Good afternoon. I'm Serge Boulanger, one of the healthcare analysts at Needham & Company. I want to welcome everybody to day two of the Needham Healthcare Conference. For our next fireside chat, we're happy to have the Evolus team with us and from the company. We have Sandra Beaver, the CFO, as well as Rui Avelar, who's the company's Chief Medical Officer. I'll hand it over to Sandra and Rui to give us a quick overview of the company before we proceed to Q&A. I just want to highlight to the audience that we do have the capability to take questions. You can submit those on the portal that hopefully you're watching this fireside chat on. With that being said, I'll hand it over to Sandra and Rui. We can get a kind of an overview of the company for those who aren't familiar with Evolus.
Thanks so much, Serge. Thank you for having us at the conference. It's a pleasure to be able to be here again this year. I'm Sandra Beaver. I'm the Chief Financial Officer for Evolus. I've been here for about three years. Evolus is a performance beauty company. Our flagship product is a neurotoxin called Jeuveau, and we're operating in the space where we sell a consumer good through a learned intermediary. We're unique in our category in that we are dedicated to cash-pay cosmetic use of the neurotoxin and that we offer a differentiated way of going to market for our customers than anyone else because of that cash-pay focus. We have co-branded media offerings that we give our customers. We have a separate consumer loyalty program.
We've built our entire infrastructure around this cash-pay advantage, and it's enabled us to get to 14% market share today on the neurotoxin. We're excited to launch our second product in the portfolio called Evolysse, which is a hyaluronic acid injectable gel, and we'll be launching that here in the second quarter.
Great. Maybe we'll start off with kind of the topic du jour, tariffs. I know pharmaceutical products have been exempted so far. I think there are significant expectations that that's only temporary. Just curious how, obviously, we don't know what they would look like, but if they were to, if we were to see tariffs on pharmaceutical products, what would be the exposure for Evolus?
Yeah. As I mentioned, our flagship product is neurotoxin Jeuveau. Jeuveau is manufactured in South Korea and imported into the U.S. We would be exposed to any tariffs that may come about on pharmaceuticals for that import. Although to your point, as of now, pharmaceuticals are exempt, so we have no impact today. We do also have our hyaluronic acid injectable gel that is imported from Europe. It comes from France, which is currently subject to a tariff because it is not a pharmaceutical, so it is not exempted. The impact to our 2025 financials is relatively immaterial. Given that we are launching that product here in the second quarter, we do not have a meaningful exposure in our overall revenue, right? We have guided to $345 million-$355 million of revenue this year, of which 8%-10% will come from Evolysse, the filler line.
We're talking a $30-$35 million of revenue at a roughly 70% margin. You can sort of back into that exposure there. We're pretty comfortable with where we sit now. Obviously, like everyone, we're watching very closely to see what this administration does next, and we'll manage that information as it comes.
Okay. Maybe we'll start with the Evolysse upcoming launch. I think you talked about second quarter or early second quarter. I noticed on your website there's kind of some event planned for April 18th. I imagine shortly after that, that's when the product will become available. Maybe you can just describe it and how it's differentiated among other fillers.
Sure. We have a hyaluronic acid injectable. And just to kind of base that, everyone, hyaluronic acids, when they're in a syringe, they just look like a liquid or a gel. Yet they can do very profoundly different things. Some can be very soft, very supple. Some can be more structural, almost create not just volume, but structure, like lift the tissue. You go to sleep, sleep on it, wake up in the morning, and it bounces back. One would think, well, how does a gel, so a fluid, do that? The underlying technology, if you will, is hyaluronic acid, which was invented by Mother Nature. It's a natural structure. If I were to describe what the differentiation is in our technology versus others, it really anchors around the cross-linking step. These hyaluronic acids, when they're a single strand, are soluble.
They don't create the structure I've just described. You have to cross-link them to give them these properties. When you cross-link them, you take this molecule, a cross-linker, and to activate that cross-linker, you have to take it to a very high pH, like 12, 13. Under that caustic condition, that natural HA will start to fragment. Now, industry has typically used heat to facilitate that reaction, heat meaning room temperature, 70 degrees, or more typically higher, like in the 100 degrees range. That compounds that fragmentation. That thermal energy exacerbates the fragmentation. What Symatese did was they figured out how to do that cross-linking step and remove all the thermal energy out of the system. In other words, they do this cross-linking step at near-freezing temperatures. When you do that, you do a better job of preserving the HA structure.
You actually need less BDDE to get that same rheological form that you desire. The potential benefits are maybe this withstands more abuse, if you will. On the benchtop, certainly we've shown that through a variety of different ways. Ultimately, what happens in the clinical studies is what matters. There what we saw was we went against an active control, one of the gold standards. We went against Restylane Lidocaine in the nasolabial folds here in the United States and in Europe. What we showed was that our product first hit non-inferiority. Statistically, as in compliance and in agreement with the FDA guidance, that data also showed a statistical superiority and a p-value of less than 0.001.
What's also interesting is if you look at the results and the amount of correction over the course of the year, at every single data point with Form, we were able to show statistical significance. Even with Smooth, that softer product, where 20% less product was used, we still showed always numerically a better number, if you will, or higher number. It still hits statistical significance at a couple of different data points. We believe that speaks to the fact that if you preserve or do a better job preserving that natural HA structure, you may get a gel that's more efficient and seems to work very well.
Okay. Could that impact the duration of the effect for the product?
Yes. At every data point, we always have more responders. By definition, that'll be a longer duration.
When this becomes available, how do you think doctors will sell this to a patient? Does it look better, a more natural look? Obviously, duration is another point, but is a natural look kind of the selling point that they could use for this differentiation?
It's an excellent point. I mean, if doctors think about using these gels and they think about clinical efficacy, how well does it work? They think about adverse events. If I think about it from an adverse event profile, the study was pretty clean. It was in line with what you'd expect from a filler. If I think about the outcome, certainly one of the consistent things that we heard is you get a very natural outcome when you use these products. In our label, we actually have that this can be used for dynamic wrinkles and folds also. In the areas in the face where it's moving and it's dynamic, our label also ascribes to that. Interestingly enough, in particular in the patient labeling, we have something that's very unique.
We are the first and at this point the only that actually talks about those wrinkles that are caused by weight loss, such as GLP-1s. You can use this product.
Okay. I'm curious with the differentiation if the method of use or the injection procedure will be different and if it requires training for the physicians.
I'll start with the first part and then go to the training. The nice thing about these gels, and we got it pretty consistently from all the investigators, they've said that the gel is very forgiving, very forgiving in the sense that it seems to have a very low inflammatory index. What they're sharing with us is you can go more superficial than you would think and still be able to get away with it. If anything, you probably have more degrees of freedom using this gel because of that feedback. In terms of training, when you look at gels, this is the kind of thing where training and hands-on experience is really how it gets adopted. The injectors need to try the product. They need to sample it. They need to see what it looks like on the benchtop. They need to inject it.
They need to inject a select number of patients first to understand how much gel do you get and how that correlates with how much correction. Little things like kind of massage it. What can I do with it? What does that outcome look like? They really need to experience it. Typically, they would do it on a trusted group of patients or staff or on themselves. That's a typical cadence. We're obviously, we've invested heavily in training, and we have staff that can do it. What is somewhat differentiated from our organization and others is our medical affairs group are all clinicians. We refer to them as medical affairs clinicians as opposed to medical affairs liaisons who tend to be scientists. Our medical affairs staff all inject.
So, when they come in and they actually do a training, they have a tremendous amount of credibility because they've actually used these products and know how to inject and instruct.
Going back to the obesity language that's in the label of the approved label, just curious if that's something you can leverage and further differentiate yourself from the other filler offerings. I think the GLP-1 usage has kind of been seen as a tailwind for fillers. I think it'd be a nice opportunity, but just curious if the language allows you to do something on the marketing side.
Yeah, I'll turn that over to Sandra. It's probably better to speak to that.
Yeah, I think as you know, one of the things that differentiates us in the market in general is our co-branded media offering, right? The ability to offer TV campaigns, billboards, and social campaigns for practice that's branded with our product as well as the practice. This label allows us to put weight loss in those campaigns. It will allow the practice to directly market to weight loss patients the Evolysse product. And knowing that many of these patients, after achieving their optimal weight loss, this is the most likely next procedure that they're considering is returning that volume to their face, right? The thing that everyone sees most. The filler or the hyaluronic acid injectable gel is that option for them.
Being able to put out a billboard or even just a counter campaign in practice that says, "Hey, did you just lose weight from GLP-1? We've got a great product for you, Evolysse," I think is a real benefit to the practice to start bringing those patients in and start getting that engagement on their additional products.
Right. In terms of the market opportunity for fillers, I guess how does it compare to the toxin market in terms of the number of competitors there and where the unmet need is that I think you'll try to be, you'll be trying to fill.
Yeah. The competitive set in the U.S. for the filler and the toxin is very similar in the sense that you have much the same players and sort of the same number of players. You have five toxins, and then you have sort of five families of fillers. The makeup of the share in the markets are a bit different, and the size of the markets are a bit different. The toxin is about a $2.7 billion U.S. market. It's dominated by Botox. Second to that is Dysport. We're in the third position for share, only five years on the market. We've eclipsed some of the other players that are in the bottom sort of low percentage range, and we're at about 14% share. In the filler market, you have Restylane and Juvéderm, the Galderma and AbbVie products kind of sharing the top of the market.
They're in this range of about 40% share each. You have the other few players kind of keeping that remaining less than 20% amongst them. This product, with its positioning and the rheology that Rui has outlined, really has the opportunity to compete in a meaningful way. It's the next generation product of Restylane with those top players in this market. You don't have the same brand recognition in the filler market that you do in the toxin market, where Botox is synonymous with the procedure, not just the brand. There's a lot more flexibility for the customer and for the patient in considering alternatives in the filler space. It's about a $1.8 billion US market. It is a bit smaller than the others. When you go outside of the US, however, there's much more choice when it comes to filler in our European markets.
However, it is still dominated by a few players that carry most of the share. There's over 100 fillers available in Europe, whereas you have almost the same market on toxins.
Got it. In terms of trying to build usage of a new filler like Evolysse, is it just a question of getting it in the hands of injectors and having them gain some experience with it, or the bundling strategy is a big focus for uptake?
I think the predominant focus for uptake is education, right? It's getting them confident and comfortable with the product. These products, whether you're talking about the toxin or the hyaluronic acid injectable gel, they're chosen first based on clinical patient outcomes, right? You want your patients coming back to your practice. You want them happy with the results that they're getting from these products. The confidence that injectors have in giving their patients quality results is by far the first thing they consider when making a purchase decision for these products. Price is very much secondary to that. Quality, I think, will lead the decision out of the gate. Obviously, we think about how we position ourselves competitively. It's not just price in our case, right? It's the entire value proposition that we offer.
Evolysse will drop right into the bag with Jeuveau, where you're going to start earning co-branded media. You're going to get consumer loyalty. You're going to get the suite of offering that Evolysse brings to the table that's differentiated across both products. That benefit will accumulate right on Evolysse from the launch, just like it does today on Jeuveau. The pricing for these products, Evolysse will remain at a competitive pricing to the top of the market. I think it will stand on its own.
Okay. I guess in terms of launch strategy, how does this take place? You just add it to the bag and go back out into the field, or you go back to existing accounts and reintroduce a new product? Just curious what is being planned right now for the initial launch of the product.
Yeah. Almost all of our customers have expressed interest in trying this product, right? Our highest value accounts are a very obvious place for us to start with the product adoption and getting that product to them and getting them that opportunity to be trained and to get used to this product is our highest priority as the first thing to do in the launch. Having said that, this certainly does open up opportunity for us to approach accounts that maybe were not considering Evolysse because we only had one product, right? We will have a team of sales reps that are dedicated to going to new accounts that are high-value accounts that we could maybe get to make a switch decision on the combination of products that we could not get to make on the individual one.
We do expect that the addition of new accounts will moderate because we will focus first on getting our existing customer base access to Evolysse. We may add slightly fewer accounts than we typically have historically as we go through the rest of the year. The opportunity exists in both, right? Whether we look at new customers or our existing customers.
Okay. I think in the past, the launch of the RHA fillers by Revance was kind of being looked at as a proxy of what Evolysse could look like. Just curious what your thoughts are on that. I know Revance was at a different stage than where Evolysse is now when they launched the product, but just curious on your thoughts on that proxy.
Yeah. I mean, I think it's the only one available. So it's a very natural comparison for people to draw. There's not another recent launch of a filler that you can use as a proxy. What we've done is we've modeled our launch at what I'll consider a discount to the performance of RHA. So if you think about our guidance and you look at RHA based on the market in which they launched and the share that they gained in that market at their launch, our expectation is to gain less share slower than they achieved. There's some nuances between the difference of where the companies are at as well. Teoxane had RHA available in Europe. There was commercial experience with that product when they went into that launch. We don't have that benefit.
However, we do have an install base, so to speak, of over 15,000 customers, and they started with none. There are some puts and takes if you think about what the advantages are that either one of us had entering the market. To be prudent, we've sort of taken an uptake that's a bottoms-up approach like we do with all of our planning on how we would execute with high confidence the ability to achieve this guidance. We like to leave ourselves the opportunity to overachieve, right? If we were to perform consistently with RHA, that would be in excess of our guidance. Another important note is we actually did also model this at a discount to our own performance with the toxin.
And so If we were to achieve similar adoption rates that we did with the toxin, you would still see some upside in terms of our projections.
Got it. Okay. We're going to see the US launch of Evolysse, and I guess we can call it imminent now. Just curious on the you also have the European rights to the same products. They are approved. What are your plans for the European launch of the fillers?
Right now in Europe, one of the things that we're really trying to get is some feedback in terms of how these fillers perform in the real world. The full portfolio is approved. We're starting a program there where we're going to put it into the hands of select folks, select injectors that we know, and try to bring that experience then back to the United States. It's going to be a much more metered rollout if you want to speak to the formal.
Yeah. We'll target the back half for a more formal commercial launch. The product is obviously available, right? It is a great opportunity for us to learn from the European market. Keep in mind the European market is about a $600 million market compared to the $1.8 billion US market, and it is a lot more crowded, right? The market opportunity there is a bit different. We have prioritized the US launch for that reason. We also have a great KOL network there that will be of high value to us in getting a better understanding of the product, and we'll be leveraging that immediately.
Okay. Let's move on to Jeuveau. I think the bellwethers in this space, the AbbVie’s and Galderma’s, have kind of indicated they were expecting, was it like mid to high single-digit growth for this year and the next few years. Just curious if you think that will change given the macro environment that has worsened since the last couple of months since they reported those numbers.
I'll say our view was consistent with theirs in the sense that when we gave our guidance in early January, we anticipated a high single-digit growing market. We also anticipated a flat share from our product, Jeuveau. At the time, we actually were projecting share right around 13%. That's where we thought we were in the fourth quarter as well. What ended up happening after we reported our pre-announcement is we got information from AbbVie and Galderma as they reported their own earnings that triangulated to a slower growing market in the fourth quarter than we had anticipated. What that meant is we actually had a higher share than we expected. We were closer to 14% when we exited 2024 as opposed to in the 13% range. The market was growing at a much slower rate, right?
As we're starting to see some of that persist into 2025, and obviously there's some broader concerns about how the economic environment will evolve over the course of the year, we find ourselves in a position where we still feel very confident in our guidance, but we think we're going to get there probably in a different way than we originally anticipated. We're already ahead of our own share. There's this opportunity for us to continue to gain share. The likelihood is the market won't grow at the rate that we had expected when we originally guided. That will balance out to the same kind of outcome from a revenue perspective as we'd originally anticipated.
Okay. Do you expect a more significant impact on the filler market in this kind of micro environment than what you typically see on the toxins?
The filler market is typically more exposed from a share of wallet decision at the consumer level. You have seen that play out over the last year, and I think it will persist into this year. We did contemplate that in our guidance. We have seen a relatively flat filler market. There is certainly that opportunity for this GLP-1 tailwind into this market. However, we have yet to see that materialize. It is not entirely clear when and how that will take shape on the filler market itself. Considering that, the way we contemplated our guidance was a flat filler market. Keep in mind we are launching a new product into this market.
The performance of our revenue is not really going to correlate with the performance of the overall market and/or the seasonality of the market, which will make it a little bit harder for us to get a good read on exactly how that market is reacting to the sort of macroeconomics. We are projecting it to be flat, and it certainly is a little more exposed. The toxin market in particular tends to be relatively resilient in the face of recession. Even in the 2008, 2009 recession, you did not see that market contract. It still grew. The toxin procedure is relatively recession resilient. It is the highest value procedure in practice in the sense that it is the most affordable for the consumer.
It is the highest volume in that the consumer is heavily incented to come back with frequency because they know when their toxin wears off. This has really become a routine part of people's beauty regimen to come in and get their toxin. Although we may see, to your point, some pressure on that toxin market, we still have reason to believe it will remain relatively healthy.
Got it. With the launch of Evolysse, how could that impact the sales trajectory of Jeuveau? Is there a potential for a halo effect, or?
It's certainly not something we put into our guidance. As we think about those factors that could enable us to get share, this is certainly one of them. There's definitely an opportunity to unlock more share in the practices in which we currently sell that are maybe limited in what they're buying for Jeuveau because of some pricing considerations on their filler from other providers. As we give them the opportunity to get their filler from us, it could unlock more share. To the conversation we had earlier, it also provides this opportunity to approach accounts that maybe weren't interested in trying a product when we only had one product in the bag and give us that opportunity to get into accounts that we weren't previously getting into.
We certainly see that halo effect as an upside opportunity for us on Jeuveau, but it's not something we've currently factored into our guidance.
I think in the last quarterly update, you mentioned you're now at about 15,000 ordering accounts, so about half of the overall U.S. market. Is there anything that distinguishes the first 15,000 accounts from the second half that you'll now be targeting?
I mean, I'd say we're slightly over-indexed on revenue. Let's just say we're in roughly 50% of the volume of accounts. We're in probably closer to 60% of the available revenue in the market. As you might expect, we approach the higher value accounts with priority, and we find ourselves slightly over-indexed. Certainly, we'll continue to look for those high-value accounts now that we have the portfolio to add. There is a bit of a long tail in this market, right? We don't see any reason we can't over time be in all 30,000 accounts. However, the pace at which we add accounts will be thoughtful and prudent given that we will need to ensure that our existing customer base gets a high-quality experience with Evolysse and gets that opportunity to interact with Evolysse.
That will take a little bit of the time and focus into those existing customers. We still expect to add a healthy amount of new accounts, but probably a bit less than we have over the last couple of years.
The assumptions for your guidance, just curious what you're assuming on the competitive side and what impact it could have on pricing levels.
Specific to the toxin?
Yeah, sorry. To the toxin on Jeuveau.
Oh, why don't you go first?
We know that there's a new entrant in the US market that's come in commercially available this year. It's Letybo. It's a product that's sold by a company called Hugel. Our expectation is that it will come in as a price player. It's relatively early days for them in their commercial launch. They are partnered with a company called Benev, who does not have experience in this space and still does not have a full salesforce. They are having a contractor-based salesforce in the early days of their launch. We do expect them to be a price player in the market. We did anticipate that when we built our guidance that they would be entering the market this year. That is factored into our guidance.
Our expectation is they'll be competing against the other sort of meaningful price players for that bottom tier of the market, whereas we compete at the more premium tier of the market at the top end. Maybe we can tell you a little bit about the product itself and sort of our understanding of its performance characteristics.
Sure. From a performance perspective, as you probably know, when you come to market with the toxin in the United States, you have to do two identical phase three trials. The reason is the FDA is looking for consistency. It is two trials. You do it in different centers, different investigators. The feedback that we have been getting is that the Letybo product really has some variability in its performance. It is freeze-dried, so we are not surprised to hear that. If you look at the public domain, even the primary endpoints of those studies are drastically different. They did three phase three studies, and you can see almost 40% variability in that primary endpoint. Fundamentally, why we believe they will stay kind of at the tier that Sandra described is it is freeze-dried and they cause antibodies. Obviously, no one wants to cause antibodies in their patients.
That's bad for the patients, bad for business, it's bad for the whole sector. If you look at ours, ours is vacuum-dried. We had no antibody production. Interestingly enough, as we were transitioning that product, we did do one study with freeze-dried because it was a stepped fashion that we did it. Sure enough, we also showed antibodies in that freeze-dried formulation. Again, to be clear, we do not commercialize freeze-dried. We are very aware of that. Our product is vacuum-dried. The variability of the antibody production, we think, may have an impact on how widely it gets adapted. We currently compete against that product right now in Australia and the U.K. We do pretty well against them.
Okay. So.
The reality is, in this market, you can't overcome performance with just price.
Right. In the US, is this an aesthetic-only product, or will they also, do you know if they'll be targeting some therapeutic uses?
We don't know what their inside discussion is, but from what we see right now, it's aesthetic-only.
Got it. Okay. Regarding your commercialization and marketing strategy, I think the Evolus approach has kind of been to target the younger segments, the millennials, Gen Z. Just curious how that is changing as they age and begin to gray like the rest of us.
Yeah, I think that with our strategy, right, you see our branding, you see how we position ourselves. We're very much a beauty company. We're not pharma, and we are very intentional about that. The millennial is the single largest new user of these procedures in the category. They are fueling the growth of the category. They are twice as likely as their predecessors to consider a procedure like this. The adoption rate of these procedures continues to move down in age, right? The millennial, believe it or not, is already approaching into their early 40s. You see them actually becoming more loyal patients of these products when you get them adopted on them relatively early. They are relatively brand loyal. The lifetime value of these patients is of high value to us.
We continue to see them adopting in younger and younger. We continue to see our brand positioning very well targeted towards these audiences. As they start to use these products, they tend to continue to use these products. The value of that consumer grows over time.
The only thing I'll add, and it's easy to miss, from a strategical perspective, the toxin market obviously existed before we entered. Strategically, instead of coming in and trying to take market share away from others, we very intentionally try to expand that market and bringing in and investing in the millennial and getting their interest in helped us expand the market. Everyone benefits from that. The market obviously will grow as our millennials grow, we grow with them. That is, we're in sync with that step. The last part I'll add is we have to remember that millennial, not only all the attributes that Sandra brought up, but the millennial is a pretty powerful group because it was the first generation that can actually influence up.
There was an established toxin, but when a millennial says to their parents, "Hey, you should try this," that actually has impact. There was a generation where there's no way you could ever tell your parents what to do. The millennial, the first generation that can actually do that.
Okay. Interesting. Regarding your loyalty program and club, was it Club Evolysse, the newly launched program in the last fall? Just curious, first off, your loyalty program differs from some of the other programs that are available. I think Club Evolysse just kind of stands on its own. I think it's a unique program, right?
Yeah, it is. Our loyalty program is a very low-friction text-based program. It's $40 off every treatment every single time you come in. From the first time you get treated, you can access that $40 off. It's a consistent benefit, and it's very easy to access for our customers to give to our consumers. Club is a new offering. We did a pilot internally to try and understand how a subscription program may operate in this space. Based on the results of that pilot, we made the decision to commercially launch this program. We are rolling it out relatively slowly, right? A subscription program plays out over time, right? It's about a year of operating that program that you start to see good data back on the frequency of visit, the volume of product that the consumers are taking in, right?
We did run our pilot for that timeframe. We did just commercially launch this in the fourth quarter. We have close to 100 customers who are now offering Club Evolysse. They're certainly getting used to having that subscription as an offering for consumers. We're really going to learn a lot through this commercial launch about how to start to scale that program more broadly. It's not going to fit for every customer, but it's a high-value program for all of the people involved in it in the sense that it's very unique and that everybody's better off. Evolus is better off, the customer being the HCP is better off, and the consumer is better off.
It comes down to the consumer really increasing their frequency of visit and use of the products and doing it in a more economical way for them because they're getting better pricing on the subscription, but also providing that higher frequency of visit and higher value proposition to our customers. It's good economics for Evolus as well. It's very hard to sort of create a program that I call a win-win-win program, but Club Evolysse really is that.
Believe in the last couple earnings calls, the topic of BD has come up a few times. Maybe if you can talk about the appetite for adding additional product services and maybe what could be a good fit for your current setup.
Yeah, I'd say the great thing about having Evolysse is that we do have a pipeline for that product already, right? We're launching the first two indications this year. We'll have Sculpt coming next year, which we're very excited about that opportunity for us. We believe it's the first product that can meaningfully compete with Voluma in that space. We will have Lips coming thereafter. We're always active in thinking about developing our pipeline and expanding the offering that we give to our customers. Within the filler space, we've been very open about the fact that we're considering looking at biostimulatory fillers. They're a very interesting sort of additional pipeline asset to our filler portfolio. That's a relatively small portion of the market today, but it's growing at a very healthy rate. That would be something that would be of interest to us.
We try to stay in the things that are most sort of tangential to the products that we have that fit most nicely into that portfolio. We will continue to look for the right sort of tuck-in asset opportunities to build out that pipeline over time.
Okay. Can we describe this as a near-term opportunity or it's more medium to long-term?
I'd say we're always looking, right? It's about finding the right thing. I think if our deal with Symatese told you anything, we're very thoughtful about what we put in our portfolio. The quality of that asset is exceptional. The economics that we share with Symatese was an incredibly capital-efficient arrangement and a really good opportunity for both of us, right? We're very prudent about how we make these decisions, and we won't make any of them lightly. That means that we'll always be active and we'll pick the right thing at the right time.
Okay. We only have a couple minutes left. Maybe Sandra, if you can give us an overview of financials, where cash balances, and I think your profitability timelines.
Sure. Yeah. So we're the fastest-growing neurotoxin in the market for four years in a row. For the last five years, we've exceeded 30% revenue growth, and we expect to do so again this year with the launch of Evolysse. So we're guiding to $345-$355 million of revenue. We delivered profitability a year ahead of our own expectations. We had originally anticipated full-year profitability for 2025. We actually achieved that in 2024. We do fully expect to deliver that in a meaningful way again here in 2025. That profitability will be really weighted into the fourth quarter of the year given the timing of the launch of Evolysse and the timing of our launch investments on Evolysse. We won't turn to cash flow profitability or cash flow generation until 2026.
It's a moment in time where we really get an inflection in our operating leverage because we'll lap some of the investments we're making to launch the filler lines. As we've exited 2024, we have $87 million of cash on our balance sheet. That will fully fund us to that cash generation as well as the repayment of our existing debt facility, which starts maturing in the beginning of 2026 through the end of 2027. We are very confident in this business's capacity to function and operate, the team's ability to execute, and our ability to generate cash in a meaningful way in 2026.
All right. I think we can end here. We're just about out of time. I want to thank you both for spending time with us this afternoon and giving us an update on Evolus. We appreciate it.
Thanks for hosting, sir.