AbCellera Biologics Inc. - Q3 2026 Earnings Results and Business Update - ABCELLERA BIOLOGICS INC

Good afternoon, and welcome to Abcelera's Q3 2026 Business Update Conference Call. My name is Cara, and I will facilitate the audio portion of today's interactive broadcast. After today's prepared remarks, we will host a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, press star 2 to raise it. our one again. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Trin Steinmart, Chief Legal and Compliance Officer. You may proceed. Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us for Abcelera's third quarter 2026 earnings call. I'm Trin Steinhardt, Abcelerra's Chief Legal & Compliance officer. Speaking on today's call are Dr. Carl Hansen, Abcerera's President and CEO, Dr. Sarah Noonberg, Abcellera's Chief Medical Officer, and Andrew Booth, Abcelera's Chief Financial Officer. During this call, we may make statements about our strategic priorities and financial outlook based on our current expectations and in accordance with the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Our statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described. review the risk factor section of our most recent Form 10-K and subsequent 10-Q filings with the SEC for a more detailed discussion of these risks. Abseller assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after today's date. Our presentation today, our earnings press release, and our SEC filings are available on our Investor Relations website. The information we provide about our pipeline is intended for the investment community and is not promotional. As we transition to our prepared remarks, please note that this call is being recorded and will be available for replay on our investor relations website, and that all dollars referred to during the call are U.S. dollars. After our prepared remark, we will open the line for questions and answers. I will now turn the call over to Carl. Hey, thanks, Trent, and thank you, everybody, for joining us today. Q3 was a transformative quarter for Abcelera, driven primarily by our positive top-line Phase II results for ABCL635, which is an investigational antibody for the non-hormonal treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms or hot flashes. The Phase II study was designed to evaluate efficacy and safety at four weeks, following a single 600-milligram injection of ABCL 635. The data, which we announced on August 10th, show that ABCL635 has strong potential to redefine the standard of care for non-hormonal treatment of hot flashes. On the strength of these data, we have an exciting opportunity to develop a potential category-defining women's health product with clear differentiation across efficacy, safety, and convenience. In line with this, we believe our data also significantly expands the commercial prospect for ABCL635, and we are fully committed to bringing it into late-stage development next year. In the next few slides, I'll review the key results and put them into context with respect to existing therapies. Our first key efficacy endpoint was reduction in the frequency of moderate and severe hot flashes. This slide shows the effect of ABCL635 plotted as change from baseline values using both the primary analysis on the left, which included only values from weeks 2, 3, and 4, as well as a pre-specified sensitivity analysis on the right that included week 1 data as well. I first note that our data shows rapid onset of benefit with a significant placebo-adjusted treatment difference of 2.6 events already present at week 1, and then increasing improvements over the full four-week period. At four weeks, the ABCL635 group has a mean reduction of 8.8 events per day compared to a mean reduction of only 3.5 events per day in the placebo group, representing a placebo-adjusted treatment difference of 5.3 events. Expressed as a percent change from baseline, the BCL636 group experienced an 83% reduction from baseline in daily events compared to a 33% reduction in the placebo group for a placebo-adjusted treatment difference of 50%. Notably, the benefit of ABCL635 was highly consistent across subgroup analyses, and the data were robust to a variety of sensitivity analyses. Our second key efficacy endpoint was reduction in the severity of VMS, which is reported on a three-point scale representing mild, moderate, and severe events. As with frequency, we see a rapid onset of benefit with significant improvement at the one-week time point and increasing improvement out to four weeks. At four weeks, the mean severity score is decreased by 1.4 points in the ABCL635 group versus 0.3 points for the placebo group for a placebo-adjusted difference of 1.1 points. When expressed as a percent change from baseline, the ABCL635 group experienced a 58% mean reduction in severity from baseline compared to a 12% mean deduction in the placebo-group for a possible adjusted difference of 46%. As an alternative to reporting population averages, another valuable way to look at the data is to assess the fraction of patients that experienced different ranges of treatment benefit. In the table on the left, you can see that 37% of abcl635 participants had complete or 100% resolution of moderate or severe events at four weeks. This compared to only 2.2% of placebo patients. To our knowledge, these levels of complete resolution of modern and severe events have not been reported for any non-hormonal VMS treatments and are at least comparable, if not superior, to reports from studies of hormone therapy. Furthermore, nearly 61% of ABCL635 participants had at least a 90% improvement from baseline in the number of moderate to severe events compared to only 8.7% of placebo patients, and a full 78%, more than three-quarters of patients had over 75% reduction. These large and clinically meaningful benefits were also observed for severity, as shown in the table on the right. While acknowledging the potential limitations in making cross-trial comparisons, it is worth evaluating our observed treatment effects against data collected similarly at four weeks from the registrational studies of the two approved small molecule NK3R antagonists, mesalinatant, and elanzanatant. Looking at the placebo-adjusted reduction in frequency of moderate and severe VMS expressed as a percentage of the baseline levels, our placebo-addjusted treatment effect is 50%, which is approximately twice as large as the 20% to 25% reductions reported in phase 3 studies of mesalinantant and elenzanatat. An even greater difference in treatment effect was observed in improvements in VMS severity, with a roughly 3.5 to 5-fold greater benefit as compared to the registrational studies of Fezalinatant and Elanzanatant. Importantly, these markedly enhanced treatment effects were achieved without any clear signal of gastrointestinal or liver toxicity. This slide summarizes adverse events reported in at least two patients in either treatment group, regardless of relationship, occurring during the first four weeks of treatment. ABCL635 demonstrated a favorable tolerability profile across the data set. Overall, there was a numerically higher number of patients with at least one adverse event in the ABCL 635 group compared with the placebo group. There were no serious or severe adverse events in the abcl635 group, compared to one placebo patient with a serious adverse event and two placebo patients with severe adverse events. Similar to the data in the phase one study, ABCL-635 was associated with an increased incidence of headache, with the majority rated as mild and transient across both treatment groups. Fatigue was also reported more often in the ABCL 635 group, although all events were mild. Importantly, we did not see any evidence of gastrointestinal toxicity in the study, despite it being consistently reported with the two approved small molecule NK3R inhibitors. In fact, we observed a lower incidence of nausea in the ABCL635 group and no events of diarrhea or abdominal pain compared to multiple patients reporting these events in the placebo group. Summing up, our phase two data showed a combination of breakthrough efficacy and favorable tolerability. Based on this, we believe ABCL 635 has the potential to redefine the standard of care for non-hormonal treatment of hot flashes. Looking forward, we are committed to advancing ABCL635 into late-stage development and are actively working through the FDA's Model-Informed Drug Development, or MIDD, program to gain alignment on dose selection for subsequent studies. We expect to disclose additional data through 12 weeks and the Open Label Extension, or OLE, data in early 2027. As a reminder, in terms of efficacy, the primary objective of the Phase II trial was to evaluate the benefit of a single dose of abcl635 over the course of four weeks this is the data we have just reviewed the remaining portion of the 12-week data is to monitor the decline in efficacy over the final eight-week washout period with this data used to support exposure response modeling for late stage dose selection following the initial 12-weak period ole data will provide an additional four-week assessment allowing us to characterize repeat dose dynamics in the treatment group alongside initial active exposure in the placebo group. We expect to initiate late-stage development for menopause VMS in 2027, and in parallel, we are expanding the indications for ABCL635 to include hot flashes caused by hormone suppression associated with breast and prostate cancer treatment, and we expect to initiate clinical trials in these two populations in 2026. Finally, today we are pleased to announce a new program, ABCL992, which is the next-generation half-life extended analog of ABCL635. ABCL 992 entered IND-enabling activities in Q3. Building on our landmark data from ABCL 635, we believe this program will advance another therapeutic option that provides even greater convenience to patients through an extending dosing interval and facilitates broader patient reach. Moving on from ABCL635, and as previously guided, today we are presenting phase one results from our second clinical candidate, ABCL575, which is a long-acting investigational antibody targeting OX40 ligand. ABCL575 entered clinical development as a potential best-in-class follower of Sanofi's amlitilumab, which at the time was in Phase III studies for atopic dermatitis. Earlier this year, based on disappointing clinical data, development of amlitilumab was discontinued in atopic dermatitis. Separately, late-stage clinical studies of Amgen's rocatilumib and OX40-targeted antibody also led to discontinuation. Based on these external results, we will not pursue development of ABCL575 in atomic dermatitis, and while we believe the OX 40-OX40 ligand class has potential in other autoimmune conditions, we do not currently have plans to develop it beyond phase one. With that, I'll hand it over to Sarah to discuss our top-line results from the phase one study. Sarah? Thank you, Carl. Despite setbacks in the OX40-OX40 ligand class, the top-ine results from the phase 1 clinical trial of ABCL575 demonstrated a favorable tolerability and PK profile that were very much in line with our target product profile. As a reminder, our Phase 1 study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose study in 40 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 65. Participants were randomized three to one to receive a single dose of ABCL575 at a dose of 75 milligrams to 900 milligrams subcutaneously or a matching placebo. Within the expected long half-life of ABCL575, participants were followed for approximately one year. Study endpoints included safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics. The following data reflects a near-complete data set with the final participants approaching their last study visit. Thirty participants received a single dose of ABCl575 and 10 received a dose of placebo. The overall study population had a roughly even split between males and females and an average age of 44 years. There were no clinically important imbalances among treatment groups. ABCL575 demonstrated a favorable tolerability profile in this dataset. This slide summarizes adverse events reported in at least two participants in either treatment group regardless of relationship. There were no serious or severe adverse events in the ABCL575 group and one severe adverse event in the placebo group. The overall adverse event rate was comparable between the two treatment groups with about 57% of ABCL 575 participants reporting at least one adverse event compared with 60% on placebo. The most common adverse events were injection site reactions and headache that were neither dose-dependent nor markedly different between ABCL575 and placebo group. There were no safety findings indicative of clinically important immunosuppression in this data set. In terms of pharmacokinetics, ABCL575 showed sustained exposure that was approximately dose-proportional across the dose range. With the data available to date, the mean half-life was approximately 65 days, ranging from 43 days in the lowest dose cohort to 79 days in the 600 milligram cohort. This is in line with the mean half-life of 67 days predicted from our preclinical data. We also compared our exposures against an efficacy target threshold of 4 micrograms per milliliter. That threshold is inferred from published clinical data on amlitilamab. At clinically relevant dose levels, exposures were maintained well above that threshold for over 12 weeks. Taken together, these data support dosing once a quarter or less frequently, which was a key aspect of our target product profile. In summary, our Phase I study met its primary endpoints, including a favorable tolerability and PK profile that supported extended dosing intervals. As Carl mentioned, based on external developments in the OX40-OX40D ligand class, we do not intend to pursue clinical development further at this time. I would like to thank the study participants, investigators, and the site team for their contributions and commitment to this study. I'll turn the call back to Carl, who can share additional corporate development updates for the quarter. Thanks, Sarah. Having just reviewed our clinical results for ABCL635 and ABCL575, I'd like to pull back and share some perspective on what these mean for Abcelera. A little over a year ago, we were in preclinical studies and working to make the difficult transition from a platform company to a clinical biotech. As of today, we have brought our first two programs successfully through early-stage clinical development. With ABCL635, we've delivered breakthrough results that open a path to creating a transformative product in women's health. And by next year, Abcelera will transition into a late-stage clinical development company. Clinical success has created an exciting opportunity, and taking advantage of this opportunity requires resources. Following the release of our Phase II data for ABCL635, we completed a significantly oversubscribed $200 million capital raise. With a strengthened balance sheet, we can bring ABCL535 into late- stage development while continuing to invest in our broader pipeline turning to this pipeline while investor attention has been overwhelmingly focused on abcl 635 we believe this is but the first example of our platform delivering value our goal is to prove this by repeatedly inventing and developing programs that emphasize innovation and that have potential to be breakthrough medicines today we have several updates to to our pipeline. First, our previously disclosed programs, ABCL688 and ABCL386, continue to progress through IND-enabling activities. As mentioned earlier, we have added a new program, ABCl992, which is a next-generation version of ABCL 635 engineered for less frequent dosing. And today, we are also announcing two additional programs, ABCL385, a new program for an undisclosed indication in oncology, and ABCL646, a potential first-in-class antibody antagonist against an undisclosed ion channel target. As with previous programs, we do not expect to disclose further information on ABCL385 and ABC646 until they enter clinical development. In summary, Q3 was a breakthrough quarter for Abcelera. We delivered compelling clinical data for ABCL635 that sets the stage for late-stage development next year. In parallel, we successfully completed our studies of ABCL575, have advanced ABCL 688 and ABCL386, and have added three new programs, ABCL992, ABCl385, and ABCl646 to our pipeline. With these accomplishments, we have successfully delivered on all our stated 2026 corporate priorities. With completion of our financing, we are in an excellent financial position as we close out 2026, and we're expecting that 2027 will be another significant year for Abcelera. And with that, I'll hand it over to Andrew to discuss our financials. Andrew? Thanks, Carl. As Carl pointed out, Abceler continues to be in a strong liquidity position with over $790 million in cash and equivalents, and with over $100 million in available committed government funding to execute on our strategy. We are continuing to execute our plans with a focus on internal programs and leveraging our process development and clinical manufacturing investments. Turning to revenues and expenses, revenues for the quarter were over $10 million compared to a total revenue of approximately $9 million in the same quarter of 2025. The revenue this quarter consisted mostly of research fees. Our research and development expenses for the corridor were approximately $44 million as we continue to focus on investments in our internal programs. R&D expenses in the same quarter last year were approximately $12 million higher due to a couple of specific investments in internal programs in Q3 of 2025. In sales, general and administration, expenses were approximately 14 million dollars compared to 25 million dollars last year. The large decrease in SG&A expenses relates to the conclusion of our intellectual property litigation and to changes in teams following the focus on our internal pipeline looking at earnings we are reporting a net loss of roughly 41 million dollars for the third quarter of 2026 compared to a loss of about 57 million dollars a year earlier in terms of earnings per share this result works out to a loss 13 cents per share on a basic and diluted basis looking at cash flows altogether we finished the quarter with over $790 million of cash and marketable securities. Operating activities for the first nine months of the year generated $19 million in cash. Included in the operating cash flow are the receipt of upfront payments under our TCE deals with Jazz and Vertex, as well as the Brooker litigation settlement paid out in 2026. As Carl mentioned, we concluded our oversubscribed equity raise of $200 million in the quarter. The proceeds from this raise, combined with government funding and employee stock option exercises, resulted in $214 million of financing cash inflows. Excluding marketable securities, investment activities year-to-date included approximately $8 million of capital expenditures, offset by a similar amount in government grants received. As a part of our Treasury strategy, we now have about $600 million invested in short-term marketable securities. Our investment activities for the quarter included a $197 million net investment in these holdings. As an reminder, we have received commitments for funding the advancement of our internal pipeline from the Government of Canada's Strategic Innovation Fund and the Government Of British Columbia. This available capital does not show up on our balance sheet with over 790 million dollars in cash and equivalents and the unused portion of our secured government funding we have over 890 million dollars in available liquidity to execute on our strategy in addition we have further available liquidity from our ownership of our other Vancouver based lab and office building as well as our GMP facility with respect to overall company expenditures our capital needs are very manageable and we continue to believe that we have sufficient liquidity to fund at least the next three years of pipeline investments and with that we'll be happy to take your questions operator we will now begin the question and answer session if you would like to ask a question please press star 1 to raise your hand to withdraw your question press star one again we ask that you pick up your handset when asking a question to allow for optimum sound quality if you're muted locally please remember to unmute your device please stand by while we compile the q a roster your first question comes to the line of evan siegerman with bmo capital markets your line is open please go ahead hi guys um thank you so much for taking my question and congrats on all the progress this past quarter so i know you presented 635 the 65 data two conferences on this past four following the data disclosure can you share what feedback you got from clinicians in the field and kind of what their level of excitement is? And more importantly, what did you learn from those clinicians that helped you inform kind of next steps in development of this asset? Thank you so much. Hi, Evan. Thanks for the question. And really, it was a remarkable reception that we had both at IMS in Rio and TMS, the Menopause Society in San Diego this past month. I would say the reception that we've gotten was nothing short of incredible, fantastic, can't wait to participate. When are we starting phase three? And I would say that, you know, we were hearing that these results are, you Know, even better than what physicians have been experiencing with hormonal therapy. And certainly the hormonal therapy data that was presented with the latest hormone therapy estatrol uh was at least on a side-by-side comparison much stronger so um they are anxiously awaiting our next steps we've had uh consultant meetings with kols at both uh meetings and and we have gotten a lot of uh of good encouragement to move as quickly as we can all right thank you your next question comes to the line of steve seedhouse with cantor your line is open please go ahead hey great thanks so much um congrats on all the progress uh wanted to ask um two um slightly different uh questions first is just on 992 the new asset new nk3r long acting asset Anything in your market research that suggests this extended dose interval could meaningfully change sort of the receptivity or the market adoption of that asset? And just how do you plan to develop it in parallel? Thinking, obviously, you're in a few different indications with 635. I don't know if you're planning on maybe one in oncology or one in postmenopause, if you could talk about that. And then I have a quick follow-up. Thanks. Sure. Steve, Carl here. I'll maybe start the answer, and Sarah might be able to add something after the fact. So first of all, we did some market research early on on 635 where we did ask questions looking at the importance of dosing, like once daily as a pill versus one month versus three months. The general trend was that people preferred, there was a majority preference for a once-monthly injectable, and I'd say that the people that believed that you could deliver a molecule that would last for three months were also very excited about that but in the interviews you had you know some patients that just thought hey that's too good to be true so we view that as as very positive in terms of you know our view of the opportunity here you know first of all we we find ourselves in an unbelievable position having you know this type of of data with this kind of strength and there aren't a lot of competing molecules around. We anticipate that there will be, you know, groups out there that immediately think, well, I'm going to follow that up with a half-life extended version. And so we've had this molecule in the wings ready to go, and we're able to bring it into IND enabling activities immediately following the data. So we're well ahead of that response that we expect to see from the market. And that's part of shoring up our position and making sure we make the most out of the opportunity. You know, in addition to patient convenience, the other part, and I did, I think, mention this slightly in my prepared remarks, is that a longer dosing interval means that you have to make fewer doses per patient. That, of course, improves the cost of goods, but also makes it easier to satisfy a broader reach of demand. And we think that's going to be an important, at least, optionality as this program goes forward. Very good. Thanks, Carl. My follow-up was just, you have a handful of new lines in the pipeline here. The internal pipeline is expanding pretty rapidly. I was curious, are you thinking about this as Accelera just has the desire and capacity to develop all of these wholly owned broad internal pipeline, or are you looking to or open to licensing out some of these assets as they translate into the clinic and continue to advance? Separate from OX40, I mean, because obviously that one's uh part for now thank you sure so i mean our our stated strategy for some time has been not to be a one-trick pony but to be able to show we can reproducibly generate medicines that are exciting and worth bringing into clinical development uh you're seeing that now come into play as the pipeline fills up um you know everything we've brought forward you know we have conviction in uh of course we're going to see how they work and we'll get the early clinical data that'll be part of deciding what to bring forward and then at every moment we decide to bring a program forward we're having to make a decision as to you know resource allocation and bandwidth today we feel like we have got our hands around this well that we can fund it in the early stage and that it's going to create value we're going to keep looking at that as we move forward but there there may well be opportunities to out license it's gonna depend on the program Thank you, Carl. Your next question comes from the line of Roger Song with Jefferies. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks for the update and taking our question. Maybe just regarding the early next year data update with the strong four-week data understanding the single those eight-week washout period. Just curious, if possible, we can see the eight and then 12 weeks comparable to oral, and then what's your internal modeling suggesting? And then regarding the open label extension, you set a bar high for yourself, but just in terms of the open label, what's the design the patient, that could be the potential we'll see some difference between the first four weeks versus the extension four weeks. Thank you. Hi, Roger. I'll take this. In terms of what we expect from the eight-week and 12-week, just as a reminder, this was a single-dose study. So the expectation is we see our most pronounced results around the four-week time point. That's why we chose that as our pre-specified efficacy analysis time point, and the goal of continuing to follow patients for efficacy and safety through 8 and 12 weeks was to see how efficacy decreases as exposure decreases and to build an exposure response model that would then support dose selection. So, given that this is only a single dose, we don't expect that efficacy is maintained through the full 12 weeks, and in fact, if that were the case, it'd be harder to build that exposure response model for dose selection. So, the goal is to watch as drug washes out, and we've already disclosed our half-life, so we expect that drug washes to look at how efficacy changes, and that supports our model-informed drug development pathway. So the four-week efficacy is what we expected in terms of our efficacy data, and if you say, well, what are our expectations in the open label, I think what we would like to see is when placebo patients cross over, they have a similar degree of benefit. I think that will provide orthogonal data supported, and then we look forward to sharing what happens when the active patients receive a second dose. So there'll be both an efficacy and a safety data set that will come early next year. And I think, you know, it just will provide continued conviction that we have in this program to move it into late stage development. If I could just add one more thing, Roger, you asked about the comparison to the small molecules and efficacy. So, you Know, we did mention that, you Now, at week one, we already have efficacy that looks comparable to the Small Molecules. And as Sarah mentioned, as the drug washes out, we're going to see efficacy decline. since we're starting so much better, we expect that, you know, at some point we're going to cross over that. But of course, that isn't the goal. Our goal is not to make a drug at this point that is equal in efficacy, but one that has a formidable advantage in efficacy. So we're looking to preserve that as we decide on the final dosing. Got it. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Brian Chang with JP Morgan. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking our questions today. I'll be just first, as we think about the next data cut from the washout and also the OLE, just curious if you can talk about, you know, the size of the OE portion, just how many patients have been rolled over so far into the OEL, and I have a quick follow-up. Thank you. Brian, I'll take that. I don't want to preclude the data that we'll be sharing, but I can say that the uptake of the open-label extension was extremely high, as you might expect, given the efficacy results seen at four weeks. So you will see the vast majority of patients as part of that dataset. Great. And then on 992, as you think about the next step, moving into later stage development, what is the ultimate strategy to develop 992? Is it for, do you have a specific set of indications in mind that will be better served with a longer half-life or is this more, should we think of it as more of a life cycle management behind 635? I appreciate the question so you know as mentioned we see an opportunity to have a product that we could you know create for more patients and one that would have an extended dosing interval I think that's got some important advantages commercially we haven't yet run that to ground so exactly how we're going to position the two products is probably not something we're ready to talk about today what I will say is that you know the existence of 992 is in no way a move away from 635. We are all in on 635 we think that's going to be a terrific product and we're just looking to reinforce that with one that's even better and that anticipates how we expect people to react to it. Great thanks for the call. Your next call comes from the line of Andrea Newkirk with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open please go ahead. Good evening thanks for taking the question. I also have one follow-up on 992 there just if you're able to share what specific modifications were utilized to extend the half life and carl um i just wanted to follow up on the target half life for an injection interval um that you believe um would be advantageous here just curious um what that target is is it the every three months that you mentioned and then i have a follow-up sure so in terms of the modification uh we haven't yet disclosed uh you know anything think about the sequence of 992. What I will say is that we've used, you know, engineering practices that were free to use and that have been well-trodden, and so we have high confidence that this will play out the way that we expect. In terms of dosing interval, ABCL635, originally the TPP was for a once-monthly dosing. Obviously, based on the data we've shown, we're well within that, andso the question now is what exactly is the dosing to meet that? We do expect that the follow-on product would have, you know, a dosing interval that, you know, probably safely twice, perhaps three, or even more in terms of dosing interval, but we have to do some studies still to nail that down. So I don't want to get ahead of ourselves here. Okay. And then just, I guess maybe taking a step back and broadly, as you think about the progress that you've made with these first two internal programs, I'd be curious just your thoughts on what the primary translational or mechanistic read-through are from those those initial programs to the broader pipeline that you have thanks so much i'm sorry could you rephrase that question i'm not sure that i i got the full thrust of it um sure just i guess maybe on the back of uh 635 and 575 and the the the progress that you've seen there. I'm just curious on the read-through that you see to the rest of your pipeline. Sure. So, you know, the progress on 575 and 635, as I mentioned, shows that we have successfully navigated that transition from being a platform company to standing up, you Know, a clinical team and successfully executing those programs. On 635. You know, The next, the next big lift is going to be to build that out into late stage development and to be able to take it forward to approval. So that's the read-through on the operational side. In terms of, you know, read-thru on the platform, 635, I think, is a good archetype of the type of program we're trying to bring forward. So well-validated biology, large unmet need, very sparse competition, and a difficult target where our platform has been able to deliver. We've got other programs behind coming like that. You know, I might call out, for instance, 646, that today we disclosed is an antagonist against an ion channel target. That's an area where we've been working for a long time, where we think we have a very strong competitive advantage. And if it were to go forward and ultimately be a drug, it would be the first antibody against an iron channel target that's been done. So trying to get into that new target space is definitely something that we are focused on, and we think that's important in what is becoming an increasingly competitive world. Your next question comes from the line of Kripa Devarakonda with Truist Securities. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Thank you so much for taking my question, and congratulations on the progress the last few months. I just want to clarify a timeline. From my understanding, the 12-week data were expected by year 2026, by the end of the year. Am I right? And if so, wondering what has driven the move to early 2027, I guess the question I really have is, do you have all the data internally for the finalization of the phase three trial design? You are in conversation with regulators, and then I have a follow-up question. Thanks for the question. There is nothing unusual from an operational standpoint. The data is coming in. We're doing the monitoring and analysis, and really it's the preferred timing of release of this data between late 2026 and early 2027. So there is nothing that fundamentally has changed. And you have all the data internally for the finalization of the case trial design or the conversations you're having with regulators? We are in the midst of regulatory discussions, KOL discussions about their clinical trial designs. I think we have a clear pathway that has been laid out by the two small molecules, so I think overall there are going to be little surprises, but there are additional endpoints and design aspects as well as sample size and populations that we're still under discussions with. So, we have all that we need in terms of the feedback, but going through regulatory discussions and finalizing our dose takes a little bit of time. And while we're doing that, we're scaling up our manufacturing processes. So we remain on track to initiate late-stage studies in 2027. Okay. Just a follow-up question. In August, I think, when we talked about it, you raised possibility of a head-to-head study. Are you still considering including an active competitor, or is this something that we have to wait for once you're done with your trial design? At this point, we're not going to be sharing any more information about our pivotal study or late-stage designs, but we will be disclosing that in the coming months. Thank you so much. Your next question comes to the line of Alison Brotzell with Piper Sandler. Your line is open, please go ahead. Hi there, this is Peter on for Alison. Thank you for taking the question. So, you expect to advance 635 into VMS associated with breast and prostate cancer treatments next year. which populations and settings are you prioritizing, and what might those initial trials look like? Also, what needs to be established in the menopause program before those studies can begin? Thank you. Thanks, Peter. In terms of breast, I think the overall study design can be inferred from the OASIS-IV study of L-enzenotant, where they ran a pivotal study in the breast cancer population. So I would expect that you'd see a lot of similarity in that study design. And just as a reminder, the treatment effect seen with L- enzenotan was highly comparable in VMS associated with naturally occurring menopause and VMS-associated with breast cancer treatment. So while we have not studied that patient population yet, we have a lot of conviction that we will see a similarly strong treatment effect in terms of prostate cancer that's much less data available some case reports and early studies so there we'll be doing a little bit more work in terms defining the patient population and correct study endpoints so there we expect to initiate mid-stage studies in in 2027 but i think the expected treatment effects, just given what we have heard from urologists that have used oral small molecules in patient populations with fairly problematic BMS, has been very encouraging. I think we have less of a handle right now on what the exact patient population should look like, but those are ongoing and very active discussions and certainly a lot of enthusiasm from the field. Great. Thank you. your next question comes in the line of Alice Nettleton with UBS your line is open please go ahead hi this is Avery on for Alice thanks so much for taking our questions and congrats on all the progress with 635 today so a couple from us first since your last investor call can you talk maybe a little bit about any important market developments in menopause that give you greater confidence in the market growth and more specifically in opportunity for 635 and then separately you recently presented the phase one sad mad data at tms where the immunogenicity looked quite low with two percent anti-drug antibodies so what gives you confidence that this will hold with longer term and broader exposure thanks so much sure i'll start on the uh market side so um you know i don't know if a lot has changed over in the last quarter, but what we are seeing is quite a dramatic turn of attention towards treating VMS. I think that was probably in large part prompted by the removal of the box warning on hormone therapy and what has been a dramatic increase in women that are seeking and expect to get treatment for problematic VMS, so that's for us as a tailwind. We've always positioned the product not as a substitute for hormone therapy, but as a great alternative for those that either cannot tolerate or have contraindications against or who choose that they don't want to take hormone therapy. The other thing I think that's interesting is the, you know, the way that the small molecules have played out. And, you Know, I think one of the things that's happening in the market is there's some, I won't say friction, but there is some discussion around the risk benefit and the use of these over some other therapies that are being used as non-hormonal options, particularly SSRIs, for instance. And here we think we've got a product that will have a very clear efficacy advantage, and we intend or we hope to have a safety profile that looks like it has thus far. And so we think that we could be positioned to be, you know, really, you know, standing alone as an NK3R option and perhaps even any option for non-hormonal treatment. And I'll chime in in terms of your question around immunogenicity. You know, ultimately our conviction comes from in silico modeling as well as some early preclinical data. Ultimately, clinical data will give us a lot more conviction. So more data will come as we see repeat dose from the open-label extension, and that's something that we'll continue to monitor. But really, this is something that will need to play out with repeat and longer-term studies. So stay tuned. But certainly, our current data set is very encouraging, and there's nothing in our modeling or what we've seen preclinically that gives us any concern. Thanks so much. Your next question comes from the line of Brendan Smith with TD Cohen. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks for taking the questions, guys, and congrats on all the progress here. I wanted to actually ask about the earlier stage pipeline. I think you've got now four or five new assets in IND-enabling studies. So, I mean, how many of those should we reasonably expect to hit maybe phase one over the next year, let's say? I guess, how are you prioritizing the timing of those entering the clinic? And maybe just what are some of the gating factors kind of dictating some of those decisions at this point thanks sure so um you know uh just uh responding to your question about the timing of the asset so obviously 635 is a big focus right now it's the one that has gone the furthest behind that we're starting to build what we think is quite a compelling pipeline As I mentioned before, ABCL 688 and 386 continue to go through IND enabling activities. Both of those have a timeline that would bring them into the clinic in 2027. Behind that, we've just announced 992. It started IND-enabling activities this past quarter in Q3, so it'll be sometime definitely not in 2026. It's not in the 2027 that it would be in the clinic, but perhaps in 2028. And for 646 and 385, you know, we haven't given any further guidance, but we will update those as they get closer to clinical development. Got it. Sounds good. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to Carl Hansen for closing remarks. Great. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. It's been a great quarter and we look forward to speaking to you again next quarter. This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.