Thank you, operator, and thank you, everyone, for joining our full year 2025 financial results conference call. I'm Chad Fugere, Vice President, Investor Relations at Ascendis Pharma.

Joining me on the call today are Jan Mikkelsen, President and Chief Executive Officer; Scott Smith, Chief Financial Officer; Sheryl Glass, Chief Business Officer; Jay Wu, Executive Vice President and President Ascendis U.S.; and Amy Shu, Chief Medical Officer. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that this conference call will contain forward-looking statements that are intended to be covered under the Safe Harbor provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Examples of such statements may include, but are not limited to, statements regarding our commercialization and continued development of SKYTROFA and YORVIPATH, as well as certain expectations regarding patient access and financial outcomes, our pipeline candidates and our expectations with respect to their continued progress and potential commercialization, our strategic plans, partnerships, and investments, our goals regarding our clinical pipeline, including the timing of clinical results and trials, our ongoing and planned regulatory filings, and our expectations regarding the timing and the result of regulatory decisions. These statements are based on information that is available to us as of today.

Actual results may differ materially from those in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on these statements. We assume no obligation to update these statements as circumstances change, except as required by law.

For additional information concerning the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, please see our Forward-Looking Statements section in today's press release and the Risk Factors section of our most recent annual report on Form 20-F filed with the SEC on February 11, 2026. TransCon Growth Hormone, or TransCon hGH, is now approved in the U.S.

by the FDA for the replacement of endogenous growth hormone in adults with growth hormone deficiency, in addition to the treatment of pediatric growth hormone deficiency, and in the EU has received MAA authorization from the European Commission for the treatment of pediatric growth hormone deficiency. TransCon PTH is approved in the U.S.

by the FDA for the treatment of hypoparathyroidism in adults, and the European Commission and the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency have granted marketing authorization for TransCon PTH as a replacement therapy indicated for the treatment of adults with chronic hypoparathyroidism. Otherwise, please note that our product candidates are investigational and not approved for commercial use.

As investigational products, the safety and effectiveness of product candidates have not been reviewed or approved by any regulatory agencies. None of the statements during this conference call regarding our product candidates shall be viewed as promotional.

On the call today, we'll discuss our full year 2025 financial results and we'll provide further business updates. Following some prepared remarks, we'll then open up the call for your questions.

With that, let me turn the call over to Jan.

Thanks, Chad. Good afternoon, everyone.

With strong execution across our business and continued progress toward delivering on our Vision 2030, Ascendis is transforming into a leading global biopharma company. We believe this progression demonstrates the power of our TransCon platform and our R&D capabilities to deliver a sustainable pipeline, while our global commercial infrastructure and financial profile continue to strengthen.

We believe we are now at the base of a steep growth where we expect to achieve operating cash flow of around €500 million in 2026 and where we aspire to achieve at least €5 billion in annual product revenue by 2030. At the same time, we are building an expanded pipeline of blockbuster product opportunities.

In the fourth quarter, we saw multiple achievements across the organization, starting with YORVIPATH. The fourth quarter was another period of strong execution for the global launch of YORVIPATH.

Revenue for the quarter was €187 million, bringing full year 2025 YORVIPATH revenue to €477 million. In the U.S., access continue to expand.

Through year-end, more than 5,300 patients were prescribed YORVIPATH by nearly 2,400 unique healthcare providers, highlighting continue strong and steady demand. To date, less than 5% of U.S.

patients are currently on YORVIPATH treatment, highlighting the significant long-term growth opportunity ahead. The overall insurance approval rate is about 70% of total enrollment, and we continue to see this figure moving higher over time.

In addition, we continue to see a majority of approvals within 8 weeks. This provides a strong foundation for expected additional growth in 2026 and beyond as more patients initiate YORVIPATH in line with treatment guidelines that support its use.

Outside the U.S., we continue to reach more patients. As a reminder, YORVIPATH is now available commercially or through named patient programs in more than 30 countries.

We have full commercial reimbursement in four countries in our Europe direct markets and two countries in our international markets. In Japan, our partner, Chugai, launched YORVIPATH commercially last November.

In 2026, we expect full commercial launches in 10 additional new countries. We also advance development activity to broaden YORVIPATH's label in a number of areas.

In the U.S., we are working to expand the range of doses through our PaTHway 60 trial. Globally, we continue to advance clinical trials to expand YORVIPATH to patient under the age of 18.

Our work is progressing rapidly on once-weekly TransCon PTH for patients who have been titrated with daily YORVIPATH or conventional therapy and have achieved a stable daily dose for a well-defined period. Last month, at the annual J.P.

Morgan Healthcare Conference, we shared preclinical data that support the target product profile for a once-weekly TransCon PTH candidate, matching the release PK seen with daily YORVIPATH treatment over the entire week, thus providing an comparable efficacy and safety profile. Overall, we remain confident that YORVIPATH has the potential to be a durable long-term growth driver for Ascendis globally.

Turning now to growth disorders, comprising of our once-weekly growth hormone, SKYTROFA, or TransCon Growth Hormone, or once-weekly TransCon CNP. SKYTROFA delivered another solid quarter with Q4 revenue of €53 million, bringing full year SKYTROFA revenue to €206 million.

This performance reflect the strength and value of the brand. As a reminder, SKYTROFA is now approved in pediatric growth hormone deficiency in the U.S.

and adult growth hormone deficiency. Today, SKYTROFA has an overall market share of around 7% in the U.S.

During the fourth quarter, we initiated our Phase 3 basket trial evaluating TransCon Growth Hormone in additional established growth hormone indications, including ISS, SHOX deficiency, Turner syndrome, and SGA, which comprise up to half of the growth hormone market. Over the long term, this indication represent meaningful opportunity to expand the role of SKYTROFA as the treatment of choice in additional growth disorders.

We also see an opportunity to potentially expand SKYTROFA's use to novel indications where growth hormone has not previously been approved for use, such as achondroplasia in combination with TransCon CNP. TransCon CNP is expected to be the first and only once-weekly treatment for children with achondroplasia, providing the full linear growth outcome that can be achieved with monotherapies addressing the overactive FGFR3 tyrosine kinase.

In addition, in our pivotal trial, TransCon CNP achieved significant improvement in leg bowing compared to placebo, increasing spinal canal dimension, and a similar safety and tolerability profile compared to placebo, with a very low rate of injection site reaction and no cases of symptomatic hypotension. In the U.S., our NDA for children with achondroplasia remains under review with a PDUFA date of February 28.

In the EU, the MAA review is underway following our submission last October with a regulatory decision expected in the fourth quarter of 2026. Recruitment of our ongoing trial in infants with achondroplasia aged 0 to 2 is going well and we anticipate complete enrollment later this year.

Turning to the combination therapy, our 52-week Coach data in achondroplasia underscore the potential power of dual treatment with TransCon CNP and TransCon Growth Hormone, where continuous exposure to CNP enables the benefit of sustained exposure to unmodified growth hormone. In comparison, monotherapy trials of daily growth hormone in achondroplasia delivered only a limited effect on growth and no reported benefit beyond linear growth.

Our 52-week data from the Phase 2 combination trial support our vision to significantly raise the bar for treatment of achondroplasia with linear growth improvements in achondroplasia-specific height score that were 3 to 4 times what has been shown with CNP or daily growth hormone monotherapies in the same time period. In addition, the combination trial demonstrated accelerated improvements in body proportionality and, for the first time, an meaningful improvement in arm span has been reported without compromising safety or tolerability.

Importantly, these benefits beyond height are meaningful to the achondroplasia community and have been a core object of our patient-focused development program in both our monotherapy and combination therapy programs. Importantly, all children completed 52 weeks of treatment and remain in the trial, reinforcing the benefit of treatment and acceptable treatment burden of a once-weekly regime.

These Phase 2 results demonstrate the effect of these complementary therapies, supporting that TransCon CNP act in synergy with growth-promoting effect of TransCon Growth Hormone and has positive effect beyond linear growth. We believe over time, the standard of care in achondroplasia and other growth disorders long term will include dual therapy as a treatment option, building on the potential role of TransCon CNP as an essential fundamental therapy.

We recently held a successful end-of-Phase 2 FDA meeting and Scientific Advice meeting in EU to align on our Phase 3 trial design for this novel combination approach for treatment children with achondroplasia. We also remain on track for additional Coach trial updates, including Week 78 by midyear and Week 104 by year-end, and plan to explore further opportunity in other growth disorders.

To sustain durable long-term growth for Ascendis well into the next decade, we plan to continue to invest in label expansion of our current products in rare endocrine diseases. In addition, we have a strong focus on the development of new blockbuster product opportunities both inside and outside rare endocrine diseases to fuel significant product revenue growth in the future.

Looking at our partnerships, TransCon technologies support a continuous flow of highly differentiated product opportunities across multiple therapeutic areas, more than we can develop and commercialize ourselves. For this reason, our Vision 2030 includes a focus on creating additional value through partnership and collaboration.

Our collaboration with Novo Nordisk for once-monthly TransCon semaglutide continue to advance towards the clinic. At Eyconis, TransCon anti-VEGF is on track to enter the clinic this year.

In Japan, Chugai received approval for YORVIPATH in August '25 and commercial launched it in November 2025. In addition, recent approval of SKYTROFA in China in late January '26.

In summary, 2025 was another positive and transformative year for Ascendis. With two commercial TransCon products continue to scale, the potential approval of a third high-value TransCon product in the coming weeks, and a growing pipeline of highly differentiated programs, we believe we have the fundamentals in place to deliver durable long-term growth.

A rapidly strengthening financial profile give us confidence to achieve an expected operating cash flow of around €500 million in 2026 and our aspiration to achieve at least €5 billion in annual product revenue by 2030, all consistent with our Vision 2030 strategy. I will now turn the call over to Scott.

Thank you, Jan, and thank you, Chad, for a well-read FLS. The significant achievements we made in 2025 provide us with substantial financial strength to drive our strategic priorities and goals in 2026, which include achieve blockbuster status for YORVIPATH; solidify our leadership in hypoparathyroidism through rapid progress of our label-expanding clinical trials of TransCon PTH, while advancing development of our once-weekly PTH candidate; successfully launch TransCon CNP, if approved, in the U.S.

and other countries around the world; and expand our leadership in growth disorders through clinical and regulatory progress with once-weekly SKYTROFA, including in combination with once-weekly TransCon CNP. With that, I will touch on some key points surrounding our fourth quarter and full year financial results, which we mostly already announced at J.P.

Morgan, but for further details, please refer to our annual report on Form 20-F filed today. As previously announced in January, YORVIPATH delivered strong global performance in Q4 2025 with revenue increasing to €187 million, up from €140 million in Q3.

Foreign currency had had a negligible impact compared to the previous quarter. Total YORVIPATH revenue for 2025 was €477 million.

For the full year, the weaker U.S. dollar negatively impacted YORVIPATH revenue by approximately €27 million.

SKYTROFA contributed €53 million in Q4 with negligible foreign currency impact compared to Q3 '25. Total SKYTROFA revenue for 2025 was €206 million.

For the full year, the weaker U.S. dollar negatively impacted SKYTROFA revenue by approximately €9 million.

Including €7 million in collaboration revenue, total Q4 2025 revenue amounted to €248 million, and total revenue for full year 2025 was €720 million. Continuing on to expenses.

As previously announced, total operating expenses for Q4 were €214 million and total operating expenses for the full year 2025 were €761 million, as we previously noted. Operating profit for Q4 2025 was €10 million with Q4 operating cash flow of €73 million.

As we have discussed for some time, below operating profit, the drivers include the non-cash accounting related to our convertible notes. Net finance expense, which was primarily driven by non-cash items including remeasurement loss of financial liabilities of €106 million, was €93 million net.

Net cash financial expense, however, for the full year 2025 was about €8 million. In future periods, we may introduce a non-IFRS EPS measure adjusting for the impact of certain items to increase the comparability of period-to-period results.

We ended '25 with €616 million in cash and cash equivalents, as previously reported, up from €560 million as of December 31, '24. Turning to our commercial outlook and to help inform your revenue modeling for the coming year.

For YORVIPATH, we expect continued strong revenue growth in 2026 based on steady patient uptake with some expected seasonality in reported revenue throughout the year. For SKYTROFA, we expect to follow a similar seasonal pattern to 2025 with full year revenue growth expected to track growth in prescriptions.

Longer term, SKYTROFA revenue is expected to come through geographic and label expansion. As always, we continue to watch the euro-U.S.

dollar exchange rate for any potential impact. Finally, we also look forward to the potential U.S.

approval of TransCon CNP later this month, which, as a reminder, has been excluded from this 2026 outlook. With that, operator, we're now ready to take questions.

I do remember the answer.

What was your question? You can ask the same question.

I remember your answer, but it was about a different product, as I recall, but your answer was yes.

Yes. This is the same.

You asked me, will TransCon PTH be approved? I said yes.

You can ask me the same question today: will TransCon CNP be approved? I will say yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon.

Thanks for taking my question. You mentioned a 70% insurance approval rate in the U.S.

so far for YORVIPATH. Where is that relative to where you thought it would be at this stage of the launch, and what is it going to take to expand that to a higher number?

How long do you think it's going to be before you get to 100%, basically? Thank you.

I think it will be infinitive, because I never seen a product hitting 100%. I think the highest bar I have seen is something like an 85% or something like that, perhaps up to 90%.

The element of where we are today, I'm really highly satisfied with it, because it's also a compromise about how aggressive you're going into contracting and other things like that. I think it's a balance between the two things where, in the end, the overall and ultimate goal is basic to provide most value back to our shareholder and others in this way, and at the same time help the patient to as fast as possible to come on treatment.

I do not know, Jay, if you have additional comments to my, I would not say pre-prepared remarks.

I would say two things. One is that we're very happy with the overall approval rate that we're seeing.

I think the speed in which you're seeing this product be covered, again, is a testament to the strong clinical value proposition that we're seeing in hypoparathyroidism. It is the first and only approved therapy in this category, so, again, this approval rating based on where we are today is something that we are very encouraged by.

I think to your second part of the question, Tazeen, which is, when might you get to 100%, I echo what Jan said earlier as well, which is, I don't know that many drug analogs will get to 100%. That actually has less to do with coverage, and also has just to do with every single enrollment that comes in, not every single one of them will be eligible relative to the label, there's some element of just natural filtering that comes that way.

More importantly, what I would say is that there are state Medicaid plans, for example, that review things on a staggered cycle, you will anticipate that some of this will creep up over time, but it will take some time before it continues to inch upwards.

Yeah. I think this is a U.S.

discussion. The U.S.

discussion is built on 70% of all approvals in enrollment are there. When you go in and look on an old cohort that perhaps have been 6 months to it, you actual will get a much higher number on it.

Just is to clarify with 70% on it. That is when you take everyone accumulated.

If you take an old cohort, it's much higher. When you go ex-U.S., the system is quite different.

When you get a prescription, in nearly every other country, you are actual approved. You can say the 100%, yes, is basic.

When you get a prescription outside U.S. in traditional countries, you will be 100% electable and already approved for reimbursement.

Got it. Thank you for the color.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question.

Just on YORVIPATH pricing, there's an 8% WAC increase in January. Maybe you could just discuss how net pricing will trend this year, including how to kind of quantify the magnitude of the 1Q seasonality here.

I don't think we really are discussing net prices. We would love to do it, but we are never done it, and I don't think we ever will discuss net prices.

Wait, if I could just ask a follow-up, then. Just on patient enrollment, are you planning to still report those forms going forward for YORVIPATH, or maybe just focus more on revenue?

I think in the end, Gavin, is 100% right. We will focus on revenue, because now we basic have been in the market now.

In the U.S., we are on the market for about four quarters now. When we come to here the fifth quarter, I think you have seen a steady-state development from '25 where we basically got to be an increase in basic revenue from both U.S.

and ex-U.S. about €40 to €50 million net every quarter.

I think you will somewhat see a stability in how we are executing in it. We still have ex-U.S.

We will expect 10 additional countries being fully reimbursed next year, and sure that is always improving the what we call the net revenue we will generate outside the U.S.

Great. Thanks so much.

I have a sort of two not really related, but I'm going to try to link them to keep it as one question. Maybe the first one, can you give us a little bit of a sense for Yorvi, how it's being used out there?

It's almost like when you look at there's 2,400 unique prescribers and 5,300 unique patient enrollment. Is it that each physician just has sort of one or two patients in the practice or are they prescribing it sort of there and then they're going deeper?

Then secondly, just the end-of-Phase 2 meeting with FDA relating to CNP and growth hormone for achondroplasia, maybe just can you give us a little bit of an update, what was the outcome and when will you start the Phase 3? Thanks.

That's perfect. I think Jay, you can give some about how we both expanding the physician prescriberting base, but also go in more in the deep of the different patient, but still are far away to reach the level where we want to be.

Jay?

Yeah. In the U.S., I think the question is really around segmentation and what types of patients are being treated.

If you think about the prescriber base, which is where you first started your question from, we are seeing broad uptake across of the entire range of prescribers, right? To your point, there are some physicians that might only see a couple patients, but there's also some physicians that might see upwards of 10 patients, right?

More importantly, because we are seeing broad uptake across both high-decile and low-decile providers, we're not seeing a major discrepancy as to the type of prescriber that would prescribe, but we are seeing that breadth continue to increase. As it relates to the number of patients per physician, we're also seeing the depth of prescribing per physician also increase over time, which, again, is encouraging.

That's both a testament to positive experience that they have with YORVIPATH as well as increased awareness of the hypoparathyroidism condition and now they're being an option for it amongst patients. I think the last thing I would say is when you think about the types of patients that come through, you can look at it in two ways, right?

One, which is the vast majority of them are post-surgical, about 70%, the remaining 30% perhaps due to other factors, whether it's genetic, autoimmune, etc., and we're seeing broad uptake across both of those segments, so that isn't a major driver. I think really where you're seeing some of the earlier uptake is patients that are self-aware of the condition that they have, are linking the symptoms that they have to the underlying condition that they have, and therefore, a combination of them advocating for themselves as well as providers having conviction in the product as well.

All in all, we're seeing broad uptake across provider groups as well as patient segments as well.

Before you start, as I can answer the last part of the question related to the Coach trial. Yes, we had a extremely positive meetings both from U.S.

side and from the EU side. It was really impressive feedback we got to the data.

They have never seen data before that basic are providing this kind of benefit to an achondroplasia treatment in it. I'm not only talking about the linear growth where we basically on a z-score got a 3- to 4-fold more that you can see with monotherapies in the same time period, but also was unique element like such an improvement in body proportionality.

What really they have never really seen in such a meaningful manner was an really important element, the arm span, where we also saw in the combination trial an unique improvement in arm span. Amy is sitting here with the tight mind and she's really doing everything to get this trial recruited as fast.

We're ready to go. Protocol is finished and everything.

We open sites. Just remember that our pivotal trial in monotherapy, we recruited it just in 3 or 4 months, just because of the interest of the patient.

Therefore, the bar for Amy is very, very, very high if she need to do that faster. Sorry for coming in.

It's pretty simple. It's not incorporated.

When we coming into the launch, we see the initial uptake, which we believe it will be pretty high, not only in the U.S., but also outside U.S., because we can utilizing the U.S. approval to go to countries outside U.S., especially in the international market.

From that perspective, we will come and provide you a better guidance and improved guidance when we have seen that. Scott is smiling.

Are you counting money, or what are you doing? Taxes and money.

Okay. We will come back after that.

Great. Thanks.

Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions.

I just wanted to understand your confidence level around YORVIPATH growth ex-U.S. Obviously the launch in Germany and Austria, is that a good proxy, or is it going to be more depth in those types of countries and then just kind of expansion in, I guess I think you said 10 additional countries.

How will that be sequenced through the year? Thanks.

That is a extremely complicated answer, because the heterogeneity of the ex-U.S. is so heterogeneous that we cannot really compare to what we, for example, seeing in Spain now, what we're seeing in France, what we're seeing in Germany, what we're seeing in Austria.

It's really different things, because we see different speed of penetration. For example, Germany has less endos, the bottleneck is a little bit more tight.

It takes longer, longer, longer time to get them on a therapy, because there is fewer endo in the general population. If we go to Spain, there is more.

There's more in France, and we also see therefore a faster uptake, because we basically have a pipe that really is larger. When we get 10 more additional country basic on full commercial, we will see different uptake, but what we are doing is everything will be accumulated in the way where we now see from 30 to 35 countries named patient programs.

When we go full commercial, what we see every place, it's basic is an acceleration of patient uptake, because of the burdensome nature of a named patient program. It takes so much effort really to get every single patient on it, and every patient deserve to be on the treatment.

When you come to '26, we will see initial speeding up in all this country, and when we come to '27, '28, you will continue to do it, because just the nature, we just got approved now in Canada, and we basically taking one country after another country, first going in and getting approval, and then we're going to full reimbursement.

Hey, thank you so much for taking our question. It's Daniel Brander on for Liav.

Can you give us a little bit of color on how you expect your TransCon CNP launch to go? It seems like there's a few patients who aren't currently on treatment.

Where do you think you will capture the majority of patients initially?

Pretty clear. The improvement that we see with TransCon CNP to what we can provide, not only related to when we look on tolerability, injection site reaction, having 120 injection site reaction compared to one every second year, being a physician to look on no risk of hypertension, to the element of just having the improvement on the once-weekly product, and then show the data package that we have generated with TransCon CNP for first time ever shown in a well-controlled trials against placebo benefit beyond linear growth.

For example, the leg bowing, which we have shown multiple time. We have shown improvement in muscle strength.

We have improved quality of life. I think this is obvious every patient that decide to be on treatment should have the opportunity to have the best possible treatment option, and I think there is a public interest in the U.S.

to ensure that is always will happen.

Hey there. Thanks so much for taking my question.

Curious if you can elaborate on your strategy for commercializing TransCon CNP ex-U.S. just given the majority of Voxzogo sales are ex-U.S.

Could you elaborate on your strategy for the commercial launches globally and the degree of investment that will take? Then just a second question on TransCon CNP in the U.S., just can you talk a little bit more about how you're thinking about the cadence of uptake and which segments do you expect the most uptake from between, say, treatment naive versus switches?

Thanks.

I will dive a little bit back now, because what we did when we said that we want to have a global commercial effort, we actually started all our infrastructure building through YORVIPATH. Now you see what we have done with YORVIPATH.

We recognized fast revenue, commercial revenue for more than 30 countries. We are penetrating them exactly as we can do.

We will reach 60 to 70 countries in less than 2 to 3 years. What we have done, we already have built up the infrastructure to be ready that we can take our integrated pipeline of rare disease endocrine product basic into all this different country in already the set up we are establishing around YORVIPATH.

This is the positive element that we are not a company that need first to take up an infrastructure to support a globalization. We have already established that.

I feel really, really, really confident that all the success we see now with YORVIPATH on a global scale, we will just take it in. Don't forget, for example, also even in Japan, the collaboration we have with Chugai is for all three products, the same thing in China and other places.

When we make this agreement, we're not making single-product, single-country. We make it as a basic is a pipeline product.

This is why we don't need to go out and make new agreements or anything. It's just going done extremely fast from that perspective.

Wanted to ask Jan, as we look at the €5 billion euro number you've put out there for product sales by 2030, no you're not giving specific product guidance here, but if you could share with us sort of how you think about the relative contributions of your presumably three products by that point in time in terms of how they'll weigh into that total sum. Obviously, you've got much more expansion opportunity in hypoparathyroid.

You've got TransCon CNP potentially launching soon and SKYTROFA perhaps getting additional indications and combination. I'd love to just hear maybe just philosophically how your outlook adds up with those three parts.

Thank you.

That is an element where we always in our forecasting are operating under different assumptions where we basically building up model for each single country and then we accumulate that on a global setup. We first basic are taking the '26, we taking the '27, '28, and '29, and then what we're doing, you always will go in and look on the risk balance.

Where do we have potential extra upside that we can explore? What are we going to do with this on it?

I think what make Ascendis unique today is that we are not a single product in a single region. We will have three approved product in perhaps 20 different indications in about 30, 40 countries, meaning is that what we really want to do, we will not be dependent on one single product in one single region.

This is how we build up a sustainable company that basic have a continue stable revenue flow for multiple year. Don't forget these product opportunities we have, when I look on the pipeline for each of them, I definitely not have sleepless night.

I can guarantee that. There's no doubt that when I see the profile and how we design it to be best-in-class, we also see that realizing.

Out from that perspective, it's combination product with lifespan of IP extremely long. This is where you have the durability of it, and this is why we take the value perspective of each single product opportunity instead fast revenue.

This is not how we operate. We go for value and because the element of that is this is the product really deserve this treatment, because we're really providing not only a unique benefit for the patient, but also for the society and everyone.

Great, thanks very much.

Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for taking our question.

I think your Phase 2 REACH study is scheduled to reach primary completion next month, and so will you be in a position to file an sNDA for the newborn incident population this year? In the terms of the newborn incident population, in your discussions with the FDA and EMA for your Phase 3 combination study, does your study design allow for those newborn patients to be included in the study population, or will that require a separate study?

Thank you.

I think when you discuss a label discussion, that's typical is a difference between Now I just take the two main regulatory areas, because we can also take Japan into it, but if you take, for example, U.S., it's much harder some way to be coming to a situation where they will accept and label expansion to the infant without having the data in hands, where in Europe, it's much more flexible, because you have an discussion with them and you can have and basically what I call partly rolling addiction of data that is being generated to our trial. There will be likely a difference between the three geographic region.

Now I'll simplified. Japan is mostly perhaps the easiest way to get it down to infant immediately.

What we are doing now is to ensure we generate the right data, and we're doing that in a trial. It's a placebo-controlled trial, and what we see, it's everything what we hope for.

It's living up to our expectation. Why I can say that, because in the enrollment, we have six patients on a what I call visible treatment on it.

You take them in and there is no randomization, and we can follow them, and Amy can tell a few word about the benefit we really have seen from that perspective. Jan is talking about the sentinel kids who are not part of the randomized piece of the infant study, and they are doing well, tolerating the medicine as well as we would expect, growing, and starting to see early signals of other benefits as well, particularly radiology.

Yeah. We really are so pleased with the progress we're doing in helping patient with achondroplasia, not only on linear growth, but also benefit beyond linear growth.

Hi, good afternoon. Thank you very much for taking the question.

My question is on the weekly TransCon PTH. Is it reasonable to expect that the program could potentially enter the clinic in 2026, or do you think that there's no such a need to rush?

Also, you mentioned match in PK to the daily product, with data from YORVIPATH available, what do you see as the most efficient clinical pathway to maybe take the weekly PTH to approval?

I think what you are addressing is two things that is interconnected, because if you, for example, can show the PK profile, and it can even be healthy volunteers or patient with hypopar, that over the entire week of treatment, you basically are bioequivalent to YORVIPATH, and that is the aspiration how we designed it, that you basically will always be in an equivalent PTH level compared to YORVIPATH's daily dose for the entire week, then we know you basically will get the expected safety, the expected tolerability from that perspective, and this will make a much, much, much more simplified, easy way to conduct the clinical trial. That was why we designed it exactly in this manner.

Thank you very much.

Oh, great. Thanks so much for taking my question.

Congrats on the progress. Maybe, Jan, kind of big picture, I think one of the goals for 2030, as you articulated at J.P.

Morgan, is to remain an independent and profitable biotech company, and we obviously have seen many successful example of that in our industry recently. However, how are you thinking about maybe continuing that same vision under the broader umbrella of a larger pharmaceutical company?

I guess the question is, how are you thinking about strategic path A versus strategic path B at this point? Any color there, much appreciated.

Then maybe, Jay, quickly, I think BioMarin has announced that they will file Voxzogo for full approval versus, I believe, that you will initially get approved on an accelerated approval basis for TransCon CNP. How should we think about that difference?

Will that have implications for formulary access and reimbursement, or you don't view that difference as material for adoption given that you obviously have a less frequent dosing versus Voxzogo? Any thoughts much appreciated.

Thanks so much.

I think I will liberate Jay for answering the last question. I think when I look on this discussion on accelerated approval that BioMarin are filing for that, has no impact on our regulatory pathway and approval and other things like that.

Totally independent. It's not anyway how you can build up any barrier or anyway in this way.

The second thing, yes, in our vision, there is independent. I believe that is a great word, because we want to be independent like a teenager growing up, and one of the things at least I have four children, I'm teaching them, when they're going to be 18, you need to be financial independent as the first element in the life.

I think that is a great thing to see Ascendis Pharma now moving away for being a teenager, but basically can go up to a more adult life, because we have shown now we are complete independent on basic asking investors and others for any kind of revenue. I think this is how we see independency.

Super helpful. Thank you.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much.

My question was asked, but I'll just take a shot at this. Could you give any color on the once-monthly TransCon semaglutide program, any gating factors, when we should expect an update?

Any additional color would be helpful. Thank you.

Let me go back to all the element and all the IP we have done, filed, and data, and everything like that before we went into this extremely productive collaboration with our neighbor in Copenhagen, Novo Nordisk. What was really the idea behind once-monthly semaglutide?

The idea was to be sure that you can get fast weight loss, and in the same time have high level of tolerability. Just think about I can define it: you have a naked GLP-1 molecule that basic when you give it in an weekly or potential want to use a weekly product in a once-monthly, you need to add up much, much more compound to compensate for the half-life to have and last.

Doing that, you add an high max dose, and because it's naked, you will have very short Tmax, meaning that you will have a steep curve from the lowest level just before you start to give a dose up to the maximum concentration. That is basically what often have give the tolerability issue where you get the element that basically are limit people to stay on treatment and what you can achieve.

This is what I call the naked product. This is like Mazdutide and everything.

It's a naked compound. What we're doing now is defining and what we call packed-in semaglutide.

Even if you give it high dose, you liberate it slowly, slowly, slowly, you're getting a very, very long Tmax. By doing that, you basically have a slope that is not as steep at all that you see with a naked molecule.

Then you can see, you still have a big AUC because you basically provide so much compound, give it over the entire month, and then at the same time you don't have this steepness in the slope, and by that you don't have that. It was designed to have maximum weight loss as fast as possible with the best tolerability profile, and it was how we designed it at that time.

Hey, great. Thanks for taking our question.

I guess maybe for Scott, could you talk a little bit about opex trajectory in 2026 in the context of the CNP launch and then sort of the SKYTROFA label expansion both with mono and the combo pivotal studies? Thanks.

No problem. We talked about a little bit about this at the J.P.

Morgan Conference event, but I think using Q4 opex as a run rate for the full year is not a bad way to think about it, and if things change, we come in and update you. I think overall everything related to CNP, as we've said before, we'll come out and discuss more following approval.

That's mainly related to the revenue, because what we have now, we have a really mature company. It's not like we take something in a pipeline.

We actually taking product out of the pipeline all the time. R&D are basic constant for the last three or four years.

Sure, our global commercialization, specific the direct market, we have built up already now, adding a few more people there, not major impact on anything like that. This is the benefit of a pipeline in the same therapeutic area and scale that we have now.

Thanks. Appreciate it.

Hey. Thanks for taking the question.

I had one on the competitive landscape. Wondering how you're thinking about this internally as other agents like encaleret are looking to expand into the chronic hypoparathyroidism landscape.

Then does your longer-term outlook for YORVIPATH include that potential impact from such emerging agents? Thank you.

I can be polite, or I can be a straight shooter. I have seen a lot of idiotic ideas.

This one is really one of the most idiotic ideas I heard about. You have patient that is missing a hormone, PTH.

Giving encaleret is not increasing and providing any hormone to this. We're talking about a hormone replacement therapy where you helping multiple organs: the brain, you have better cognitive effects; the bone need to have the right metabolic system; the kidney need to have the right phosphate elimination, it need to have the right calcium absorption.

I can continue one organ after the other organ. Then you believe you can take a compound, encaleret, that basic are a calcium-sensitizing compound, take it into a person that don't have the hormone, and then you think you have a treatment.

It's really one of the most scientific, I would say, ideas where I cannot see any kind of meaningful effect that it will help the patient. You can increase basically the element of one single thing: absorption of calcium, but that is not anyway coming in as an hormone replacement therapy.

No, we have not calculated that in. There has an idea in ADH1 patients, which have an mutation in the calcium-sensing receptor 1.

It makes sense for this small amount of patients, it makes sense, but not for a person that miss PTH.

Got it. Thank you.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question.

Just wanted to ask Jan, maybe because you're giving some open thoughts on competitive landscape, can you discuss your latest thoughts on the CNP competitive landscape, including upcoming FGFR data from BridgeBio and also the earlier-stage long-acting CNP from BioMarin?

Yeah. I think that is an interesting aspect, because we have seen the benefit of CNP therapy for multiple years now.

We are seeing it in a large patient population. One of the things I 100% align with BioMarin on is that the CNP therapy has shown to be extremely safe and well tolerated, except that you have element like if you take too high concentration, you can get hypertension, you can get injection site rash if you're not really encapsulated it.

When I see the CNP therapy, I understand why BioMarin are trying to copy us and trying to develop an product that basically are providing an sustained liberation of CNP over 1 week, because they have seen out from our data how we highly differentiated compared to vosoritide. That is a complete different case about, do they really have a once-weekly product or not?

You cannot just that out from AUC. You need to see the profile over 1 week and other things like that.

As I'm not seeing these data on anything on the long-acting product for BioMarin, I do not know if anyone can judge that is a viable product opportunity in any way. Then we need to see the PK fold, get the half-life and all the different things, then we can take a judgment about it.

The element of tyrosine kinase are complete different element for me, because that is an element of using a non-specific action of a compound that basic are addressing the tyrosine kinase. If you go to the BridgeBio, it's a non-specific tyrosine kinase that both inhibit the three different compound: FGFR1, FGFR2, and FGFR3.

This is why it's called non-specific. I'm not worried that you will see an treatment effect, because when you address the tyrosine kinase, you basic will see an improvement in linear growth, because you basic are in a position that you are inhibit the super-active pathway.

Will we see the same kind of benefit that we see beyond linear growth? That is up to them to show.

Can they see an improvement in muscle strength? Can they see an improvement in basic leg bowing?

Can they see all the element of improved quality of life with that? What worry me is the non-specific thing.

I really don't care about phosphate. People say, "Oh, Jan, are you worried about that they have elevated phosphate?"

Elevated phosphate, you cannot go in and grade it one, two, or three, four. You need to see on the patient, what is the phosphate level before treatment and after treatment.

Because then you see, do the treatment on each single subject have an impact on the phosphate level? If it has impact on the phosphate level, we know it's a non-specific inhibition of FGFR1.

When you have a non-specific inhibition of FGFR1, you also have non-specific inhibition of FGFR2. When you know that FGFR2 is one of the key receptor that is part of really the CNS development of the brain, I'm extremely worried, because it's that not something you really see easily in a preclinical model.

You don't see it anyway in short-term clinical trial. You see it after 3, perhaps 4, 5 years of treatment.

That worry me out from our patient focus. How can you really accept that any patient should take this risk without being extremely well informed about it?

Got it. Thank you for your insight.