DBV Technologies Q3 2026 Results and Business Update Conference Call - DBV TECHNOLOGIES SA

Welcome to the DBV Technologies third quarter 2026 results and business update conference call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star, then 1 on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press star then 2. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Kevin Gardner from LifeSci Advisors. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you. This afternoon, DBV Technologies reported financial results for the third quarter of 2026. This update is available in the press releases section of the DBV technologies website. Before we begin, please note that today's call may include a number of forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, comments regarding our forecast of estimated cash runway, clinical and regulatory development plans, the design and conduct of our clinical trials, our expectations with respect to the timing and results of interactions with and decisions by regulatory agencies, and the ability of any of our product candidates, if approved, to improve the lives of patients with food allergies. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause the company's actual results to differ significantly from those suggested by these statements. Given these risks and uncertainities, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Please refer to the company'S filings with the SEC and the French AMF for information concerning risk factors that could cause the Company's actual result to differ materially from expectations, including any forward-looking statements made on this call except as required by law the company disclaims any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward- looking statements to account for or reflect events or circumstances that occur after this call joining me on the call today is daniel tassay chief executive officer of dvv i will now pass the call over to daniel daniel Thank you, Kevin, and thank you all for joining us today. On the call today, I'm joined by our CFO, Virginie Boussina, our CMO, Taras Mohideen, and our Chief Operations Officer, Kevin Malabisky. Kevin is responsible for product engineering and development. He's responsible for manufacturing and for quality at DBV. The third quarter of 2026 was a continuation of the work involved in becoming a commercial company. The highlight of the quarter was the filing of our BLA in four to seven-year-olds for which I will have to give a big shout out to the DBV team, to our investigators, and to the food allergy community who have all been exceptionally supportive of our efforts. I also wish to recognize the FDA's constructive engagement the last few months and look forward to working closely with them during the review process. In tandem with this important regulatory work, DBV's manufacturing and quality management teams have been working closely, with Faddeh Van Bois, the company's contract manufacturing partner. That work, which includes extensive collaboration with third-party expert consultants, follows the April 2026 FD1 letter to Fareba. As we previously disclosed, the letter resulted from a September 2025 inspection of the manufacturing of a veterinary product, and it included some observations focused on quality management operations and systems, which makes the warning letter have site-wide implications at AMBOIS. It is understandable and reasonable that there may be questions about this and what this means for our review process and the potential approval by a skin peanut patch in 47-year-olds, and I hope to use some of our time today to discuss them. Let me introduce Kevin to provide more details of the remediation process and our pre-approval inspection preparation. Thanks, Daniel. As Daniel mentioned, my name is Kevin Malabisky, and I am the Chief Operations Officer here at DVV. By way of a brief introduction, I've been in the pharmaceutical and biotech space for nearly 40 years, focusing my career on regulatory affairs and quality programs, as well as building and leading teams through innovative development and operations. I joined DBV about four years ago, and as Daniel mentioned, I lead the global quality, development, manufacturing, and reg CMC teams here. I would like to start by outlining and reviewing the responsibility and process for successfully addressing the warning letter received at Frey-Van Blas. The responsibility for satisfactory remediation of the findings cited in a warning letter resides entirely with the company that received it, in this case, Fareva Ambroise. Since receiving the warning letter last April, Farewa has both accepted and embraced that responsibility and is working with DBV and our chosen third-party consultants on the remediation plan for the elements that could be applicable to manufacturing the peanut patch. Remediation of a warning letter is an established, standardized, regulatory process, and I would like to take a few minutes to walk you through that and how FREVA has responded to the FDA and how FDA, I'm sorry, and how DBV has been involved in the remediation process. There are four parts. First, within 15 days of receiving a warning a letter, a company provides a robust written response detailing their remediation plan. This plan includes proposed corrective and preventative actions, or CAPAs, and the cadence on which they will provide the FDA with written updates. This is typically every 30 or 60 days until the remediation is completed. In this case, FORAVA submitted their written response and their plan to the FDA within the 15 business days and has since provided monthly written updates to the agency. Second, as you may know, the remediation process is typically supported by external consultants and teams having remediation expertise. Many of these specialists bring deep knowledge of quality management systems and often include former FDA personnel. Where a question is highly technical or specific to a product, the Remediation Team can bring in additional subject matter experts. As I mentioned earlier, DBV's manufacturing and quality management teams are working closely with both FORAVA and third-party consultants on remediation efforts that directly impact the manufacturing of the Bioskin peanut patch. Third, the work is managed against a detailed project plan developed by the company's management team and the remediation experts together with the company's quality teams. All progress is monitored against the plan and is the basis for the monthly updates provided to the FDA. In this case, FORAVA shared its detailed project plan with DBV, allowing our teams of experts and our consultants to support elements of the remediation plan that may be applicable to the manufacturing of viaskin peanut patches. This collaboration has allowed Frava to focus their resources on site-wide remediation while also giving the DBV quality team direct access and line of sight into the work that matters most for the via skin peanut patch production. Finally, as remediation progresses and the company is confident in the date when their remediation will be complete, they will invite the FDA to reschedule a reinspection. Now, what does all of this mean for our BLA? To be clear, the review of our application and the remediation of Frava's warning letter are separate and distinct processes. Where they converge is with the pre-approval inspection or the PAI and its readiness. As is standard with FDA filings, DBV included a target date for PAI readiness within the BLA submitted to the FDA. That PAI-readiness target date is after Frava expects to have completed their remediation. This background is important to understand how we are collaborating with Frava and to reinforce how committed we are in the remediation process with them, specific to the elements relevant to by skin peanut patch i thank you for your attention and now hand it back to daniel thank you kevin it should go without saying the work kevin and his team are doing is a priority for the company and will remain so until the remedial efforts the remediation efforts are completed it's also very important that we not lose sight of the progress being made across and we'd now like to provide an update on our toddler program. Over the last few months, we have also discussed with FDA our upcoming filing in toddlers age one through three years as we were preparing to submit our BLA for children age four through seven years. These discussions included a potential rolling submission of the one through 3 BLA. Now, we welcome hearing the FDA's perspective, as we have a very unique dynamic here. We have two distinct BLAs to be filed in relatively quick succession. As we've previously stated, no analogs exist to Viaskin peanut patch. It's novel. We are building a breakthrough therapy on unique biology and a novel mode of action. Now, both PLAs share things and differ in many ways. Both PLAs shares similar approaches to clinical development, although, and it's an important although, although with two distinct populations and two large data sets, there are meaningful differences between the two clinical sectors. Bioskin Peanut also, as you know, is a drug device combination delivering a biological API. Thus, both CMC modules for both BLAs for each BLA are large and complex while still having important content overlap between the two. But all of this background I'm sharing with you on commonalities and differences between the two BLAs matters because most importantly, both BLA will be reviewed by the same team at FDA. And although there are obviously efficiencies to the overall review of the two BLAs, we do not want to create a review bottleneck and wedge two BLA in parallel, potentially putting us at risk of doing just that. Our goal is to solve for an expedient and efficient review of both BLAs as the outcome. We held discussions with the agency and in those discussions the agency indicated that starting the 1 through 3 review shortly after the 4 through 7 review will allow them to build on the important learnings from the first review and also benefit from the efficiencies we expect given the meaningful content overlap between the two BLAs. And not only that, it would also give DBZ and FDA an opportunity to align on the form, on the content, and on the best timing of the components of a 1-2-3 submission, all in support and efficient review of both BLAs, and DBZ is in full agreement with FDA's approach. To give you a real example, we have asked for priority review in 4 through 7, and we certainly don't wish to take FDA's attention away from completing that review first and completing it efficiently. The efficiency of the subsequent review in our 1 to 3 application will clearly benefit from this well-coordinated sequential approach. We'll continue our dialogue with the FDA over the next few months and expect to submit the toddler BLA in 2027. We will provide an update once the FDA discussions of these elements have been finalized. And as a reminder, the FDA previously issued written communication confirming the Accelerate Approval Pathway for the Bioskin Peanut Patch in toddlers. Before opening for questions, I'll ask Virginie to take us through our third quarter financial results, cash position, and highlights. Virginie? Thank you, Damien, and good afternoon, everyone. We ended the third quarter with $165.7 million U.S. dollars in cash and cash equipment. This includes $50 million in gross proceeds from the sales of ADSs to RA capital under our refreshed ATM program. Following the BLA submission, we updated our operating and liquidity forecast. And on this basis, we estimate that our existing cash will fund operations into the third quarter of 2027. This forecast reflects a stage-gated approach to investment. Our spending assumptions are milestones-based, so the timing of certain expenditures is aligned to regulatory developments while we keep funding what the FDA review and a potential launch require. This means continued investments in medical affairs, market access, marketing, account management, and pharmacovigilance, as well as in our launch infrastructure. Now turning to our P&L, the up-to-date operating expenses were $164.4 million U.S. dollars compared with $107 million a year ago. That is an increase of $59.4 million. About half of this increase went to the clinical and regulatory work behind the the BLF fighting itself. And this investment also reflects the ongoing advancements of Comfort Toddlers, its Open Label extension, the TESS Open Label Extension, and Thrive. The other half of our investments went to building a commercial-ready company. Sales and marketing grew from $1.9 million to $15.7 million as we build our commercial expertise and launch infrastructure. We also continued to build pre-commercial inventory and scale the corporate functions that will support commercialization. The third quarter was a quarter of execution. We submitted the BLA and laid the foundation to become a commercial organization. And we will keep pacing our investment to regulatory milestones. With that, I'll turn it back to Daniel. Daniel Pfeiffer- Virginie, thank you. In closing, the third quarter represented an important step forward for DBV. With our BLA for children aged 4 through 7 now submitted, we are focused on supporting an efficient FDA review, working with Cereva in advancing manufacturing readiness, and preparing for the potential commercialization of the Viaskin peanut patch, if approved. At the same time, we remain committed to expanding the potential reach of our technology to younger children through our toddler program recognize the important work ahead we'll enter the next phase with clear priorities energy and discipline execution we look forward to keeping you informed of our progress so come in line for questions now operator if you would like to ask a question please press star 1 on your telephone keypad now. You will be placed into the queue in the order received. Please be prepared to ask your question when prompted. Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press Star 1 on Your Phone Now. And our first question comes from Kristen Kluska of Cantor Fitzgerald. hi everyone thank you so much for taking the questions and really appreciate all the color you provided today on the manufacturing progress had a few questions there just understanding the process is for eva is sharing with you the monthly updates that they have in terms of what they're submitting to the fda and what the feedback has been and then are you able to say whether or not the actual FDA re-inspection has been scheduled and just trying to understand when we the public might be able to understand, when that is and what the outcome eventually is. So Chris, I'm going to take that one. They share with us a lot of the monthly reports, but understand they have 70 customers, they make 100 products. A lot of these things are not for competitors other companies to see here so we're quite satisfied with the extent of what they share with us it's more than adequate for us to be comfortable with the progress but we don't get to see everything for those reasons makes sense so your second question uh the fda visit has not been scheduled yet uh but it would be a bit premature to do that again as these things progress that would be part of what we'd be happy to share with investors as we cross those those steps. Thank you. That's your question, Kristen? Yeah. You did. Thank you. And our next question comes from Sushila Hernandez of VLK. Yes. Thank you for taking my questions. Just to clarify, so is Fareeza currently tracking a detailed plan, and is there sufficient time for a complete remediation with a potential buffer for potential delays before the pre-approval inspection? And second one, have you completed and analyzed the data of the comfort, safety study, and toddlers? And last question, so will you submit the toddler BLA only after the complete review of the children BLA, did you elaborate on that? Thank you. Thank you, last two questions on toddlers, I'll have Faris answer them while we'll answer your question about the remediation process afterwards. So Faris, you want to walk us through where we are with toddlers and the dialogue to come on what is the form of submitting that data since that discussion is not fully taking place with the agency. So, Farris? Yeah. So if you recall, comfort toddler recruitment ended in the second quarter. It's a supplemental six-month safety study. So you can add up the timing for that. I think the important point, as Daniel mentioned, is going to be related to the ongoing dialogue with the FDA related to the timing of the 1 to 3 BLA relative to the 4 to 7. And to emphasize what Daniel said, we've been in close correspondence and dialogue with the FDA. The last thing we want is the 1 to 3 to create a bottleneck or a delay in their ability to deliver the priority review for the 4 to 7 BLA. Of course, nothing stops us from submitting the BLA if we want to from a regulatory legal standpoint, but that's not the spirit of the relationship we have with the FDA. So I'm not sure if that exactly answered your question, Sushila, but I think behind what you're asking and getting to is what Daniel had addressed. Yes, that's clear. Thank you. Okay. And Sushil, if you could repeat your first question, so it would give you a precise answer, I would appreciate that. Yes. So is FORAVA tracking its detailed plan that they have laid out? Is it on track with all the steps? And is there a sufficient time for complete remediation before the pre-approval section? I'll have a migda patch, Kevin, answer that one. So, Kevin? Thanks, Daniel. Hi, Sushila. Yes. As I mentioned, we work very, very closely with FORAva, as as a number of consultants on a daily basis. And we're quite comfortable with the progress that they're making in terms of the remediation. The timing of that re-inspection as it relates to the timing of our PAI, we're also very comfortable with in terms of the buffer that would be there. Okay, that's clear. Thank you. And our next question comes from John Willeben of Citizens. Hey, thanks for the update and taking the questions. I might have missed this, but can you discuss what the warning letter details included and what remediation activities are still ongoing? And then any thoughts on getting a second manufacturer to have redundant supply? Or is that something that is a little too late in the game at this point? Let me start with the second half and I'll have Kevin answer the question here on the remediation process. We need a second manufacturing unit somewhere in the world to support the outer years of our forecast, as we've shared with investors here. So we need more capacity. But that's investment we're making to support the full flight of the product at approval. Setting up a new facility takes about three years, whether it's a CDMO, your own flight here. So that obviously is not the backup plan to Fareva. our plan with Cereva, and again, we're confident, is to work through the remediation and launch essentially the product out of their capacity. Does that make sense? So your first question, Kevin, can you answer it, or do you need John to restate the question? No, I can answer it. Hi, John. Nice to meet you. So the focus of the FDA inspection that led to the warning letter, as Daniel had mentioned earlier, was on a veterinarian product and an aseptic manufacturing process at their site. It's completely separate from the work that's ongoing on the visc and peanut patch. That being said, the remediation against a site-wide look at how potential impacts to the aseptics filling and the citations against that may or may not relate is what's ongoing in the remedial process. And again, we're very comfortable with the progress that Frey was making and the expertise that we have on hand to continue to track that closely. Got it. And by the way, that warning letter is available publicly, John, or we can send you a few kicks of the mouse and send it to you. But it outlines essentially exactly that, you know, observations around general quality management systems and training, but those comments are common in a warning letter. And when such a comment is made, obviously it touches every product made there as opposed to simply limiting it to the original observation, which was this veterinary product. I hope that was helpful as an answer. Thanks, McCullough. You're welcome. And as a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your phone now. And our next question comes from Yatin Seneha of Guggenheim Partners. Hey, guys. Thank you for taking my question. I appreciate all the color you provided. So I don't have a question on the CRO or the CMC. It's more around what do you now expect? Do you still expect a priority review? I mean, given that it's a faster process, if you get a priority review, do you think you have enough time to address all of that? And then the second part of the question is, would you also, or are you also eligible for a priority-review voucher, and have you think about sort of monetizing it if you get one of those. Thanks for those two questions here. So, I'm getting on here. The first time your question was what? I think the second one is on the priority voucher and the market. Yeah, the first one is more around, do you still expect a priority review for this application? yes thank you yeah thank you so much yes we do uh we uh we are eligible for priority review given our breakthrough designation uh at the agency the decision of giving priority review to a breakthrough product does not belong to the reviewing division but to a different team at the fda so the decision is made independently from the review division um so the request has been made a large percentage of companies with breakthrough designations do get the priority review. So that remains our hope here, and I would say expectation, but it's really our hope here. All of our planning, whether it's launch planning or whether it is remediation and preparation for the PAI is all hinged on what would be a priority review, so we're not giving ourselves any extra buffer time here. We're planning for the best case scenario, which is a tight timeline, we remain comfortable that all that can be managed within the clock of prior review. To your second question, the rules by which we could monetize access to a pediatric voucher would assume that the population obviously is less than what is the target population, 250,000 to 300,000 kids. Arguably, one to three is a bit less than that. But the rules for priority review assume that the technology cannot be used in other populations, which obviously is the last thing we want to state with Bias and Peanut here. We believe we can help kids one to seven and also kids as they grow out of seven, they're still eligible to be on therapy. So unfortunately, the strictest definition of the rules or priority voucher would not apply to Bias and not for lack of trying. I can answer your question. Very good. And then maybe one more question. Yeah, no, that's very helpful. Thank you for that. And then one more question, if I could, on the commercial side, perhaps maybe talk about some of the prep you are doing on the financial side. On the commercial front, what type of team you are able to hire now? I understand, you know, most of the sales force come after or closer to the launch. But maybe talk about that. When could you be launch ready? Yeah. We don't have Kevin Trapp on the call, so obviously he's the best person to answer those questions, but I've been working with him very closely. So to give you the highlights, as you know, there are 4,500 allergists in the U.S. They treat the bulk of the patients with food allergies, including peanuts. We're looking at Salesforce at 50 to 70 people to target them. Parents are important to the commercial mix here, so our ability to build the right mechanism, them and write outreach through media to engage a dialogue with them is a big part of our marketing plan also, as is obviously engaging with payers to make sure that not only do we get the price and we think it's fair for the therapy, but a review process or prioritization process by outages will be relatively straightforward. So all these key elements of our Marketing Plan here, and as you saw from our P&L for the first nine months of the year, we are making those investments wisely. Obviously, building up inventory to launch a product comes a bit later on. Obviously hiring a sales force comes towards the end of the process. But many of the key investments we are making right now, because you don't launch a blockbuster on six weeks of preparation, you launch a Blockbuster on 18 months of preparation. We're just being, I think, very smart, very strategic, and very, very planful in making those investments as we move forward to the de-risking of the product visiting the agency. Hopefully that was helpful. Thank you. And our next question comes from Sam Sletsky of LifeSite Capital. Hey, thanks for taking the questions, two for me, does the breakthrough therapy designation and potential for priority review also apply to one to three or is that strictly a four to seven age group thing? And then the other question was on comfort toddlers, is that basically just a box check press release of safety in line hopefully with prior studies or what might we see in that press release? Yes. So I'll come to the toddler's headline results here. To your first question, it's untested whether or not one breakthrough designation could support two BLAs. So we're on uncharted territory here. But we do have the opportunity, given our accelerated approval pathway in one to three, that also comes with eligibility for priority review in that process. So our thinking right now is priority review as a function of breakthrough designation supports the request made in 407, and then the other one would come with the fair approval pathway offered in one to 3. To be very clear, I'm sharing with you what our thinking is here. We don't have those answers. We don t have those commitments from the agency yet. Does that make sense? Yes. And then just on the second question. Did I answer the whole question? That was the first question. The second question was just on comfort toddlers. Is that going to be just kind of a box check press release that will be saying JT is hopefully in line or what will be in that press release, you think? Yeah. We obviously press release the results here because, and I'll have Faris add to this here, the pivotal study is epitope, it's been completed. This is a supplemental safety study. There are many ways to provide that to the FDA as part of a VLA, including as a safety update later on in the process here. All those discussions will take place with the agency going forward. But yes, I think it would be wise for us to announce the results once we have them. to say the study completed, and obviously we expect it will show no safety data that would be a deviation we've seen historically, but I'll invite Cyrus to add his two cents worth here since his study, and it's his publication team. Thanks, Daniel. I would agree with that conclusion, but Sam, you know we have like a 2,000 patient database over the years and this product is very well characterized so if anything did come of that it would be very out of characteristic for the product which we don't expect so to answer your question directly it would pretty much be a check the box type of press release as you know for these safety studies at least for the nature of the safety studies we do there's no primary endpoint and it's not power to show a specific thing so it's all about meeting exposure numbers for the product. So very much, in my mind at this point, a check-the-box type of press release. Got it. Okay, thanks. And our next question... Our next question comes from Gavin Clark Gardner of Evercore ISI. hey guys appreciate all the manufacturing updates so i'll just um stick on that theme here could you just walk us through like the the scope of updates and the timelines for what you're expecting to update us on over the next six or seven months as the review progresses like you have the remediation activities i see in the 10q there's a mock pai small milestone with a february first date listed. I obviously have like when the PAI gets scheduled. So I'm just wondering like what we should be expecting to hear from you guys over the next six or seven months. Correct. I want to make sure that I'm clear here and there's no misinterpretation. February 1st is the date we have shared with the FDA that we'd be ready for an inspection. And And there will be mock PAI before that. It's not uncommon for manufacturers to do regular mock inspections, some surprise, some plan. It's the way we make sure that our CDMOs stay sharp. We do the same thing with our own plant, by the way. So there's going to be a number of inspections along the way to make sure we verify readiness. And obviously, those developments could be relevant and could be something that we choose to share with the markets as the dossier progresses here. Does that answer your question? That's helpful. Yeah, it is. Thanks. Yeah. And once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 now. And our next question comes from Theodora Beadle of Goldman Sachs. Yes, hi. Thanks for taking my questions. So firstly, to what extent have you already had discussions with peers ahead of the potential buy skin peanut approval and what has been the early feedback from that process? And then secondly, how should we think about the first year sales potential for buy skin peanut in age four to seven year olds? Thank you. Yeah, I'll start answering your second question. We will not be providing guidance. We will have obviously a launch day for the benefit of investors and analysts as we get closer to launch. And Kevin Trapp will do a masterful job of walking guys through how we think about the market so that he can help us track it with us here. As far as conversations with pairs, I'll keep it obviously to be relatively limited at this point in time. It is part of launching a product. it is amongst those investments we should make prior to launching a product is to understand everything about payer and payer dynamics, everything from health economic outcome research arguments for the price as well as analyses as well as understanding what would be the prioritization process which is likely given the nature of the product and of the indication. Those discussions have been going on. We have account managers talking to all the big pairs in the U.S. already, and all of this is being folded into what is, as you know, a commercial strategy where outreach and coordination with pairs is a big part of the value creation, but I'm very pleased with the efforts that Kevin and his team have led on that front. I trust that answers your question. And this concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Daniel Tesse, CEO, for closing remarks. Daniel Tessie, CEO Alphabet and Google Alphabet, Inc.: Paul, thank you. Nice job. Everybody, thanks for joining today. Thanks for the question from the analyst. That concludes our call for this afternoon. I appreciate your time, appreciate your engagement, and have a wonderful evening. We'll talk to you soon.