All right, perfect. Thanks, everyone, for joining us. I'm Tiago Fauth, a Biotech Analyst here at Wells Fargo. We have today Liquidia for a Fireside Chat. I have Mike and Jason. Just gonna run through some questions, but I guess we can start bigger picture, right? Like, it's been fairly robust early launch that exceeded expectations. Can you talk about the overall setup for Liquidia right now? And then we'll go into the very detailed discussion on the commercial uptake.
Yeah, Tiago, first of all, I just wanna thank you for having us. You know, a lot, a lot has changed since last year when we were here. We're excited to have launched YUTREPIA here in May of 2025 . As we shared at our earnings call in August, we're very excited about and encouraged about the early uptake. We showed over 900 prescriptions and over 550 patient starts in just the first 11 weeks of launch. So we're very excited. We feel very confident in our product profile and very confident in, you know, as the launch continues here. And as we've progressed into Q3, we're equally, if not more encouraged with what we've seen and really excited for what's to come.
Fair enough. And again, last year, the story was all about Tyvaso DPI versus YUTREPIA. There was a counter-detailing from investors, from United, from, like, so basically, everyone was arguing those points of differentiation. Based on the early uptake and feedback from physicians, what does actually matter? Like, if any of those features, is it the device? Is it the dose flexibility? What is actually gaining traction versus what is likely just noise?
Yeah, I think what's most important for YUTREPIA, and we've been talking about this, is and that's the three Ds, and that is delivery, device, and dose. Our PRINT formulation technology, which is really the backbone of our success, allows us to manufacture particles of uniform size and shape that are specifically designed to reach the respirable range. What that enables us to do is to use a low-resistance device, easy to use, a device that is being used by several other competitors in the PH space. And what that ultimately allows is for higher dosing and greater titratability, what we feel is greater tolerability.
So all of these are linked, and ultimately, we feel is going to be the differentiating factor for us to be able to, you know, to gain significant market share in both PAH and PH-ILD.
Got it. And I guess let's start with the biggest question we get, which is related to the initial uptake has been better than expected. How confident are we that this is not necessarily just a bolus, right? 'Cause again, when we talk to physicians anecdotally, a lot of them are wanting to try this in different settings. Maybe patients that didn't tolerate Tyvaso DPI, went back to Tyvaso nebulized, then going to YUTREPIA. So just overall, how can we be certain, or how confident are you that this initial trend was not just a one-off bolus, and then it's gonna be a slow grind going up? Or what's the pace that we can expect for growth going forward, depending on the clinical utility?
Yeah, all I'll say is, we feel that we are an option for everybody, for every patient. Patients that are PAH, have PH-ILD, naive patients, transition patients. You know, we have seen in this early uptake, we've seen all of those patients. We do believe, and, and, you know, Roger has said this publicly, that, you know, on our earnings call, that we went to ATS, and we saw, you know, heard feedback from physicians that a lot of patients were not, you know, not happy with their current treatment options, and were looking for YUTREPIA. But what this is also gonna do is give doctors and patients experience, see the results, that then will allow additional patients, the doctors to try for additional patients. We feel ultimately, that that gives us the confidence.
You know, we also talked at earnings about our ASCENT data. Our ASCENT data that showed at 16 weeks, the full 54-patient cohort, had an average dose of 159 mcg, which is the equivalent of 18 breaths of nebulized Tyvaso. What's important to understand there, the fact that we're able to titrate those patients in 16 weeks up to the equivalent of 18 breaths, which then showed an improvement of six-minute walk distance of 31.5 m, really, we feel helps prove our hypothesis that more is better, patients feel better. And ultimately, we feel that is what is going to drive continued uptake and what gives us confidence that we will see this into the future.
I don't know. Fair enough, and I guess, again, to your point, like a cornerstone of the thesis here is the better tolerability profile. At least based on nominal cough rates, there are some folks are skeptical of that differentiation, although again, I don't think United ever reported severity of cough or exactly how that was being defined. I think there's a lot of heterogeneity across studies and tried to compare and contrast. Anything you guys can say on the tolerability profile, from real-world experience so far and feedback from physicians?
Yeah, well, just going back to ASCENT, we did, you know, use a modified cough score, and if you look at the cough score of all 54 patients from baseline to 16 weeks, we saw no change in that cough score, which we feel is very important. What we're hearing anecdotally from doctors is that, you know, what they're seeing in their patients is, you know, patients are happy, the easy-to-use, ease of use of YUTREPIA, our device. It's everything that we believed in the hypothesis. Also, from a clinical data point of view, you know, ASCENT is the only clinical data that's available in PH-ILD with DPI. So that, I think, is very important for us, especially those doctors who are practicing evidence-based medicine.
They now have data. We look forward to presenting additional data relating to ASCENT here, upcoming in some of the fall conferences. But, we feel that we're positioned well for success, and we're positioned well for continued growth.
Fair. And again, before we go into some of the switching dynamics and positioning, just in terms of the overall commercial footprint here, how much overlap is there between sites that have historically prescribed mostly, or I guess only Tyvaso, because that was the only alternative? But I'm curious how much you guys have to go outside of some of the larger centers to gain incremental prescribers or incremental patients versus the direct competition. I guess the underlying question is, how much organic growth is there still, both in PAH and PH-ILD, versus actually fighting for shares given the patient churn?
Yeah. So, you know, we look at PH-ILD, you know, let's look at PH-ILD first. You know, first product was Tyvaso, was approved in 2021 . It is, you know, very much an under-penetrated market for obvious reasons. As we grow, as we get out into the field, you know, our sales force, our medical affairs team, along with United, you know, out in the community, you know, doing disease education, identifying patients, and ultimately getting those patients treated, that's gonna take time, and that's something that we're investing in. Our sales force has full coverage within the community, while also focusing on the academic centers where a lot of PAH and PH-ILD patients sit.
But, you know, it is, it is going to take time, but ultimately, for us to achieve our goals, we're gonna have to expand, that, specifically that PH-ILD market. The other anecdote that we've heard from the early launch is that we've gotten some oral switches and in PAH. And if you look at the oral treprostinil market, that's a $2 billion market. We believe there's about 10,000 patients currently on oral treprostinils. You know, Roger, as always said, wants to be the prostacyclin of first choice.
Our unique ability to titrate to high doses, our ease of use, we feel that we really can infiltrate the oral market, you know, and whether they are switches from oral or patients going straight to inhaled, and specifically to YUTREPIA, is also a market that we think is there for us. And as we evolve and develop here, it's something that we'll focus on in the, you know, as we get to the next phase.
Got it. No, and I have a couple follow-ups related to that. We're still talking about the patients' estimates, right? Because there, there isn't really great data. I believe that around January, you guys were estimating about 10,000 patients on inhaled prostacyclins across PAH and PH-ILD. I think it was 4,000 PAH, 6,000
Thousand
PH-ILD.
Correct.
I have personally, historically, been more skeptical about growth in PAH.
Yeah.
But we are also hearing about switches from parenteral-
Yep
Even back to YUTREPIA, or to your point, a couple of anecdotes on oral switches to YUTREPIA. What do you think is truly the potential incremental opportunity for the class with this better profile or differentiated profile? Are we talking about a class that goes from, let's say, $800 million-$1 billion in peak sales to maybe $1.5 billion? Like, is there any way of trying to peg the magnitude of potential incremental demand?
Yeah. I mean, if you look at in PAH right now, you know, you're probably upwards of a $3 billion market across oral, inhaled-
Right
and the entire prostacyclin market. You know, I think if you look at the estimates, if you know, our thoughts are there's about 6,000 patients currently on inhaled in PH-ILD. You know, we've said we believe the addressable market is up to 60,000 patients. There have been some KOLs who have come out and said it could be a 100,000 -150,000 . So I think the sky's the limit. To put a cap on what that potential is, I think is, it's a little early to do that. Our focus is to have boots on the ground, doing as much as we can around education, as much as we can around, you know, educating doctors on PRINT, on YUTREPIA and on Liquidia.
And you know, we feel very confident that, you know, over time, we'll be able to identify those patients, and we believe that across PAH and PH-ILD, that YUTREPIA can be an option for all of those patients.
Fair. Now, and for PH-ILD, to your point, like, if we think that there is 60,000 potentially addressable patients, we're still talking about only 10% uptake so far. We have heard that patient identification and just broadening it out to the community setting is kind of one gating factor, at least from United back in the day. What do you think is actually achievable in terms of uptake across that market, and what are some of the key levers that can be pulled? It's not like United hasn't really tried to expand their market, and they've been very successful. Could we see an inflection point on the growth rate for PH-ILD? Is it more about the awareness?
Anecdotally, and with that happens less and less, but we also hear some physicians that don't actually use Tyvaso at all for the PH-ILD, which is, again, very unusual when we hear things like that this far into the launch. So where are we in the maturity cycle for PH-ILD?
Yeah, I think we're at the very beginning. I mean, if you look at PAH 20 years ago, we were in a very similar situation, and now if you look at the number of patients that are being treated in PAH. Now, granted, the amount of products that are available in PAH are significantly higher now, but I think we're getting in at the right time. Like I said, having two companies, you know, fully detailing their product and doing that disease education and patient identification, I think is gonna help and ultimately will accelerate that market penetration. To put a cap on it, I don't think there's any way to evaluate that, but you know, our goal is very clear.
If there is a PAH or PH-ILD patient there, we wanna find them, we want to identify them, and hopefully, they'll choose YUTREPIA, and we feel, like we've said, we believe that even the PH-ILD opportunity could be $3 billion-$5 billion, and you know, and we're gonna do everything we can to you know, to find those patients and ultimately treat them.
Perfect. Now, and again, there is still some misconception in terms of how chronic and how captive these patients are, right? Because you still have a really high degree of mortality, and you do have a lot of churn because of tolerability, disease progression, whatever it might be, right? So what is a helpful way for investors to think about truly new patient diagnoses that are kind of replacing some churn from either death or from discontinuations of therapy? Do you have a sense of what is actually new starts that are available to get on a prescription for whatever treatment, on a quarterly basis, annual basis?
I'm just trying to understand how much, again, organic growth needs to happen across the board, or just that patient churn, how quick it is, and if that is enough to give you a new patient start, that you can compete and continue this, this revenue ramp?
Yeah, I mean, I think on PAH, it's a little easier. I mean, I think what we've looked at and what we've seen, I think other people have evaluated, is that there's, you know, about a 30% churn annually. Which means if, again, the data that we presented that would, you know, 18,000 patients on prostacyclin therapy means there's about 6,000 new patients coming into the funnel every year, which I think is very important. When you look at PH-ILD, there's a lot to learn still there, to your point. You know, PH-ILD is a debilitating progressive disease. You know, that churn could be more accelerated. What I will say is, you know, in PAH, but especially in PH-ILD, more treprostinil is better.
Being able to dose to higher doses will help keep patients on therapy longer, we believe. Obviously, we're 14 weeks into a launch. There's still a lot to learn. We're focusing on finding these patients, whether they're transition or new or new patients. But we're gonna learn a lot, and we're gonna learn a lot very quickly, and you know, look at the dynamic, what this patient journey, what these patients' journeys look like. And ultimately, you know, hopefully, we can be a treatment option for them.
Got it. So, but fair to say that there might be some positive impact to the tail value of the asset based on perhaps higher concentration, but both longer duration of therapy, so-
Absolutely.
Okay, fair enough. Moving to kind of payer discussion, net revenue per patient, which I'm assuming you guys are gonna be hearing and getting asked all the time right now. Anything specific to highlight on payer and access, right? Like United last year, you know, they came out saying that they were looking to be not in an unfavorable positioning relative to competitors. What does that actually mean in practice? I guess the concern here is, as you guys continue to be successful, will there be incremental discounts that need to be given to ensure access? How can this situation evolve? So on payer and access, like, what can you guys tell us so far?
Yeah, I think it's important to understand, you know, one of our main goals in launching YUTREPIA was to make sure that if patients wanted to choose YUTREPIA, that there was no insurance barrier in their way, reimbursement barrier in their way. We, you know, in the first, you know, three months of launch, we, we said on our earnings call that we've signed contracts with three national payers in the commercial space. What's important to understand is, you, our competitor does contract in commercial, does not contract in Medicare Part D. We believe Medicare Part D is about 50% of the market, commercial is about 35% of the market, and the government-mandated channel is about 15% of the market.
So one of our early goals was to make sure that we are able to contract in commercial where our competitor is contracting. We signed those contracts, and we believe ultimately that is gonna help us with our pull-through. One of the items that we did share at earnings was, over the first six weeks of launch, we had a pull-through or a fill rate of 75%. Now, what's important to understand is, I think anything over 70% is a really good number. We were able to achieve 75%, where we had some headwinds from new-to-market blocks in the commercial space, so we are working through those. Those new-to-market blocks are in the process of being removed.
Our goal is to improve upon that 75% that we achieved and get it as high as we possibly can, but we're very happy with where we are now. One of our main goals around our patient support services was to provide reimbursement services, reimbursement assistance, and we're working on a really in a white glove service approach, patient by patient, to make sure that they are able to navigate this process. We're excited that we've signed these contracts, and ultimately, we will have, at that point, achieved the goal of not having any reimbursement barriers.
Got it. Okay. So if I'm thinking overall about net revenue per patient, maybe or per prescription, there might be some incremental positive benefits from fill rate over a long enough period of time. And it feels like you've believed that at least the payer mix and the gross to net needs to be warranted for each type of payer. That has kind of played out, and it's somewhat representative of what you expect going forward, or could we see a change on payer mix?
Yeah, I mean, I think as we go and as these payers adopt and implement, we will be paying a rebate, and that will probably evolve as we get through the end of Q3 into Q4 and Q1 of 2026. But, you know, I think we're on a trajectory that, you know, ultimately, we feel very confident in both our pull-through, what our discounts are going to be, but most importantly, making sure that these patients have access to make a choice to use YUTREPIA.
Got it. And again, like, for the first eleven weeks, I think you guys commented that every week was looking better than the prior one. Like, is the, I guess that is only sustainable up to a point, like, but how are you guys feeling so far about the progress? Is this, has this remained the case since then? What can we talk about the sustainability of that momentum in the near term?
Is me saying that we're excited for Q3 is enough or, No, I mean, listen, we're-
That's a, that's a fair answer.
We're very excited for where we are. You know, we've seen, as you said, tremendous initial uptake. You know, it's been three weeks since earnings. Nothing has happened to temper those-
Clearly
Those expectations. We are still extremely encouraged for what we've seen. You know, where this really, once you start stacking patients, where you have initial patients, they are taking their second and third scripts, you have new patients come on top, I think that's where you will see significant growth. And we are very, very happy with where we are. You know, in Q2, we recorded $6 million of net sales of YUTREPIA. What I'll say is, we burned through that very quickly and are off to a really good start here in Q3, and like I said, we, you know, we'll look forward to share more information at our next earnings.
Fair enough. When thinking about operating leverage of the model as you stand today, right? 'Cause you had about, you mentioned 140 centers of excellence, 750 on the community setting. So, have you reached all those centers? Do you need additional infrastructure? Like, how should we think about SG&A given the early success, and how much operating leverage is in the model right now?
Yeah, I mean, that's one of the things that we are really excited about. You know, we said on the call that if you take out non-cash and also variable costs relating to selling, so our distribution cost, which is a function of net sales, we feel that our SG&A expenses are gonna stay relatively flat for the foreseeable future, so we have the infrastructure in place. Now, with that being said, you know, we built the sales force to support a PAH and PH-ILD launch both in traditional academic centers and also community physicians. We're learning a lot in the early phases of these launches in the early phase of the launch. We're gonna sit down.
If we feel that, you know, augmenting the size of the sales force is, you know, makes sense, we will not hesitate to do that. But as, as we talk about leverage, you know, we've always been a disciplined, focused organization, patient-centric organization. We will continue to do that and ultimately, you know, feel that we have a tremendous growth opportunity kind of within the infrastructure that we've built to date.
Fair enough. One topic that I know you guys love to talk about, but is the 327 patent trial. I know Jason loves talking about that with us. So again, to the extent that you can discuss, can you just give us the latest? I guess all the arguments have been made. We're just kind of in a waiting pattern right now. Any potential visibility on when we could hear? Are there any comps from previous legal proceedings that we can use here to kind of gauge when we could hear and the potential outcomes and scenarios, I guess?
We could win or we could lose. I mean, you know, I think in terms of the outcomes, the timing first. The trial was held the last week of June. Post-trial, all post-trial briefing is done. We are really in a sweet spot anytime, really now until the end of October, that we could hear. There is no timeline, there is no calendar. Could happen earlier, could happen later, but I think the expectation is we wouldn't be surprised if we heard something from between now and the end of October. You know, we are prepared either way. We believe, you know, we believe the facts are on our side. There's no telling what the outcome will be, but we will be ready regardless of whatever that outcome is.
Got it. And I guess if you prevail, business as usual-
Correct.
Communications on the label, everything continues as is. Any idea on how to gauge what scenarios could be in case they decide against that? Like, would you just keep PAH on the label? I'm trying to think in terms, operational terms, what could that look like on a quote, unquote, "worst-case scenario"?
Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of different outcomes, and there's probably too many to get into now. I mean, it all depends. There are, I think, six claims that are being asserted against us. I think depending if we were to lose, and again, we believe we should win, but if we lose, it could be under any of those six claims, and I think the outcome and the remedy could differ depending on the claim. I think one thing that's important to know is the judge has discretion to determine what remedy he believes is appropriate.
So we're prepared for, you know, we'll be prepared either way, but we feel, you know, right now we're just in a waiting game, and our focus is really on getting through this next phase of the launch of YUTREPIA and focusing on getting L606 into the clinic.
Perfect segue, so let's talk about L606, then. There you go. Again, there's still some. I won't call it necessarily skepticism, but the fact that it's still kind of a nebulized product twice a day, given the competitive landscape. There's TPIP. It's a very convoluted overall landscape. But like for L606 specifically, where do you think that could fit overall, in this landscape? For whatever reason, some physicians still think that there is a place for nebulized Tyvaso, despite the availability of DPI. I don't know if that changes with the introduction of a more tolerable option, if that proves to be the case. But yeah, L606, what's the ideal product profile here? Where do you think it fits in this complex landscape?
Sure. I can address that. So yeah, I think people focus in on a couple things, which is like dose frequency or device, nebulizer or DPI. The way that we look at it is: what is the optimal way of delivering an inhaled medicine? And in fact, the prostacyclin class has shown that parenteral delivery has the strongest clinical data, epoprostenol, iloprost, treprostinil. So 24-hour exposure has been shown to be the most clinically effective. So how could we reproduce that in an inhaled product? We see twice-daily dosing as the optimal way to do that. 12 hours during the day, 12 hours while you're sleeping. We know anecdotally from our study that some patients wake up feeling better. So then you ask, well, what's the most effective way of delivering it twice a day?
We found a program with our partner, Pharmosa, that did that with a liposomal formulation for sustained release. Remembering that this is a rare disease where these patients aren't very active, you know, we don't believe that there's a big distinction for those patients between twice daily or once, between nebulized and dry powder. In fact, with our formulation, what we see is a lower Cmax. We see narrower band between peak to trough, and we know that we're covering more consistently over twenty-four hours. To that point, we've been running an open-label study for over three years, and so we look forward to talking more about that in the future.
So what sort of data do you think you need to show to kind of convince investors for that therapeutic hypothesis, right? Because, again, to your point, you're saying we can maybe get closer to a steady state IV, like, or infusion-like profile with twice daily. So it's not just about AUC necessarily. There are other considerations. From a clinical standpoint, what would that translate into from, I don't know what's the right endpoint to look at, if it's tolerability, if it's a, a, a magic number that folks will all of a sudden start to assign value for-
Mm-hmm.
the program or not. Like, how are you guys thinking about it?
First, I think we start with what we have, and we know that we have a very tolerable product, and so we'll talk about that. In fact, you know, we believe that by having it in a liposome, potentially even presents a better profile for those acute AEs events that you might see in the mouth and the upper airway. We'll talk more about that later. You know, we believe that the twice-daily exposure with a nebulizer has the potential to improve the clinical outcome. The question is, improve to what? What YUTREPIA is doing now, what we believe it will do, is by showing that we have a very tolerable four times a day dry -powder inhaler that can be dosed at much higher levels, we may be resetting what the expectation is for efficacy.
So then when you have L606 with a better release profile, that's what it's gonna get compared to. It's not gonna get compared to what we know today from TPIP or even four times a day Tyvaso. It's what does it look like in four and five years? So when you think of what Liquidia is, we believe that we are experts at the pulmonary hypertension drug space, and that's from the CEO, the CMO, on down. So we're trying to think about how do you continually improve on a product profile where you see unmet need and gaps. I think other people have focused on DPI or once a day, and we're like, "How do we get the clinical efficacy that we've seen a long time ago with infusion?" And that's what we think L606 has the potential to do, not the requirement.
And so the purpose of the study that we're gonna run, a global phase III study controlled by placebo, is just to demonstrate to the agency that we haven't lost any efficacy with what's known as four times a day. But is there potential to do better? We'll have to wait and see.
Fair enough. And you just said, again, gonna run a phase III. What is the regulatory strategy here? I believe you can just run-
Mm-hmm.
An ILD trial, and that will likely get you approval with both indications, kind of a similar playbook. Like, what does that look like timeline-wise? Yeah.
Correct. It's very clear. We have met with the agency, and they identified that we need three sets of data to seek approval. The first is a PK comparability study, which we've completed. The second is an open-label safety study, which we will be talking about later this year, and we've been enrolling primarily transition patients, but there are a few others that were on PH-ILD. Ultimately, it's really that global pivotal study. They told us that we could pick whichever disease we want, and we could get both, so we chose PH-ILD for a few reasons. One, clear unmet needs, especially globally, like no drug approved around the world outside the U.S. for that, and as a result, we think that it will be faster for us to enroll.
And there's a lot of goodwill that we've built up with the community of physicians, especially outside the United States, where the bulk of patients will come from. So those are the three sets of data. We're gonna start that study. You know, most of the time people ask us, where are we relative to Insmed and TPIP? And I think what we would say is we are no worse off. In fact, we may be better off because we know that it's just one study that we have to complete.
Got it. Okay. I guess we have to talk also about the update over the weekend, I guess, September 1st. The TETON trial, TETON-2, was positive again. So we don't have all the data, but inhaled Tyvaso did lead to a benefit in FVC and IPF patients, right? So with a magnitude of benefit, that was probably a little better than a lot of investors were expecting. What does that mean for you guys, for YUTREPIA, from a development strategy, from an access perspective, how should we think about the readthrough to Liquidia overall?
Yeah. So I think the first thing is we just start with patients, right? And if this is true, if two trials prove that this is an effective drug, that's great. So we'll wait and see. We just see it as good news for inhaled treprostinil, right? So clearly, if inhaled treprostinil mechanism has a benefit in IPF, then we think about what is the long-term future like. In the near term, with YUTREPIA, we're focused on launching in the indications that we have. And we know that United Therapeutics does have orphan drug designation on the IPF indication. So we wouldn't really think about how do we add that to the YUTREPIA label, because by the time that expires, you know, we hope to have very good data in L606.
So I think that's what we'll be focused on, is let's focus on the YUTREPIA label now. Let's see what data comes out, see what physician community values, and then think about L606. With that said, you know, what we'll be looking for in the data that gets presented is, at what doses, did the patients benefit in this, TETON trial? And we are aware that United has run the INCREASE study, the PH-ILD study, in the past, and what we saw there were the patients that received 10 or more breaths per session were the ones that drove that clinical endpoint. So if we continue to see that trend, it's another data point that says more is better. So then we come back to YUTREPIA and say, it's very tolerable.
We've shown that we can use it at high levels, and we'll just have to wait and see how the medical community might think about using that product.
Got it. No, fair enough. I guess as we approach the end of the fireside, just talk about, again, we talk about operating leverage, but also profitability. You guys had outlined a target of becoming profitable, I believe, four quarters after launch or? Yeah. So, and the launch has been better than anyone was expecting. So how do you feel about your capital position right now in order to finance L606, the launch progressing, anything noteworthy there?
Yeah, I mean, we had stated that we thought we could be profitable. We believed we could be profitable within three or four quarters after launch. You know, as you know, Roger stated on the earnings call, he had the highest of high expectations, and this outperformed those expectations. We're not gonna update that specific, you know, call it guidance that we provided, but we're exceedingly confident in our ability, you know, to get to profitability. We're, you know, our balance sheet, we have over $170 million of cash as of the end of Q2. We feel that we are, you know, executing from a position of strength, and you know, we look forward to Q3 earnings here.
All right, fair enough. We've covered a lot of ground. Like, anything else that we didn't cover or that you feel like is still relatively misunderstood about the Liquidia story?
No, I mean, I think, you know, we're extremely excited for where we are. It's been a long road. It's been a long road for us as a company. It's been a long road for patients to get this choice, and, you know, we're just, you know, have tremendous, you know, pride that we've been able to get this product to market. There's clearly a need for patients to have an option and a choice. They finally have that option and choice, and, you know, for us to be able to, you know, provide that opportunity, I think is very meaningful, and, you know, we are excited for what's to come. We're excited for the trajectory that we are on and, you know, can't wait to see what's next.
Fantastic. We can probably wrap up there. Again, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate everyone here.
Thanks, Tiago.
All right. Thank you.