleased and very fortunate to have a really outstanding head of regulatory come in. And he's just done a fabulous job of getting us ready for submission. So Jing and team are flying. Mo's team is hustling. And the rest of us are trying to keep up with them,

Mark. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Thank

you. There are no further questions at this time.

Okay. Well, listen, thank you all. We're going to close the call. Thanks for your interest. And I appreciate you joining us today.

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect. Okay. Good morning and welcome to School Arts Rock second quarter financial results and business update call. All participants will be in listen only mode. After the company's prepared remarks, call participants will have an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star, then one and one on your touchstone phone. To answer your question, please press star, then one and one again. Please note this event is being recorded. Before we begin, I'd like to point out that we will be marking various statements about School Arts Rock's expectations, plans and prospects that constitute forward looking statements for the purpose of the safe harbor provisions under the private security litigation reform act of 1995. Any forward looking statements represent our views only as of today and should not be relied upon as representing our views as of any future date. I encourage you to go to the investors and media section of our website to find our most up to date SEC statements and filings. A recording of today's event will also be available on our website should you want to rewatch at a later date. I would now like to turn the conference over to Jay Baxter, president and CEO of School of Rock. Jay, please go ahead.

Thank you, Sandra. Good morning and welcome to our School of Rock's second quarter 2024 business update. On behalf of our team, I'd like to thank you for joining our call. Turning to slide four, the focus of today's call is to highlight our exciting progress in 2024. After my introductory remarks, our chief medical officer will provide an update on our development programs including a review of the 48-month data from topaz, our phase two proof of concept study. Followed by our chief scientific officer who will review the progress with our SRK 439 program in obesity. I'll close with a summary of upcoming milestones and then open the call up for questions. Moving to slide five, we've made terrific progress over the first half of 2024 and we're on track to achieve all of our key milestones on time or ahead of schedule. The progress with our SMA program has allowed us to continue to advance toward commercialization, a goal that is coming closer into view for our lead product, the Pidegram app, as we remain on track to report top line results for SAFIRE, our phase three registration study in Q4. Thanks to the focus and dedication of our study team and the incredible support from our investigators, their clinical study teams and the families participating in SAFIRE, we are now only a few months away. At Scholar Rock, selectivity was foundational to our approach in designing a Pidegram app and is the hallmark of our differentiated platform. Our research team has been incredibly productive and has delivered and continues to deliver a portfolio of potential medicines that are highly differentiated and with best in class potential. We focused our industry leading anti-myostatin programs in areas where we believe we can make substantial advances in care, creating new possibilities for those living with SMA and with obesity, high value therapeutic areas that provide unique opportunities to fuel our growth. It is an exciting time at Scholar Rock. We are at a point in our trajectory where the next 12 to 24 months will be transformative. Turning to slide six, as a reminder, the scientific foundation for our company was based on deep structural insights that allow us to harness the therapeutic potential of the TGF-Beta super family of growth factors by hitting the right target at the right time, avoiding unwanted toxicities and potentially maximizing efficacy. As shown on slide seven, we've applied this highly selective approach and produced a robust pipeline of innovative and differentiated products. Starting with our anti-myostatin programs, Scholar Rock was instrumental in bringing myostatin back into the forefront as a therapeutic target. With the Pidegram app and SMA, we've reestablished myostatin as a neuromuscular target and our emerging data with SRK439 suggest the best in class potential to address the muscle loss associated with GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment, leading to sustainable healthy weight management and obesity. For our TGF-Beta1 programs with SRK181 and immunoncology, we have pierced the immunosuppressive armor to overcome checkpoint inhibitor resistance. And for our latent TGF-Beta1 selective monoclonal antibody for fibrosis, now referred to as SRK373, we applied our deep structural insights and antibody engineering expertise to solve a riddle that has not been done before. SRK373 is the first monoclonal antibody designed to uncouple the pro-inflammatory from the pro-fibrotic effects of TGF-Beta1 with the potential to be best in class in indications such as IPF or TGF-Beta1 and inflammation are key drivers for the disease. As further evidence of our capabilities, we have an elegant monoclonal antibody blocking RGMC, a validated target for unrestricted anemia, and we are excited to advance another neuromuscular program to development candidate from our internal research as we embark on our next wave of innovation. Moving to slide 8, we have been disciplined and focused in our efforts to advance the pipeline to key developmental milestones across all of the therapeutic areas. Starting with neuromuscular disorders for our lead program, epitagromab, the upcoming readout for SAFIRE is just around the corner and we look forward to reporting out the top line results in Q4. SAFIRE was designed to meet regulatory requirements for approval and to demonstrate both a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference in the primary endpoint of mean change from baseline in the Hammersmith score at 12 months compared to placebo with the ability to capture at least a two-point difference. SAFIRE was optimized for clinical success based on the TOE-PAS Phase II proof of concept study and we're excited to share the TOE-PAS 48-month data on today's call. As you will hear from Jing in more detail, the updated TOE-PAS data continue to impress, demonstrating sustained clinical benefit through 48 months. The sustained benefit over 48 months particularly noteworthy when considering the long-term results of nucin-erson treated patients from the Cherry Shine study recently presented by Finkel and colleagues at Cure SMA where the initial functional gains seen with nucin-erson show a decline over time, highlighting the progressive nature of the disease and the need for additional treatment options such as epitagromab, a muscle-directed therapy. In addition to the sustained functional improvement, the updated data continue to reinforce the safety and tolerability of epitagromab with over 90% remaining on treatment and no new safety findings. Taking together the 48-month data further reinforce our confidence in the SAFIRE study and the potential for epitagromab to improve the lives of those living with SMA. A successful SAFIRE study will allow epitagromab to serve as the for building a neuromuscular franchise and we are planning to extend our efforts in SMA to children under two as well as expanding into other neuromuscular indications. For our cardiometabolic programs we believe our highly selective approach to blocking the pro and latent forms of myostatin can meaningfully contribute to healthy weight loss management. We formally announced our entry into the cardiometabolic area less than 10 months ago and we've wasted no time in moving our programs forward. Starting with EMBRAISE our randomized phase two proof of concept study in obesity assessing epitagromab in combination with a GLP-1 agonist. It is ahead of schedule and we are now positioned to complete enrollment in early Q4 and have updated our guidance for the top line results to Q2 2025. As you'll hear from Mo, the non-clinical data generated to date with SRK439, our novel anti-myostatin, continues to support a potential -in-class approach for preserving muscle mass leading to healthy weight loss management. The data presented at ADA add to the body of evidence demonstrating an increase in lean mass and reduced fat mass regain with SRK439 following withdrawal of the GLP-1 receptor agonists. For our -BETA-1 programs with SRK181 and immunoncology we've demonstrated proof of concept and proof of mechanism and overcoming checkpoint inhibitor resistance and we look forward to discussing the next steps with FDA at our end of phase one meeting. For SRK373, our selective latent TGF-BETA monoclonal antibody for fibrosis, we are excited about the -in-class potential in indications such as IPF where -BETA-1 and inflammation are key drivers for disease and we look forward to advancing the program to IND. The strength of our platform affords us the opportunity to consider these high-value opportunities and to thoughtfully grow and advance our pipeline. It is exciting to see what has become possible given our insights into targeting the TGF-BETA super family of growth factors. Turning to slide nine, as external validation of our innovation, our cutting-edge research is increasingly being recognized by the global scientific community. In the last two months alone our data have been featured at the annual conferences for the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Diabetes Association and most recently our unique selective latent -BETA-1 monoclonal antibody SRK373 was featured in science signaling as further proof of our structural insights leading to potential -in-class therapies. As shown in slide 10, we have delivered on all of our key milestones to date and are looking forward to our next major milestone, the top-line results for SAFIRE and Q4, a very exciting time at Scalarog. And with that I'm pleased to turn the call over to our Chief Medical Officer, Jane Morantz, who will provide an update on our development programs followed by our Chief Scientific Officer, Mo Katsunani, who will walk us through an update from our research team. Jane?

Thank you, Jay. If we can turn to slide 12, Molly. We have three programs in the clinic. In June, as Jay mentioned, we have updated clinical data on our 101 program that was featured at an oral session at ASCO. On today's call, I'll focus on the progress of our SMA program, including an update on the 48-month data from TOEPAS and the EMBRACE study in obesity. To start on the left, we have a differentiated approach of selective muscle targeting based on deep insights of how skeletal muscle is regulated. Translating this into the clinic, we saw from the TOEPAS trial substantial and durable benefit across broad SMA patients. Leveraging the learnings from TOEPAS, our pivotal study is designed for clinical success. Lastly and importantly, with over 200 patient years of exposure, the safety profile to date has been favorable. With over 90% of our patients with non-epidemiote SMA remaining on study, both of these observations support the potential for long-term use. Turning to slide 13, before I share the updated data, it's helpful to take a look at the natural trajectory of patients treated with SMN targeted therapy. As Jay mentioned, that recent cure SMA meeting in June, Dr. Finkel and colleagues presented the long-term outcomes data from the Charish-Shine study which enrolled SMA patients treated with Nus-Nursen. The orange lines represent the trajectory of patients initially randomized to Nus-Nursen. As clear from these graphs, motor function as measured by Hemmers-Smith improved initially. After one to two years, Hemmers-Smith started to plateau and over time it started to decline. The solid orange line on top represents the subgroup of patients who did not have any scoliosis surgery, whereas the dotted orange line represents those who underwent scoliosis surgery during the study. Scoliosis is an abnormal and progressive curvature of the spine that's part of the SMA disease pathology. The condition is commonly managed with surgery. Scoliosis surgery is well known to be a confounding factor that impacts the motor function assessments. Therefore, it's not at all surprising for you to see that the Hemmers-Smiths declined faster for those patients with scoliosis surgery. For this reason, we'll focus on our discussion on data for those without scoliosis surgery. To put things in context, patients enrolled in our TOE-PAS study had on average two years of prior Nus-Nursen treatment that's well into the interval where the Hemmers-Smith score is expected to plateau or decline. The blue shaded area highlights the relative period of Nus-Nursen exposure similar to that of TOE-PAS patients. Focusing on this solid orange line within this period, over the course of four years for patients without scoliosis surgery, the Hemmers-Smith score declined greater than one point. The key point here is that despite treatment with a highly effective therapy, the natural trajectory of these patients is that of progressive decline after the initial increase. So turning to slide 14, it is in this context I'd like to provide a preview of the updated motor function data from the TOE-PAS trial at 48 months. Similar to how we previously shared our 24 months and 36 months data, these bar graphs represent the motor function outcomes measured by Hemmers-Smith for the pooled non-ambulatory SMA patients ages 2 to 21 on the left and the 2 to 12 subset on the right. Hemmers-Smith is a validated scale designed specifically for SMA that measures the gross motor function. As mentioned before, scoliosis surgery is the known confounding factor assessment for the surgery after the surgery are censored in our analysis. You can see from these graphs that Hemmers-Smith continues to improve. The increase that we see at 6 and 12 months was maintained over the course of 48 months. Knowing that the motor function of these patients would otherwise decline at this point of their treatment journey, it is reassuring to see that the motor function benefit that we saw earlier was sustained over the course of 48 months. Turning to the next slide, similar trend was observed for RUM which focuses more on the upper limb function. The improvement in RUM seen at 6 and 12 months continued to strengthen over time and was maintained over 48 months, both in the 2 to 21 group and in the 2 to 12 subset. For patients who are non-ambulatory, continued improvement in their upper limb function is particularly important as it represents their ability to perform activities of daily living, such as their ability to lift a cup or push in a button. Turning to slide 16, so taking together the updated TOEBHAS data with sustained clinical benefit, consistency of findings, and favorable safety profile with low discontinuation rate, reinforces our belief that a PITCOR map has the potential to provide substantial benefit to patients with SMA by directly addressing the underlying muscle pathology. We plan to share additional detail at future medical meetings. Turning to slide 17, those on the learning of TOEBHAS, our pivotal SAFIRE study was designed for clinical success. Here you can see the study schematic to highlight just a few key points. The main efficacy population for SAFIRE reflects the population in TOEBHAS that showed transformative potential. The primary endpoint is hemorrhagic at 12 months, the same as TOEBHAS, and the 20-meg dose was chosen based on sustained target engagement and clinical benefit observed from TOEBHAS. The trial is designed to demonstrate both statistically and clinically meaningful difference with the ability to capture at least two-point difference on hemorrhagic versus placebo. Importantly, we have been able to engage with both the FDA and EMA and align with them on key aspects of the study design. This design balances the objective to optimize for clinical success with our effort to be broadly representative of the patient population we're trying to serve. Knowing the natural trajectory of the SMA patients instead of progressive decline over time, despite the initial improvement seen with SMN therapy, we're encouraged to see that clinical benefit from TOEBHAS continues to hold. So taken together, we're optimistic about our goal to bring this potential medicine to patients. Now turning to our cardiometabolic clinical program on slide 18. Obesity is recognized as a significant omet need. The rapid adoption of semaglutite and trisapatite has brought about profound benefit to patients with obesity. A key issue that has risen is the significant loss of muscle mass associated with its use. Aside from -to-day physical function, muscle plays an important role in energy metabolism and glucose homeostasis. And therefore, maintaining appropriate levels of lean muscle is essential to healthy living. As a company with deep expertise in muscle, we're uniquely positioned to address this omet need. To that end, I'm incredibly proud of our team that worked hard to enable us to initiate the EMBRAISE study ahead of schedule. We're seeing great momentum in our enrollment and now expect to report top line in Q2 of next year. The primary objective of the study is to demonstrate the effect of a selective mild stat inhibitor to preserve lean muscle in the setting of obesity. We also want to confirm that the safety and tolerability profile in the obese population remains favorable, thus supportive of long-term use. And lastly, we're interested in understanding the potential effect across a number of exploratory endpoints, including the effect on metabolic profile and physical function. So to conclude, the study schematic is shown here. Overweight or obese patients are randomized -to-one to either the combination of a pituitary map plus a GLP agnus or the combination of placebo and a GLP agnus. Treatment duration for the combination is 24 weeks. The primary endpoint is lean muscle mass change from baseline by DEXA scan at 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints include safety and tolerability, PKPD, and other weight loss parameters. Exploratory endpoints on metabolic profile and physical function are also included. The study includes an additional assessment at 32 weeks so we can get a preliminary read of the durability of effect, in other words, the potential effect to attenuate rebound weight gain. With this, I'm delighted to introduce Mo, our Chief Scientific Officer, to show you the exciting science behind our differentiated approach.

Thank you, Jing, and good morning, everyone. Next slide, please. I'm going to start with this slide that emphasizes the points made by Jing and Jing earlier. We have a highly differentiated platform that is producing innovative and very selective candidates. Combined with our translational expertise, focus, and passion, we have translated these innovations to success in the clinic across many therapeutic areas to benefit our patients. First, we develop a particular map, our selective -My-Statin for SMA, proved its efficacy in translational mouse model, took it to the clinic, and as you heard earlier, we have very promising data from our TOEPAS trial in SMA patients where we saw substantial and sustained improvement in motor function over 48 months with superb safety profile, and we look forward to seeing our Phase III SAFIRE trial data in Q4. Second, we developed SRK181, our selective -NTGF-Beta1 antibody, to overcome primary resistance to checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced solid tumors. We have shown its efficacy in multiple preclinical translational models, took it to the clinic where we showed promising efficacy across multiple tumor types in our Phase IB Dragon trial, as was highlighted in our recent oral presentation at ASCO. Moving to SRK439, our selective -NTGF-Beta1 antibody that is designed for obesity. We showed its ability to preserve muscle mass and improve metabolic profile during GLP-1 induced weight loss in multiple studies in translational obese mouse models. We will be highlighting data that we recently shared in an oral presentation at the American Diabetes Association on this call, and we look forward to filing an IND in 2025 and advancing it to the clinic. Finally, we developed SRK373, our selective highly differentiated -NTGF-Beta1 antibody that has the added selectivity of inhibiting TGF-Beta1 only when presented in a matrix of tissues, but not immune cells, given this unique mechanism, a potential efficacy and safety advantage in fibroidic diseases. We showed efficacy of this molecule in multiple translational fibroidic disease models, including lung, renal, and liver fibrosis. This was recently highlighted in a publication featured on the cover of Science Signaling, and we look forward to filing an IND in 2026 and testing this unique and differentiated mechanism in the clinic. 522. Focusing on SRK439, we have strong scientific validation and preclinical evidence that gives us confidence in its potential to drive healthier weight management during GLP-1 induced weight loss. We have shown preclinically in a translational obesity mouse model that SRK439 leads to preservation of lean mass during GLP-1 induced weight loss, solving one of the biggest challenges in this area. This was also accompanied by improvements in metabolic profile, namely an additional 20% reduction in blood glucose levels on top of the reduction seen with GLP-1 treatment alone. That data was shared at a keystone meeting earlier this year. We also showed preclinically that treatment with SRK439 leads to an increase in lean mass and attenuation of fat mass regain following GLP-1 withdrawal, leading to improved body composition. This addresses another key challenge of GLP-1 receptor treatment, namely the durability of effects after treatment cessation. We will highlight some of that data today. Finally, in a preclinical -to-head study in the same diet-induced obesity model, we showed that SRK439 is superior to the nonselective anti-activin receptor antibody that is currently being tested in the clinic. As highlighted earlier, muscle is critical for overall health, and the ability of SRK439 to preserve muscle during weight loss highlights the potential it can play in driving healthier weight management and better outcomes in obese patient populations. Next slide. In addition to loss of lean mass during weight loss, another key challenge of incretin or GLP-1 induced weight loss is the durability of effect and the loss of benefits upon cessation of treatment. This slide highlights the ability of SRK439 to address this challenge in translational obesity mouse model. The graph on the upper left shows lean mass in different treatment groups during -glutide-induced weight loss or upon semi-glutide withdrawal. As you can see in the blue bar, semi-glutide treatment led to considerable lean mass loss during the treatment phase of 35 days as expected. Co-treatment with SRK439 led to the preservation of the lean mass during the semi-glutide treatment

phase, as you can see in the green line. In addition, animals treated with SRK439 had

significantly higher lean mass after discontinuation of semi-glutide if you compare the green line versus the blue line between days 35 and the end of the study. The lower graph shows the fat mass change during the study. Cessation of semi-glutide treatment on day 35 leads to rapid rebound effect and fat mass regain as expected. Co-treatment with SRK439 led to attenuation of the fat mass regain following semi-glutide withdrawal, as you can see when comparing the blue line for semi-glutide alone and the green line for SRK439 co-treatment. Next slide. This slide shows the feral body composition in the SRK439 treated animals versus controls upon semi-glutide withdrawal at the end of the study. In the graph on the left, animals treated with SRK439 had higher proportion of lean mass after cessation of semi-glutide treatment, as you can see in the green bar versus the blue bar. In addition, if you look on the graph on the right that measures fat mass, mice treated with SRK439 in the green bar had significantly lower regain in the fat mass percentage versus the IGG control in the blue bar. Hence, SRK439 treatment led to a more feral overall body composition at the end of the withdrawal period. This highlights the potential of SRK439 in addressing a key challenge in the GLP-1 induced weight loss by supporting a more durable weight management with a more feral and healthier body composition. This is data we recently shared during our investor event in May where we highlighted the competitive profile of SRK439 versus the non-selective mice-tangent approach of another model. This is a -to-head study in the translational diet-induced obesity mouse model, and the graph is showing the percent change in lean mass upon semi-glutide treatment. As expected, semi-glutide led to significant reduction in lean mass as you can see in the blue bar on the left. SRK439 treatment led to preservation of lean mass dose-dependently and with doses as low as 0.3 mpKg as you can see in the bars in green. Muscle preservation was achieved at significantly lower doses than the anti-activin receptor antibody where we see lean mass preservation only at the highest dose tested of 20 mpKg as you can see in the bars in gray. It is worth noting that we see equivalent lean mass preservation at the 1 mpKg dose level of SRK439 versus the 20 mpKg dose for the anti-activin receptor antibody. Treatment with SRK439 also was associated with enhancement of fat mass loss. This highlights the competitive profile of SRK439 with superb efficacy in preserving muscle mass and enhancing loss of fat mass while avoiding the potential liabilities of non-selective approaches. This also supports a -in-class subcutaneous profile versus SRK439. Finally, we are leveraging our expertise in myastan and the ability to develop anti-myastan antibodies with exquisite selectivity to test our hypothesis and inform our obesity program. Since a particular map is already in the clinic, it allows us to test this hypothesis really quickly in a clinical setting through our EMBRACE proof of concept study. This will demonstrate that a selective anti-myastan has the ability to preserve lean mass and influence metabolic parameters in the context of obesity during GLP-1 induced brain loss. We announced during our investor day back in May that we initiated the trial ahead of schedule and the trial is enrolling well. So we now anticipate top-line data in the second quarter of 2025. We will use our learnings from the EMBRACE trial to inform and potentially accelerate the development of SRK439 where we expect to file an IND in 2025. Now I'll hand it back to

Jake. Well, thank you, Mo. So in closing, it is an exciting time for ScholarRock. We have met or exceeded all of our goals to date, including conducting a prime pre-submission meeting with EMA in preparation for our European submission for a Pythagormab, initiating EMBRACE, continuing to advance SRK439 to IND, and we're looking forward to the top-line readout for SAFIRE as our next activities in preparation for commercialization. Overall, a great time for ScholarRock. That concludes our formal presentation. Sandra will now open the call up for questions.

Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To answer your question, please press star 1-1 again. We will now take the first question from the line of Michael Yee from Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Hello, good morning. Thank you guys for the update. We had two questions. First, obviously, you are reading out in SMA, the pivotal study, and some others are also reading out all around the same time. I guess I just wanted to understand your view on one of the competitors, Roche, because I think their antibody is similar. I just wanted to understand if you have seen or believe there are any differences in that study design or readout, how to think about that as it relates to your readout also coming around the same time. On the obesity side, I wanted to first, are you stratifying with terzepatide and SMA? I notice you are offering both, and those drugs do have different effects. I wanted to know if you are stratifying, and do you expect that your drug will completely eliminate the lean muscle loss, and that is your base case for both of those drugs in your readout? Thank you.

All right, so Michael, maybe I'll go ahead and tackle this. This is Jay. I'll tackle the first question about the upcoming readouts. Clearly, we are excited to report out our top line in Q4. What we have seen as we follow our others in the space, Roche in particular, they continue to suggest that they are going to report out from their early phase of the study, so they are really establishing dose and effect, as opposed to reporting out their top line phase 3 trial, which is ongoing. The most recent update that I am aware of is that they are targeting somewhere in the 2026 or beyond phase. I think it will be interesting to see their results, but clearly in a different place, and to remind them they are studying only with RISDAPLAM, where we are agnostic to both Nusinersen and RISDAPLAM. With respect to EMBRACE, Jane can answer, but since I am going to comment, no, we didn't stratify by semaglutide or terzepatide in this proof of study. We are interested in seeing the effect on both. We think we should have an effect on both, similar to our SMA program. We think we should be agnostic to treatment. We will see. I think ultimately the amount of preservation for lean muscle will be interesting. I think what you saw from Mo is that the data presented at ADA were very impressive, because it did show that we did actually maintain and preserve, and then of course we saw continued increase in lean muscle mass upon adjuvance, and then we saw increased adjuvance and adjuvance and adjuvance and adjuvance and adjuvance and adjuvance and adjuvance and adjuvance. I think those results likely will be reproduced in clinic, but again we are running the proof of concept to see. So looking forward to telling you the top line results. I am glad we are going fast. The team is impressive. We have accelerated the enrollments and looking forward to reporting out top line for both.

Thank

you. Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of David Nierengarten from Woodford Securities. Please go ahead.

Hey, thanks for taking the question. It's on Epidemograph and SMA. When you look at the longer term data, is there any effect that should be attributed to the children aging or are you confident in the differential still from the base case or from background therapy from the historical clinical studies?

Thanks. Yeah, well maybe I will start maybe if Jing wants to add about the historical data. You know, it's really interesting, right? I think the beauty, David, as I see with the epitagram program is that given the safety and tolerability that this can be chronic treatment for children with SMA. And I, you know, we think about the physiology for maintaining and enhancing muscle growth and function. It actually would be optimal to see that continue through growth and development of these children as they get into young adults and hopefully maintain their activity of daily living and in fact, if not improve it further. So I think that it's likely a combination. I think the fact that we're continuing treatment is to the good. And again, what Jing said is very, very encouraging. I mean, we're very impressed as we continue to see the maintenance and sustained effect over time, particularly in light of the decline that you see with Nusenersen. I don't know, Jing, if you wanted to add to that.

Yeah, so I think that you covered most of it, Jay. So a couple of things to add. One is that mechanistically, I think Jay pointed out this as well, mouse deading has, there has been a, you know, large body of literature that really speaks to the effect of the mouse that irregularly muscle throughout life from early development all the way through adulthood. And so that has been well documented and application of mouse that has had no documented negative effect. And that's true in animals and in humans. So that's point number one. Point number two is that, you know, the question, I think Jay addressed this, you know, the, the, there is probably a component of a development. However, what's really important is that the patient population that I showed you and Dr. Finkel and colleagues presented are very similar patients. You know, if you look at our, the topaz patients from the patient age, the sort of the duration of prior therapy and also type of patients enrolled in baseline functional status, all of those things point out that these patients are very similar. So compared to what they, these patients are otherwise expected to do, we're very encouraged to see the continued benefit hold.

Thanks. Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Etzer Darwood from BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks for taking a question. Just a couple here. As we approach the top line, SAFIRE data, just wondered if you had any updated insights on sort of potential access or pair dynamics for the use of the PedigreeMab to standard of care? Or will you need, you know, data in hand, I guess, for more productive conversations? And then as you advance sort of SRK 373 for fibrosis and you look sort of across your TGF data portfolio as it grows, you know, how are you sort of thinking about continuing to kind of develop these assets relative to kind of the focus on anti-myostatin things?

Yeah, very good. So let me start with the top line in pair interaction. We've had preliminary pair interactions that we've shared in previous calls, and of course we continue to do that. You know, I do think that there is the prior precedent set with the current therapy, so I do think that gives us some insight into the value of functional gains in these children and the ability to add and enhance that. Of course, we'll continue with more pair interactions as we have the top line data. And as you point out, of course, that gives us a more rich and robust discussion. But I do feel, from what I've seen so far, very pleased with the preliminary interactions and the recognition that these children need additional care. And I think that is further reinforced by the updated data that we've seen from Cherish and Shine. It's really interesting. We've talked a bit about what to expect from the natural history. We've been looking for sources to give us information around it. You know, we've said repeatedly that we expected it to plateau the Nuss-Nursen effect, but we did believe everything we've heard and talked to from the community and in physicians, there is an inherent progressive nature to this disease, and in fact, the long-term data show that. So that's the kind of the evidence behind what we've been believing. And if you put that together with the data that we're sharing with Topaz, where we're able to maintain and sustain, I think that will translate well into the pair interaction. And then with respect to the pipeline and where to go next, you know, I spent some time on this call talking about the pipeline. You know, I've been here now going on two years. I love the pipeline. I love what Mo and team have done. And it's really I think our strategic decisions to go into the anti-myostatin spaces will prove to be very good as we see the upcoming SMA data and the obesity data feel very good about that. The TGF Beta-1 data are extraordinarily interesting to me. And I think, you know, when we started to highlight programs that I've touched on, but really not spoke a lot about, I think we're coming into a phase of our growth as a company that we will have more and more opportunity to further invest behind the pipeline, what I believe really holds enormous promise and great value. So more to come as we go forward for the year. But again, to be clear to everyone listening, first and foremost, very focused company, very deliberately focusing on myostatin. And I'm really pleased with the team and their dedication to get us to the close to the readout for SAFIRE. It's really very exciting. It's a very good time for us.

Thank you.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of test. Romero from JP Morgan. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Jay and team. Thanks so much for taking our question. So the first question from us is on the longer term data that you presented this morning. Can you tell us a little bit more about the distribution of the inputs on the Hammersmith? And what might be driving that mean up from 36 to 48 months, particularly in the 2 to 12 age group? Just curious, like how wide has that range of observation been and has this increased or decreased with time? And then the second question we had was just if you could let us know what percent of patients have seen at least a three point of improvement for the age 2 to 21 group. I think it was about 39% as of 36 months. And then if I can just ask on timing for SAFIRE, is there any clarification you can give us on time between last patient out, which I think would be in September, and a possible top line result? Can you give us any kind of, what needs to be done in that timeframe? Thanks so much.

Yeah, so, Jay, maybe I'll tackle those. You have really good questions about the granularity around the updated 48 month data. And as Jing mentioned on the call, we have plans to really advance that and get that at a medical meeting where we can go with much more granularity about the detail, the distribution, the percent that have achieved three point change. Just recall, when we were asked about 48 month data at the beginning of the year, we were planning, we know this is an important data set, we were planning to do it, just not now. We were able to do it now, frankly, because the team has just been so incredibly driving toward getting us in good shape for SAFIRE. I didn't want to distract them from the SAFIRE data. That's critical to us. The 48 month data is really important, but on a priority list, SAFIRE took priority. They're delivering beautifully tests. So that allowed us to update the 48 month data. So as Jing said, this is a bit of a snapshot. So more to come. We'll give you more detail as we get this in front of a medical meeting. And then that goes to your second part of the question, not to distract this team from where they're going and how to get there. The classic is we've got to clean and lock the database and be sure that the data meets all the quality checks that we have to for registration. So there's some established timeframes in there. So I'm not going to give any more granularity on the timing in Q4, just to say this team is driving to get us there as quickly as possible with high quality to be able to allow us to really stand behind the integrity of the data. They've done a fabulous job to date. And I hope you get the energy from me on this call, right? These teams are really driving. We are driving. We are focused. We're delivering. So we'll get it as soon as we can test. Coming soon, as I said in my remarks.

Okay. Thanks so much

for taking our questions. Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Gary Natchman from Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Good morning. So the SAFIRE phase three study is only after 12 months, but if positive, do you think the label could potentially include some of this longer-term data from TOEPS that's pretty compelling and really important for these SMA patients that could also help the case with the payers? And then secondly, just on obesity, if you'll have data from EMBRAISE in the second quarter of next year, how soon will you be able to file the IND for 439? I'm assuming it's soon after, but what would the gating factor there be? Thank you.

Yeah. Good question. So let me start, Gary, with the first one about the long-term data from TOEPS.

You know,

clearly we find these data of interest, and like you, I think they're meaningful for a variety of perspectives. From the regulatory perspective, you think about it, the safety and tolerability is essential, and that will clearly contribute to our safety profile and expect to see that, you know, for the FDA and EMA looking for that data to help them with that benefit-risk assessment. And we will do everything we can to optimize the opportunity for that to be in the, for the regulatory review to support the application. Where we move to the payer piece, you know, I think, as you know, in those interactions, publication data, the additional data that we have, that entire data set will be open and available to them to review. And to add to your comment, because I do think it's important, we think about the benefit for patients that is sustained over time. My past experience in the payer interactions, that that's a meaningful data point that patients continue to benefit. So we'll definitely maximize that in those interactions. And then from the SRK439 program, again, these are in parallel. So, Simone and his team, we're really driving toward the IND. We're doing the IND-enabling TOCS work. So that is kind of maybe the way we get that done. But it's on track and on schedule. And as we shared at the beginning of our discussion and our journey into the obesity space, we're targeting sometime mid-year, next year. So they'll be pretty concurrent, although with the speed with which the EMBRACE team has enrolled, it's likely we'll report those data out in advance. It will certainly support the target and our strategy, which will be helpful. And we'll include that in the IND interactions. All right,

great. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now take the next question from the line of Srikripa Devarakonda from Tourist Securities. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Thank you so much for taking my question. I know you

just started enrolling for the obesity study with epineurogramab. It looks like you're seeing better enrollment than expected. I was wondering if you can provide a little bit more color, if possible, on what sort of patients seem to be the target for this? And also, are you targeting the certain ratio between overweight and obese patients? Does it matter? And given the, just following up on an earlier question, the terzapotide and semaglutide, they have slightly different profiles. So is there anything you took into account in terms of trial powering assumptions about the distribution between terzapotide and semaglutide? Thank you.

Yeah, good question. So, Kripa, this is Jay. Maybe I'll start with the trial design and then I'll have Jing add on to it and talk about sort of the patient population that's being included in this study. Again, this is a proof of concept study, so we really want to be able to kind of see an effect on that preservation of lean muscle mass. I think to your points, terzapotide and semaglutide both have the effect. I think the speed with which you see that decline differs between the two. And so there may be some difference in terms of when you can detect our ability to preserve that. But I think seeing the effect on either of those groups would be helpful. So we considered it, but we didn't really, as the earlier question came from on the call, we didn't stratify by that for the study, but we believe that we'll be able to demonstrate the effect that we expect to see. And then Jing, about the population that we've included in the EMBRE study.

Yeah, so, Kripa, we did not strive for a particular ratio for the overweight versus the obese population. You know, just importantly, the objective for the study is really to have a quick proof of concept, as I mentioned, really just to kind of assess the ability to preserve lean muscle in the context of GOP agnist. And as to your second question about the ratio between, you know, the difference between semaglutide and terzapotide, our view is to, you know, we do not think there's a fundamental difference between those two. If you look at the degree of weight reduction, I think terzapotide probably has a greater degree of weight reduction, but the overall safety profile are quite similar between the two, and the proportion of the lean muscle loss in the context of GOP1 are very similar between the two. Their ability to kind of reduce cardiovascular risk, and both studies have showed that. So, in our view, it's basically, it's more thinking about the pathway of those GOP agonisms to, you know, how do we go along that and how do we counter that so we can preserve lean muscle. That's really the primary objective, and the trial is set up to do that, and so therefore that's our focus.

Okay, great. And then just one more follow-up question on that. So, this is a proof of concept study. Your primary endpoint is change from baseline and lean mass by DEXIS-CAN. By the time you're ready to do a pivotal trial, do you expect any update or change in FDA guidance in terms of how to develop muscle preservation drugs, or do you think you have all you need at this point in time?

Kripa, this is Jay. I think the answer is going to be, it's going to be an evolving field, and I think FDA will begin to take into consideration the strategies to really have healthy weight loss management. Although, as you know, I think regulatory change tends to be delayed, so whether we get greater insight as we go forward remains to be seen. Having said that, I feel very good about the information we've received to date from the FDA. I think we need to demonstrate clinical benefit in addition, and I think as you see from Moe, and what really gets me excited is we're walking through what Moe and his team are doing on the non-clinical data. I'd just ask you to take a look at that. It's starting to foreshadow where we could take this medicine, right? We have an effect on glucose metabolism. That's a clear measure of clinical benefit. The data at the ADA showed that we preserve the lean muscle. In fact, we maintain the lean muscle and in fact, increase the lean muscle mass upon withdrawal of semaglutide, and we mitigate the weight rebound, the fat rebound. So you're seeing opportunities where what we've been saying is sustainable, and I think we can find strategies either on the maintenance side or in combination to really position, I think, those trying to lose weight to not lose it at the expense of muscle, which plays such a critical role in metabolism.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We will now take the last question from the line of Mark from TD Cohen. Please go ahead.

Thanks for taking my questions. A lot have already been answered, but maybe to follow up on Mike's question right at the beginning, just on these kind of differences between the molecules and the trial designs in SMA, do you guys view that those differences are so significant that they're very likely to lead to completely different outcomes for trials in terms of just outright failing to reach statistical significance or succeeding in other cases? Or do you think that these are likely to be just more subtle aspects of the overall kind of profile that you're able to market to, that each company might be able to market to in terms of how big that efficacy signal really is and obviously the safety profile? And then I'll have a follow-up question

after that. Yeah. Okay. Sorry, Mark. This is Jay.

Yeah. So talking about the differences in the profiles of the programs, because I got a side distraction as you were answering the question. I want to make sure I got it correctly in terms of what's expected to be seen from each of the different profiles.

Yeah.

Is it significant enough that it's going to be very important to success failure or is it more subtle as to just how impressive the data is going to be?

Yeah, it's really interesting. I mean, to start first and foremost, again, I made a comment about we're treating children and young adults and we have plans to move even into earlier ages, under two, right? So if you think about that, as everything we said about our strategy, safety really trumps. You've got to be able to have a safe therapy. You've got to be able to administer it. It's got to be able to be administered without regard for growth and development and we've been able to demonstrate that across. So safety is really paramount. I think that there is differences in terms of each of the strategies, but I like our strategy on the safety side. So let's start there. I think with respect to kind of what to see from the efficacy side, again, I think we've selected the Hammersmith scale for a reason. It was what's used for Nussan-Ersson. There are other motor scales, but quite honestly, from the field, I believe this is the gold standard and we're really looking forward to reporting out our data against that gold standard measures. So I think that's important. I think the tolerability, which is linked back to safety, but the tolerability will be critical as I think about it from a payer interaction and our ability to commercialize. We have seen very little, if any, drop from our TOEPS data going forward. That really is impressive. I recall from a previous setting that I was in and the CEO at the time would make a comment that he doesn't know what the median duration of treatment is because patients are still on. So if you just think about the implication to that, I think we're really doing well. I'm not sure that's true across the other programs. We'll see, but I like where we're going. And then the final point is I do like that we're agnostic to treatment. I think that is really important. You know, this is an established market with several players. We have an opportunity, as you'll see going forward, to really show this in the background of gene therapy, not just SMN upregulating therapy. I think that is a really good place to play because we're neutral in terms of the choice. And I think that maximizes our opportunity to go forward. So all of those things together, I feel really good about where we are. And frankly, like you, looking forward to being able to tell you the top line results. Okay,

that's helpful. And then just, obviously, we're hoping that the trial will be positive. Just for us, what else you may need to gather to be ready to file that DLA? Is it really just the data and writing it up? Or are there other things on the CMC side that still need to kind of come in house?

Yeah, as you know, with most applications, this is a work in progress. The beauty of it is, is that we've been preparing the BLA over the last 12 to 18 months, to be honest. There are sections that you can complete and do. The non-clinical sections, that work is done. Those reports are written. They're being included. The CMC team is doing their CMC work and PPQ runs and getting all that stuff. So that's running beautifully. And then the clinical team is really working to populate the modules. There are some things that we will incorporate. The TOEPAS data, as was raised earlier by Gary, definitely we're going to include that in our application. But that data, as well as evolving, we have enough to put in there. So all of that is coming together beautifully. We were pleased and very fortunate to have a really outstanding head of regulatory come in. And he's just done a fabulous job of getting us ready for submission. So Jing and team are flying. Mo's team is hustling. And the rest of us are trying to keep up with them,

Mark. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Thank

you. There are no further questions at this time.

Okay. Well, listen, thank you all. We're going to close the call. Thanks for your interest and I appreciate you joining us today.

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.