Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to day three of the 44th Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference here in San Francisco. My name is Alex Kramer, and I'm a member of the Investment Banking team here at J.P. Morgan. It is my pleasure to introduce our next presenting company, the recently rebranded Definium Therapeutics. Today's presentation will be given by CEO Rob Barrow. Following Rob's prepared remarks, there'll be some time we'll leave at the end for some Q&A. And for that portion, Rob will be joined by Dan Karlin, CMO, Brandi Roberts, CFO, and Matt Wiley, CCO. And with that, it's my pleasure to turn the mic over to you, Rob.
Thanks so much, Alex, and thanks, everyone, for being here today. We're incredibly excited about our organization and all the progress we've had over the last several years and all the progress we have ahead of us. Part of, well, I'll say the forward-looking statements thing before we get started, and please refer to all of our disclaimers and our filings. But as Alex mentioned, we recently have rebranded and come with a new presentation of us, the same organization, the same science, but really wanted to enter this period of time where we have multiple pivotal readouts. We'll be talking about with a whole new look and really an ability to establish ourselves and own an area where we've been fortunate to be leaders in a space that's incredibly exciting in psychiatry.
We've made some really important decisions over the last several years of our development program, the rigor that's gone into the scientific approach of our development of DT120, LSD, or lysergide that we have in multiple phase III studies, and the expansive view, the boundless view of what we have for what the potential impact could be. We're incredibly excited about the number 50 million U.S. adults that are impacted by anxiety and depression. It is a number that is so large that we kind of think of it as almost inconceivable. I think it gets lost just how impactful this is, just how many of these patients either are undiagnosed because they don't know that there are good treatment options available to them, or if they are treated, are underserved by those treatments.
Most patients who are getting treated today are not served by the options we have. We haven't had really any innovation and meaningful innovation, particularly in generalized anxiety disorder, in the last 20 years. Last approval in generalized anxiety disorder was Cymbalta in 2007, so we look at this number, and we look at the extraordinary impact it's having on our society. We have, again, an expansive view of what could be possible here. We have 50 million people whose lives are disrupted and impacted by these disorders. It's growing at about a 5% rate per year, which means hundreds of thousands or millions of people are being impacted by disorders that are debilitating.
Despite psychiatrists' best efforts with the treatment options we have available, largely what we've seen over the past 30, 40 years is a recycling of mechanisms, outdated frameworks, and even language that talks about patients being treatment resistant as opposed to the fact that the drugs are just failing those patients, and a reality that now we face a world in which deaths of despair continue to grow despite practitioners' best efforts and, of course, patients' attempts and desires to get better. So we enter this world with an opportunity to have a meaningful and expansive impact. We're taking a drug that's been around for a long time. It's been around for 80 years. LSD was discovered in the 1930s.
And it really drove the early interest in this field that we've commonly referred to as psychedelics that target important systems in the brain, have so far demonstrated incredible activity in a wide range of indications. But it's a molecule that had an extraordinary promise early in research in psychiatry and addiction medicine. But for a complex set of factors, it escaped that medical use and then has been set on the shelf for a long time. It was only in the last several years that that research was picked up, and we were incredibly fortunate to bring it forward with an even better product, one that we're incredibly excited to deliver pivotal data on later this year. Building on the momentum we've had over the past several years, we are expecting three pivotal readouts, two in generalized anxiety disorder, one in major depressive disorder.
With the support of many of you and an incredible set of investors, we've been able to accelerate our filing strategy and preparedness for NDA and really start to establish our pre-commercial footprint, get out into the world such that if we're successful in getting an approval for DT120, that we can have the most rapid and expansive impact of any product in the field. And that's enabled by the fact that what we've seen so far is best-in-class profile in a number of aspects, not only within the field of psychedelics, but within the broader field of psychiatry. Some of the best efficacy we've ever seen in these disorders. And of course, we're continuing to build the organization.
We've grown significantly over the past several years, and we're incredibly excited by the talented group of drug developers and the thoughtful approach, the approach that we believe will let us as an organization and will let DT120 as a drug stand out in this class and really drive this meaningful change. Touching on our phase II data, we saw an effect in generalized anxiety disorder. It was a five-arm dose response study, the only dose response study that has been conducted in this class. We saw an effect size in this study. These were patients who came into the study with severe anxiety, received a single dose of drug, and were followed for 12 weeks. At the end of that 12 weeks, we saw an effect size of 0.81, which is more than double the standard of care SRIs, benzodiazepines. That effect was rapid.
It was observable within 24 hours of treatment. It was durable for 12 weeks with no loss of activity over that 12-week period, and it corresponded with about a 50%, a 48% remission rate in those patients. So of every patient, every two patients who came in the door, one of those patients left in remission with no detectable anxiety symptoms, so we look at the landscape of these available therapies, and again, there's been so little innovation in the last 20 years. Over that period, the prevalence of generalized anxiety disorders, our first indication, has tripled. High-quality recent epidemiological studies estimate that 10% of U.S. adults suffer from generalized anxiety disorder.
Compared to those approved products, we saw not only an extraordinarily large placebo response in the study, but we saw a drug effect that surpassed that by double the margin of those approved therapies, almost a 22-point reduction from baseline on the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, the primary outcome measure, and again, this is 12 weeks, three months after a single administration of the drug, so based on that compelling phase II data that we put out in 2024 and received a breakthrough therapy designation for that program, we designed a phase III program across two indications, GAD and MDD, the two largest indications in psychiatry, two of the largest and most impactful indications in all of medicine. Two complementary studies in both of these indications, Voyage and Panorama, which are GAD studies, are ongoing and anticipated to read out later this year.
And two studies in major depressive disorder, one of which is ongoing currently and one of which will Ascend, which will be starting around mid-year 2026. Both the studies in GAD are powered, 90% detected five-point difference, even though, again, we saw a 7.7 unit difference in the phase II study in major depressive disorder. Similarly, 80% power for a five-point difference. We could not be more excited and could not have a higher degree of conviction about this program and about our alignment with FDA. Real opportunity to demonstrate the strongest, the most robust evidence that we have seen in this field in a long time. And even beyond the potential to have a best-in-class drug, you would think with the magnitude of the problem and with the magnitude of the impact of these disorders on patients, that patients would be receiving extraordinary care.
I think we all know that that's not really the case. Patients are often shuffled through care for the various demands of time. Despite practitioners' best efforts, come in for multiple rapid visits and then are shuffled out the door. Largely end up switching medications, having add-on medications by the time multiple products have been unsuccessful at treating their symptoms. Are left without any real meaningful options. With a drug like DT120, where patients come in for a single dose in a monitored clinical setting, we not only have the chance to drive the best clinical profile for a drug, but also to completely rethink patient care.
What it could mean for a patient whose life is significantly impacted by anxiety or depression to come in for a day, to get treated, and to leave that treatment session meaningfully improved, meaningfully improved for a long time thereafter, something we're trying to characterize more granularly in our pivotal studies. And the market is, again, I think in these settings, gets somewhat overlooked just how much demand there is from not only patients, but from providers. Psychiatrists have not had new tools in a very, very long time. They want to help patients. They want to get these patients better. When we go out and do market research, we see a high degree of motivation by these prescribers to bring something new to their patients.
75%. These numbers that we show here are all trying to quantify a reality that we see, which is an overwhelming desire for something that is different and something that sort of reorients them in their care of patients to potentially drive this meaningful, long-lasting change. Patients with GAD, with MDD, of course, don't want to feel that way. They want to go about their lives, not with symptoms suppressed, but with a new orientation, with the ability to feel more, better, and be better, not just to feel less. When we talk to payers and we do a lot of work with payers, because of course, this is something that is now, something that is innovated, is going to require all of the collective stakeholders to be engaged, we see a really positive reaction, a positive reception. Of course, we're not there yet.
We don't have the product on the market, but in these conversations, everyone recognizes the magnitude of the need, the magnitude of the human costs for payers, the magnitude on their budgets and the healthcare utilization, and it's an extraordinary opportunity in a market that is really primed for something new. We believe we have something to offer going forward. When we look at psychiatry, again, this is something new. It's something that is not delivered exactly the way we do it today, and it requires being thoughtful about the future we can ultimately generate. When we look at new entrants in psychiatry, new classes of drugs, it was started in the early 1990s, over 30 years ago, with the introduction of Prozac and Zoloft. Those were large drugs at the time.
When we sort of roll this forward into today's world and think about new classes of drug in psychiatry, it's not just us. There are other companies as well. The opportunity is extraordinary. There's millions and millions of patients who are in need and who we can ultimately hope to treat. And this is why every time there's a new class of drugs that enters the market, it tends to support multi-blockbuster drugs and many of them, in many cases, as you see here, five to seven-plus billion-dollar drugs. Just speaks again to the extraordinary need. And we think that psychedelics really could represent an entirely new era, a whole new opportunity to really transform psychiatric care and rethink what it means to get care for these disorders.
And that's why we've aimed for the broadest indications, why our development approach has intentionally been designed to enable the broadest potential uptake in the most number of settings, of course, with a thoughtful eye to safety and the requirements for safe use, but one that doesn't artificially prevent the patients in need from getting care. We think that for those patients and for us as an organization, there is an incredible opportunity that we can hopefully deliver on in the future. When we frame this opportunity up, again, I can't keep coming back to it, but it's hard to conceive of these numbers, 27 or 50 million patients, 27 who are receiving medication for GAD and MDD in the U.S. alone. And we look at some of the new interventional psychiatry drugs, and Spravato is a good example of this.
Of course, a wide range of pricing due to the differences in dose and frequency that can be administered. But it comes out at about $28,000-$70,000 per year for a patient who is prescribed Spravato today if they stay on regimen and stay on the drug for the duration of that year. And so we look at this by, again, 50 million patients, 27 million who are receiving drugs in these indications. Even looking at the sort of midpoint of that pricing range, we're talking about what could represent for every 100,000 patients around $4.9 billion, up to $7 billion if you're treating 100,000 patients at the high end of that pricing range, which is in our engagement with payers, the sort of analog that they benchmark us to.
And to make this a little more bite-sized, we thought, San Francisco, we're all sitting here. You could be excused for asking, with something this new, something that necessarily isn't available today in the way that we hope to deliver it, how's this going to work? How is this going to scale? How are we going to actually get this out in the world and treat, even hope to treat, aspire to treat that many patients? But when we make it a little more bite-size and boil it down into what it would actually require to make this possible, we said, let's just look at the city we're sitting in, look at the metro area, what you could drive to or walk to from here. The nearest interventional psychiatry clinic is within five blocks of where we're all sitting right now. San Francisco represents about 1.4% of the U.S. population.
For those 100,000 patients, that would mean about 1,400 patients here in the Bay Area getting treated. It's 44 clinics that are raising their hands saying, we will be early adopters if this product is approved. We want to deliver. We want to prescribe. We want to help our patients with what you're offering. If we're just looking at those 44 clinics, that means that they need to treat about 32 patients per 100,000 nationwide, two to three per month in a calendar year. This is something that is doable. It is tangible, and when we approach this, of course, we are going out to these sites. We're talking to these providers, talking to patients and payers and all of the stakeholders that need to be, again, on board and supportive to make this full realization of this potential possible.
We believe that there is a definite path to make this happen and that, of course, this is the beginning. We want to make a meaningful change on the trajectory of the disorders we're seeking to treat. Just making the problem a little bit less worse than it was last year is not the goal. Shouldn't be the goal for anyone in our field of psychiatry in general. The goal needs to be, can we have an impact? Can we aspire to a place where we're actually changing that trajectory, where we're enabling patients to get better? and looking back 10 years from now, we say, you know what? The problem is improving on the whole. That's what we aspire to do. and again, we believe it is something that is tangible. It is something that we can actually make happen. This scales nationwide.
When we look at the whole country, there's about 7,000 healthcare providers, prescribers who treat about half of the GAD patients who are in most need. All we have to do is continue to scale this up. It's not just San Francisco. We're not even aiming in the early days to treat 100,000 patients in the Bay Area. But when we think about that scale nationwide and we look at each of these states, we look at each of these areas, we look at each of these clinics, again, not that much has to be done on an individual clinic or individual provider basis to get to some really extraordinary numbers that could have a massive impact in these areas. So as we look forward to the future, two big drivers, of course, clinical regulatory execution.
We've been incredibly excited about the data we've had to date. We anticipate delivering three phase III readouts this year. We have a fourth phase III study and a second study in depression that'll be up and running mid-year. In parallel to that, we're already progressing to optimize that care model. Think about how patients can be best served, how clinics can be best served, and how we can play the most effective role in facilitating that, making that possible for these patients to get the best care possible. We're continuing to expand our focus, expand our engagement, also doing work to accelerate and broaden the possibility to get this to the most markets possible. These are controlled substances. It's going to require scheduling not only nationally, but at a state level.
And we're already doing a lot of work to try to make sure that everyone on the ground is educated and is aware of the kind of impact this could have and is making it possible for patients to get access as early as possible. And we're building the organization to do it. Again, we think we own this science and know how to execute and have shown this repeatedly across our R&D program and intend to do that as we progress into a commercial organization. We also have earlier stage products that are developing in the pipeline with our first data coming in the years ahead and the year ahead for DT402 and autism spectrum disorder. And we're thinking, again, more expansively, even beyond the indications we're pursuing and the drugs we're pursuing today.
What we think will ultimately be an extraordinary value creation, not only for our shareholders and for us as an organization, but really importantly for the patients and the providers that are impacted by these disorders today so again, a defining year for not only us, but for the entire field, one that we have our leaders and one that we've been able to establish, I think, the most rigorous science, the highest standards of that science with the most aspirational view of what can be done, what we can achieve, what we can drive for these patients. We anticipate our first readout second quarter of this year, additional readout for EMERGE, our first MDD trial mid-year, second readout in GAD Panorama, which we expected in the second half of the year.
We'll also be having a number of events throughout the year to continue educating everyone, continue to build clarity coming into these data and coming into this future that we hope to build. So thank you again for being here today. Thank you for being a part of this and helping us drive this future that we think is possible. We really do believe that change is needed, change is deserved, and that we can play a really impactful role in driving that future. Take any questions? Thank you.
So you've taken a different path than some other players in the space. Can you just talk about the thought process behind running clinical programs in both MDD and GAD that have helped you cast a much wider net in terms of the addressable or potential addressable market here?
Yeah, it comes back to the need. It comes back to when we have something, and I think anyone who's been following the field will hear about the sort of transformational potential that everyone describes. While we, of course, understand the dynamics, that nothing goes from zero to 100 miles an hour instantly, that there was necessarily an uptake curve, there's necessarily a progression, but we need to think aspirationally about what's possible, think about the ultimate need, thinking about the lack of utility for the options that are there today, and for the options that are there, some patients are getting better. Of course, not everything is bad. Some of these drugs are working well. Some of the patients are served, but far too many are not.
And so to think about something that has a field-changing, a practice-changing potential, but not aspire to actually change the practice seems limiting, self-limiting to us. Why not aspire to get to a place eventually where we can really reshape the field? And that's gone into every decision we've made from how we've approached the delivery protocols in our trials to how we think about the strategy for labeling, how we think about the data we try to accumulate and make arguments for in what we ultimately hope will be labeling discussions and REMS discussions if we get to that point in the process. So it all comes down to viewing the way we talk about the balance. You can't talk about transformation and balance without really thinking broadly and thinking about that magnitude of impact.
This informed everything about who we are, how we operate, and the decisions we make in that process.
And then I guess just building on that a little bit. So in previous psychiatry studies, we've typically seen a narrowing of results from phase II- phase III and obviously a couple pivotal phase III readouts this year. Placebo seems to be usually getting a little bit bigger and then just the drug effect getting a little bit smaller. So can you just talk to us about what gives you confidence that you guys won't experience that or the company won't experience that?
Yeah, and I'll turn it over to our CMO, Dr. Dan Karlin, to talk about it a bit.
Yeah, thanks, Rob. And clearly, we're aware of that. This is no secret in psychiatry that the placebo effect has been the nemesis of psychiatric drug development for quite some time, or at least it's the attributable enemy. And when you have drugs that don't work very well for most people, then you get wiped out by placebo effect because participating in trials makes people a little bit better. As we worked through the design of our phase II and into the design of our phase III, we took that into consideration. In the phase II, we robustly exceeded a very large placebo effect. In fact, the nearly 14-point placebo effect in our phase II would make the placebo in that trial the best GAD drug ever approved if we were just trying to approve a placebo for GAD. Of course, we're not.
And there are a couple of reasons for that. One is the actual size of that placebo effect. So what did patients who got placebo in the trial experience? And in part, we had a large placebo effect because in the phase II, there was an 80% chance that you got drug at all as a participant. The higher the chance of getting drug, the larger the actual placebo effect. That is to say, the more likely someone is to get drug, the more likely they are to feel better in this study. So our real placebo effect was quite high. Also, in that study, we took patients off of their background medicine, gave them a single shot at getting treatment so they could either get one of the four doses or a placebo, and then they didn't get anything else for the rest of the 12-week observation period.
That's asking a lot of participants. It's particularly asking a lot of participants who don't feel better. So we had a disproportionate rate of folks who didn't feel well after getting their dose, leaving the study. That means we lost the folks from the study who were doing the worst on placebo. A conservative data replacement strategy meant that we were filling in their data with the folks who did the best on placebo. So not only did we have a high actual placebo effect, we slightly overrepresented that placebo effect in the reported data. In phase III, first phase III, 50/50 chance of getting drug, that'll push down the actual placebo response. And we've included a 40-week extension phase in each of the studies where folks can get open label treatment up to four times.
That means there's increased motivation to stay in the study even if you're not doing well. So we're also less likely to overrepresent the actual placebo effect. So by all accounts, our somewhat unprecedentedly high reported placebo effect in phase II will come down in phase III, and we have no reason to think the drug will perform any less well.
I guess, what would you say are the most compelling or differentiated aspects of DT120?
There hasn't been an opportunity in psychiatry before to give somebody a single or a few doses of drug separated by weeks or months and have their disease state remain substantively changed. When we talk to participants from our phase II and we talk to folks who've had the opportunity to participate in other trials of the drug, the way people talk about how they feel isn't the way people talk when they've gotten, say, an SRI. People who get treated for GAD or MDD with an SRI talk to you about suppression. I feel less bad. I feel less of everything in general. People tend to feel a little bit emotionally numbed. But for folks who felt basically mostly bad, feeling basically mostly less means feeling mostly less bad. That's a good thing for some people. Patients who are treated successfully in our studies don't talk about symptoms.
They talk about a different outlook on life, a different relationship to themselves, a different relationship to their own lives. That is remarkably differentiated from anything else we have to offer in psychopharmacology today.
Hi, Stephen Scott with Morgan Health. There's two questions. The first is on the payer economics. How do you guys think about the trade-off between bringing this to market at a lower price point and positioning it as more of a first-line treatment versus, it strikes me, like Spravato might be a little bit of a rip-off for payers given generic ketamine, maybe even TMS can deliver similar outcomes. The second is the care delivery economics. Is this something you think many psychiatry clinics will be able to offer? Will it be more of a sort of regional center of excellence model where clinics can do high volume and build the infrastructure needed to?
Yeah, I'll turn to Matt Wiley, our Chief Commercial Officer, maybe.
So as we think about pricing, obviously, there's quite a bit of work to be done between now and launch. The value proposition will continue to evolve as we get our phase III data. However, as Rob presented and what we see in market research and through advisory reports with payers, their expectation is, A, that they're going to pay for it, and B, they're benchmarking the price point to what they see on an annual basis with Spravato. Is there an opportunity to dial that up or down? We'll examine that between now and launch. The pricing decisions always made just post-PDUFA and just before you launch into the trade. So we'll get to that point. As it pertains to practice economics and centers of excellence versus a larger swath of physicians adopting, what we've seen in market research is this opportunity to cast a wider net for physicians.
I mean, when you think about treatments that require ongoing commitment, Spravato is a good example where patients have to come in a couple of times a week for the first four weeks and then weekly thereafter. That's a commitment for both the patient and the physician. And that's a commitment on proximity to the clinic location. It's also a commitment to office space and staff. With a drug like DT120, you have this opportunity to treat the patient and then see over a 12-week period how the patient responds and whether they need pretreatment beyond that. So it's not the same level of commitment. And market research has borne that out, that there are a lot more physicians that plan to adopt this in their practice than we see in the same practices with esketamine.
And then I guess just building off of that, can you talk a little bit more about commercial preparedness? I know you talked a lot about the market opportunity. I guess what's been done or what is there to be done this year on the commercial readiness front?
I can turn it over to Matt.
Yeah, so there's quite a bit that we have done. We've built out a comprehensive launch plan. Everything from our product positioning, which we're not going to necessarily go into, but that gives us the line of sight on our message platform. We've built out our targeting model, which I can talk about a little bit. We have also built out a pretty good framework for our go-to-market market access strategy. We're now building our trade and distribution and compendia strategy and so forth. So surround sound, there's a lot to do this year. We're building out the other components of the team and starting with market access field teams and hiring ahead of sales later this year. Those are the sorts of things that we're building out from an infrastructure perspective to get ready.
And then I guess since you offered it up, can you just talk a little bit about the initial targeting strategy and model?
Sure. I mean, it's been almost 20 years since a drug is launched for generalized anxiety disorder. So there's not a natural surrogate drug to examine for targeting, not that we would necessarily do that anyway. So the way that we build our target model, the predicate is where the diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder patients are today in concentrations. And then we have prioritized that targeting model based on various factors for patients, those that are going to raise their hand first for a drug like DT120, and those physicians that we believe will adopt very quickly. And after building the model, we did market test it. We did a pretty robust quant research study.
And what we found in that study is that better than 50% of the HCPs that we spoke to that are high decile, so decile 7-10, it represents 40% of the GAD patients intend to both prescribe and administer DT120 in their practice. You have another 20% or so that intend to prescribe and refer out. And just to take that a step further, when we look at all of the deciles in our targeting model, 6-10, we see that roughly 30% expect to adopt or write their first prescription within the first three months the drug's available. Now, one of the natural questions is, are you targeting the esketamine clinics and are those part of your targeting thesis? And the answer is no, that's not how we went about this.
We actually would do, as we would do with any targeting for launch, is the exact process that we went through. However, when we examine our target model post hoc, we see that we are capturing 80% of the esketamine prescribers. Now, that's not the esketamine-registered REMS physicians because they don't all prescribe and they're not all active, but we are capturing 80% of those that are active with patients.
Thanks for the presentation. I was just wondering about the stigma of this class of medications in your kind of market research. I mean, you kind of had the data there for Spravato. Given the scale of sales, there's very little TV advertising or print advertising. Obviously, that's a question for Janssen about how they choose to market their medication. But I was just wondering, was the stigma an issue that came up when you were doing your market research, both on the patient side and on the provider side with this class of medications?
Yeah, I'll initially address it, which is to say that the word stigma is a bit broad and encompasses so many aspects of this, right? There is a reality that this drug in particular started in medicine, started in a lab, right, started in a Swiss Med Chem lab, found a place in psychiatric research and addiction medicine research, resided there with extraordinary excitement and promise early on, and through a number of complex factors didn't precipitate some sociocultural thing. But in the context of what was happening in the world, there was a dynamic that created certainly a wide range of commentary and views and what could loosely be called stigma through that time. And certainly, that is not something that we can't remake history. That's a reality that we deal with.
But when we go out to providers, when we talk to patients, when the question is, if I have an option to get a treatment with something and I could feel better, meaningfully better, we have to measure again this dance. We measure symptom reduction. That's what can be labeled. That's what we can do in clinical research. But qualitatively, what we hear is people say, "I felt better after getting this." The concerns about what the perception may have been historically, we've never heard it come up in those conversations. And while there certainly are small pockets of folks who say, "Oh, I don't know about this." When we present them with the science, we present them with data and say, "Here's what we're seeing." And this isn't about hand waving and something extra medical.
This is about, like any other intervention. Psychiatry is full of perceptual alterations, whether they be blunting, changing behavior, wide range of options. We presented that and say, "Look, one time and for months thereafter, we've shown an improvement." Very little stands in the way of saying, "Okay, I would certainly give that a try," and I very much, in many cases, I'm very excited about the potential to give that a try.
Do you think there's like, I mean, so okay, the prevalence figures you gave for MDD and GAD are obviously across the whole population. Do you think there's old people or younger people? There's any demographic difference in people who might be more receptive to this kind of treatment?
Yeah, and that shows in the research, for sure, right? I mean, I think the most fascinating thing is that it also intersects with the epidemiological data on the need too. Those most receptive are the populations that are presenting the highest levels of anxiety and depression. So there's somewhat of a natural fit, natural match there that makes sense. So there's certainly variations in that. And that's going to, again, dictate some degree of who is the first person to raise their hand, who are the early adopters. And one thing we know from, again, look at any other drugs that have a meaningful broad population-level kind of impact, it starts there. It starts narrow. It starts with the groups who say, "Oh, yeah, I'm going to try this." And then over time, when the other reality about these high prevalence things is that everyone knows someone.
So when someone's close relationship says, "Well, I tried this and it made this happen, made me better in some way," the likelihood of the sort of network effect for the next person is, "Okay, well, yeah, I'll try that too." And that's when we see these areas where there's a broad expansion and opportunity to really have, again, that broad-based impact that we hope to achieve.
And then I guess maybe just one more, and this one might be for you, Brandi. Can you just talk about the fact that you raised, I think it was $250 million or so in October of last year, but at the time you were already funded through the data? So can you just talk a little bit about the rationale and then I guess just what to expect from a sort of OpEx or cash burn perspective this year?
Yeah, absolutely. So as Rob said, we have a really high conviction about the potential for DT120, and we have really big aspirations. We want to be able to get this drug to the market at scale. And so that additional funding lets us do three main things. First of all, really accelerate some of the commercial-related activities that Matt was talking about. So in addition to our market access strategy, we're also highly engaged with KOLs, doing a lot there, as well as a ton on NDA preparation. And so being able to accelerate those activities puts us in a really good spot for 2026 and beyond. Additionally, it let us accelerate our plans for our second MDD study. And having a broad data set for both MDD and GAD gives us the best chance to really hit these two big indications in psychiatry.
So that was very fundamental to bringing in the additional funding. And thirdly, bringing in quality long-term investors who really share our vision and want to be part of the next stage of growth with us was also really helpful. So it's great to be in a good position and have the cash that we need to really propel ourselves forward for 2026 and beyond as we look to the next steps with DT120 and the rest of our pipeline.
Great. And I think with that, we're out of time. So thank you again for the presentation.