Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Rajan Sharma. I'm one of the European biotech analysts here at Goldman Sachs. I'm pleased to have Christian Itin, who's the CEO at Autolus, join us for a fireside this afternoon. Christian, thank you for taking the time. Maybe you want to kind of start by giving a high-level overview of Autolus and kind of the technology platforms that you have.
Yep, happy to do that. First of all, thanks for the invitation. Always great to come out to California and get a bit of sun, although the, you know, June gloom certainly had its moments this morning. I'm Christian Itin, as Rajan Sharma said, CEO of Autolus. We had a very exciting last few months, actually, behind us. We're just coming off ASCO, where we had shown pivotal data for our lead program called obe-cel, that we developed in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Had very nice data, very good safety profile, high level of activity. You know, as you can imagine, developing such a program in a highly immune-compromised patient population during the peak of the pandemic had its moments, and to see the consistency in the data was very reassuring.
The other aspect, obviously, we took a lot of, I think, focus for the last few months, was certainly on getting the manufacturing base ready for commercial launch. We built a dedicated facility in the U.K., which allows us to actually serve about two-thirds of the U.S. and European market that we expect for this product. It's designed for about 2,000 products a year in its initial build-out, which is about comparable to what the current standard of care Blincyto is sort of reaching in that population, a product that you may realize will probably make about $800 million this year. Very interesting proposition.
I think what's very encouraging to see is that we had actually a safety profile that was better than Blincyto’s safety profile , and an activity profile that substantially exceeds the standard of care. What we're seeing in our prior studies is that we can actually get long-term remissions in a, in a significant proportion of the patients, with about 35% of the patients in long-term remission. Here we're looking at 2 to 4 years of follow-up at this point. All of those patients had continued persistence of the CAR T-cells. One of the key aspects that we're looking for in the current study, obviously, was not only just the initial response rate and safety profile, but also whether we were seeing a replication of the persistence.
In fact, we could show that indeed we were tracking very nicely at the level that we had seen in our prior study, which gives us a lot of confidence in terms of the opportunity for long-term outcomes in this patient population as well.
Okay. Could you remind us on kind of what the long-term outcome was in the prior trial, and whether you're kind of looking to that as a benchmark for FELIX long term?
Well, what we saw, as I indicated, is that 35% of the patients were in long-term remission, which is quite astounding when you think about the population where, you know, on standard of care, virtually no patients, very, very few patients get beyond a year. In fact, nobody gets into long-term remission on Blincyto. So, it definitely gives us a good sense that this is a very unusual set of properties.
I think what gave us a lot of confidence around the data, and we presented that in quite some detail at ASCO, is that when we looked at the tumor burden in these patients before dosing versus the response rate, we could see if we had patients that were below 75% tumor burden in the marrow, which is a very significant level, and remember, this is even after bridging therapy, still at those levels. We can actually see that the patients are somewhere in the range of 84%–85% ORR , CRs and CRIs, which is obviously very remarkable in terms of the absolute level, but also the consistency across the entirety of tumor burden up to that level.
It was only when you get into very excessive levels of tumor burden beyond 75% after bridging, which is basically, you know, highly refractory disease and kind of typically, at quite an explosive stage. That's when the ORR dropped to about 60%. It gives us a, I think, a very good understanding of the breadth of activity, and also the level that I think we can expect going forward. As I mentioned, you know, we did do that study through the peak of the pandemic, which obviously had an impact, and we could actually see in the data that when you have the peak of the pandemic and infection rate, that also the patients were overall in a poorer condition at that point in time, typically with very poor bone marrow function, as you would expect.
Okay. We were expecting an update from FELIX, ASH now. Could you maybe just talk through what we should be expecting there?
Obviously, the first key aspect is longer observation time. I think we'll have a much better view on the time-dependent endpoints. At this point, obviously, we're still early. We had still a significant proportion of the patients that were below the median that we had observed, substantially below the median . We had 9.5 months of follow-up on the median, and just on duration of response, the median and the curve would have suggested around 14 months. Of course, a significant proportion of the patients are in the upper part of the curve, at the early stage of the curve. That actually will give us a lot more stability as we're seeing more of these patients actually move out.
What was obviously interesting is that, obviously, a lot of these patients that are in the upper part of the curve were in the second half of the trial, which is sort of towards the end of kind of the very active phase in the pandemic. It'll be interesting to see how that translates, but we also did see obviously a slight increase in ORR as well as we went into the full data set. You know, certainly, I think an interesting update. The other aspect is that I think there's an opportunity to look into more sub-analysis, particularly the impact of tumor burden, on both efficacy as well as safety profile. I think what was...
interesting. We did quote that we had 7% of the patients experienced high-grade neurological toxicity, which was a total of 7 patients . 6 of the 7 actually were in the highest disease burden group, so 75% and above at lymphodepletion at the time of when we're getting ready for dosing, which also tells you a lot about the fact that if you have patients with low to very sizable disease burden to very sizable disease burden, they very, very consistently give you a very, I think, well-tolerated and very well manageable safety profile. Which we believe will also actually allow you to consider hospital outpatient setting, as, you know, we've done in my previous development with Blincyto.
Yeah, I guess that's a good segue on to the commercial piece. How important do you think kind of the source of patients and kind of, in academic centers versus kind of community centers, and is that possible with a CAR T therapy?
I think there's a few considerations. First of all, when you look at what enabled the broad use of Blincyto, it was predominantly driven by having a very manageable product, predictable, manageable product. A product where the physician stayed in control or stays in control of the therapy. I think that's the prerequisite to be able to consider hospital outpatient use, which often is sort of just sitting on the side of the hospital business. That's sort of the ambulatory setting, where the patients often are actually staying for the initial part of the therapy in either a nearby hotel or a different wing of the hospital, depending on how the hospital is organized.
It was clearly that safety profile, which allowed, over time, Blincyto to reach non-academic site transplant centers, and with that, you know, significantly increase the footprint and make support the accessibility of the therapy. For us to actually have a product that has a profile on the safety side, that actually is improved over Blincyto, and the key part here is really neurological toxicity. The key parameters in terms of these types of products and the toxicity you're looking at, is on the one hand, neurological toxicity, on the other hand, cytokine release syndrome. Cytokine release syndrome, I think a lot of physicians got reasonably comfortable dealing with. It's intense, you have tools that you can use. You have Tocilizumab, you have Anakinra, you have steroids.
It gives you tools to intervene, and typically, even if you get into a high-grade event, it is sort of in a relatively narrow band from a time perspective where you can manage this. It's quite different, actually, with neurological toxicity. Now, in the case of Blincyto, one of the key areas that we were using at the time, and I developed the product with my old team, was to make it, number one, understand actually what's the progression of the neurological toxicity, what kind of manifestations and how they scale. The other aspect was that you had a way to intervene actively with steroids when it started to build, but you also had an ability to basically take the foot off the pedal and stop the infusion. With that, you can basically, you know, quiet the entire reaction down.
The T-cells will start to actually, you know, get into sort of a normal state, not an activated state. You normally could actually get these patients within, you know, two, three, four days back to pretty much normal or normal. That gives you a lot of control, and the physicians exactly knew what to do and what basically the levers were in the approach. The challenge, of course, in the CAR T is once it's in, it's in. You can't take it out, and you can't easily stop it. The tools you have is you can use steroids to manage neurological toxicity, and you kind of use it...
Typically, you want to use it when the neurological toxicity starts to build, and actually with that, have sort of a dampening effect that buys you a bit of time and actually, sort of stretches, basically, the toxicity over slightly more time, and with that, reduce the intensity. The problem, however, is this doesn't really get it all the way down. It just gives you sort of an element to sort of impact. The problem is, once it's running, and depending on the product, it can actually run for quite some time. We're talking weeks. This can actually be a very different picture than what a grade 3, 4 looks like for Blincyto. The good thing with obe-cel is that the intensity of first of all, they're rare.
Overall, neurological toxicity with Blincyto, to give you a sense, is about 63% of any grade, and about, give or take, 13%-15% of the patients have high-grade neurological toxicity. With obe-cel, we had about 25% of the patients experience some form of neurological toxicity, about a third compared to Blincyto. When we look at the high grades, we're at 7%. It's substantially lower. We also see that the quality tends to be on the low end of the spectrum, and the patients tend to actually get back to normal fairly quickly. The problem is, if you actually have a product where you need to actually very aggressively intervene, and some of the products in the space, you have to do that.
The problem with them is that you actually start managing your CRS with steroids, so you have already a steroid cover on. You don't actually go through the CRS, you kind of manage that. At the end of the CRS, when you have maximal expansion of the T-cell compartment and redistribution, that's when the ICANS builds . The problem with that is that if you have already actually have steroid on board, actually you have no tool left. Now you're basically managing the symptoms, but you can't really intervene in a proper way. The problem with that is that the ICANS builds up higher, much more intense. We're talking seizures and so on, which these are not just walk in the park type of adverse events. These are very severe.
Obviously get them normalized actually extends, actually requires very extended period of time. This binds up, if you look at it from a hospital perspective , a significant amount of resources. It's not just a bed occupied, it's actually a lot of attention that you need to actually spend on these patients to manage them through. The underlying issue that builds, and it's a consequence of the management of the, of the, of the neurological toxicity, is that this long, high-dose steroid use, that you really have to keep going until the patient normalizes, actually creates a very severe level of immune suppression. What a lot of these patients get exposed to, and are certainly at a high risk, is picking up infections.
You actually start to then actually see deaths related to the therapy that are actually linked to the management of the ICANS. Actually, the ICANS typically still ongoing. You have an ICANS infection as the cause of death. There's treatment-related mortality that builds as well. The biggest issue, when you think about it from a physician's perspective, is if you have a patient that develops actually neurological toxicity, you can basically not predict which patient's gonna get out of control. That requires an enormous level of attention in terms of the management, and that's sort of the burden that you really see, and clearly requires then a, you know, for you to actually have the patient on the inpatient setting without question, and to very, very carefully monitor that patient over an extended period of time.
Very different from what we believe obe-cel will be able to do, which we believe for the most part, and particularly patients with not excessive tumor burden, should be manageable actually on the ambulatory side, as we're sort of building more experience with the product.
Okay. As you think about kind of the evolution of the market, and there's obviously some CAR T therapies in the initial indication already, how do you think about kind of relative importance of kind of the efficacy profile and the tolerability and safety?
Two observations. The first one is, we just talked about the safety aspect. Safety matters because it's immediately experienceable for the center. The use of resources, tying down your capacity at the center is an economic impact, which is very, very palpable, and it's very challenging for the patients. That's immediate. That's out of the gate, what you immediately experience. The real benefit, obviously, is the long-term benefit. That builds obviously over time. The fact that we do have long-term persistence, and we have seen that link to long-term outcome before, I think gives us a lot of confidence.
It also gives you actually a way to look for the ability or the probability of a patient achieving a longer term outcome, because you can score for the presence of the CAR T-cells, and you can score for the presence of B-cells. If you have CAR T-cells present and B-cells absent, you know that the CAR T-cells you have in the body are active. That gives the physician a lot of confidence just to wait and see. We could see that even in our very early trials, where in fact, the first patient ever we treated an out patient with obe-cel, you know, got treated, achieved a molecular CR, immediately was put on a transplant, because that was, at the time, the only thing you could do to transfer that patient into a long-term outcome.
After that, once it was clear, okay, this product actually sticks around, the behavior changed. In fact, we had actually very low levels of patients going on to transplant. There is a way you can actually monitor these patients, you can observe, and you can make much more rational treatment decisions downstream. There's also the other aspect, which is that a lot of these patients already had a transplant, and doing a second transplant is a risky thing to do. In fact, when you look at the longer term outcome, the transplant itself actually does not translate in a longer term outcome.
You have longer term follow-up, there's some very nice studies that looked up to five years, and you could basically show that the outcome after five years was basically equal, whether you transplanted, do a second transplant or not. In Europe, it tends not to be done. In the U.S., there's a bit more of second transplants that are being delivered, but the treatment-related mortality is an issue, and you tend to only do that with younger patients, fitter patients, where you think that that risk-benefit profile is more attractive.
Okay. Then maybe we could, kind of touch on manufacturing. That's obviously a known issue, and we've seen kind of a lot of excitement in the CAR T space, but that's always been the limiting factor. Could you maybe give us an overview?
Yeah
... of where you are there?
I think it's really critical because we're in an interesting spot, I think, in terms of the cell therapy, where we are right now. On the one hand, we have clinical trials that show, at times, quite spectacular outcomes. On the other hand, we have a clinical reality, which is that patients have a hard time getting access to the product. The issues are twofold. One is capacity, and the other one is that even if you sort of have access and you get your product, certainly with some of the products, not all, but some of the products did have sort of a higher level of Out of Specification. Why does it matter? It matters because the patient, when the product is Out of Spec, actually cannot be treated on the commercial side.
Patient needs to be moved onto a clinical trial or some form of an expanded access program, where you then actually have to deliver product non-commercially. There's a big challenge, actually, when you do that, and a lot of work involved actually within the centers for each of those patients to be able to do that and collect data around it. That's, that's one aspect, but the core really is having not sufficient capacity or having a safety profile that confines the product into a very small number of centers that are in a position to manage it, which also limits access quite significantly. Those are kind of the fundamental issues. What we did, obviously, from a design perspective, is design a product with its very fast off-rate that actually minimizes over-activation of the CAR T-cell.
Because of that design principle we introduced, we actually get a very different profile from a toxicity perspective, persistence perspective, and so on. Now, on the manufacturing side, we did spend very significant effort making sure that the manufacturing process is very robust. You have to imagine, this study that we just conducted, which was 94 patients dosed, we had 112 patients enrolled, so we have 84% of the patients of the patients that got dosed in this trial. We were doing an environment where, you know, we had about as much pressure on every aspect of product supplies you could think of. You know, we're manufacturing in the U.K., when most of our centers are in the U.S., with air traffic down to 5% of normal. That had a huge impact.
Instead of 10 flights or 20 flights a day between the greater New York area and London, you had 1. A lot of other areas, you had maybe 1 or 2 flights per week. Huge issue on logistics. Big issue on the actual manufacture itself, because our manufacturing teams, which work in shifts, actually could not overlap. A lot of challenges there, keep everything stable. Despite all of that, we manufactured actually within an out-of-spec rate of 6%, and we manufactured reliably, and we had a reliable turnaround time. When we presented the data at ASCO, we did something that was a bit unusual. We actually showed every single batch manufactured in the data that characterized the products. Now, that's usually not done.
Normally, you show your median and then a good statistics that keep the error bars pretty tight. We didn't do that. We didn't do that because the reality that we see in the clinics experience is that, you know, while the data may look okay in the clinical trials, it doesn't translate. This is why we provided that level of transparency. We spent a lot of time on the process itself. The biggest challenge in ALL is the fact that you can have patients that have an enormous amount of leukemic cells in the blood, that creates a very, very difficult starting material, because most of the cells you collect are leukemic cells you have to get rid of first. They also create an environment for your T-cells that actually is not very helpful to the T-cells you collect.
You have to really make sure that you have a process that can cope with this very, very wide range of starting material and get a consistent product out. That's where the effort went. The other part is you need very robust analytics, and you need rapid turnaround, which is mostly on the analytics, not on the manufacturing itself. That's actually the areas we invested in, and then the final part is capacity. For us to actually have capacity that allows us to go to two-thirds of the market opportunity, obviously, was critical.
Okay. I mean, you mentioned there that your kind of manufacturing is in the U.K., so could you maybe just kind of talk to the rationale around that?
You need to operate these manufacturing processes in a way that gives you , number one, the right quality, and number two, gives you an economic scale. Quality is linked to people to a significant extent. We have a semi-automated process, but people matter a lot. We actually did train up the manufacturing team in the U.K., set up a training center to do that, and that became a core part of the asset we built, which was, you know, an operation of about 200 people, all in, every aspect included, and that is the foundation for the commercial manufacturing. It was a lot around managing risk, making sure quality is where it needs to be.
One of the peculiar things that we sort of figured out during the pandemic is that it was an advantage to sit actually on the other side of the Atlantic, because the flights that actually are moving back and forth, the U.S., to the U.K., tend to actually have priority. It actually gave us a more stable, much more reliable, logistics that we could actually operate.
Okay. Then I guess in the ASCO data, you kind of presented the median vein-to-vein time and out of 21 days, I think?
That's correct.
Could you maybe just talk around the range that you saw there and the factors driving that? To your point, that you kind of operated the trial in a pandemic environment, kind of what kind of upside you could see to those numbers?
Right. We had 21 days as the median. The median was actually the distribution, when you looked at the data, we again, we showed all of that in detail, is very tight, so the range is between about 18 and 25 for the most part, with, I think, two or three outliers. It's very tight in terms of delivery. The opportunity we have commercially is to actually substantially reduce time, and part of that is related to the arrangement that we announced with Cardinal Health, which gives us an ability to actually ship product into a depot, where we actually maintain control over the product while we're finalizing the release process.
That cuts at least 3 days out. We implemented a more rapid release analytics towards the end of the trial, which also will allow us to cut on average about 2–3 days . We expect to be in the range of about 16 days commercially to start out with.
Okay. I guess the other piece of the manufacturing is obviously kind of costs and gross margin, and how are you thinking about that?
Well, it was an important part in how we set up the manufacturing from the get-go. One of the key things in this space, of course, is that you can't basically get your margin down or your cost down by increasing scale, because, you know, there's only the same amount that you'd basically be delivering to each one of the patients, so you can't just scale up and have a big volume and make basically create economies that way. The way you have to create economies is by having an ability to parallel process a large number of products. That parallel processing, to enable that, what you need to sort of think about is have an ability to do that with a form of automation. The current setup that we're using is built on CliniMACS Prodigy machines.
We're using a semi-automated manufacturing process. That actually allows us to reduce the amount of labor that we have to put in quite significantly. In fact, as soon as we're getting closer to scale, actually labor is not anymore a significant driver of cost. It is mostly the actual materials that we use, as well as some of the one-time use, you know, bags, et cetera, that are sort of required to do this manufacturing. Then the other aspect is, of course, the actual analytics and the ability to multiplex and automate the analytics as well, which is the other key area. All of that allows us to actually be able to be in a range of 50% cost of goods sold (COGS) or below.
Okay. Just on capacity, and you kind of mentioned that the expectation is that there's kind of 2,000 patient batches with your current facility, and I think previously you've talked to a total opportunity of around 3,000 patients. Is that sort of how you're thinking about the penetration and the commercial potential of obe-cel?
We think actually to increase capacity is something that we're probably gonna get to, either with moving the product up the line or starting to add additional indications where that becomes, I think, relevant. The facility itself has some fallow space. We actually have more capacity, more room to build out, which gives us actually quite an increase of capacity. The other aspect is that indications other than ALL, we can manufacture a process that actually is shorter. You actually get more units per time that you can actually run per each machine that you're running, and that actually increases your capacity in of itself. 3,000 is very comfortable, and there is quite a bit of an upside to it.
The facility is set up to actually have the space to have a adjacent and ultimately connected second part of the facility that can be put up, which is already part of the original plan.
Okay.
The manufacturing facility itself is modular in build, and it was designed in a modular way to really increase the speed at which we could sort of get it into operation. We started with this product... this build, greenfield, in November 2021. We actually had the first clean room in operation November 2022, and we had the capacity challenge completed end of May, or about 18 months after we had basically, the start on the site, on the... from a building perspective. It's a very rapid build, could only be done with a highly modular approach.
We did choose that and did actually test that that type of an approach, because also will allow us to actually replicate the facility elsewhere, and also actually replicate the actual operating model elsewhere. That actually will allow us to build capacity as we need.
Okay. Then in terms of just kind of thinking ahead to kind of a potential launch for obe-cel, what is kind of the health economics argument, and will that be kind of a potential focus of the work that you do to kind of launch the product?
In order to sort of get ready for launch, there's sort of three key streams of activity. One is, you know, HTA dossiers, value proposition, as you're asking. The second is around the onboarding of the centers, and the third is around medical affairs and making sure there is the level of awareness for the program. Those are the key activities we're currently engaged in. The onboarding will start as we get to the middle of the year, and we'll get into high gear at that point in time. We've done a lot of work on the value dossiers, and I think the value proposition is really sort of in at least two dimensions. One is the fundamental opportunity to generate outcomes, particularly also longer-term outcomes.
The other aspect is actually the ability to manage the product with substantially less effort than what we're seeing with other types of products, whether this is bispecifics or CAR-Ts, in this particular indication. That actually is, in of itself, a very significant part of the value proposition. It's the intrinsic one in terms of the outcome for the patient, but it's also the resource use and the cost related to resource use, where we think we're gonna have a significant edge.
Okay. Then you talked about kind of additional capacity may be required in, if you to kind of go into other indications with obe-cel, and we've heard a lot from other developers about the potential of CAR T in autoimmune disorders, for example. Could you maybe just talk to your thoughts around that?
Sure. I mean, it's First of all, the data is quite remarkable that the German team developed in Erlangen, and they've done really a true pioneering study with probably the most spectacular outcome that I think I've seen in a long time in an early clinical study. It's a really good team. We know the team for a long time. Also worked in part on the inside the development with that team as well. The data we think is real, and I think there's a real opportunity for what looks like to be potentially transformational outcomes. What it comes down then to, in my view, two factors: One is you have to have a safe product. Number two, you have to be able to make it, and you make it reliably.
Those are the two key things that you need to be able to, I think, be successful in that space. What's becoming interesting is obviously that the principle of sort of taking that significant part of the B-cell compartment out and with that resetting, at least B-cell mediated or predominantly B-cell mediated autoimmune disease, appears to be extending beyond lupus, where the initial data was coming from, and is likely much more broadly applicable. I think that creates a very interesting opportunity for the field in general, but I think particularly for products like obe-cel, I think, a very attractive opportunity going forward.
Okay. When might you think about kind of potentially doing some work with obe-cel in autoimmune disorders? I guess the second, it's kind of a two-prong question, the second piece being, would it be something that you would do alone, or would it make sense to license or partner?
I think there is opportunity, obviously, when we think about the broader range of utility of obe-cel. We have some really nice data on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma across the range of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Very nice data also, obviously, in pediatric patients. I think a fantastic opportunity, I think, as well and for autoimmune . I think there's a lot to do with obe-cel, and certainly one of the areas we're looking into and whether it makes sense for us to actually enter into some form of a partnership, to frankly put more capital behind the program and develop it much more broadly and more quickly.
Okay. On the topic of capital, can we just kind of discuss cash horizon?
Sure.
You obviously did the kind of equity raise with the FELIX top line back in December. Could you just kind of give us an idea of where you are right now and where you think that takes you, kind of from an operational perspective?
The end of Q1, we ended with $340 million in cash. The guidance is that this gets us well into 2025, and that is unchanged.
Okay
around that. with a targeted BLA filing by the end of the year.
Okay. Would that provide enough liquidity to kind of launch obe-cel, or would you need to?
I think it allows us to really get the product ready for launch and initiate. Clearly, to get all the way to profitability, there's probably additional capital need at that point, at a later point in time.
Additional kind of CapEx from a manufacturing perspective, is there anything that we should be aware of in the near term?
Not significant, because most of the CapEx, actually, investment we already have made, because it was a prerequisite to be able to actually get the facility into operation. From a CapEx perspective, we think we're in good shape. You know, more of it, when we think about the cost, we see a shift more from, you know, the CapEx and the clinical trial-related costs over to the launch cost.
Okay.
There's some transition there, but reasonably steady in terms of the actual cash needs over time.
Okay. Conscious that we're into kind of the last two minutes, it'd be good to just touch on the wider pipeline.
Right
beyond obe-cel. What are you kind of particularly excited about?
I think, first of all, we've basically generated the life cycle program to obe-cel already, and have generated a dual-targeting program , CD19, CD22. We're building on obe-cel with a highly potent CD22 component, and proven that actually in patients that are ineligible for Kymriah, that we get very high levels of activity, and we're also active in kids that have lost CD19 antigen on the surface of their leukemia. Really nice proof of concept, very significant opportunity there. Also to consider into indications outside of ALL as well. Second, T-cell lymphoma, we're about to present additional follow-up on the T-cell lymphoma program, AUTO4, at the Lugano Lymphoma Meeting, which is happening this week. We're in the clinic with the multiple myeloma, dual targeting approach.
We expect first data at the end of the year , working on that with UCL. We're also working with UCL, expect to have our solid tumor program, AUTO6, in neuroblastoma, get back into the clinic now in Q3. That's kind of an interesting one because we have a number of the cell programming modules we've developed the last few years, actually integrated into that program, so it'll be very important program to really evaluate sort of where, frankly, CAR T-cells can go beyond the hematology indications where we know they're highly active in
Okay, brilliant. With that, I think we're exactly up to time, so well timed. Christian, thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you. Thanks for your time, and thanks for those of you who listened. Thank you.