Presentation. You may ask a question at any time by typing it into the Ask a Question feature on your screen. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It's now my pleasure to turn the call over to your CEO, Michael Engsig. Please go ahead.
Thank you very much, Kevin. Also from my side, a warm welcome to all the participants for this Nykode Fourth Quarter Webcast. Just a quick reminder of our forward-looking statement. We assume you're all familiar with those. On that note, we'll move forward. I am very pleased to, as usual, have Agnete Fredriksen, Chief Scientific Officer, Head of Business Development, and co-founder with me, together with Harald Gurvin, Chief Financial Officer. Together, we'll take you through the key highlights of the fourth quarter, as well as, of course, the financial numbers. It's been an eventful fourth quarter for us, although obviously, there are parts of this we are not looking forward to see anytime through.
It has been a tough period with a number of layoffs and people leaving the organization because we have announced the strategic refocus to align our activities and our organization and our cash burn with our cash runway. We are good through these processes right now. The intent is, of course, to align the activities with the cash runway and to extend the cash runway into 2030. We will achieve that by reaching an annual cost base of approximately $20 million going forward. We are reporting today a strong cash position of more than $150 million, which is, I think, in these days in this industry, a uniquely strong position to be in.
Also, on the very positive side, we did publish the final data set from our phase II trial, the C-02 trial, in the peer-reviewed JITC journal, once again confirming what we saw in the interim data: a prolonged benefit, definitive vaccination effect in the patients with advanced cervical cancer. We regained ownership, including the IP rights to our VB10.NEO program from our partner, Genentech, and are now looking into the optimal path for that program going forward. We did announce a small set of data from the N-02 trial that does confirm what we've seen earlier in the N-01 trial: a competitive immune response. I will take you a little bit through these data again later in this call here, but just to say that we remain very confident in the VB10.NEO program compared to the industry or other programs in the same field.
We presented new data on both our cancer vaccine, the mRNA modality, and we'll spend a little bit of time with that later in this call here. Of course, on our very exciting APC targeted immune tolerance program, we'll also be spending some time on this later in this call here. We've been through this before, but just want to recap for everybody. The purpose of our refocused strategy is to create a company which is, obviously, lean and research-focused, focused on discovering novel assets, which we in turn think will create very exciting investment opportunities through targeted development activities, including also clinical trials. Everything we do will be geared and aimed towards generating early partnerships.
We do believe that is the best way to create value for a company like Nykode with a very strong technology platform, but also with our strongest competencies in the product discovery and early development area. Expect to see us continue to generate exciting new assets from our research engine and in a very cost-conscious way. Also, take decisions on targeted cost-efficient development activities to create shareholder value and pave the way for early partnerships. Our lead program, VB10.16, is still in progress. Also here, reminding you that we are addressing a patient population with a huge unmet need. Perhaps surprising to some, still remain with high and growing incidences. It has been a notion that some of the prophylactic vaccines would change the market opportunity for this patient population going forward.
That does not seem to be the case, first of all, because of a lack of uptake of prophylactic vaccines around the world, which means there will be a continued use or need for therapeutic vaccines in the HPV16-driven cancer fields in the future. We have now reported very strong data for VB10.16 combined with atezolizumab in the C-02 trial, together with also a favorable safety profile. We see an even stronger effect in the PD-L1 positive patients and, again, even stronger effect in the PD-L1 positive patients with only one prior line of systemic treatment. Again, reminding you that we have also, in our very first trial with VB10.16 in an HSIL patient, seen very encouraging effects with VB10.16 as a monotherapy in an area that is also gaining increasing attention from industry players around the world.
We have an ongoing trial, C-03, where we are looking for the immune responses and safety in first-line patients with head and neck in combination with pembrolizumab. We did announce or publish the data from the C-02 trial. We are not going to take you through all the data. The publication is available also through a link on the homepage. I just want to remind you what gives us a very high level of confidence and conviction in VB10.16. What you show here is the key data from the patient population with high PD-L1 expression. We have shown you here the overall response rate, the PFS, and the median overall survival compared to three different historical trials that were assessing checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy in a very similar patient population, also PD-L1 positive.
You see that the C-02 trial basically observed an ORR of 29% compared to 16%-18% seen with checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy. We saw a PFS of 6.3 months compared to 1.9-3 months for the checkpoint inhibitor monotherapies. Very impressively, we saw the median overall survival land at 24.7 months compared to overall survivals ranging from approximately 10.6-13.9 months observed with checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy. These data obviously give us, as I said before, a very high level of conviction and confidence in the effects of VB10.16 and give us every reason to continue developing VB10.16 and look for partners. Next slide just shows you what we've seen in the patient population that are PD-L1 positive and have only received one prior line of systemic therapy.
If you go to the far right of this graph or table here, you see the ORR climbing from 29% up to 40%, the PFS from 6.3 to 15.8 months. For this patient population, we did not reach the median overall survival. This also gives us conviction that the earlier stage we go into, the higher the efficacy we will observe for VB10.16. With those words, I'm going to hand over to Agnete, our Chief Scientific Officer, Head of Business Development, to take us through the updates on VB10.NEO and our immune tolerance program. Please, Agnete.
Thank you, Michael. Moving into VB10.NEO, that's our fully individualized neoantigen-based cancer vaccine. This has really the potential to address a broad set of indications as we do make one vaccine per patient that could be applicable for basically all tumor types. We do see a strategic focus and large investments these days in individualized cancer vaccines in late-stage trials by our peers, focusing then importantly on the adjuvant setting and expecting data readouts from these trials from our peers in 2025 and in 2026, 2027. As you may all be aware of, there has been limited transactions in the field of cancer vaccines since Nykode was very active in the space in 2020 and 2021. We now see that that is changing in the landscape, being very aware of what's happening in the field of cancer vaccines in early stage.
That is positive for Nykode, and now also regaining the rights from VB10.NEO. We do have, as you all should be aware of, proven to generate broad and long-lasting T-cell responses across two clinical trials. Importantly, this has not been in adjuvant setting. This has been in heavily pretreated patients with recurrent metastatic solid tumors. We have successfully established in-house proprietary neoantigen selection algorithm that we call NeoSELECT. We work with plasmid DNAs that, for individualized cancer vaccines, do have a very competitive turnaround time and cost of goods reaching the market. We have strong patent protection. If you remember, we got a patent approved earlier this year for VB10.NEO.
As we reported in Q3, preliminary immunogenicity data from the N-02 trial aligns and confirms the final positive data from the N-01 trial, even though these patients are with an even broader set of indications and later-stage patients. Final analysis is currently ongoing as we are regaining all the rights from Genentech for this program, looking forward to finalize all the analysis. As we also showed in Q3, preclinical data supports the opportunity for strong and durable responses using our technology across modalities, importantly here with mRNA, which I'll show you in the next slides. Next.
Just to remind you, we have done some preliminary analysis from VB-N-02 that we reported in Q3, where we see, comparing to what was presented in N-01, that we generate the same amount or even slightly higher percentage of immunogenic new antigen patients with at least one immunogenic or de novo induced vaccine response. Those do have response to any new epitope. Additionally, where we have not shown you really the data yet, we are looking forward to do that in the future. We do see a persistent expansion of T-cell clones in the majority of available patients measured also by the alternative method, TCR sequencing, with the persistently expanding clones emerging already as early as after two to four vaccinations and also durable frequencies.
The adoption of this persistent de novo T-cell response has been confirmed by IVS ELISpot, which means we can identify that some of these clones are truly generated by the vaccine. We continue to be very confident in VB10.NEO's potential and happy to see that there is an increased interest in cancer vaccines by the environment. Go to the next. These are data that we've generated to also investigate our technology across modalities. This has been generated by mRNA LNP, and we looked into durability. As Michael mentioned, we have very strong, convincing durability of VB10.16 in the C-02 trial, leading to prolonged median overall survival. We wanted to see if that holds through when we also use the mRNA format.
Here we have vaccinated in preclinical models two times early and looked that we can actually still identify neoantigen-specific T-cell responses at day 133 after two initial vaccinations. Also, importantly, when we boost this with a third vaccination at day 132, we are able to really boost the T-cell responses to up to 35,000 spots here in this particular experiment, which can mimic either that you do see the antigen coming naturally by the disease or with a third vaccination. Very promising data. We also see very strong increase in the number of new epitopes that are boosted after this long-term in this long-term assay. If you go to the next, we also looked whether these T-cell responses were able to confer tumor protection at this later time point.
Here, vaccinating either at day zero or two times, day zero and day 21, and doing a tumor challenge as late as day 90, we see that with one vaccination, we generate 75% tumor protection, but with two vaccinations, we have been able to fully protect the mice at this later time point of tumor challenge. Able to prove that the T-cell responses that are generated are efficacious also long-term. As Michael mentioned, the immune tolerance field is a very interesting field these days in the industry. We see a lot of activities in immune tolerance. We also see a lot of activities and interest into this field that we are working with, which is truly antigen-specific immune tolerance. The field, as such, has huge opportunities both within a range of autoimmune diseases, but also allergies and organ transplant rejections.
Basically, those indications where we see an unwanted antigen-specific immune response that we can then modulate with the treatment. The antigen-specific immune tolerance field is unique and still new with a few players, but a lot of activities. Also, we see transactions in the field. There is a lot of unmet medical need, and we know that up to one in 10 people are actually affected by autoimmune disorders. You can add allergies to organ transplant rejection. This has a huge focus for Nykode these days. That is obviously supported by the preclinical proof of concept data that we've generated in the most common autoimmune disease models that are being used by the field.
We show potent therapeutic advantage of our APC targeting technology that is significantly better than other technologies operating in the space that do not have our APC targeting platform patents obviously submitted. We are moving very rapidly forward now, establishing several tolerance-relevant methods and assays that will be extremely important in order to both identify the most optimal version of Nykode's tolerance vaccine, but also to really understand our opportunity to specifically modulate the immune system in different directions also within autoimmune diseases. Go to the next. These are data shown in Q3 where we Q4, sorry, with the comparison of two different versions of our technology where we have kept everything identical except the two targeting units. We have a range of different targeting units that we can use that we believe can turn the immune response into tolerance.
You see they are both very effective in preventing disease in this EAE model, which is the model that most of the players in our field are using really to understand the efficacy and the mode of action of antigen-specific tolerance. If you go to the next, when we look into that in particular with different dose levels as well as comparing with constructs that do not have any relevant targeting units of the non-targeted vaccine, which is then shown in black in the figures, you really see that adding a functional targeting unit provides a very strong increase in the ability to alleviate disease in this model. This was done with the first targeting unit that we did show earlier this year.
If you go to the next, we mimic this with the second targeting unit and confirm that this also works and potentially works as good or even slightly better with this targeting unit here. If you go to the next version, we have also now successfully set up a very interesting alternative model, which is a relapsing-remitting EAE model, which means that we have generated data with another construct that holds the different relevant antigen PLP compared to MOG antigen that we used before. We also see that this provides efficacy in a relapsing-remitting model. All of these data now allows us to move more rapidly forward from where we stand today to really dig into the variety of our different constructs, which ones provide the optimal activity and modulate which arms of the immune system.
If you go to the next, we are currently in Boston and looking forward to present new data from our antigen-specific immune tolerance efforts at this highly relevant conference, Antigen-Specific Immune Tolerance Summit, going on this week. We will present a lot of interesting data tomorrow. By those words, I will transfer to you, Harald, for going through the financial results.
Thank you, Agnete. Looking at the income statement, we reported total revenue of $6.9 million in the fourth quarter, up from $2.3 million for the same period in 2023. $6.8 million of the revenues relate to R&D activities delivered under agreements with Genentech and Regeneron, and the remaining relates to government grants. The increase in the quarter is mainly due to the cancellation of the contract with Genentech.
Part of the $245 million in upfront and milestone payments received under the contract were taken to income over time as the R&D services under contract were delivered. Following the cancellation of the contract in the fourth quarter, the outstanding balance of $6.8 million was taken to income in full. Employee benefit expenses were $8.3 million in the fourth quarter, down from $8.9 million for the same period in 2023, reflecting the first part of the organizational changes executed during the second half of 2024. The main part of the reorganization was executed in January and is expected to be finalized in the first half of 2025, which will significantly reduce the employee benefit expenses going forward. Other operating expenses were $4.1 million, down from $10 million in the same period for 2023, mainly reflecting reduced R&D services to Genentech and reduced clinical activities.
Finance, income, and costs were net $1.1 million negative in the fourth quarter, which mainly relates to interest income and unrealized currency movements on the weakening Krone exposure. Overall, we reported a net loss of $6.8 million for the fourth quarter compared to a net loss of $5.3 million for the same period in 2023. Next slide, please. Moving on to the balance sheet, we had a strong cash position of $115.4 million at year-end, which, based on the reorganization, will give us a runway into 2030. As previously communicated, we received a decision from the Norwegian Tax Authorities in October 2023 relating to the tax treatment of the upfront payments received under a license agreement entered into in 2020, which generated a payable of approximately $30 million to the tax authorities in the fourth quarter of 2023.
Nykode is confident that the upfront payment had been treated correctly, a view which has also been confirmed by third-party experts. Nykode appealed the decision in the first quarter of 2024, and the payment has been booked as a receivable via awaiting outcome of the appeal. The receivable is in NOK, and the dollar amount in our accounts will fluctuate with movements in the exchange rate, which also explains the large unrealized movements in finance, income, and costs in the income statement between the quarters. In February this year, we received a letter from the tax authorities that we can expect a draft of the recommendation from the secretariat in the first quarter of 2026. Next, please. Moving on to equity and liabilities, we had total equity of $106.2 million at year-end, which represents a strong equity ratio of 89%.
With that, I will give the word back to Michael.
Thank you very much, Harald. We will finish off with an outlook on our priorities for 2025 before we open up for a few questions. We are obviously having a high focus right now from the management side on continuing the implementation of our refocused strategy and organizational adaptations, aligning our financial resources and cash runway with the new organizational priorities. As we said, we are aiming for a cost base of approximately $20 million per year, which will, in turn, extend the cash runway into 2030. We also continue to be convinced and progress our pipeline. We are currently executing the C-03 trial in the VB10.16 program in first-line head and neck patients, where we are assessing VB10.16 in combination with pembrolizumab.
This trial is expected to read out later this year here, and we'll mainly be looking for the ability of VB10.16 to generate immune responses in these patient populations and, of course, assess the safety in this particular patient population. We'll also be assessing or discussing the optimal path forward for VB10.NEO, aiming at positioning VB10.NEO for future partnerships. For the immune tolerance program, we are working hard to retain our leadership in this field here and really position Nykode's immune tolerance platform as the best-in-class antigen-specific tolerance treatment. We'll, of course, also be on the outlook for partnerships in that field. With those words, I think we've come to the end of the formal presentation, and I'm ready to take some questions, Kevin.
Thank you. I'll be conducting a question-and-answer session.
As a reminder, to ask a question, please type it into the Ask a Question feature on your screen. Our first question is coming from Geir Holom from DNB Markets.
It is in two parts. Part one, what are the most important events for value creation in the coming years as you see them? Part two is, you aim to reach a cost base of approximately $20 million per annum. How fast can you get down to that level, and what cost level could we expect?
Thank you very much, Geir, for your questions. I think I will address question number one, and then I'll hand over to you for addressing question number two. The most important event for us in the coming years, not just 2025, is obviously to see progress on our most important assets and our assets.
I would say I would divide into the three probably obvious ones for everybody: VB10.16, VB10.NEO, and our immune tolerance platform. For VB10.16, we did just report very exciting final data from the C-02 trial in patients with advanced cervical cancer. We will be seeing the results of the C-03 trial this year. As I said before, the C-03 trial is mainly designed to give us a feeling for the immune response levels and the safety in this patient population, which is the first time we test VB10.16 in first-line head and neck. That will also be important. I think together, all these data will inform us on the next best step for VB10.16. We will, of course, on the back of that trial, be coming out and giving some guidance on where we see the next step for VB10.16 as a sense of priority.
For the VB10.NEO program, we remain, as I've said a couple of times during this call here, convinced about the uniqueness of the program and the ability to generate a broad and deep immune response. We see the levels that Agnete went through earlier on a very competitive level compared to what we see with peer-reported data. Our conviction in VB10.NEO is, despite the development from the partnership front, actually unchanged. We also sense that the excitement around individualized immune therapies these years here are higher than ever. There are being put more money into clinical development of individualized immune therapies across the industry than we've seen any earlier year with several pivotal programs going on and also a range of randomized phase two programs going on from peers.
As always in this field here, we do expect to see a lot of spillover effect should those programs come out positive, which we, of course, hope they will. We sense that also from discussions with the pharma industry. We do see an increasing pickup on the number of pharma companies that want to get an update in this field here. I think our job for the VB10.NEO is to really figure out how we position ourselves best as the most attractive, unencumbered, individualized immune therapy, aiming, obviously, at entering a future partnership. How we do that exactly, we were indicated earlier, we will need a little bit more time. I think we've indicated we'll be coming back in the first half of 2025 with further guidance on how we see the best path for VB10.NEO going forward.
The whole field of immune tolerance, which is an extremely exciting field these days, is generating a lot of interest from potential pharma partners. Here, we will continue to strengthen the underlying base for the APC targeted technology platform and continue to demonstrate that our approach is really unique and best in class. We will be on the lookout for various constructions of collaborations with partners that could potentially accelerate both the programs and, of course, contribute critical know-how and muscles to the programs. That is basically how we approach that. As Agnete indicated in her slide, we will be presenting what we actually consider to be exciting preclinical data at the conference in Boston tomorrow, which we think further establishes the APC targeted technology platform that we have as one of the best in class, if not the best in class.
I think I'm going to leave it to you, Harald, to talk about the second question.
Yeah, thank you. We are, of course, constantly working to prioritize costs where they bring the most value. If you look at 2025, there will, of course, be both restructuring costs. The main part of the reorganization was executed in January. There will also be ongoing costs related to the C-03 trial and finalization of the N-02 trial. The cost level for 2025 will be higher than the $20 million long-term cost base we are aiming at. Exactly how, we will come back to once we have more clarity. If you look at when we aim to reach the new long-term cost base, based on the current plans, we should already next year be able to reach that $20 million cost level.
Thank you.
Our next question is coming from Sean Hammer from Jefferies.
In your discussions with potential partners, has anyone said whether they await further data from VB10.16 before signing an agreement, such as immunogenicity data from VB-C-03? When can we expect this data?
Yes, thank you very much. Of course, I fully do appreciate the question, but it does, to some extent, suddenly become a gross simplification of, I think, partnership dialogue in general when you try to boil it down to so singular questions. When we talk to partners about any programs, it is an ongoing dialogue that stretches over long periods where you try to keep people engaged in the program and tell them about the progress and the data coming out.
The responses come in a broad range, along a spectrum from there will be people who are not even focused on these strategic areas, and there will be people who are on the lookout and trying to stay updated. There will be people who are interested but will be looking for something more. It is a correct implication that some companies need to see more data. Some companies even say they want to see randomized data before going into new modalities. Therefore, there will be companies who have said, "We'll be looking for more data in the areas where the C-03 is bringing those data." We will have to see whether that will be enough.
It depends both on the outcome of the data and the way I think some of the parameters that we are not emphasizing here pans out when you dig down into patient cases. We will have to see, but we are definitely not ruling it out.
Thank you. Next question is a follow-up from Sean Hammer from Jefferies.
What have you gathered from FDA regarding the feasibility of running later-stage trials for personalized cancer vaccines and the scope for commerciality?
Yeah, thank you. Also a good question. I think this whole field is in a flux these years. I say that in a positive sense, although I realize it can be perceived as something that is risky.
I always felt that, or we always felt that, in particular, the FDA has had a very open mind to these new technologies and the prospect of using AI-driven algorithms to design individualized therapies. I think FDA is one of the more forward-looking agencies you'll find together with perhaps the German authorities, PEI. We don't sense that there's any hesitancy from FDA towards a particular patient population, but we do agree with the majority of parties in the industry right now that the sweet spot for the current individualized immunotherapy platforms, including probably our own, lies towards the more early-stage cancer tumor types. In the adjuvant setting, the locally advanced or resectable settings, where we've seen actually quite encouraging data coming out.
We never ruled out late-stage cancer, but I think, just to repeat myself here, we do agree that it is probably in the early stage we will see the first breakthroughs for individualized immunotherapies like ours and our peers. I also expect that is where we will be focusing our own thoughts as we map out our plans.
Thank you. Next question is coming from Chiara Montironi from Van Lanschot Kempen.
What kind of partnership are you looking for, or are you open for?
Thank you. As you know, partnerships come in all shapes and forms, and we are, in general, very open for exploring multiple partnerships, particularly at this stage of the company.
I think if you look at our three main priorities programs at the moment, VB10.16 is an asset that we find to be very mature as it is, has generated very promising data across cervical cancer, and we're now waiting for the first data in head and neck cancer. That is more likely to be a traditional partnership with pharma that we will prioritize. Although there are also other innovative therapies moving forward towards approval that can be interesting to explore in combination with also VB10.16. When it comes to VB10.NEO, we have a very broad opportunity space for partnerships. We have currently generated promising data from everything from feasibility, turnaround time, cost of goods, and immunogenicity, as well as clinical efficacy in very late-stage cancer patients across multiple different indications with the plasmid DNA format in combination with checkpoint inhibitors.
We do see that the field is moving forward, really focusing on very similar setups, but in adjuvant setting. Still here, really open for standard collaborations, moving the asset forward into adjuvant setting. We also, importantly here, as you see the results, have the opportunity to explore partnerships on the back of other modalities like RNA. We also have the opportunity to explore partnerships in combination with other therapies that are moving forward. We've seen approvals recently with cell therapies in the space, and there are multiple cancer immunotherapies that we now see are reaching a stage where they are looking for combinations that can further increase the potency of their therapies and cancer vaccines, both off-the-shelf and individualized cancer vaccines. Falls in that space.
I would say there is a broad opportunity space for potential partnership structures that we can explore, particularly for where we have VB10.NEO at the moment. For immune tolerance, that field is currently very different from cancer immunotherapy. There have been multiple years now where you need late-stage clinical trials in order to see transactions in cancer immunotherapy, or there has basically not been very much activity on the transaction size in cancer immunotherapy. While in the field of immune tolerance, and also specifically in the field of antigen-specific immune tolerance, we see a very active space with multiple pharma companies saying that it really falls within their strategy. We see also transactions on a preclinical stage.
If you look at our data, and we'll also see multiple data tomorrow, what we have here with our platform is really differentiating from the other technologies being explored in the field. We are getting closer and closer to be in a position to continue to support the differentiation and the ability we have when we are changing our APC targeting units and modulating immune response in different directions. We are focusing really here on the preclinical path to be able to support those partnership discussions that we are currently seeing. What really differentiates our platform compared to others? There are certainly opportunities that we will explore to also pursue early-stage partnerships, even at the preclinical stage, which is obviously of importance for us because they could be more near-term than clinical partnerships based on clinical data. I think that answers the question.
You can go to the next. Yeah.
Yep. Thank you. As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please type it into the Ask the Question feature on your screen. Our next question comes from Arvid Necander from Carnegie.
It's in two parts. I'll ask part one first. What is the current development stage of your most advanced immune tolerance project, and when do you anticipate entering the clinic?
Yeah, thank you, Arvid. I think I've touched upon that also in answer for the previous question. The antigen-specific immune tolerance space is newer. There are fewer players. There are fewer players that have moved into the clinic. There are few players now that also are not in dialogue or already in a partnership with pharma companies.
What we are focusing on at the moment, which is based on tight interactions with the range of potential future partners, is to really show and understand the differentiation of broader our technology compared to technologies that are not using APC targeting, but also the opportunity to investigate different APC targeting units and whether we can see a differentiated modulation of the immune response, which can be applicable for different sets of indications within autoimmunity, allergy, organ transplant rejections. Currently, we do not see any other companies out there that do have a technology that has the same potential as we have, which is where we really, truly differentiate, and that is where we focus on before we choose the optimal path forward to move into the clinic, either alone or in collaboration with a partner per indication.
Thank you.
A follow-up from Arvid Necander from Carnegie is, with your strategy now more focused on asset generation and early-stage development, do you approach pipeline expansion in terms of therapeutic focus and breadth?
Yeah. If I continue with the tolerance part here, I think the breadth of the pipeline in tolerance can obviously be further expanded by first focusing on the platform and the uniqueness of the platform and the potential across different APC targeting units, different antigens and models, and allow us to broaden the pipeline also in collaboration with partners which are indication-specific. That obviously has a strong potential to broaden the pipeline within tolerance in the future years to come.
We do focus our cancer immunotherapy pipeline on further advancing the assets that have already provided clinical benefit, which is including VB10.16 and VB10.NEO and making sure that we move those forward in the most cost-effective manner. That can lead to partnership discussion and further support the platform so we can continue to expand the pipeline in the future also here.
Thank you. We have reached the end of our question and answer session. I would like to turn the floor back over for any further or closing comments.
Thank you very much, Kevin. Thank you very much to all the participants joining in for the questions that we covered today. Stay tuned.
We are looking forward to keep you updated on progress, both on our immune tolerance platform, but also as we'll be giving further guidance on the next step for VB10.NEO and, of course, for VB10.16 once we've seen the readout from the C-03. With those words, we wish you all a continued good day and look forward to keep you updated. Bye.
Thank you. That does conclude today's webcast. You may disconnect your line at this time and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation today.