Cantargia's quarter 2 report 2022. Throughout the call, all participants will be in listen-only mode, and afterwards there will be a question and answer session. If you wish to ask a question, please press zero one on your telephone keypad. Today I'm pleased to present CEO Göran Forsberg and CFO Bengt Jöndell. Please begin your meeting.
Thank you so much, and welcome to our half year report. It's a real pleasure to present it. It's been a period which had lots of excitement and lots of progress for Cantargia. If we go to slide number two and then to slide number three, I'd just like to present myself. I'm Göran Forsberg, CEO of Cantargia, as we heard, and together with Bengt Jöndell, we will give the presentation. If we go to slide number four, this is let's say a summary of the most important news flow we had during this period.
By far, the most important part has been the presentation at ASCO in June, where we presented a significant amount of new data for our lead asset, nadunolimab, both in pancreatic cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, here in combination with chemotherapy, as well as the first data set on nadunolimab in combination with Keytruda. We're really excited about what we have seen so far and how we can advance the development based on these data. We will come back to that a little bit in more detail. Before going, let's say into the exact data, I would just like to say that also our second project, the CAN10, has presented a lot of new preclinical data, both in atherosclerosis and then later on after a period in viral myocarditis.
As you probably know, viral myocarditis has been very much discussed in the media due to COVID and let's say the increased risk of getting virally induced myocarditis because of this virus. We also raised cash during the summer in rights issues, so SEK 250 million before transaction costs. We will also come back to that during the financial part. It gives us the opportunity to then continue the development of recent very promising opportunities in pancreatic and non-small cell lung cancer. The second product CAN10 also got a notice of allowance on its first patent, which is obviously very important and we.
If granted, which we obviously expect in the US, the CAN10 program will be under patent until at least 2041, excluding potential prolonged market exclusivity. Finally, we made a very important recruitment, so we employed Dr. Dominique Tersago as the new Chief Medical Officer during summer. Dominique has a background which really works well with where Cantargia is right now. She has experience both from big pharma as well as from smaller biotech companies, and was Chief Medical Officer for a few years at Ablynx before it was acquired by Sanofi. We believe that she really has the background to continue to build value of our assets.
Finally, after the quarterly report, we got a new article published in Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, which shows the preclinical results we have to date when it comes to combining nadunolimab with chemotherapy and why we can see synergistic effect. It's been a great period to come from and if we go to slide number six, we can have a look at how nadunolimab is being developed right now. The two leading indications for nadunolimab is pancreatic cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. Obviously, on the back of the promising data we present at ASCO, we will continue the focus on those two indications.
On the same token, we also seen that there seem to be some kind of general mechanism here in and around nadunolimab and how we can potentiate and be used together with chemotherapy and potentially also with our immune therapies. We're doing a large number of very early stage clinical trials or clinical arms, where we look into other diseases or other chemotherapies to get an idea of where we get the strongest signals and where we have the best chances to continue. The plan to go into late stage development is sticking within pancreatic cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. The CAN10 program then is still preclinical.
It's in the late development phase, and we expect to start clinical trials early next year. We have our CANXX program, which is, let's say, identifying new opportunities not covered by the two lead programs. If we go to slide number seven, this is a summary of the efficacy results in pancreatic cancer that was presented in June. I think the key take home message here is that, when we add nadunolimab to the chemo, we do get an efficacy which is much more pronounced and stronger than you would expect from chemotherapy alone based on historical data.
The most, let's say important parameter here is the overall survival, where we've seen patients having a median survival of 12.7 months, which is much longer than the perhaps 9-10 months which is expected today based on recent publications. Progression-free survival was also about one CT scan longer, about almost two months longer than expected from chemotherapy alone. The response rate is higher than you would expect from chemotherapy alone. What we also see in some patients that are benefiting from the therapy in a more unorthodox way, having some kind of pseudoprogression-like response, and we're trying to understand more on that.
Anyway, very positive data and in a big group of patients, 73 patients, and this is really forming the basis of taking the compound into the late-stage development. If we go to slide number eight, as you already know, we are now working with the US group called PanCAN, who is doing a platform phase II, phase III trial, which has been designed together with the FDA. They selected nadunolimab to be included in this trial, which is obviously generating a both cost-effective way for Cantargia, but also perhaps even more important, the chance to work with leading clinical centers in the US in the final trial. The preparations are going very well.
We have submitted, let's say the pre-IND documentation to FDA and corresponding scientific advice documentation to EMA. We have a dialogue around how to design details in the trial, but overall nothing strange. We need to conclude this and, let's say align feedback from the two authorities before we can finalize the protocol and have it formally submitted. If we go to slide number nine, we can then go to what we've seen in non-small cell lung cancer. During the COVID period, the recruitment of lung cancer patients was much more difficult than pancreatic cancer. As you all know, we are a little bit behind here, but nevertheless, the results we generated in the first group of patients look very exciting.
We are combining with the standard chemotherapy, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. We see both response rate, progression-free survival and median survival, which is much longer than you would expect or higher than you would expect from chemotherapy alone. The signal is strongest in a subgroup of patients having non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Given how fragmented the lung cancer market is, we decided to include more patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer to give a randomized trial the best possible start and recruitment to the, let's say the new arm with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer is ongoing. We are planning to once we have enough data, we will start the next step, which is really planning for a randomized trial in non-small cell lung cancer as well during next year.
If we go into the clinical trials and the status, which is slide number 10, the first trial we're doing is the CANFOUR trial in lung cancer and pancreatic cancer, which is really the trial, which is forming the basis for the late-stage development. As we said, we have presented very exciting data at ASCO in pancreatic cancer. We are planning to update these data during Q1, which will be about six months after the ASCO presentation, so the data have a chance to mature. Similarly in lung cancer, we have presented interesting data. We need approximately six months to give a meaningful update. That will be around Q1 next year as well.
If we go to slide number 11, then which is the second trial, CIRIFOUR, here we've also presented the data when we combine nadunolimab with Keytruda in patients that have previously been treated with Keytruda and are no longer responding. We have seen interesting results here as well. Efficacy is maturing right now. We at the presentation at ASCO, several patients were still on therapy. Once results have matured and are more meaningful to present, we will do that. What we're also doing now, which seems very logical, is that since we do get the synergy with chemotherapy and since we see exciting results when we combine with Keytruda is to do a combination of nadunolimab with both Keytruda and with chemotherapy. We expect the first patient into that arm very soon.
If you go to slide 12, which is the remaining trial for CAPAFOUR, CESTAFOUR, and TRIFOUR. They are all in a much earlier stage. Dose escalation phases are ongoing, where we expect to finalize the dose escalation during second half now, which is in accordance with our planning. Once we have results, which we'll obviously be transparent about once they're generated, we will also prioritize between these opportunities to see what is most likely to be viable and continue, while the other opportunities will be temporarily put on hold. Finally, Precision Promise that I went through. If you go to slide 13, I would just like to highlight a very important result which was part of the publication that was published this morning.
What we show here is the cancer cells that have been treated with chemotherapy, and then we add our antibody. What we see to the left is that one chemotherapy here, docetaxel, when you treat the cancer cells with this chemotherapy alone, you get a very potent upregulation of the IL-1 alpha. This is very important because there are other molecules in development which are blocking only one of the two forms of IL-1, called IL-1 beta. Obviously, if you get a very strong upregulation of the IL-1 alpha, you would suspect that blocking IL-1 beta alone is not sufficient enough when combined with chemotherapy.
If you look to the right, it's obvious that if you do treat the animals with docetaxel, as you can see, there is a reduction in the tumor growth. If you add the antibody against IL-1 beta, there is no additional effect from that antibody. While if you add nadunolimab, which is then obviously blocking both IL-1 alpha and beta, there is a very strong synergistic effect. And we believe that this is very, very important and very, let's say, of differentiating ourselves and an important part of why we see very exciting early clinical results when we treat patients with combination. There is a link here so you can access the publication if you are interested in more detail.
Finally, slide 14, which is then just showing the CAN 10 and what's important here is the new data, which is found to the right in atherosclerosis, where you can see that there is a significant reduction in plaques when you treat with the CAN 10 antibody. This is a strong result given the seriousness of the disease. The same thing comes with the viral myocarditis, where you again can see that you get normalization of the heart function while if you treat with other therapies or do not treat at all, the disease gets more and more serious when you have virally induced myocarditis.
You can also see to the right of the heart muscle that it's only when we treat with CAN10 that is normalized while the other treatments lead to inflammatory responses. By that, I would like to hand over to Bengt, and I guess that will be slide 16.
Thank you, Göran. Yes, page 16, please. Cantargia operating expenses, year to date increased by 36% compared to last year to a total SEK 270.6 million. As you can see in the graph to the left, this increase was related to increased investments in R&D. In 2022 R&D accounted for 95% of operating expenses. The pattern shown before this, the increased R&D investment was mainly related to the broadening of the clinical program and investments in CMC in our main project, nadunolimab. We also increased the spending in the CAN-10 project in CMC development and pre-clinical studies. The number of employees end of June this year was 27 compared to last year, 23. Page 18, please. Let's have a look at the financial position.
Total available funds, June 30, amounted to SEK 350.2 million. Looking at page 18 then. As you all know, we have finalized a rights issue in August, and this rights issue will add approximately SEK 225 million to the available funds. Total available funds, including the rights issue, will, if we're talking about runway, last approximately to mid-2024 with the present plans. Page 19, please. Just a short recap of the rights issue performed during the summer. The rights issue brought in SEK 250 million before transaction costs. The guarantee commitments were not utilized since it was oversubscribed 44%. The net proceeds shall mainly secure the financing of focus areas and especially the clinical development in pancreatic cancer in collaboration with PanCAN.
Also the preparation of randomized study in non-small cell lung cancer. It shall also be used to advance some second wave clinical opportunity after prioritization and prolong the runway. This concludes the financial overview. Back to you, Göran.
Thank you, Bengt. Let's go to the final slide number 21. I would like to, let's say, finalize the formal part of presentation by saying that we do have a very exciting position. We have good cash balance. We have a strong clinical results in both lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. We have lots of opportunities outside that. We have a very interesting news flow coming up over the next months here, which is obviously a lot of new clinical results, both in the CAN4 trial in pancreatic and non-small cell lung cancer, as well as in the other clinical trial. Perhaps most importantly, the start of the next clinical trial, which is a Precision Promise together with PanCAN.
Besides that, we're also generating constantly new pre-clinical translation results, which is obviously very important in understanding how the drug works and how it differentiates from other drugs in development. This is a very important part of our portfolio, both for regulatory as well as business development activities. The CAN-10 program, we are getting closer and closer to, let's say, the end of the final GLP-Tox study, which is necessary to conclude before we can apply to start for the phase I clinical trial. We are in line with our timelines now and expect to initiate trial early next year. I'm very excited about that. We will obviously be transparent about what's happening before that.
By that, I hope you share my enthusiasm for the company, and I'm very happy to take some questions.
Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press zero one on your telephone keypad. If you wish to withdraw your question, you may do so by pressing zero three to cancel. Our first question comes from Mark from Oppenheimer. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.
Hey, good afternoon, and congrats on the progress, and thanks for taking our question. First, with respect to the planned randomized trial in non-small cell lung cancer, next year, should we be thinking of this as a potentially registrational trial or maybe something a bit smaller to better establish the treatment effect size? Would you likely conduct this on your own or in collaboration with a partner?
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. It's a great question and exactly the question we are working on right now. We are working under two different scenarios. One is that this could be a phase IIb trial leading to registration, or it could be, let's say, if I have to use a smaller proof of concept trial to generate the randomized data that can be built on. What is guiding us is obviously both what type of results we will continue to generate, what type of regulatory feedback we'll get from the authorities. We are working in a landscape which is patients with high PD-L1 levels that have progressed on Keytruda and very, very little precedent of how a registration trial would be performed in this space.
That's obviously a discussion we need to have with authorities. Once we have the full picture, we can be more transparent around that. Obviously, if we will do it on our own and/or together with a potential partner, it remains to be seen.
Okay, understood. That's helpful. Then maybe a couple more kind of conceptual questions. Just wondering, since you're seeing pretty good synergy with chemotherapy regardless of the type of chemotherapy, I'm just wondering if you've considered running any pilot studies in hematological malignancies, blood cancers, alongside some of the work you're doing in solid tumors. Then I was hoping maybe you could comment on any implications from the negative top-line data we saw from the CANOPY-A study. Has that result from Novartis led to any reinterpretation or rethinking around the apparent benefit we saw from canakinumab in the CANTOS study? I know it's not your drug, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on that topic.
Yeah. Let's start with the opportunity in hematology. It is, as several of you know, the whole nadunolimab opportunity was created based on very promising findings in various forms of leukemia. We decided to start the initial development in solid tumors nevertheless because they were bigger indications and with several advantages. The plan has always been to test the water in hematology. Right now the results in solid tumors have been pretty exciting and have kept us busy with that. We're not excluding doing anything in hematology. It would be really exciting to look into that. I cannot really guide you on the timeline when it will start.
Okay.
Then on CANOPY-A, yes, of course, it's always very sad when a company makes a huge investment and does not reach primary endpoint in a phase III trial. I think it's very difficult to have an opinion about the data. The only thing we know is that the trial didn't reach primary endpoint. As far as I understand, the results will be presented at ESMO, so we should probably wait for those results before we have a strong opinion. Doing trials in the advanced setting has always been challenging. It's often very long and big trial. So having that on the back of your mind, I think that's very important also when you try to look at these results.
All right. Thank you so much for your perspective.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Richard Ramanius from Redeye. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.
Hello, good afternoon. I'll start with first question regarding TRIFOUR. When can we expect the next news from this clinical trial?
For TRIFOUR, I hope that we will have the first patient combining Keytruda, chemo, and nadunolimab in the near future. That would be the next communication time point. I assume you are also referring to results. I think there are two aspects. One is relating to additional translational or biomarker results, and the other is to get an update on the clinical results. We're working on all that, and it's not going to be in the very near future because the data needs to mature. Once we have matured enough and we have something meaningful to present, we will obviously do that.
Okay. Probably sometime next year then?
As I said, the pancreatic and also non-small cell lung cancer, we believe that Q1 would be a very good time point to update. I would guess we're talking about the same time frame for CIRIFOUR. We'll have to. As I said, we're working on those results to see how they evolve.
Okay. Okay. I understand. Also had a question about your ASCO results. Let's say the PDAC results are quite clear and obvious and really good. In the non-small cell lung cancer group, you used two different U.S. first- and second-line patients. Also I noticed, or actually, or I wrote two questions. How does this affect benchmarks? Could it have, say, when you mix these two? The other thing, the patients previously treated with checkpoint inhibitor, does that, could you see any trend there that they perform better or worse?
Yeah. No, I think that's a great question. The landscape and the treatment strategies in non-small cell lung cancer has undergone a change during the trial. By necessity, what was the chemotherapy was standard therapy for some patients in first line. During the trial it became clear that the chemo was moving into either combined with Keytruda, which would make them not possible to include in our trial, or they would be used in second line for patients with high PD-L1. We got a mix of patients. Our understanding from the literature is that response rates and expectations of outcome of the therapy is similar in first line and second line setting.
The response rates we observe here is much higher than you would expect, regardless if you look at first line or second line patients. We believe that the combination is useful in both settings, but commercially, the second line setting is much more attractive and much more up-to-date with how lung cancer is treated today. That's how we're continuing. What we've seen is that the patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer that have received treatment of the Keytruda, they have done extraordinarily well. It's a small group of patients here, and it's only eight patients where we have seven responders, and they've done very well. I would like to see a much bigger patient number before I make any firm conclusions here.
Overall, I'm confident that we have a very active combination here.
Okay. A follow-up to this line of question. I guess partners would be satisfied with your results you've demonstrated in pancreatic cancer. But as you say, they would probably like more data in non-small cell lung cancer to be assured. The question, I guess you will structure your coming trials in non-small cell lung cancer with an aim of gaining good enough data to convince a partner and when might that potentially, the data mature?
Yeah, but so obviously different partners may have different views on this. I guess the only thing we as a company can do is to continue to generate results which we believe based on our discussions with big pharma would open up more opportunities. Let's say the desire to license a program from a big pharma company would at this stage is very much driven by their franchises and what type of drugs they would be looking for. That can differ a little bit from time to time. Having said that, a randomized trial in lung cancer would obviously increase the value of a potential partnership further on.
That's one, let's say potential outcome of upcoming steps. The planned randomized trial is to, let's say, fit with what various franchises in the bigger pharma companies could find useful so they can position their drugs in their own pipeline.
Okay, thanks. One last question is perhaps a bit speculative, but I was also thinking about what conclusions can we draw from canakinumab and this, obviously not just the latest Canopy, but you have Canopy-1, 2 as well. One obvious difference between your compound and theirs is ADCC. I mean, they or should I say direct targeting and what. I was saying, what difference do you think that adds? Because that should affect not just the tumor in itself, but also stromal cells, maybe associated blood vessels, associated myeloid cells. Yeah, just.
No, you're absolutely right. I think the ADCC component is very important. If you compare canakinumab, which is basically an antibody designed to remove interleukin-1 beta, it has a much more limited mechanism and opportunity to attack the tumors. The ADCC is really a mechanism which will induce killing of cancer cells as well as various cells in the tumor stroma, cells that are driven by the IL-1 system. While the IL-1 alpha is something we believe is very, very important here, as long as you do combinations with chemotherapy 'cause it is strongly upregulated by the chemo.
I believe that, let's say, all three aspects, blocking IL-1 alpha, blocking IL-1 beta, and having the ADCC component is collectively giving a product which is far more potent than an antibody just blocking one of these individual aspects.
Okay, thanks. Those were my questions.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Sebastiaan van der Schoot from Kempen. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.
Hi, team. Thank you very much for taking my question, and congrats on the progress so far. I just have two questions on the Precision Promise trial. The first one is regarding the funding. You mentioned that the runway is now till mid-2024, but the results for the Precision Promise are expected in 2027. Is the trial already fully funded from Cantargia, or how does it work from Cantargia's perspective?
No, that's a good question. The trial is divided into two parts. It's one phase II part with an interim analysis and followed by a phase III part. The phase III part will only be performed if we reach certain pre-specified criteria. The first part of the trial is funded at this point in time.
Until that's in the futility analysis, and is there also some idea of the timing of that futility analysis then?
It will take about two years to reach that point. Obviously, we can, as Bengt said, let's say if we have a two-year runway, we can still add some flexibility here to make sure that we have cash earmarked for this trial.
Okay. Regarding the other drugs in the PanCAN study, can you remind us of which ones those are and how long they have already been in the trial? Also maybe expand on the recruitment rate, how many clinical centers are active in the PanCAN study, and if it's also expected to increase in the future?
Yeah. Yeah, no, yes, we can start with the number of centers. Currently 21 centers are open, and they continue to get interest from other clinical centers to take part. My understanding is that it's about 30 centers will be open in the near future. Exactly what's going to happen after that is probably depending a little bit on interest from other centers and recruitment, et cetera. We have noticed a major interest from, let's say, investigators to take part in this trial and investigators who are not already on board. The other. It's four different arms.
One arm has already been closed and stopped because that drug was not reaching some pre-specified criteria at very early stage. There is an antibody from FibroGen where recruitment is ongoing right now. Then there are our drug and as well as a combination from Novartis which as far as I know are not recruiting yet.
Okay, great. A final question from me is, regarding CAN10. You mentioned that the clinical trial start or phase I start is expected next year. Will that be more towards the second half or the first half of the year?
No, it's definitely going to be the first half, but according to our planning. We also need to, let's say, go through regulatory authorities, and there's always, let's say, an uncertainty here in how long the review times will take. Let's say it depends a little bit on the burden of the regulatory authorities at the present, at that time point. Let's say guiding for early 2023 is the best I can do right now. Well, everything is following our expected timeline.
Okay, clear. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Arvid Necander from DNB Carnegie. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.
Thank you for taking my questions and congratulations on the progress so far. I had a follow-up on the randomized trial in non-small cell lung cancer. Considering both how the competition is developing in this field and regulatory interactions that you've had, do you view the post anti-PD-1 monotherapy setting as a population that is well defined well enough? Are you targeting a study design with selective recruitment based on biomarkers or other signatures, for example, TRP, in this setting?
I certainly think that the high PD-L1 second line of the Keytruda monotherapy is a very, let's say, viable and defined group of patients. It's also obvious that you're absolutely right. It's a competitive environment. We obviously, it's in our interest to make sure that we select patients that are the most likely to respond. We definitely follow and analyze biomarkers to see if there is any further refinement to be made. We don't have enough results today to have any, let's say, very concrete the inclusion criteria around it.
Okay. That's fair. I just had a final question on the sort of next generation indications. In addition to non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer, how many indications are you intending to investigate further in the clinic following the initial phase I results? I understand that this will of course depend on data, but how do you view your capacity and what are you budgeting for exactly when you forecast the cash runway to last until mid-2024?
There are some different alternatives in our planning. Also you can, let's say, have different ambition levels. One option here would perhaps to if you have a very clear signaling in one of these opportunities to make sure that you invest enough in that one together with the lung cancer and pancreatic cancer instead of, let's say, diluting all the opportunities with each other. I think that one very potential opportunity here. We still need a little bit more data before we are ready to take final decision on how to do this.
I think we're in a situation where we generate lots of data, and we would like to build on those data and focus on those opportunities where we really see a pronounced difference compared to historical controls.
Okay. Thank you. Those were all my questions.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Sten Westerberg. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.
Well, thank you for taking my question. Just getting back to the PanCAN setting and if you expect that the participation of the inclusion of canakinumab is that in any way it will have an impact on clinicians? Well, in both ways, that could have an impact on clinicians' view of your own products. I mean, are these products so well differentiated in the ordinary clinician's mindset that they don't see them as having the same mechanism of action? So that would be my first question.
Next question, I know that you've answered this a couple of times now, but I wonder, it could be interesting to understand a little bit better which parameters, specifically in non-squamous lung cancer you need increased confidence in order to set off the proof of concept trial next year. Thank you.
Yeah. No, good question, Sten. For canakinumab, the trial is a platform trial. The idea was to have 4 arms, but this 1 arm is closed now. It's three active arms and one placebo. Patients will be randomized to 1. We can't really select which arm to go for. It's going to be that they will not know what they're offered or clinicians and patients cannot decide on this on their own, that they will be getting 1 experimental therapy on top of standard chemotherapy or essentially standard chemotherapy. They are well aware about this when they enter the trial.
I don't really think, let's say that there'll be any biases here on what we hope to get and there will be disappointment if we get something else. And then the second question was regarding the non-small cell lung cancer. Our focus right now is on non-squamous. We are looking into, let's say, both biopsies and blood to see if there are any other biomarkers that can guide us a little bit here on patients most likely to benefit. But reality is that most patients have already benefited. It's a little bit complex, but we are definitely following this to see if anything is sticking out here.
As was mentioned before, CRP could be one such biomarker for, let's say, further selecting patients most likely to respond and minimize the development risk.
Okay. Thank you. That concludes my questions.
Thank you. No further questions at this time from the telephone conference. I hand over the word back to you, Göran Forsberg.
I don't know if we have any web questions.
Yeah, there is one question, and it's regarding the ongoing and upcoming partner discussions. The question is, how is this discussion affected by the fact that there is no monotherapy data available, and what role will that have in the chances of landing a successful deal going forward, especially given the INVICTUS results previously?
Obviously there are monotherapy data and those have been published last year and been presented. Let's say the use of monotherapy is very limited to very late-stage patients nowadays. Everyone in the field is fully aware of it. We have monotherapy data where we've seen effects on biomarkers here. We know that the drug is doing what it's supposed to do. Let's say to position the drug, we are then looking into as early treatment as possible and here the combinations come up. And again, this is in line with how development is done today and that no surprises for any potential partner.
I think the short answer is we're doing what's expected from us. I don't think it will, let's say, have a huge impact on the partnering discussions that we're, let's say, not doing more monotherapy studies right now. I think there is one question around canakinumab and how that affects a potential partner. Also, it's obviously very difficult to say, but we clearly believe that we have a product which is very differentiated from the canakinumab, you know, molecule. The results we have generated so far in the clinic as well as in cancer models are significantly different from what you expect from canakinumab.
We believe that the data is here really to present the opportunity rather than just get the appearance of being a me-too product.
Thank you. That was the only questions coming from the web.
Thank you. No further questions at this time. I hand over to speakers for any closing remarks.
I'd like to thank them. It was very good questions and I hope you all have, let's say, a very good view of where the company is right now and what our value inflection points in the near future might be. I'm very excited about what we have in front of us, and I hope you also share this enthusiasm. With that, I'd like to thank you for your attention and interest.