Okay, great. I think we're going to get started, but thanks for joining us, everyone. I'm Terence Flynn, the U.S. BioPharma analyst at Morgan Stanley. We're very pleased to be hosting Biogen today, from the company of Mike McDonnell, the CFO, and Priya Singhal, who is Head of Development. Thanks so much, both, for being here. And again, for research disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley website at www.researchdisclosures.com. But again, thanks both for being here. I think you wanted to kick off with some prepared remarks before we go into questions.
Yeah, thank you very much, Terence, and thank you all for being with us this morning. Very happy to be here in Times Square today. You know, just a little bit of background on Biogen and what we've been up to. We are continuing to be very focused on four new product launches, which we're excited about. We have LEQEMBI in Alzheimer's, we have SKYCLARYS in Friedreich's ataxia, we have ZURZUVAE in postpartum depression, and we have QALSODY in ALS. All of those launches are progressing in line with expectations or, in some cases, a bit ahead of our expectations. We are very focused on returning to sustainable growth.
That continues to be our number one priority, and in the interest of growing on both the top line and on the bottom line, we have initiated a very large program, which we call Fit for Growth, and that program, we remain committed to, garnering about $1 billion of cost savings, by 2025, and we kicked off that initiative, at the very end of 2023. So over a couple of years, we'll take $1 billion out. We expect to reinvest about $200 million of that, so netting about $800 million of savings, and that will, help our bottom line. And we are starting to see, some results from that. Our most recently reported quarter was on August 1.
We reported our second quarter, and we did have top-line growth of 1% at constant currency. Our core pharmaceutical revenue grew at about 6% at constant currency, and that was a function of the new launches, slightly more than offsetting some of the mature products that we have in our MS franchise, which is declining. But I think more notably, we also had good bottom-line results. We had a priority review voucher that we sold during the quarter that produced about $0.52 of earnings. So if you normalize for that, we had about 30% improvement on our operating income line and about 18% improvement on our EPS line. So, we're pleased that we're back to growth on the bottom.
We remain committed to moving toward growth on the top, and in the interest of that, we continue to have a very strong balance sheet. We've done quite a bit of business development. We had a large acquisition of Reata back in, we closed that in September of last year. We closed on the HI-Bio acquisition in the early part of the third quarter of this year, which we're very pleased about. I'm sure we'll talk more about those transactions. And we continue to have a very strong balance sheet that we can continue to deploy in the interest of filling our pipeline further and producing more growth. I think Priya maybe had a few comments that she wanted to add about what she's been up to in the research and development world.
Yes, thank you. So I think from a research and development perspective, you know, we are in a very good place right now. We have really completed essentially our reprioritization, termination of programs where we felt that from an operational or scientific perspective or commercial perspective, it didn't make a lot of sense, and we are now in the rebuild phase and invest to win phase. And with that, what I mean is we're investing in areas like Alzheimer's. We continue to provide end-to-end implementation for LEQEMBI , where we've got formulations, we're addressing the presymptomatic population and more filing worldwide. And then with other products like SKYCLARYS, we're focusing on pediatric development, where we believe there's a very important unmet need.
And then moving on to the pre-approval portfolio, very excited about BIIB080, where we were recently able to almost halve the study size and actually accelerate our proof of concept timeline. And so we're very excited about that. We think this will be the next generation of anti-tau therapies, and we did this based on data. Same with litifilimab, dapi, where we have, you know, we're in phase III already. We're waiting for dapi readout in the next few weeks, and we are preparing potentially for a second phase III here. So that's very exciting. And then we are doing this also for what we're looking for from the outside and the external rebuild of the Biogen pipeline. And I think it's really, you know, a testament where we broaden felzartamab, which is an anti-CD38 antibody, and this is really based on biomarker and clinical data.
So we remain focused on neurology, rare, and immunology, but always applying consistent criteria internally and externally to really build a pipeline that can provide the sustained growth.
Great. Well, appreciate the opening remarks, and that's a great way to frame a lot of the topics that we'll dig into now. You know, as we think about, you know, heading into twenty twenty-five, Mike, I mean, a question we get is, you know, when we look at consensus, generally flat revenue growth. You talked about the Fit for Growth program and the spend, but then obviously you have the felzartamab, the HI-Bio asset, that Priya just mentioned, and some incremental spend. So under this scenario where there's still this, you know, net cost savings, are you going to be able to deliver earnings over $17 in 2025 , or is there anything else we should consider as we think about kind of that schematic for next year?
Sure. So, we won't guide for 2025 until we report the fourth quarter of 2024, and that would likely be in the February of 2025 timeframe. So we will have more to say about 2025 guidance at that point in time. But. There, there's a few things that I could say. One is, you know, as it relates to the top line, and I'll kind of address the top line and then the cost structure, separately. You know, on the top line, our trajectory is pretty heavily tied to the pace of our MS franchise, and the pace at which that's declining. As I've mentioned, we've got some very mature products there, and how well that gets offset with the new launches.
I mean, those really are the dynamics. We do have some dynamics in the MS franchise that we're keeping a close eye on. There's the potential for, you know, further biosimilar competition with one of our products, which is called TYSABRI. We also have. We're entitled to regulatory protection on Tecfidera in Europe through February of 2025. We also have a patent through 2028 that we're working to enforce, but that's something that we're monitoring closely. So, the pace or the trajectory of MS versus the progression of the launches is what'll really dictate the, you know, the top line trajectory.
And then on the cost side, we remain committed to the $1 billion of savings, and on that $800 million net, where we reinvest $200 million of the $1 billion, we'll get about $400 million of that in 2024 and another $400 million in 2025. So certainly, that will provide a boost to the bottom line. And as I mentioned before, we'll continue to stay very active, looking at other forms of business development and making the right investment. So, that's probably all I can say at this point about next year.
Okay, got it. Maybe just, again, high level, you know, touched on this a little bit, but maybe, first, Mike, you could kind of start in terms of the kind of outlook for M&A and BD right now. Obviously, you're, you know, delevering from some of the prior deals, but, you know, how do you think about kind of the forward cadence? And then, Priya, from your seat, just, you know, what are the areas that you're most focused on right now? I think you touched on these, but maybe you could just, you know, delve in a little deeper on some of those.
Sure. So I can start with the, you know, kind of the wherewithal and some of the things we're looking at, and then Priya can comment on some of the areas that we like in particular, perhaps. But we'll continue to stay active. It is a fair comment that we did empty the treasury a bit with the Reata transaction and then doing HI-Bio, but we continue to have a very strong balance sheet. We ended the second quarter with over $1 billion of cash, and we generate about $2 billion of free cash flow per year, and we also have a pretty modest amount of leverage. We could certainly add a turn or more of leverage for something that we were really committed to and that we really like.
So when you roll that all together, there's probably, you know, $8 billion-$10 billion of wherewithal that we would have over the next couple of years. And whether we deploy that in a series of smaller transactions or something larger is something to be determined, and maybe Priya can comment a little bit on some of the areas that we like.
Sure. So overall, I think the most important thing from our perspective is that we remain focused in areas of strength and expertise and capability. That is definitely neurology, rare, and immunology, because we've been in these spaces for many years, both from a research development as well as a commercial footprint, so we're looking at all those. But when you double-click on that, we are always looking for data that can give us the opportunity to de-risk and bring to an inflection point earlier with confidence. So we will be looking to use our own tools or tools that we see with the company that's, you know, have these products, to be able to de-risk at early time points. The other thing I think that's important to remember is we're looking across R&D.
So we're looking at very early-stage programs, we're looking at mid-stage programs, and we're looking at programs that could generate revenue in the next three to five years. So they're all in play, and eventually, it's being driven by clear criteria. So by that, what I mean is, if it's a rare disease, we'd be looking to assess how confident we are about the diagnostic pathway, whether screening is available, what is the status of regulatory endpoints? What's the clinical tractability? Do we have confidence in natural history data? Do we think we can get it to the next stage? These are the types of questions, and then we really go hard at diligence. And I think HI-Bio is an example where we really looked for, you know, proof of concept, not only by clinical data, but also by biomarker. So we let the data guide us, generally.
And right now, would you say, again, is it more of a buyer's market or seller's market in terms of the assets that you guys are seeing come in through the vetting process?
Yeah, I mean, that's a, that's a, it's a hard one. I, I think that... I would say that there are a, a-- I guess, the way I'd answer it, there's a number of assets out there that are, that are interesting. We certainly have a very good lens on assets that, that could be of interest to us, and we look at a lot of different things. I would say that, you know, as you would expect, the, the later-stage assets, where you have more certainty, you know, certainly continue to be priced at a premium.
Yeah. Okay. Okay, great. I want to touch on, you know, LEQEMBI and the launch. Obviously, that's one of the important launches here. You touched on that a little bit, Mike, and then had some follow-up for Priya as well. But maybe just give us the latest perspective on kind of launch progress, and, you know, your partner, Eisai, has provided some guidance for kind of a next twelve-month basis of about $390 million on a worldwide basis. So maybe just help us think about kind of the framework on the guidance side that they provided.
Sure. So, the launch continues to progress, and as you know, there are not a lot of analogs for a product like LEQEMBI . It is unique. We did have $40 million of revenue in the second quarter worldwide, $30 million in the U.S., $10 million outside of the U.S. Importantly, we continue to see good progress in terms of patients. We had about, when you looked at the patient count at the end of the second quarter, about 40% of those patients actually came on to treatment in the second quarter, and we also saw about a 50% increase in the number of prescribing physicians during the second quarter. So it continues to progress and move forward.
We are dedicating some additional resources to the launch, along with Eisai and working in partnership with them. In terms of the revenue information that they put out, we typically guide in the aggregate for revenue. They talk a little bit more at the product level, and we have an inherent difference in our fiscal years, where they're on a March 31st fiscal year and we're on December. So it's a little bit hard to comment on the product level on a different fiscal year. But I would say that the, you know, the launch continues to progress.
We continue to be, you know, working very well with Eisai, our partner, and we're gonna continue to invest appropriately, and we continue to believe that this can be a very good and successful product over time, and obviously something that's very important and helpful for patients.
Yep. And I know you talked about the priority, you know, hundred IDNs that you guys are focused on, but obviously, you and Eisai are, you know, kind of broadening that footprint with some additional sales representatives. So as you think about that target prescriber base, can you just remind us kind of like what that looks like here and when do you think that breadth would be sufficient, where you find kind of fully blanketed that prescriber base?
Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, not a lot I can add there. I would say that the majority of prescribing physicians to date have been neurologists. Certainly, there is the potential to go deeper with primary care physicians as well, and that's something that we're focused on. Optimizing that obviously will take some time because this is something that hasn't done before, and there's a large queue of patients that are waiting to get in to see specialists, and then specialists that are now actually prescribing treatment for Alzheimer's patients for the first time, because prior to this, there really wasn't anything that they could do. So all of that will take some time.
Yep. As we think about kind of the U.S., the other kind of new wrinkle is, Lilly's Kisunla was recently approved, and so as you think about that dynamic back half of the year, anything early on the launch you're hearing in terms of, you know, from the sales force, in terms of how physicians are choosing between these options? I mean, is that a rising tide lifts all boats, or is this a situation where new starts are now gonna be split between these, these assets? What, what are you guys hearing from kind of the early days there?
Sure, I can start, and then Priya may want to add to it. I mean, much too early to really comment on the commercial side. I would say that we do believe that having two products in the market, it's certainly a large enough market for two. And we have a view that there could be, you know, some opening up of patient care pathways and more awareness by having a second entrant into the market. But you might want to comment a little bit more on the science side and how the products are different and so forth.
Yes. So I think overall, you know, we believe that this is going to be a positive for patients and the space. The Alzheimer's disease infrastructure is quite fragmented. In the United States, we think that LEQEMBI has made a real foray there, but having Kisunla will certainly help. Having said that, it's early to comment from a competitive perspective, but what I can tell you is that we don't believe that the same formulary decisions and the same data, the same protocols by centers, can be easily translated or adopted, because essentially, it's a different product. So both LEQEMBI and Kisunla are quite different. They are both anti-amyloid therapies, but the way that they were studied in clinical trials is really different. The populations were different, and therefore, different protocols need to be developed. So that is gonna be an important factor that will play out.
The other thing I think that's important to remember here is the difference between LEQEMBI and Kisunla. LEQEMBI is really has a dual action. We believe it acts way beyond the 18-month clearance of plaque, and we recently showed data again at AIC out to 36 months, which shows that if you stay on LEQEMBI , you have a point nine five reduction on CDR sum of boxes. That is very compelling and continues to be very important because LEQEMBI acts beyond the plaque clearance. So it's a whole different proposition. And to that end, we've already filed for the IV maintenance, and we've already filed for optionality on subcutaneous, and we continue to work on the induction subcutaneous formulation as well.
The final thing is, I think from a pre-symptomatic perspective, the data that we've shown shows that when patients have low levels of tau or no tau, and the only phase III trial where patients with this low and no tau were enrolled was the Clarity AD. We showed that the clinical decline is actually improved by 76%, and almost 60% of patients do not progress or reverse. That is a very compelling fact, which is, you know, attributable to LEQEMBI . And we think that this could be an important, sort of, you know, a harbinger, we hope, of what we might see in the pre-symptomatic trial. So we continue to be encouraged about the enrollment in the AHEAD 3-45, and so we really see LEQEMBI as an end-to-end implementation, and we think that this is gonna be relevant.
Finally, I think the safety is really important because LEQEMBI in the Clarity AD, while there was no head-to-head comparison, it shows that it shows the lowest rates of ARIA. And we know patients continue to be concerned, as do physicians, so this is another compelling factor in the interest of LEQEMBI .
Okay, great. Maybe I have a couple follow-ups on those points. On the protocol development, when you look back at LEQEMBI , like I know there were the reimbursement dynamics in the background going on, but how long did the protocol development take for you guys to kind of roll that out fully across the sites, as we think about Kisunla and how long that might take for Lilly to do?
Yeah, I can say that it's been variable, and it depends on how complex the center is. So what we've seen is once the center gets going, they can initiate, but it also depends on the results that they get from patients and more feedback, the label specifics, monitoring, access to infusion centers. So it's several factors.
Yeah.
Several factors.
Okay. But is that, is that like... Was it months? Is that fair? Was it weeks?
Yes, I think it was generally in the months.
Okay. Okay, got it. And the other, you know, feedback we've gotten is just that every other week dosing versus once monthly dosing. It sounds like that's been somewhat of a hurdle for some patients who maybe live further from an infusion center. And so maybe that gives Kisunla somewhat of an advantage. You talked about, you know, subcutaneous. So maybe just what are the next steps on subcutaneous from a regulatory perspective? What are the kind of milestones that we should be focused on, both on the maintenance side and the induction side? Because I know those are two different pieces.
Yes. So on the subcutaneous maintenance, we've already initiated the rolling submission, and once we complete the submission, which is, you know, on track, as Isa has commented, for Q4 this year, we would get what kind of review it would have, which is priority or standard. But we expect that we'll get an outcome around mid-2025. That is what we've communicated. With regards to the bioequivalence data that we had, you know, we learned that really we could remove more plaque, and so we are trying to balance the dose of the initiation of LEQEMBI , and that work is ongoing. But at this point, we've communicated that we expect a regulatory outcome from FDA by Q1 of 2026. So those are already in play.
IV maintenance already has a PDUFA date of January 2025, so that's as well on the docket here. With regards to biweekly and monthly, you know, I think that the data are mixed on that because there are patients who want to come in, who want to be seen, and especially in the early days, physicians want to see them and monitor them. So I think that still needs to play out, and it'll depend on, you know, the safety, burden, and other factors like that. So I think we have to wait to see how that plays out.
Okay. On the subcu induction, can you give us any sense of like how much more data, like, patient numbers, duration? I know you gave the kind of bookend in terms of a regulatory outcome by 1Q 2026, so you'd have to file some time kind of probably by mid-2025. But any more insight in terms of like how much data you're generating for that, for that question?
What I can tell you is we're working with Eisai, and we're working with FDA very closely to really agree on what the package would be, and we're sort of executing on that. But we haven't shared more data than that. We will- when the time is right.
The final target profile would then be a once-weekly, self-administered auto-injector.
That's right.
Okay.
That's right.
Any market feedback in terms of like, what percentage of patients might prefer that versus going in to see their physician, like you said, like kind of more the high touch, like?
Yeah. You know, we believe... So that's, that's actually been part of our strategy, which is why we went with the subcutaneous maintenance, because we believe that once the plaque is cleared, which is also, again, a feature really only, specific- to LEQEMBI , because it only acts- on the soluble species post-plaque clearance. We think that that is the space where physicians will initially, potentially be more comfortable. So we see that coming in. We also think that subcutaneous could potentially, in the future, have a role to play in a pre-symptomatic setting.
But that is all still to be determined. So I think there's a bigger strategic perspective with which we've been developing these options and formulations, you know?
Okay, great. I'll come back to the pre-symptomatic in a minute, but the other question is just the EU CHMP reexamination. So maybe just remind us why you're optimistic here, because again, I think when we looked at some of the precedents, it looks like it's a high bar when companies go back for a reexamination. So why, what gives you confidence, I guess, going back to the CHMP?
Yes. So overall, you know, what I can say is we are very disappointed. We're very disappointed, as are many communities, many physicians and many patients who've provided public letters, you know, in support of LEQEMBI being through the CHMP process. You're right, it is a high bar on reexamination. There's no question about that. But the reason that we remain encouraged is twofold. One, we believe the data are compelling, really compelling in terms of benefit-risk. We think that we have already shown, even more recently at AIC, data out to three years in the open-label extension of Clarity AD. We've shown data with the early and no tau patients, so there's a reason to believe why patients should be treated now. That's important.
The second piece is, we have now collected a large number of patients in the real world being treated.... So we have a lot of additional incremental data that we have available to us, which is actually global because it's U.S., Japan, other countries where LEQEMBI has been approved. So we think that, you know, working very closely. We're working very closely with Eisai, and this will be a relatively fast process. So we expect the result before the end of twenty twenty-four. And, you know, the other piece here is that the way the process is designed is a new rapporteur and a new co-rapporteur are assigned to the, to the process. So we believe that they could bring fresh eyes. We could have discussions with them to really assess on what could move this needle.
I think we have a lot of new real-world data that we could add to this package.
Yeah. Do you have the rapporteurs yet, or they haven't been assigned a new rapporteur?
We can't comment on that.
Okay. Okay, understood. The maybe question for Mike follow-up there is just the infrastructure, rest-of-world infrastructure. If you don't get the, you know, positive CHMP decision ultimately, is there, are there investments that have already been made that would be scaled back in some of those geographies? Or is that something that you guys are waiting on for the decision to pull the trigger on those investments?
Probably a little bit more of the latter, but you know, when you look at the size of the company in totality, not a you know, not a material needle mover. What I would say is that you know, in the hopeful event that we're successful on reexamination, we'll be ready. That's the most important thing.
Outside of Japan, what are some of the other key geographies we should think about, for the kind of ramp of the ex-U.S. side? Because I know obviously, you know, Japan was a big part of that second quarter sales result. You mentioned ex-US, but as we think about kind of like the expansion beyond Japan, what are some of the other geographies?
Yeah, I mean, I think we're very excited about, you know, how things are progressing in Japan. We're also now approved and up and running in China. That would probably be the next one that I would tick off. And then we're also approved now in South Korea. So, those are the early ones. But I think, you know, obviously we're very focused on the U.S. We're very focused on the situation in Europe, as Priya talked about, and then Japan and China would probably be the next on the list.
Okay. Maybe just to round out the LEQEMBI discussion. Priya, you referenced the, you know, AHEAD 3-45 trial in prevention setting. Maybe just what gives you confidence here, in a positive outcome? And I mean, the other debate, which again, I know goes back to some of the early aducanumab data, is just like clinical benefit here in Alzheimer's across the board. So how are you defining clinical meaningfulness, clinical benefit in the context of prevention? Like, what's good enough to really drive, you know, commercial uptake?
Yeah. You know, it's a very important question and one that we've thought about for many years and sort of built our programs around it. So first, I would say that I think the biggest barrier was really to be able to demonstrate that you could find Alzheimer's patients and clear plaque. And we were able to do that. So we were able to demonstrate that you can clear amyloid plaque, and we were able to demonstrate unequivocally, I think, with Clarity AD, specifically, that clearance of plaque translates to clinical benefit. So that's number one. The other piece is sort of parallel evidence that a movement of about approximately 0.5 on CDR sum of boxes in domains like memory, hobbies, community affairs, the distinction is loss of independence and slight impairment.
That is pretty huge in terms of burden of disease, in terms of caregiver burden, in terms of patient, being able to be operating independently. So I think that's something we need to keep in mind. And then the third piece is, that we have shown now that these patients who are very early, they have low levels of tau, because that's the second culprit, sort of in the bigger picture of the pathogenesis. That's the other protein, which only comes in couple of years prior to patients having symptoms. So what we've shown is that if you don't have tau or you have very low levels of tau, you can actually reverse disease. And this is not, an incidental finding. It was a tau substudy in Clarity AD, where it was placebo-controlled. So it's really very controlled data that's showing us this, and that is compelling.
So then you dial back to how we designed AHEAD 3-45. It's a platform of two trials. AHEAD 3 is amyloid levels below 40, so centiloid, so 20 to 40, very early. Whereas AHEAD 4-5 is above 40, so higher levels of amyloid. In the AHEAD 3 trial, we have just a biomarker outcome because we think we've already made the case that removing amyloid is a positive, and these patients are far away from having disease in terms of symptoms. But in the patients who have a higher load of amyloid, we're looking both at, you know, biomarker and clinical outcomes. And these are at 216 weeks. So you do need to treat for a certain amount of time.
Right now, we are really encouraged about how enrollment is going, and we hope that we will be completed by 2026 Q1, and that's really our goal, because it's a very large trial. It's a 1,400-patient trial, and as you can imagine, it's hard to find patients who are not symptomatic. But I think, you know, very good progress. Eisai is the lead, and they've really done a magnificent job here.
Okay, great.
So very exciting.
That 1 Q 2026 would be for enrollment completion, and so then-
That's right.
When would be the earliest that we could see data potentially?
We haven't commented on that. We're looking at all possibilities. You know, we'll, we'll tell you more as, as it becomes clearer, but we're looking at many different options.
Yeah. That would include, like, an interim, potentially?
It's always possible. We just haven't communicated on whether it's gonna happen.
Okay. Okay, great. Maybe just in the interest of time, just moving on to, you know, the other one I wanted to cover is felzartamab, which I can't pronounce. HI-Bio-
Felzar.
Felzar.
Felzar.
The HI-Bio asset. You know, obviously, one of the higher profile BD deals, aside from Reata, that you guys have done here. Maybe just, you know, one debate out there is the pros and cons of going after CD38 versus BAFF and APRIL, such as the Vertex Alpine asset. So why do you have confidence that this approach is maybe gonna be the better approach here?
Yeah. So I think, you know, stepping back, we believe that felzartamab, it was a real compelling option for us. And the reason is that anti-CD38, what we saw in the data is that it's very specific and selective. So specifically for a disease like IgAN, what it ends up... What the data demonstrates is that after dosing for five months, we saw reductions in IgA right up to 24 months. So this is a patient population that can potentially have, like, a break from treatment. So that's one implication. The other, though, that's also equally important, is that the levels of IgG and IgM spring right back up at six months.
And that's important because we believe that the anti-CD38 mechanism of action is so selective and specific that it's addressing the plasma cells that are responsible for releasing these autoantibodies, but it's preserving the rest of the B cell lineage. So you have this balance, because in these patients, while you need to immunosuppress them to get efficacy, you always wanna balance it in terms of safety and benefit. So from our perspective, it's a very good balance on benefit-risk. So there are several advantages that we see. One is the benefit-risk, the second is the durability, and the third is the selectivity and specificity. And we believe that this kind of mechanism of action could be relevant in several other disease indications beyond the three that, you know, obviously, HI-Bio has prioritized.
We're looking at getting those phase III trials up and running, but we're also looking very carefully at what else could we do to bring to patients?
Yeah. Okay, great. Maybe just in the last minute, 'cause I know it was out this morning, the Spinraza high-dose data.
Yes.
Just any comments on how to think about that relative to low dose, and then is that likely gonna convert the market over to high dose, or are both options gonna coexist?
Yeah. So very excited to release that data this morning. This is a DEVOTE trial, and the pivotal cohort is the cohort B, where we looked at infantile onset SMA. And what's important to understand is that this is a population now that has several options. So, to find naive patients wasn't easy, but our teams did a fantastic job in getting the trial recruited despite, you know, COVID and all of that, and we have some very good results, statistically significant on CHOP INTEND. That is a very important outcome. Now, with regards to whether we would, you know, replace. These are discussions we'll have, but right now, what we are gonna be working on is really preparing this package for registration 'cause we intend to file.
It also reduces the number of injections that a patient has to receive because it's two 50-mg loading doses, 14 days apart, and then 28 mg every quarter. We saw results in neurofilament as early as day 64 over the 12 mg, which is already very compelling, as we've shown with RESPOND and other data. Very exciting news.
Okay, well, I think we're up against time, but Mike, Priya, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate the comments.
Thanks for having us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.