Orexo AB (publ)

Welcome to OREXO Q4 Report 2024. For the first part of the conference call, the participants will be in listen-only mode. During the questions and answers session, participants are able to ask questions by dialing star five on their telephone keypad. Now I will hand the conference over to CEO Nikolai Sorensen and CFO Frederick Yerston. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much and welcome to this full year report and fourth quarter. This quarter has been extremely intensive for Rexo. A lot of things has happened, both on the business side, but definitely also more on the corporate side. And we'll come back to that. But I think the headline of this quarterly report is resolving issues, unlocking more flexibility. And I think that's truly what we've done during the quarter by reviewing some of the assets on the balance sheet, also made some internal transactions. We have closed the Sun litigation and I think in that way we are cleaning up the business and have a much better position moving forward to decide what's the best strategy to create shareholder value and to grow the business. So today I'm joined by Frederik, who will take us through the financial overview, but I will give a business overview and then we'll end up with a little comment on the future value drivers in the company. So first, a little headline of the quarter. So the quarter in brief, it's on page five. So in the quarter, as we had anticipated and guided, we have a full year positive EBITDA and we also had a positive EBITDA in the quarter. Thank you. This is significantly better than last year, and that is explained predominantly by reduced OPEX or solely by reduced OPEX. One of the things that is very important for us is to see subsoil revenues and to see that it's stabilizing after some years following the loss of exclusivity of our key competitor. We are now seeing subsoil revenues, which are in this quarter basically similar to the last quarter, a similar quarter last year. And we've seen that during the year. There was a little drop in the beginning of the year. and in Q2, but now we have seen a stabilization of the sales. We also have been working, of course, with OX124. I know many of you have been expecting and hoping for getting more clarity on this. We have made good progress with the FDA, but we're actually now sitting in a situation with a supplier of a very critical component to the product and the device. who had their problems getting this through their quality systems. And we're waiting for that to come through before we can give any firm guidelines on the timing. It has unfortunately been delayed several times and that creates a little more uncertainty on our side on when we can finish the test that has been required by FDA. OX640, I hope most of you have seen this very good clinical data we presented earlier this year of the study that we finished just before christmas this is really strengthening the case for week 640 as we once again see an excellent bioavailability we also see that now with patients with allergic rhinitis something that We saw at the FDA discussions before the approval of the competing product, Nephi, this was a lot of focus on the patients with allergic rhinitis. And we decided we need to see how the powder react in that situation. And we actually saw an accelerated effect from patients with allergic rhinitis, which is really good because allergic rhinitis is something that is quite often seen with anaphylaxis. So OX640, I think, has gone from clarity to clarity in that sense. Then to the corporate changes, we have made some, after we settled the SobSol case, it opened up for some changes in our balance sheet around the SobSol IP, something that we've been discussing internally for a while. We moved now the SobSol IP and manufacturing rights from the parent company out to separate fully owned subsidiary and that gives much more clarity around what is the SubSol business and what is R&D, but also gave an opportunity to look at the value of SubSol and then revalue the value of the SubSol IP on the balance sheet of the parent company. Frederik will comment on that a little later. In addition, as we press released during the quarter, we agreed with GAIA to terminate the contract under PREXIS. It was a mutual agreement. With that also come an impairment. We have also looked at the two other digital assets, Bovida and Moodea, and made a decision together with the board of directors that the main part of the business case for Bovida was associated with access to reimbursement from insurance companies. And we see that that requires more investments and has become a little more difficult with this or become more difficult with CMS guidelines that came out recently. So we've also decided to impair the value we have for Robita on the balance sheet. performance in if we look at the full year and look at the guidance we provided we expected the market to grow two to five percent and we were someone close to the middle of this with three percent and what was positive is that we actually seen an increased growth rate during q3 and now also q4 where we actually had a six percent growth compared to last year so that is is a good sign for for 2025 um as you will see later we have however decided to keep the same guidance for 2020 In terms of sub-salt, we said we would have the same sales this year, 2024 as we have 2023. We're very close, but as we've said since Q2, where we saw this dramatic decline in inventory with the wholesalers, that that would be a challenge to get back to that level. We did see that the wholesaler levels improved somewhat in Q4, but not to the level that we started the year with. A lot of the deviation from the target is actually explained by changes in wholesale inventory. But we are close, but we've decided to clamp this, so we didn't went all the way. For the OPEX, we're significantly lower. and then the guidance and we said we should be below 5 30 and we were at 469. this is a result of continued constant control and people working in the company have seen how we have worked on office spaces there is some fewer colleagues also in the company our digital business has seen dramatic decline in expenses over the last few years But it is also when we did the guidance, it was with the anticipation of approval of OX124 this year. And had that happened, we would have had to take some launch expenses that were included into the guidance that we couldn't take because the product didn't receive the anticipated approval in the middle of 2024. Group A did that. We said we should be positive full year, and we have been that. We are that with nearly 50 million. Then to subsoil performance or use commercial. So the main thing here and really, really important for us has been to resolve the litigation we have been in with Sun Pharmaceuticals for more than four years. We reached the settlement with Sun in December, and you could say that why did we go into a settlement? We won in the district court and we now had appeal and had good chances to win on the appeal. But my experience and our lawyers experience with the US legal system is even the best case come with some risk. And of course, if we were failing in the court of appeal, there would be no appeal opportunities or there's been no reasonable appeal opportunities. And with that, we were basically betting on the full revenue of the company. SubSalt is close to 100% of our current revenues, and losing exclusivity could have quite severe consequences for the company. So to get this certainty, even though we give away a few years in the end, is really good for the business for the next few years and give us the certainty that's needed to look both from a strategic perspective and operational perspective how we drive the company best forward to create shareholder value and growth. Then looking a little more into the market, as I said before, the market growth went up in the fourth quarter with plus 6% full year at 3%. For the full year, we see that commercial is really the driver of the growth rate and together with Medicare, but commercial is a bigger segment. Medicaid has declined year over year. We think this is very much associated with some changes into the emergency policies that came during COVID where people are now moving from Medicaid into commercial. So while we're seeing growth in commercial, we think some of that growth is actually existing patients moving from one insurance coverage to the other. What is interesting is looking into the end of the year, we actually see a much more homogeneous growth rate with commercial growth of plus 3% quarter over quarter and Medicaid of plus 2% quarter over quarter. So quite similar growth rate in the end of the year. For SobSolve, we had some, again, quite stable quarter in terms of demand. So this is number of prescriptions, quarter over quarter, slight growth year over year. We're basically stable. We see that across, of course, the different segments where we are stable in commercial. We've seen some growth in the public segment, but we've also seen a decline on a full year basis in UnitedHealth Group and Humanum. But all in all, a quite stable soft stop business, more or less on the decimal 0% growth year over year. When we look a little forward into SubSalt, what we're very pleased with in 2025 is that we nearly keep our market access. We see that the commercial market access is continued at 98%, which is market leading. In the public segment, we're losing a little with 1%. That is in Medicare. So one percentage point down. And in Medicare, there are some changes that we have our eyes on right now. And that is a new rebate system in Medicare where we see that it is probably beneficial for SubSolve on a gross to net price basis. However, we also see some of these Medicare providers, they have put more favorable terms in for generics. So there is an attempt to guide patients to the generics or at least increasing the copay for patients who are in subsoil. And to see that dynamic could have a negative impact on our volume, while we actually think these changes could have a positive impact on our price. So how that turns out in net sales is something we have to monitor quite closely. So far, we haven't really seen any dramatic impact of that now being one month into the year. so if we look at at the overall expectations to 2025 we as said before we expect the market growth to be similar to this year so we give a range of two to five percent we expect net sales now we give a little range here from 50 to 55 million dollars and that's really based on this medicare uncertainty that we're building into this and of course there's always a risk that we'll see some changes during the year to market access. But all in all, we think that SobSort is in a very steady place, a good profit contributor to the company and quite stable sales. For digital therapies or digital mental health programs, we have the long anticipated CMS policy finally came out in October, where we saw that now Pathways, which is really good for digital health products. What's not so good for us is that this requires a registration with FDA, such as a 510 as a medical device. And to get that registration, you need a certain level of clinical evidence. And when we look at our three programs, none of them are in their current state ready for that 510k registration so there is a little different by program to program there would be a need for additional investments to meet that that level with the cms and that has led us together with gaia to agree that With the Brexit we should terminate the contract and as I said before also we have decided to impair Vovida. For Mudea we still see some opportunities and we did during the end of the quarter actually a healthcare provider in the US received a small grant to start testing Mudea on a group of patients. which is within this, what we have talked about before, the MAD core concept we're working on. So with Moodea, there are still pathways and it's, of course, much more synergistic with our pharmaceutical business than Boveda and Deprexis. Then to our products under development, we start with OX124. Unfortunately, this is one of my disappointments is that we didn't receive a clear timeline for when we can resubmit. We have talked to FDA. We have gone through the complete response letter. We believe we have a proposal that will effectively address the points raised by the FDA. As always, FDA will not give you a guarantee that if you provide this data, we will approve. They want to see the full data set before they review it. So there's always a risk that FDA could come back and ask for more data. But we have presented and we know exactly what test that we have to do. I think the uncertainty here is a little more about what kind of stability data do they look for. We're proposing an accelerated stability program and we're building more and more stability data all the time from our historic data. So when we get to submission, there will be even more data than when we filed last time. However, and this is where it is frustrating because it's very little we can do from Orexo is since this is not only a powder, this is requiring a device and a secondary package. We are dependent on suppliers of these parts to the product. And this is where one very critical supplier have faced issues in their own quality control of their manufacturing and have had to upgrade their manufacturing and during that process have not met the quality standards that they have set up before they can release the product. that's just like anyone else sitting in that process since we're working with life-saving products you want to be certain that the product is meeting certain quality standards and this is of course where we are in the hands of our supplier to solve this issue this is out of our control and we're of course talking to them nearly daily but we are still waiting to get that final go when they can supply the product And before we have that, it's very hard for us to give a timeline for OX124 resubmission. But when we receive it, we are all set to start the testing of the product and resubmit to FDA as soon as possible. OX640, we have continued to take some very good steps. As I said in the beginning, we did this test with 30 health volunteers. All of them, however, are allergic, so we could create an allergic provoke, an allergic reaction in terms of allergic rhinitis. So we could test the group both on a clean OX640, we could test it in two different doses. We could also test them with an intramuscular and we could test them when they have allergic rhinitis. And that gave us excellent data to look at the bioavailability to ensure we go forward with the right dose. And what again was really, really positive is that we saw that the allergic rhinitis actually accelerated the uptake of epinephrine when that was present. We are now in full focus of preparing manufacturing, so we are looking into the final commercial dose and formulation that will enable us to move into commercial manufacturing. We will also be in continuous talk with potential partners and the really positive thing here again is that the new data has actually triggered interest from parties that we have not spoken to before. So we have some new parties who are in the data room looking at the product. So hopefully we'll have an ability to move forward in partnership for week 640 during the year. Then we have two other things that has happened, maybe a little more minor in terms of short term, at least, Gesunda. Fantastic opportunity for Gesunda with our former OXMPI project. It now has the name Vippo Glanstad. for endometriosis, an area that is really underserved with a significant patient need. And we're very pleased to see that Gysynta could make a successful capital raise in a quite difficult market. And in that process, we agreed with Gysynta to convert our rights to future royalties into an ownership in Gysynta. So we received shares worth 19.2 million Swedish kronor. For the other partnership that went through in the quarter is together with the Swedish company Abero who has been working with vaccine development for the last 30 years. Abero has received a grant by CEPI and CEPI is working to prevent future pandemics and working with new creative ways of creating new vaccines. And with the grants that Bayer has received from CP, we can go forward and together work on taking their vaccine technology into Amorphox. And this is really in line with our strategy to show and get even more data how Amorphox can be used in larger molecules where we think there's a large opportunity for the product or for the technology platform Amorphox. With that, I'll leave the word to Frederik to take us through the financial and legal highlights.

Thanks Nikolaj. So on page 17 we look at our revenue and if we start by looking on on the top part of the page you can see that total revenue in q4 amounted to 160 million sec and of that revenue subsole within us commercial is the main contributor with 152 million for the quarter which is slightly up year over year with approximately one percent following a favorable pay mix and a positive fx impact of 1.5 million In relation to HQ and pipeline revenues, again, we had significantly lower abstract royalties accrued based on lower expected sales following the gradual decline, as we have seen when agreements for the abstract royalties for individual countries expire. Also commenting on SubSol Ex-US revenues, which for the quarter were higher than last year, explained by higher sales of tablets to our partner Accord Healthcare. But for the full year, these revenues are significantly lower than last year, explained by the shift from low margin product sales of tablets to Accord towards high margin royalty from Accord on their own sales. If you look at SubSol specifically and Q4 compared to Q3, you can see in the waterfall graph on the bottom part of the page, the main reason for the significant increase in net revenue of 18.1% is the positive higher wholesaler inventory stocking effect of 9 million, which is then quite the opposite effect compared to Q3 when we had a major negative destocking effect. demand for subsole in net revenue terms is also positive in the quarter in the open segment and quarter over quarter we can also see a stabilized demand in united health group and hermana there is also slightly favorable pay mix effect as well as a positive in fx impact quarter quarter of 4.9 million in conclusion you can also see in the graph that in local currency the subsole net revenue increased by 12.4 percent between the quarters Going to the next page, our P&L, happy to conclude that we had a very strong finish for the year in relation to our EBTA, which landed at 29 million for Q4, actually the best EBTA since 2019. If you look at our operating expenses in Q4, the counted number of 236 million is not comparable year-over-year because of these non-recurring items affecting OPEX this quarter. And that is the one-time non-recurring impairment of the intangible assets, totaling 99 million, and the value recognition of 19 million for shares in Gesunta. That was accounted for in the quarter. Now, if we exclude those non-recurring items, OPEX would come out at 156 million, which then is in line with OPEX Q4 last year. And doing the same exercise for the full year, adjusted OPEX, including depreciation, would land at 578 million, which is then 12% reduction from last year. In the quarter, we did have some higher legal expenses due to the DOJ investigation and resolving the IP litigation. as well as some higher R&D costs for both 0x640 and 0x124. They were partly offset by positive FX effect on revaluations of balance sheet items. Also, the average US dollar strengthened slightly in the fourth quarter compared to last year and FX effect on P&L and EBIT was a positive 1.3 million. Also, to make it more comparable, we defined in the report an adjusted EBIT, excluding the write-downs, which in Q4 then was a positive 1.2 million. And the corresponding adjusted EBIT number from our US business amounted to 34 million SEK for the quarter, which is a margin of 22.3%. On the next page, We show our cash flow and we had a positive trend in cash flow for the quarter. Liquid funds, which is cash, cash equivalents amounted to 123 million end of Q4. That's an increase by 8.4 million from end of Q3. And we should not forget that we also have the 30 million SEC exposure in our own bond as a potential source of funds. So we had cash flow from operating activities of 6.2 million, primarily impacted by positive operating earnings when adjusted for the write down of intangible assets. We paid interest of 13 million for the new bond loan. That was 2.1 million higher than last year, 23 million higher year to date. We also received interest of 4.2 million. And then adjustments for non-cash items that include change in provisions. And this quarter, there was a negative effect of 4.7 million following timing of payments of payer rebates. Operating cash flow was also affected by a negative change in working capital of 2.1 million. So total cash flow for the period ended up at 0.5 million and then adding an FX effect on cash of 8 million, that adds up to the increase in cash of 8.4 million since the end of Q3. Also in Q4, our parent company equity increased significantly following a string of events completed in the quarter. In the waterfall chart, we show these events and their effect on parent company equity. So firstly, BioLeapBox, so reaching a settlement in the patent litigation with Sun Pharma. That enabled us to explore a fair value of our SubSol business, which up until then had not been recognized in our balance sheet. So following the settlement, we completed an internal transaction where the SubSol US business consisting of patents, supply, manufacturing of SubSol was transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary called B-Litbox at a fair market value. value which was assessed by an independent external party at approximately 1.1 billion SEK. Which then was the profit that Orexo made on the transaction and consequently affected the parent company equity. In that exercise taxable income for Orexo AB is offset against current or previous year's losses carried forward. I mentioned Gysynta earlier and that is the 19 million from the value recognition accounted for in the quarter and that increased our equity following signing of the agreement on the conversion of rights to shares and this conversion was then completed in connection with Gysynta's capital raise in January this year. We also had the negative effects from the impairment of intangible assets to Praxis and Vervida, totaling 99.2 million, and also an accelerated amortization of activated subsoil clinical studies that amounted to 9 million SEK. So with those events, parent company equity at 31st of December ended up at 1,027 million SEK. Financial outlook. We show the financial outlook of 2025, stating that we expect the market growth of 2% to 5% to continue. Outcome 2024 was 3%. Subsol net sets in US dollar, which for 2024 was 53 million, is expected within the interval of 50 to 55 million. And OPEX excluding depreciation and amortization in 2024 amounted that to 469 million. That is expected within the interval of 460 to 500 million. And finally, Group EBITDA maintaining the key metric of a positive EBITDA for the full year 2025. And as you remember, this was a positive in 2024 with 49 million. And with that, I leave back to Nicolai.

Thank you, Fredrik. And maybe worth saying for the financial outlook is we're basing that on an exchange rate of 10.5 Swedish kronor per dollar, which is right now the dollars is just around 11. So you can say the lower the value of the Swedish kronor, the better the result for us as we have all of our income in dollar and a decent amount of the expenses on Swedish kronor also. Then coming to the legal update, we've already talked about the settlement with Sun, hopefully for the last time. And now the one that we are working on is the subpoena we received more than four years ago from the US authorities or Department of Justice. We continue to believe that we have that the investigation has no merit and that we have been working with all means possible to be compliant. But we also realize that these processes rarely go away of itself. So in the US, there's an expectation that you negotiate a settlement or go to court. And we find here that a settlement solution is more preferable for the company. And we have been working to find a resolution with that. As this is the Federal Department of Justice, those of you who follow US politics will know that there is quite a turbulent period right now. And that, of course, is affecting somewhat the process in the US currently. But this is, of course, an area that we'd like to resolve as soon as possible also. Moving a little to the future value drivers, we have not updated this since the last time. We are now, based on all of the changes we have made, we are looking into how we should structure and work forward with our different asset classes. But it is very important for us where we stay right now is to continue working to optimize our profitability, maintain the sub-solid revenues and hopefully even improve from our current levels. It is to ensure that our existing products are solved, but also the future products have a good access for patients to get them. And that's working through in reimbursement and other policy initiatives to ensure that this can reach the patients. And then we have our Amorphox technology where we are looking for what is the optimal way to apply this technology. And this is also an area where we will intensify our efforts during the first half of this year is to more streamline our efforts around the amorphous technology to ensure we focus our resource where we have most value. And with that, I will open up for questions and answers. Thank you.

If you wish to ask a question, please dial pound key 5 on your telephone keypad to enter the queue. If you wish to withdraw your question, please dial pound key 6 on your telephone keypad. The next question comes from Sameer Devani from RX Securities. Please go ahead.

Hi guys, thanks for taking my questions. I think I've got a couple. I guess the first one is around OX124 and just trying to clarify my understanding of what the situation is currently. Nicola, I wonder if you can help me just, I know you can't give a specific timeline, but maybe a best and worst case outcome for you in terms of timing to get the key part from the manufacturer for the device. And then when you've got the part in hand, how long from there before you can resubmit to the FDA?

So on OX124, the... I can give you the second question as well, if you want me to. I can do that, so yeah. Yep, please. Okay, I start answering the OX124 question here first.

Sorry, the second question is really just around amorphics. And maybe if you... Okay, fine. Yeah, fine.

Okay, I will take the first question then. So, Wix 124, we... I would say the concern we have right now is that we have been delayed several times from the supplier. I think in the worst case, this will be in the summer. In the best case, this will be in the first part of Q2. I think the likelihood is probably that it comes a little later into Q2. From there on, it really depends on... If everything moves as planned, we would believe this is taking somewhat more than six months before we can supply. So what we're looking at could then be in the first quarter of next year. So that's where we are in that could be a scenario. But but I will say here that the uncertainty is quite high because we are really depending on a supplier. And then, of course, the number of tests we're going to do, of course, also coming with the risk of.

I totally appreciate it.

Yes.

I totally appreciate that. So just just to confirm that you said Q. So say Q1 20 26 would be when you would would would be filing with the refiling with the FDA is that a scenario that's a scenario and it could be both plus and minus but that's a scenario just looking at where we are right now okay okay fine and then second question was just on amorphics and just I was wondering if you could maybe just remind us how many feasibility deals you currently have for the technology and how many of those potentially over the next 12 months would get to a go-no-go position from a licensing deal perspective.

So we have... We have some that are non-disclosed, so I have to be a little cautious here. But you can say the one we have with SOPE is at the go-no-go decision. The decision is sitting with SOPE. We have delivered and the results we have delivered are definitely in line with the expectations of that project moving up first. So I think this is into a... Soapy prioritizing where to put their investments for the future pipeline. So this is sit there. But of course, we continue to deliver data to Soapy also as we wait. But that one is a go and no go decision. But the timeline, again, is sitting with Soapy and not really with Orexo. Then we have the ABERA, which is more collaborative and where, of course, right now that process and even OREX's expenses are covered by external grants. And I think that's part of the plan moving forward also. So here we are expecting some of the results, of course, during the first half of the year, and then we'll make a collaborative decision with ABERA how to move forward. Apart from that, we are running right now, as we speak, another feasibility test on all the technology, also in a more collaborative spirit. And we'll see where that takes us. Then we have some formal projects where we have delivered results, where, for example, there's a US company who have working with an NCE where we again delivered some good data to the US company, but they have to go back based on some data they received on the compound that they had to review. So here, I think they, again, that one could turn into a continuation, but that's again, really depending on the progress for this US company. And then we have a few former projects that we have run through where, again, Morphox have actually delivered on every single test we have done. But all of us who work in pharmaceutical industry knows that there's one step is to start a feasibility study with the R&D department. And if you deliver positive results, it's moving off the ladder often to the executive team and sometimes even at a board level to get into a prioritization. And here it's about timing and that, of course, some of the older projects could also come back and start up as a collaboration. Then we have several discussions ongoing with other companies at the moment that hopefully would lead into additional feasibility studies.

That's great. Thanks very much.

Okay.

The next question comes from Klaas Palen from Carnegie. Please go ahead.

Hi there, and thanks for taking my questions. I just wonder if you could share your thoughts your costs would be affected in 2025 following the discontinuation of the practice and now also writing down VORVIDA.

So the... The OPEX would, of course, have a significant impact because a large share of the OPEX have been continued depreciation of the assets. But if you look at the net cost, we have not invested that much during the year. So it's not that significant amount, probably around somewhere around five, six million. But that's predominant related to the in-licensing cost from the praxis.

I'm just curious why you don't fully have terminated the collaboration with the Gaia over Morvida. Is that just a timing issue or anything else?

We have a discussion with GAIA for how to best proceed with the product and we do have some progress for example within the Veteran Affairs that we would like to and GAIA like to capitalize on and I think in these partnerships it's good that we have a collaborative approach to how we can optimize the opportunities for the product moving forward. I think for the Praxis it was a contractual window that made it more easy for Vovida. It needs to be a discussion between us and Gaia, but we have a good constructive dialogue with Gaia about it. But I think that's that's what I can say at the moment. I think Vovida is an excellent product, but it's quite clear that for Rexo footprint commercially, we would need to have reimbursement from the insurance companies to be able to to leverage that. And I think here Vovida is better managed in the hands of companies who have a more consumer focus.

Okay, thank you so much. And then my last question, I'm very well aware of that the new administration is in very early stages but have you picked up any signs from the new administration that perhaps you believe might affect your u.s business when it comes to risks or opportunities sorry i did so i didn't hear the first part so so new administration's off

Oh, yeah, the administration with Donald Trump. I'm sorry, I missed the beginning here.

It's a new administration in the US. Yeah.

I think right now it's written a little in the stars exactly what happens in the U.S., both in terms of tariffs. We are not impacted on subsoil from tariffs as that is manufactured in the U.S. Even some of the excipients are. sourced outside but at the moment we we don't see any major impact on on or any impact on subsoil from a cost perspective for for weeks one to four the sourcing is more international both europe and canada so that could of course have some impact moving forward when we look at other initiatives it's quite clear that he's talking a lot about fentanyl And that, of course, is giving us some confidence that the likelihood that there would be restrictions on access to rescue medications and treatment. We don't see that that is an area where he would cut down, I think, on the contrary. And we saw that last time also. He quite quickly put down a group just to work with the opioid industry. epidemic and and that's something that i actually believe we know from first-hand sources that it's uh quite uh there's a engagement for that within the his nearest family okay then um okay uh thank you so much thank you class i'm i'm just looking for here for me I'm sorry that this is a new system. First time we're using this and there appears to be a little lack in the timing here. So I apologize for that. So we have a few questions from the net. One is around. We talk about the growth of the market, 2% to 5%. And why don't we work to influence the growth? I will say one of our claims to fame is that OREXO was absolutely instrumental to increase the number of patients that can be treated in the US. And that's when we saw the growth rate actually historically went from high single digit to double digit growth. I would say that had not happened without OREXO. So historically, we have worked intensively to improve access to treatment with buprenorphine naloxone. And I would claim again that this had not happened without OREXO. The situation right now is that part of the growth in this market is actually going to new formulations. So to our good friends and colleagues at Camyrus, their product in the US appears to be doing quite well. And the same goes for Indivir who have their sublocate in their pool formulation. So they don't cannibalize into the existing market, but they definitely take some of the growth rate from the market. So that's part of it. And then as Orexo with a 2% market share, I think it's very hard for us to motivate in larger investments to grow the market. The US is such a big market. So for us to really drive that is associated with significant expenses, unless we can work very focused as we've done historically to improve access by improving number of patients the doctors can treat. by improving reimbursement, as we have worked with in several states, to ensure that patients can get access to all different products without any restrictions. For example, in the US, they work a lot with what's called step edits. It's working with copays. And to reduce the number of step edits, copays, it is to work with insurance companies to ensure that when you go to your doctor, you don't have to wait a week before you can actually get paid for your pharmaceutical, that you can leave the doctor with access to a product. We've done a lot of that historically, and we're still working on this. But I think on these larger, really dramatic changes to the market is behind us because right now buprenorphine naloxone is free to prescribe to basically any physician in the US. And that makes it a little more difficult for us to really grow. I think we need a bigger market. And just to give some sense, because I have worked in a company that had the ability to grow a market. But when When I worked at Pfizer, the sales force working with the products I was responsible for was 1,500 people. That is to compare with a little more than 30 people who have been working with us in the US. So there's a limit to what we can do. Then we have a question regarding Sophie, and I think I have answered that question already. Then we have here, how is the strategic review progressing? Are you looking to sell SobSolve? We We have not started a full strategic review. I think the focus for us in Q4 has been to settle. It has been to increase the transparency of the company, for example, with the move of SobSolve into BioLipox, as Frederik is talking about. We now have a situation where we better can review all of the different assets and see what's the best way forward. And that, of course, is including how do we ensure that we have the best platform to sell subsoil. It's quite clear, as I said before, we have a small field force. It's a very big market. There are a lot of physicians who can prescribe subsoil today. But for Rexel to hire a field force of 100 or 200 people is not possible. I think we need to look at opportunities for how we can expand that footprint. And there are several different options to do that. One of them could be, of course, that someone would want to pay a certain high amount because it needs to be a high amount to acquire SubSol. But right now, the big focus for us is to maintain the good sales we have in the US to keep a very efficient sales force in place. And then we're working on the other areas in parallel. Is SubSalt produced in the US or imported and exported to potential tariffs? I think I explained that. That is manufactured and packaged in the US. However, as any pharmaceutical product in the world, there are excipients used in the manufacturing, which are global. So I don't think there are any products today which have a complete sourcing within one country. And that also goes to SubSalt. Right now, we have a good inventory of all of our excipients, and we have the major cost of goods, which is what is most subject to tariffs, is all done in the US, the major part of the cost of goods. I believe that was the last question I have received. So with that, I want to thank all of you to listen to the OREXO fourth quarter and full year result call and wish all of you a good day. Thanks a lot.