2seventy bio, Inc.

Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the 270Bio First Quarter 2024 earnings conference call. At this time all participants are in the listening mode. After the speaker's presentation there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session you will need to press star one one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question please press star one one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Jen Snyder with 270Bio. Please go ahead.

Thank you Shannon and good morning everyone. Thank you for joining us. This morning we issued a press release on our first quarter 2024 financial results. The press release can be found in the investors and media section of the company's website at 270Bio.com. As a reminder today's discussion will include forward looking statements related to 270Bio's current plans and expectations which are subject to certain risks and uncertainties. These forward looking statements include statements regarding our strategic plans, timelines and expectations with respect to sales, efficacy and perceived therapeutic benefits of a BEKMA, the timing and review of additional studies and regulatory application for a BEKMA and statements regarding our financial condition, expectations and future financial results among others. Actual results may differ materially due to various risks, uncertainties and other factors including those described in the risk factor section of our most recent form 10K, quarterly reports and other SEC filings. These forward looking statements represent our views as of this call and should not be relied upon as representing our views as of any subsequent date. We are cautioned not to place any undue reliance on these forward looking statements and except it's required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward looking statements. On today's call we are joined by Chip Baird, Chief Executive Officer and Vicki Eatwell, Chief Financial Officer. Anna Trouple Hartman, Chief Medical Officer is also on the line for questions during the Q&A. And now I will turn it over to Chip. Chip.

Thank you Jen and thank you all for joining this morning. Today we disclosed our first quarter 2024 financial results and recent business and operational updates. I'd like to walk through some of the business updates and then Vicki Eatwell, our Chief Financial Officer will go into detail on our financials. First quarter of 2024 was an eventful one. We completed a major strategic realignment to focus exclusively on ABACMA. To achieve this we sold our oncology and autoimmune R&D programs to Regeneron. As part of the sale we transferred approximately 160 employees and approximately 67% of our real estate footprint to Regeneron. We think this is an ideal outcome for the science and these programs and we look forward to seeing what the team can achieve in years to come. We also took the tough but necessary decision to reduce headcount by an additional 14% as part of the strategic refocusing. The end result is that we have emerged with a leaner cost structure, cash runway beyond 2027 and time to get ABACMA back on track commercially. To that end we have consistently said that the path to ABACMA growth hinges on earlier line approval. We traveled quite a journey on this front including an ODAC meeting in March to advise FDA on our supplemental BLA. The 270 and BMS teams did an amazing job at the panel and we were subsequently approved in the earlier line setting which opens a much larger addressable patient population. So it's been a great start to the year and we are now singularly focused on getting ABACMA back on track commercially. We are in the early days of launch and expect that it'll take into the second half before we see meaningful growth. We've talked for some time now about known strengths for ABACMA including strong efficacy that is reproduced in the real world setting, a well established and manageable safety profile and consistent manufacturing turnaround time and high rates of InSpec product. With COMRA 3 data in the label and real world evidence that continues to mature, we believe we have a competitive profile in earlier line triple class exposed patients which is a population with high unmet need. To be clear, multiple myeloma is a competitive market space and a return to growth will take time. But we have a strong commercial organization and a launch strategy that we believe in and we look forward to executing on the plan. I'm happy to talk about our strategy in the Q&A but for now we'll turn it over to our newly promoted CFO, Vicki Eatwell to talk about the first quarter results. Vicki.

Thanks, Jeff. First quarter of ABACMA US revenues as reported by Bristol Myers Squibb were $52 million which was in line with our expectations and reflects ongoing competition in the late line setting. As Jeff stated, we are in the midst of a commercial launch following the recent FDA approval of ABACMA based on our CARMA 3 study which greatly increases the addressable patient population. We look forward to delivering ABACMA to an increased number of patients and expect to see a return to growth in the second half of the year. As a reminder, we share equally in the profits or losses of the US ABACMA business with CMS and we record collaboration arrangement revenue or loss each quarter which largely represents our 50% share of revenue, cost of goods sold and selling expenses related to the US business. In the first quarter, we reported share of collaboration loss of $1.2 million related to our collaboration with CMS driven by decreased patient demand in the late line setting. Turning briefly to our cost structure and as a reminder, the sale of our R&D pipeline to Regeneron combined with our cost saving actions is expected to achieve 150 to 200 million of cost savings in 2024 and 2025 respectively. We anticipate staying within our previously guided net cash fund range of 80 to 100 million in 2024 and we are committed to carefully managing our spend to preserve cash runway. As we reported last quarter, we expect our runway to go beyond 2027 and see a path to potential break even by 2025 as ABACMA returns to growth. With that, I'll turn it back to Chip.

Thanks, Vicki. I'll close with two thoughts. First, we've been through a lot of change in the first quarter, but one thing that is unchanged is our patient focus. We believe in the potential of ABACMA to make a meaningful impact for patients in the early line setting and are singularly focused on delivering more time for every myeloma patient we're able to serve. Together with our partners at VMS, this will be a top priority. Second, we're focused on being careful stewards of investor capital, staying focused on reaching break even and profitability and driving value for shareholders. Together with Vicki, Ana, Jess, and the rest of the team, we will continue to focus on these priorities to drive value. And with that, we're happy to take questions. Operator.

Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone and wait for a name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. We ask that you please limit yourself to one question. Please stand by, we'll compile the Q&A roster. Our first question comes from the line of Dana Graybosh with LeeRink Partners, your line is now open.

Hi, this is Rabib on for Dana. Thank you for the question. The question is related to ABACMA profitability. How should we think about ABACMA collaboration profitability going forward? Is there a threshold revenue above which the program will be consistently profitable, given the flat sales over the last three quarters? What is driving this fluctuation in profitability and collaboration loss from quarter to quarter? And can we better anticipate these fluctuations in our model? And then there's a short followup after that.

Sure, I'll comment briefly and then ask Vicki to add color. But in this fifth line plus setting, we've been fairly flat on the revenue side for the last couple quarters and hovering with a small collaboration revenue or small share of collaboration losses we saw in this quarter in that 50 million, 50 million revenue run rate on a quarterly basis. So we're gonna need to see that return to growth to see a consistent path towards collaboration revenue and profitability. And again, we think we have the plan to do that. I would note too that that profitability as we increase revenues is helped by a better and better capacity utilization on the manufacturing side. We have, as is typical with Cartier Manufacturing, a high fixed cost structure. And so the more volume we can push through there, the better the margins will become. So more to come on that front, but certainly we believe in that path and that levels that we achieved before. We believe this is a profitable business.

Thank you. And then just on that manufacturing note, thanks Tripp for going in that direction. How will this shift to suspension vector impact profitability and when should we expect that transition from adherent to suspension play out in the collaboration profitability line?

Yeah, so as we've shared, we've been approved for suspension, which is great news. And another important point of execution on the manufacturing side and that helps certainly from a capacity perspective as well as an overall cost to treat a patient. That transition from adherent to suspension in terms of the actual impact on costs will happen over time as we use remaining adherent vector and then make that code over to suspension. But from a technical risk perspective, we're past that and we're approved for utilization there, which is great news.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Salveen Richter with Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open.

Hey, thanks, this is Matt on for Salveen. You noted meaningful efficiencies for meaningful growth in second half, could you expand on that or maybe quantify in any way? And then could you speak to the current dynamics of the launch and how much of it is competition from buy specifics or car break fee versus supply constraints? And then just a follow up question, could you talk about expectations for outback spend in the rest of 2024 and then 2025?

Thank you. Sure, I didn't catch the last part of your, you had a three part question there, could you say the last part again?

The last part was just outback spend in 2024 and 2025.

Yeah, I agree, yeah. So in terms of the meaningful growth, we haven't gotten specific on that, but from these levels, again, it doesn't take a lot in what is a much larger market to be posting meaningful growth. As a reminder, we achieved over $100 million of revenue in the first and second quarter of last year in a much smaller fifth line plus market. So with the expanded label, we feel very excited about the market opportunity and about the data set that stands behind that and our ability to engage with treating physicians and educate on product profile, which is different and improved and we can get into. But that's what I would say in terms of the path to meaningful growth in the second half of the year. I'll turn it to Vicky to comment on the OPEX.

Thanks, and just to address the question on supply constraints, we are not supply constrained. We have enough capacity to meet our existing label and further we have the ability to expand capacity within our existing manufacturing infrastructure. Just to turn to your question on OPEX, when we think about spend in 2024, just excluding non-cash OPEX, we're characterizing 2024 as being about half of what 2023 spend was. And as we turn to 2025, I would guide that spend would be about a third of what we experienced in 2023. So I would use that from a modeling perspective. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Kelsey Goodwin with Guggenheim Securities. Your line is now open.

Oh, hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. First, I guess, can you provide any early commentary on what you're seeing and hearing kind of post-label expansion with Karma 3? And then I guess maybe prior to the expansion, in terms of the competition and the headwinds you were facing previously, were you seeing that mainly from CAR-T competitors or by specifics or a blend and just kind of the market in general, just trying to get a little more color there? Thanks so much.

Kelsey, yeah, thanks. Good questions. I'll take the second one first, which is from a competitive perspective. As we've said, Miloma is a competitive field and I think CAR-T competition as well as bispects are all at play in the kind of where we've been, which is fifth line plus setting. I think it is a bit of a reset as we move into the third line setting. Today, bispects are not present there. And again, I think our focus commercially is articulating the Ibexma story and the data set that we have there. And again, I think asking and engaging with treating physicians to look at their own patients and the experience with the product across dimensions of efficacy, safety, manufacturing reliability, all of that. So we've got a strong belief set there. We had a terrific launch meeting with the DMS team last month and I would say it's early days. So ask me the question or commentary again in a month or two, but we're certainly fired up and ready to go and out engaging with the treating physician community.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Yaron Werber with TD Cowan, your line is now open.

Hi, this is Jaina on for Yaron. Thanks for taking our questions. Two part are from me. So you're saying that real world efficacy and manufacturability are points of differentiation for Ibexma, can you remind us what your current manufacturing success rate and out of spec rates are for Ibexma, also vein to vein time? And then the second part is, on the ODOC in March, the committee seemed a little bit concerned about PFS for Ibexma not being durable. You think it's gonna hinder Ibexma uptake in earlier line settings? Thank you.

Yeah, thanks for the question. On manufacturing success rates, we're north of 90% manufacturing in spec and that's been consistent for quite some time now. So always looking to do even better for every patient and as we move into earlier lines with cells that have seen less lines of therapy, we're optimistic that that could get even better. And then from a turnaround time, we've been consistently just a little bit under 30 days turnaround time. Sorry, can you remind me of the question? Jaina, are you still there?

Am I unmuted? Asking about durability of PFS and how it's going to... Oh, right, from the panel.

Yeah, sorry, thank you. Yeah, from... I think the panel took a study that was focused on PFS and I think really dove deep on overall survival and the confounding factors of that study. But 13 months of PFS versus the standard of care, which demonstrated about four months, that was a statistically significant difference on the pre-specified primary end point. So we feel good about those data and as you get into subgroup analysis, we believe it looks even better. Ana, can I... I'm sorry, Ana, Ana's not in the same room with us. Could you comment further on that one?

Yes, thank you so much and thank you for the good question. As it was discussed at the ODEC and also commented by the biostatistician, it is to be noted that the PFS analysis has a certain data cut with also certain data maturity and with more follow-up, of course, there is more censoring and a curve. And it was clearly noted also at the ODEC there was some censoring before the end. So it is definitely not a mature curve, that's one. Second, we have two PFS data cuts that are in the public domain. If you look at the second PFS data cut, it seems to be really going apart a bit better. And finally, I'd like to also mention, we're speaking about multiple myeloma patients who unfortunately still do not have a cure at this point in time. So therefore we would expect that at some point in time, patients read up and then need to go to the next therapy. So that's all from my end on the PFS and discussion at ODEC.

Thanks, Hama.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Samantha Simenko with CIDI, your line is now open.

Hey, this is Eric, I'm for SAM. Thanks for taking our questions. Can you speak to any utilization trends you're seeing across treatment centers where Abecma is the only BCMA CAR-T available versus those that offer CAR-VCT as well? And are you seeing utilization across all activated treatment centers or is it clustered in a subset? And if so, can you characterize that subset?

Yeah, thanks for the question. We track obviously the utilization data across all of the centers where we're activated. And those trends can vary over time. And again, we have centers that have higher rates of utilization and ones that are less so. I would say the academic centers, the major centers, tend to drive a lot of the overall utilization. But from a growth perspective, extending the overall footprint to more geographically remote places in the United States is helpful for those patients where travel time to receive their CAR-T and the follow-up involved matters. And so we think site expansion is an important part of the overall commercial strategy. And again, we're engaging right now with every one of those centers, highlighting the CARMA 3 data, the data that are on the label, then the real-world evidence and everything else that we're able to do compliantly in a commercial setting. So more to come on that. But again, as we said it before, we're excited to get back out there with the new and expanded data set.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Vikram Pirouette with Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.

Hi, this is Morgan on for Vikram. Thanks for taking our question. So I wanted to ask about your anticipation of the initial launch ramp curves and the third line setting and how this might compare to late line setting uptake. Thank you.

Hi, Morgan. Thanks for the question. The fifth line launch was a different dynamic in the sense that there were patients with no treatment options. There was clearly a bolus of patients who had been waiting for that approval and capacity was limited. And so that resulted in long lines in terms of wait times and just triaging the best that we could as a manufacturer and as a sponsor. Today in third line setting, very different dynamics. More treatment options for those patients. Much larger market. We have, as Vicky highlighted earlier, based on present demand, unlimited capacity. So that, I think sets us up well to expand into that market, but it's not the same kind of bolus effect we expected in the fifth line. So again, as we said, early days here, it will be a return to growth, but we expect, given the lag time between enrollment, AIF and then revenue, kind of the revenue impact, we don't expect to be able to show until we get into second half of the year results, third quarter, fourth quarter results.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of John Newman with Canaccord Genuity. Your line is now open.

Hi guys, thanks for the question and congrats on the really great work that was done for the FDA panel. That was a tough one, but you could tell that you were very well prepared. Just had a question. We've been hearing from some of the physicians at academic centers that they are devoting more resources over time to the apheresis portion of treatment, and some of them have sort of suggested that maybe in the future, in conjunction with some of the companies perhaps, some of that apheresis could be done offsite and not in the academic centers. Just wanna get your thoughts on that and whether it's something that you're sort of considering in conjunction with Bristol as we go forward.

Yeah, John, thanks for the question and the comments from FDA. We were certainly excited, as you said, with the team's performance there. Look, it's any time you solve a bottleneck that a new one's created in a supply chain as complex as CAR-T therapy. And so I think with the approval of suspension vector, with the amount of capacity that we've been able to establish consistently on the drug product side, you start to think about other bottlenecks and that could be the number of beds in the clinic, that could be apheresis capacity. These are all things that collectively as an industry we're thinking about and to the extent that we can influence. We are, those are all decisions that are made by the academic centers and hospitals, et cetera. But it's all part of the broader ecosystem. We've been playing a leading role there for some time. And we're gonna continue to work to make access and availability for as many patients who can benefit here as we can. And we think that's a big number and we're gonna be out of for quite some time. Ana, I don't know if you have any additional thoughts on that one.

Thank you, Chip. I think you answered that very well. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'm currently showing no further questions at this time. I'd like to hand the call back over to Chip Baird for closing remarks.

Thank you all for calling in today. If you have questions, we're happy to follow up further and look forward to continuing to get after the return to growth for back by here throughout the balance of the year. Thanks everyone. Have a great day.

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