Trevi Therapeutics, Inc.

Good afternoon and welcome to the Trevi Therapeutics second quarter 2026 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star 1 1 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising that your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star 1 1 again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. Various remarks that management makes during this conference call about the company's future expectations, plans, and prospects can constitute forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 95. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by these forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including those discussed in the risk factors section of the company's most recent annual report form 10K, which the company filed with the SEC on March 17th, 2026, as updated by our subsequent filings with the SEC. In addition, any forward-looking statements represents the company's views only as of today and should not be relied upon as representing the company's views as of any subsequent date. While the company may elect update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, the company specifically disclaims any obligation to do so, even if its views change. I would now like to turn the conference call over to Jennifer Good, Trevi's President and CEO. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon and thank you for joining us for our second quarter 2026 Earnings Call and Business Update. Joining me today on this call are my colleagues Dr. James Cassella, our Chief Development Officer, Farrell Simon, our Chief Commercial Officer, and David Hastings, our Chief Financial Officer. Dave and I will make some initial comments and then the team is happy to answer any questions you may have. 2026 is an important year of execution for the company, and the team is focused on delivering. This is a fun part of what we do. We are on track with our plans for each program and initiated both the OCEAN-1 Phase III 52-week trial in patients with IPF-related chronic cough, as well as the LAKE Phase IIb trial in patients with refractory chronic cough, or RCC, both during the second quarter. We also plan to initiate the second phase three 12-week trial in patients with IPF-related chronic cough, named Ocean 2, in the third quarter. So things have been busy for Team TREVI through the summer. The team is focused on bringing up global sites for each of these trials, which total more than 200 sites. I have attended all of our investigator meetings to date, and there is a tremendous amount of excitement and energy around the participation in our trials and the significant unmet need in chronic cough. We are early in enrollment for the two trials that have been initiated but are on track with our plans. Once we hit approximately 50% enrollment in any of our trials, we will disclose that milestone and then give updates on enrollment during our quarterly earnings call after that. So look for more details as we progress. The third piece of our story is patients with non-IPF-ILD related chronic cough. We recently submitted a meeting request to the FDA to discuss this program, and we expect to hear this month if a meeting has been granted. If granted, we will submit the full protocol and briefing document for discussion of the next trial and the development plan for this indication. There are a lot of synergies with this ILD patient population and our IPF studies, as these patients with non-IPF ILD are seen in the same care centers by the same pulmonologist. So as we negotiate CDAs, contracts, and budgets for our IPF-related chronic cough trials, we have this trial in the scope so that we can act quickly once we have FDA alignment. As we look forward to the rest of this year, you should expect the following key milestones from us. One, alignment on our non-IPF-ILD-related chronic cough program during the second half of this year. Two, 50% enrollment in the FACE-2B lake trial for RCC also in the second half of this year. Three, results from the sample size re-estimation or SSRE for the lake trial in RCC which will read out when 50% of the patients complete the trial and the analysis is done by an external unblinded statistician. The SSRE was included in the protocol to confirm powering assumptions and adjust the sample size if necessary. We expect the SSRE readout in the fourth quarter of this year which has increased focus given the recent termination of a competitive RCC program. I also wanted to comment on an important medical meeting held during the second quarter, the American Thoracic Society or ATS meeting. All six of our submissions were selected for either presentations or posters and covered a range of data from our phase two trials. This included new data on the reduction of breathlessness with Nalbifin ER in patients with IPF-related chronic cough. reduction in cough bouts in both IPF chronic cough and RCC, something that is quite meaningful to the patients, as well as an analysis showing the impact of Nalbufein ER across all baseline cough counts ranging from below 10 coughs per hour and higher, which essentially demonstrated Nalbufein ER's robust response in patients across all cough counts. These presentations can be found on our corporate website. And finally, we were honored to see Trevi's JAMA publication of the Phase IIb choral trial for the treatment of patients with IPF-related chronic cough, highlighted at the ATS2026 International Conference Clinical Year in Review Session. Dr. Lita Hariri of Harvard Medical School highlighted the choral trial results among the year's key developments in ILD research. ATS was an important meeting for Trevi and shows the growing awareness of the burden of chronic cough on patients. In Q2, we also launched our Unbranded campaign, raising awareness of the burden of disease of chronic cough among pulmonologists. This campaign highlights patient testimonials in IPF and non-IPF-ILD and their lived experiences with chronic cough. Through our digital efforts, we reached more than 17,000 unique pulmonologists so far and saw an overwhelming engagement, supporting the eagerness of physicians for new therapies for their patients. In closing, we are focused on executing against our plan of becoming the leader in chronic cough. With the recent competitive failure in RCC, we are essentially alone in all three of our cough indications and have the ability to be a first-in-class therapy where significant unmet need exists. We recognize the great responsibility we have to deliver Nalbupine ER and potentially help patients across these indications. There are many physicians, companies, patient advocacy groups and patients who have provided time and resources in developing the field of chronic cough in the hopes of improving the lives of these patients. We are leaning into that responsibility and staying focused to try to get Heduvia over the finish line. We believe if we are able to execute against our current plan, we can create meaningful value for patients and, in turn, significant value for our shareholders. I will now turn it over to Dave for his remarks, and then we are happy to answer your questions.

Dave? Thanks, Jennifer, and good afternoon, everybody. My remarks today will focus on our most important financial metric, which is our cash position and the runway it provides. We ended the second quarter of 2026 with approximately $319 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities. Importantly, we are on track with our budgets and plans so far this year as the team continues to execute on our clinical trials. Therefore, we have not changed our cash runway guidance since our last quarterly call, which extends into 2030. Included in this runway guidance is the funding of our development program in patients with IPF-related chronic cough through potential FDA approval. And we also expect these resources will enable the company to fund the clinical development program through Phase III for the treatment of patients with non-IPF ILB-related chronic cough and the ongoing Phase IIb lake trial for the treatments of patients with RCC. Now the planned spending of these resources also includes pre-commercial activities, but does not include any expenses related to the commercial launch of a Dubio or a Phase III clinical trial in RCC. So with that, I believe we are well-positioned to execute our clinical trials with sufficient funding through critical, high-value inflection points. Operator, we can now open the call for questions.

Thank you. We will now conduct the question and answer session. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. At this time, we'll pause momentarily to assemble our roster. Our first question comes from the line of Rowana Ruiz from Learing Partners. Please go ahead.

Great. Good afternoon, everyone. So a couple from me. I was curious about the upcoming meeting with the FDA on ILD chronic cough and what questions do you expect to get from the agency? And could you give us a little color on what some of the options are in terms of thinking about trial protocol for ILD chronic cough patients and relative to what you already have established for IPF chronic cough?

Yeah, go ahead, Jim.

Yeah, hi everyone, this is Jim. So thanks for the question. So really the meeting with the FDA will be an alignment meeting. We all know that we have a solid program in IPF. We're now interested in expanding that to the non-IPF ILD population. So a lot of what we talked about with the end of phase two meeting for the IPF patients will be the basis and the foundation for talking to them about the non-IPF ILD program. The protocol, as you can imagine, will follow very closely to what we're doing for the OCEAN program. Obviously, the difference being the nature of the patient population, but you can imagine everything is going to be the same in terms of endpoints and things like that. So really, it's going to be on alignment on the inclusion-exclusion criteria, now looking at the non-IPF population, and we'll look at other very specific but not very different parameters for the protocol in relationship to what we already did for IPF. So it's really alignment on that and then on the pathway to an NDA filing for that indication. So really it's going to be a meeting where we have that discussion, get finality on our approach, and then execute to the plan that we come up with.

Makes sense. Thanks. I was also thinking about RCC. Given one of your competitors recently terminated their program, has that changed the way that you think about the overall market landscape or any thoughts about pricing, etc.? And, you know, as we go into the SSRE for the lake trial, any updated thoughts there and how you're thinking about whether or not it may need to be upsized or not?

Hey, Rolanda, this is Farrell. I can answer your question on our RCC approach. We're an IPF-ILD-led company, and that really establishes the specialty commercial dynamics that we intend to go to the market with. Our RCC approach remains unchanged. And so we intend to target the treatment-resistant proportion of those RCC, which is still a sizable proportion, about a million patients in the U.S. and a large market opportunity. And that enables us to take that specialty dynamics and specialty pricing into that indication. So it remains unchanged with the recent competitive news.

In terms of the lake trial and the SSRE, the basis of that trial is from our river study, the findings that we had in RCC and based on what we saw in our coral program. So the idea there that GSK outcome might influence us really doesn't have any impact on our trial. We power that trial based on our data and based on the assumptions that we look at for parallel arm study where the choral information comes into play. So as far as we're concerned from a clinical perspective, we're driving our program from our own data. We know we have a very strong, you know, best-in-class type of efficacy in the RCC patient population. Our effect size, you know, is very strong. and that's really what's driving that trial. So we don't know what the numbers were from GSK. We don't know what their effect sizes were. But I think it really has zero impact on our clinical program.

It is nice. So it protects our program a bit because I'm not sure any of us have clear line of sight to placebo at this point. So I think the nice thing about having that in there is it should protect the overall program if there's an effect there.

Sounds good. Thanks a lot.

Thanks, Rowana. Thank you. Our next question comes from line of Annabelle Samimi from Stiefel. Your line is now open.

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions and great progress. Just wanted to clarify on the SSRE for your programs. Is it only going to be for the lake program or you're also doing it for the ocean programs as well? Hey, Annabelle, it's Jim.

Yeah, no, it's only for Lake. You know, it's really the Phase II trial. Ocean is well-powered. Our effect size is known based on the coral study, and there's no intermediate read in that program.

Okay, got it. And then on RCC, just to get a little bit more granular on the opportunity, so I guess the, you know, initial strategy was to go after... I guess the most refractory patients who likely would have failed all therapy with the assumption that there would be another approved product out there. So this does seem to effectively open up the whole entire population to you. So if you could just help us understand how you, I guess, fragment this population a little bit better.

Bill, this is Farrell. Great question. So, you know, we have some optionality around RCC. We need to really understand the dose that comes out of our Phase 2 trial. If we end up being in the very low dose range, call it 27 milligrams once a day or below, we may be able to really open up that market in a different way with differential pricing and a second brand. But if we're sticking, if we get similar dose, one thing that we don't want to do is cannibalize our IPF or ILD population and revenue and so we would stick with our current approach. This is really led by conversations we've had with payers and done deep payer research on this to make sure we're getting the patients who truly are in the highest unmet need and that have failed maybe some of these even off-label therapies.

Okay, got it. And who might that most severe patient be if there aren't really any other therapies? Is it based on cough count?

Well, in the real world, we wouldn't really have cough counts, right? It's going to be based on mainly a cough severity NRS score, which we have as a key secondary endpoint within our trials. What it will align to is a lot of our IE criteria. So in our Phase II trial, we have RCC patients who have had that condition for greater than a year. That does start to segment this population. What we can execute well upon is also those patients that are seen by specialists, mainly by pulmonologists. So when you start to boil down what that population looks like, it's that million target that we've been talking about and coining them as treatment resistant.

Yeah, and Annabelle, I just want to make a distinction here because you're heading this direction. Clinically, we're going to have a broad label. We could go after this whole population. Commercially, because we're leading with IPF, It's advantageous to try to keep this at a specialty prescriber level so that we can maintain pricing. So to the question you're asking, I think it's great because we have optionality. Farrell raised the low dose. So we're going to have sort of maximal flexibility here. But in the current scenario we're planning against, we are going to have to be mindful of sort of payer limitations.

Got it. Got it. And I just want to ask a question. I'm not sure you can answer this yet until your Type C meeting. But for the Phase 2B ILD study, or non-IPF ILD study, if that comes out favorable, do you have an avenue for a broad interstitial lung disease label or do you have to actually have another phase three or how are you going to fold that in? Have you changed your ideas about how you're going to fold that into the IPF indication given that it's functionally and physiologically the same?

Yeah, hi, I'm Val, this is Jim. So I think our approach to the non-IPF-ILD program is to come up with the most efficient protocol that gets us to an NDA as quickly as possible. So there are going to be things that we can discuss with the FDA, but I think you can assume that, you know, those programs will be run in parallel, and we will design and hopefully get agreement on the most efficient path to the NDA. So, you know, that's obviously, you know, TBD based on our conversations with the FDA, but As you mentioned, we have a solid foundation here that this is all IPF, non-IPF. This is interstitial lung disease. It's the lung disease that all the KOL believes is mediating the cough, and that's our common thread here. So we will be very interested in discussing the most efficient pathway to get that population to approval.

Got it. Great. Thank you.

Thanks, Annabelle. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Judah Frommer from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Yeah, hi, guys. Thanks for taking the question. We know it's early on this front, but any thoughts on potential spend to build awareness in RCC upon the potential commercialization that maybe we could argue it would have been nice to have a large pharma help do that, or is the market big enough that the potential lack of competition is really kind of the key takeaway here?

Hey, Judah, this is Farrell. Thanks for the question. You know, we go back to we're still an IPF and ILD-led company. And what's nice about that environment is there's 90 ILD care centers in the United States. So it's a fairly focused approach. You know, as we stated, we're kicking off this with pulmonologists as the primary call point. And that's really going to be the call point until we get to the market with the RCC indication, which they'll be familiar because we'll already be calling on them for a different indication. So yes, while they may have built the RCC awareness if they were going to market, and unfortunately that won't be there, we have the way to really become leaders across chronic cough and shape our own narrative to make sure that this is top of mind. You asked about the spend to do so. We're taking a really efficient digital approach, and we're seeing great engagement here. We'll ramp that up as we get closer to launch, but that's all part of the pre-commercial planning.

Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Leland Gershall from Oppenheimer. Your line is now open.

Hi, this is Tracy. I'm for Leland. Congrats on the quarter and thanks for taking your question.

Recognizing that the trial designs are pretty similar across non-IPF ILD costs and IPF chronic costs, we were wondering if you've received any feedback from pulmonologists about a threshold of efficacy that they're looking for or are there any key differences we should keep in mind about characterizing efficacy across these conditions or indications?

Hi, this is Jim. So we've gotten very strong feedback from the KOLs that IPF and non-IPF-ILD are really interchangeable in terms of the reason for the cough, the lung disease really driving that. I think the expectation is that we will have very strong efficacy across both of those patient populations given the data that we have with IPF. So nothing special there. I think that in some ways in their mind it's like a no-brainer, but obviously the data will be the data and we need to make sure that we run the right trial to really pull this out. But there's no differences in terms of what we need to look for. The endpoints are all going to be the same. So no differences really except characterizing it now in the other part of the ILB world.

Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Thanks so much for taking the questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Deschner from Raymond and James. Please go ahead.

Hi, thanks for the question and congrats on the progress. At the Investor Day, you highlighted your prioritization of activities associated with expanding your intellectual property positions. Have there been any more incremental updates here on this front? And then I have a follow-up question.

Yeah, it's a good question, Ryan. There's a lot of activity going on there, as you and I have discussed. We've got a lot of sort of incremental patents being filed, but they take time to prosecute and work through the system. So no new issuances, which is really what we'll end up disclosing. Since the last quarter, but there has been a lot of activity. I think we filed three more patent applications in just the last few months. So it's a little bit of a you guys have to trust me story, but there's a big effort going on there. And at a certain point in time, these will start kicking out and getting issued.

Okay. And have you had any additional interactions with FDA agents? since the end of phase two meetings or the investor day where you last talked about it that have incrementally impacted the designs of the studies you have already initiated this year. And I'm curious how much turnover there's been this year in the FDA division that you've been interacting with.

So, Brian, this is Jim. Hi. No new interactions in regard to trial design or anything like that, as Jen mentioned. both the Lake 2B and the Phase 3 Ocean Trial and IPF have kicked off. So, yeah, everything's fine there. It's in execution mode. Yeah, I think in terms of turnover, we're seeing the team that we've seen before, as far as we know, there's been no major changes there. The leadership still seems to be the same, the same group that we talked to at the end of Phase 2 meeting. I don't know if there's any, you know, Changes in the deeper ranks of the FDA, but the people we're talking to are still the same people we talked to before. Wonderful. Thank you.

Thanks, Ryan.

Thank you. And again, if you have a question for our presenters, please press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Our next question comes from a line of Culveri Pullman from Clear Street. Please go ahead.

Hi team, this is Wayne for Kavari. Congrats on all the progress and thanks for taking our questions. So first, I want to follow up on the SSRE. Can you walk us through the potential scenarios following that analysis? And specifically, if an increase in sample size is required, how should investors think about the magnitude of the adjustment and the potential impact on the readout timeline? and then beyond objective cost frequency, how are you thinking about the role of secondary endpoints in the OCEAN trials in supporting the overall efficacy profile and potential labeling? Which measures of clinical benefit do you believe will be the most meaningful in defining the product profile? Thank you.

Hi, this is Jim. So, in terms of the SSRE, It's very much akin to what we did in the CORAL program. We are looking for conditional power of 80% at the time of the SSRE. We will have the on-blindness statistician will inform us whether or not we need to increase because we don't have conditional power at the 50% enrollment mark of 80% or greater. Below that, obviously, the sample size would increase proportionately, and then there's a futility point. In terms of if we have to increase the sample size, my perspective from the clinical side is that it's not a big deal. This is a mathematical exercise in some ways of looking at the assumptions we had coming into this. This is our first parallel group design study in RCC patients. There are some things that we learned from our crossover study. There are things we learned from the IPF program, and we put those into this protocol. We're going to test the assumptions with the SSRE. So 80% conditional power is the drawing line. If we need to upsize because we're a little bit short on that, it's a statistical question. It doesn't really, in my mind, have an impact. It says that we can get there with the assumptions we have, maybe with a little bit more end. So I don't read anything into that. I think that we can go up to a 50% increase for the protocol for the sample size. So again, on that point, I don't see anything. I would not read into having to increase if we needed to do that. It's a statistical issue, but it says we can reach 80% conditional power, which is where you want to be, and we can do that with this increase in N. So that's that side of it. On the PRO side and the key secondary endpoints in terms of the ocean program, These were very carefully thought through. We have a number of key secondary endpoints. A lot of those are based on patient-reported outcome measures, cost severity being the first and most important one. We also have our breathlessness endpoint in there. We know that these are things that are very important to prescribers and patients. So the key secondary endpoints that we've discussed with the FDA at the end of Phase II meeting are really meant to enhance the knowledge that we get with a cough reduction from a patient perspective and with a little further analysis of what is going on in terms of the cough reduction. So we do have how many people reached a 50% reduction. So there are very informative things in there. If we hit on those key secondary endpoints in the hierarchy, those are label enabling and we have because we discussed those and disclosed those as key secondaries in the hierarchy, you know, there is a high likelihood that we would be able to get those into the label, obviously dependent upon FDA discussion.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sergei Belanger from Needham and Coperty. Go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. This is John on First Search today. Congrats on all the progress this quarter. Thanks for taking our question. Just one for us today. If I could go back to the lake trial, you guys obviously got enrollment started last quarter. I'm curious now that, you know, since you're kind of the de facto leader in RCC development, curious if you're seeing any kind of changes in tendency with regards to enrollment rates. I know it's early innings, but any color there would be great.

It is very early. I'll just jump in. Jim and I both have been to all the investigator meetings, and there's, I mean, there's nobody competitively enrolling. It's also good timing because everybody just rolled out. I mean, 2,000 patients of these GSK trials, so there's a good roster of who sort of qualifies for these trials. So, I think, Jim, we both feel pretty positive about an ability to sort of convert patients into our studies.

Yeah, I think the one thing that came out of the investigator meeting in RCC is the enthusiasm that was there, even before all the news, the latest news. There's a lot of excitement around our drug and RCC, and that's really what's driving, I think, the enthusiasm around the enrollment.

Great. Thank you, and good luck with everything. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of William Wood from B. Reilly Securities. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much for taking our question. So two for me, if I may. With Ocean 2 expected to read out in the second half of 2027 versus Ocean 1 in the first half of 2028, would you be expecting to hold top line from Ocean 2 until Ocean 1 reads out, so basically presenting them together? and if you are thinking about keeping them separate since just given the time, how much could we read through from Ocean 2 to Ocean 1 just given the different lengths of time, 12 versus 24 weeks? I'm just trying to think of How much we should, you know, value or judge Ocean 2 on Ocean 1 or Ocean 1 on Ocean 2, I guess. And then second question, with the exit of GSK, how has strategic conversations changed both in terms of sort of the number, but then also how the discussions may be framed with your team? Thanks.

Yeah. Hi, William. It's Jennifer. So we won't hold top line. We're a small company. We won't get that luxury. We're going to have to put it out because you'll all be asking us every conference, and I'm a terrible poker player. So Jim usually gives me the weekend from when I know results, and we get them out Monday morning. So those will go. We'll be sensitive about sort of how much you drumbeat that into the sites because we don't want to influence the trial. But Our Ocean One trial should be largely enrolled by that point in time and people a long way through. So it's a small percentage that could be affected. You asked me about strategics. I mean, this news from Glaxo is hot off the press. You know, I can't say that I have a big read on that. People are aware of the big opportunity in cost. There's obviously been a challenge translating from phase two to phase three. I think we have some benefits in that our effect size is a lot bigger, and I also think IPF hasn't been plagued by these placebo effects, but really no comment on the strategic side. And then your question about translatability of sort of 12 weeks to 24, it's a good question. I think, I mean, everything in ocean one and two we've studied in coral, there was a very good translation from the study. I do think the remaining question on the table is how it goes from six weeks in coral to 12 weeks in Ocean 2 to 24 weeks in Ocean 1. I've mentioned before that we studied this drug in Prigonodularis for a year and did not see any waning of effect. I think that Jim can dazzle you with receptor pharmacology of why we shouldn't see any, but I do think that's the sort of question. I think there's seeing a good positive response in 12 weeks and nothing unusual. Personally, Jim, you should comment. I think it's a good read through to 24 weeks.

I agree, Jen. I mean, I think the key here is that, you know, we have a well-powered, both studies are well-powered. We don't have any reason to believe that there's going to be a loss of effect with continued dosing. I think Jen referred back to the PN trials that we ran. There's a reason why I believe, based on pharmacology that I won't bore you with, So I think that, you know, these are independent trials of different study duration. I think that they will both reflect what we've seen before, and there's no reason in my mind to believe that we would see a attenuation or loss of effect longer ago.

Got it. And maybe just one quick follow-up. In terms of maybe any additional learnings from CORAL that you may have incorporated here, just given from sort of the Phase IIa to the Phase IIb, Your overall effect size did change a little bit. Was there anything additionally or additional changes that you incorporated in the ocean that may actually be able to improve or keep that effect size the same?

Thank you. In terms of IPF, we had a very strong effect size in the coral program. We did some conservative powering based on what we saw with that effect size into the ocean program. I don't expect to see any differences. Frankly, I think we will see how things actually work out over time. But we are still well-powered. We had a very strong effect size. So I'm not sure that really answers your question in the sense of, yeah, there's nothing new other than what we talked about before, but it is based on the good effect size we have, and we're powered a little conservatively to protect that.

Got it. That's helpful. I appreciate it. Thanks very much.

Thank you, William.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Connor McKay from BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Hi there. Thanks for taking my question, and congrats on all the progress. Just two quick follow-ups for me.

Given what we know about the heterogeneity of the RCC population, I was wondering if maybe you can just speak to the steps you're taking to make sure that you're enrolling the right patients and, like, that we'll see the maximal benefit from Heduvia and then with multiple data readouts on the horizon in 2027, I was wondering if you can just speak to the progress you've made with physician engagement and maybe how your strategy differs across pulmonary fibrosis and refractory chronic cough efforts. Thank you.

So on the question of the patients, you know, we, for RCC, we have incorporated a placebo run-in period. That was at the and the insights of the KOLs that have worked in the RCC space for a long time. It really is about picking sites that have the right experience, making sure that we have the right entry criteria. We don't adjudicate formally, but we assess every patient coming into the trial with our internal team and with the site PI. We're being as rigorous as we can. I think in this population, it really is important to make sure that we meet all the inclusion criteria. So those are all built in based on the input from the KOLs and people that have had experience with these trials where there's been some trip-ups.

Yeah, Connor, this is Farrell. Thank you for the question. To answer your question on physician engagement as we approach 2027 and these first wave of data readouts, As we said, we kicked off in Q2 this unbranded campaign that's really about raising the burden of disease of IPF and ILD. We are an IPF-ILD-led company, and so we'll stay home there for quite some time. But as we said, the primary call point there and target of all of our outreach is going to be pulmonologists, and those community pulms do have overlap with RCC. So there is some halo effect from our engagement. We'll start off with our unbranded campaign in a digital format. We'll progress that into a larger presence at Congress, and we're collaborating closely with our medical affairs colleagues in order to make sure we reach the right targets.

And I would add, Farrell, you guys are actively engaged with patient advocacy groups and getting to all the networks and physicians through that as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Connor. I'm showing no further questions at this time. This does conclude our question and answer session. I would now like to hand the conference back over to Jennifer Good for closing remarks.

Thanks so much for joining us for today's call and we hope you all enjoy the rest of summer. We're available if you have any follow-up questions. Thank you.

This does conclude today's conference call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.