Good morning. I'm Laura Ekas, Vice President of Investor Relations at Scholar Rock.

With me today are David Hallal, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Akshay Vaishnaw, President of R&D; Keith Woods, Chief Operating Officer; and Vikas Sinha, Chief Financial Officer. During today's call, David will provide introductory remarks and a business update, Akshay will review our R&D progress, Keith will provide an update on our commercial readiness activities, and Vikas will provide a financial update.

We will then open the call for questions. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that during this call, we will be making various statements about Scholar Rock's expectations, plans, and prospects that constitute forward-looking statements for the purposes of the safe harbor provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Any forward-looking statements represent our views only as of today and should not be relied upon as representing our views as of any future date. I encourage you to go to the Investors & Media section of our website for our most up-to-date SEC statements and filings.

With that, I'd like to turn the call over to David. David?

Thank you, Laura, and good morning. Thanks to everyone for joining our fourth quarter and full-year 2025 earnings call.

Scholar Rock is poised for a transformative year in 2026. Our priorities are clear, and we are executing with focus, discipline, and urgency as we seek to deliver the world's first muscle-targeted therapy to children and adults living with SMA, while also laying the foundation to realize our ambition to develop life-transforming therapies for patients with additional rare and severe neuromuscular diseases globally.

Our highest priority is to bring apitegromab to the SMA community as quickly as possible. We remain relentless on behalf of patients, and we are grateful that important progress continues to be made at a steady and rapid pace.

Let me briefly summarize the key events that have occurred since our constructive and collaborative in-person Type A meeting in November. First, a week following our Type A meeting, the FDA issued a warning letter to Catalent Indiana.

Next, Novo Nordisk rapidly responded to the FDA by mid-December. Then, following Novo's response, FDA reached out prior to the holidays to schedule an early Q1 meeting.

That meeting has since taken place, and importantly, at that meeting, the FDA had no additional requests to Novo's remediation plan. Most recently, following the meeting with Novo, we were encouraged that the FDA sent a field team to Catalent Indiana.

At the conclusion of the visit, the FDA once again did not have any additional requests to Novo's remediation plan and stated to Novo that it intends to conduct a site reinspection following routine manufacturing activities, which have since resumed in late February. The cadence of activity since our Type A meeting reflects the shared understanding between us, the FDA, and Novo of the high unmet need in the SMA community and a shared sense of urgency to bring apitegromab to children and adults living with SMA as rapidly as possible.

We are pleased with FDA's continued level of engagement, and we expect this momentum to continue. Our team is prepared to resubmit the apitegromab BLA following a successful FDA reinspection of the Catalent Indiana facility.

We are reaffirming our guidance of BLA resubmission and US launch following approval in 2026. Also, I am pleased that progress with a second fill-finish facility is moving quickly to build redundancy into our supply chain.

Engineering runs at the facility are now underway, with additional manufacturing runs to follow. We anticipate filing a supplemental BLA for the second vialer later this year.

As we advance the regulatory process for apitegromab toward approval for patients with SMA in the US, our MAA review continues in Europe, and we expect a decision from the European Medicines Agency in mid-2026. With anticipated regulatory approvals in the US and Europe this year, I would like to now turn to our Scholar Rock commercial launch preparations.

In the US, our team is deployed in the field and is educating potential prescribers and payers on the unmet need in SMA and the importance of targeting muscle, the principal organ affected in SMA, while also broadening and deepening relationships with the community. In Europe, we are building momentum with launch readiness activities and engaging with the SMA community.

We continue to plan for a launch in the second half of the year, beginning with Germany. Keith will discuss the substantial progress we are making with commercial preparation and our disease awareness initiatives shortly.

We know it is not a matter of if, but when apitegromab will be approved for children and adults with SMA. We are emboldened by the commitment we have made to the more than 35,000 patients globally living with SMA who have received an SMN-targeted therapy.

We are working expeditiously to deliver on our ambition that globally, any patient with SMA who can benefit from apitegromab should have access to apitegromab. This is indeed what we know well and what we do well, and we are confident in the significant opportunity that we have to serve patients with SMA.

We are ready, now more than ever, to usher in the next era of innovation for the SMA community. I would like to now turn to the progress we are making in advancing our world-leading anti-myostatin pipeline.

Enrollment and dosing continue in our Phase 2 OPAL study, evaluating apitegromab in infants and toddlers with SMA. Our IND for apitegromab in FSHD is cleared, and we are on track to initiate a robust, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2 study later this year.

With regards to our subcutaneous formulation of apitegromab, we shared the promising results of a Phase 1 study comparing subQ and IV apitegromab in January. We expect to share our clinical and regulatory strategy for the program later this year.

Finally, we continue to enroll and dose participants in our Phase 1 study for our highly innovative SRK-439 myostatin inhibitor. We expect to have topline data from this study in the second half of this year.

Akshay will discuss these programs in greater detail shortly. Turning now to our balance sheet, we are pleased to have ended 2025 with $368 million in cash and cash equivalents.

This includes $60.4 million from the exercise of warrants that were set to expire on December 31st. We continue to strengthen our financial position to drive our commercial and R&D priorities, and this morning we are pleased to announce that we have secured a new debt facility for up to $550 million, which Vikas will discuss later in the call.

2026 will be a transformative year for Scholar Rock. We are ready to resubmit our BLA for apitegromab at any moment.

Our US commercial team is working with urgency to prepare the market for the launch of the world's first and only muscle-targeted therapy for children and adults living with SMA. Beyond the US, the buildout of our 50-country operating platform is underway in Europe, with other regions and countries to follow.

Our highly innovative, world-leading anti-myostatin pipeline with apitegromab and SRK-439 is progressing with strong momentum. The opportunity ahead of us to serve patients with SMA and additional rare and severe neuromuscular diseases is significant.

We remain steadfast in our strategy, confident in the determination of our team, and energized by the transformative potential of apitegromab and our broader pipeline. The road ahead is one of purpose, progress, and extraordinary possibility.

With that, I'll now turn the call over to Akshay for an R&D update. Akshay?

Thank you, David, and good morning, everybody. As David noted, we remain focused on our apitegromab BLA resubmission to bring this important therapy to children and adults with SMA as rapidly as possible.

Since being joined by CureSMA and Novo at our in-person Type A meeting with FDA leadership in November, I've been pleased by the ongoing level of engagement and progress made on behalf of patients. We expect this momentum to continue, and our team is prepared to resubmit the apitegromab BLA following a successful FDA reinspection of the Catalent Indiana facility.

I'd now like to provide an update on the status of our second fill-finish facility, which will strengthen supply continuity and support future commercial demand. As we shared late last year, we're working with a world-class US-based manufacturing facility that has a proven track record of successful FDA and EMA site inspections.

Importantly, engineering runs are now underway, with additional manufacturing runs planned for Q2, and we continue to expect to submit a supplemental BLA with this facility later in 2026. Outside of the US, our apitegromab MAA is progressing through the review process with the EMA, and we continue to anticipate a decision in the middle of this year.

Turning to our pipeline, let me start with the Phase 2 OPAL trial evaluating apitegromab in infants and toddlers under the age of two. This trial is enrolling participants who've been treated with an SMN1-targeted gene therapy or who are receiving ongoing treatment with an SMN2-targeted therapy.

The study is important for two reasons in particular. First, it is anticipated to expand the impact of apitegromab to the full spectrum of patients currently being treated for SMA, as this is the first time we're evaluating the use of apitegromab in Zolgensma-treated patients in a clinical trial setting.

Second, we believe early intervention with apitegromab could support muscle during the critical early development phase, complementing SMN-targeted therapies that aim to preserve motor neurons. By promoting muscle growth when both motor neurons and muscles are still maturing, apitegromab has a unique opportunity to improve motor outcomes in the youngest patients with SMA to ensure that no patients are left behind.

We continue to enroll patients in this study, and dosing is ongoing. Turning now to our next indication for apitegromab, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, or FSHD.

FSHD is a rare, devastating neuromuscular disease with significant unmet need. More than 30,000 patients are diagnosed in the US and Europe alone, and there are no approved therapies.

FSHD is caused by a dysregulation of DUX4, a protein that can cause muscle damage when inappropriately expressed. Symptoms usually begin in adolescence or early adulthood with muscle weakness in the face and upper body, but FSHD can impact any muscle in the body, and an estimated 20% of patients will become wheelchair dependent.

We're prioritizing FSHD as the next indication for apitegromab for three key reasons. First, there's significant unmet need in this population for safe and effective therapeutic.

Second, we have preclinical data from the gold-standard flex-DUX4 mouse model that provides mechanistic rationale for apitegromab in FSHD. Using this mouse model, we showed that myostatin inhibition produced robust increase in muscle mass, significant improvements in muscle force, and consistent gains in endurance after 28 days.

Third, there are randomized studies in FSHD that suggest muscle mass can increase and has the capacity to show functional benefit. For example, in studies of either rigorous physical therapy or treatment with anabolic agents, patients with FSHD demonstrated increases in lean mass and muscle function.

These data suggest that apitegromab as a monotherapy may have potential to bring important benefit to FSHD patients. The FSHD IND is cleared, and our next step is to conduct a robust, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 study that is expected to enroll 60 patients.

The study, PROVE-FSHD, is on track to initiate in the middle of this year. We also continue to advance two additional programs in our world-leading anti-myostatin pipeline: a subQ formulation of apitegromab and SRK-439.

In our subQ apitegromab program, we showed some very exciting data from a Phase 1 study earlier this year. In that study, healthy volunteers received apitegromab at either 100 or 800 mgs subQ or 800 mgs IV.

The data demonstrated that 800 mgs subQ resulted in an overlapping pharmacodynamic profile with 800 IV. Accordingly, subQ apitegromab appears to have favorable bioavailability with a pharmacodynamic profile comparable to IV administration.

Additional development activities with subQ apitegromab are underway, and we're planning engagements with US and European regulators later in the year. Turning now to SRK-439, which we discovered by leveraging our world-leading expertise in targeting myostatin.

439 is a subcutaneously administered myostatin inhibitor, binding to both pro- and latent myostatin with high affinity and selectivity. We recently presented data demonstrating that 439 is 10 times more potent than apitegromab, since we've shown in non-human primates that 439 can produce changes in whole-body lean mass at doses as low as 0.3 mg/kg.

We're very excited about this program, and dosing in our Phase 1 healthy volunteer study is well underway. We expect to have topline data from the study in the second half of this year.

In closing, we're executing with focus and urgency to bring apitegromab to children and adults with SMA, whilst in parallel investing with discipline to advance our world-leading anti-myostatin pipeline. The strength of our data and the sustained momentum of our programs underpins our confidence that we can shape the future of treatment for patients living with rare neuromuscular diseases.

I'll now turn the call over to Keith to discuss our commercial launch preparations. Keith?

Thanks, Akshay, and good morning, everyone. As David noted, our team continues to operate with urgency as we prepare for the launch of apitegromab.

Our commercial organization remains focused and disciplined, advancing the critical capabilities required to deliver a seamless launch and support patients from day one. Nearly a decade after the introduction of SMN-targeted therapies, the market continues to grow and now represents nearly $5 billion in global annual sales.

However, while SMN-targeted therapies have brought much-needed innovation, muscle strength and motor function remain the top unmet need, with 95% of patients continuing to experience persistent and progressive muscle weakness that limits function and independence. Additionally, three-quarters of neurologists believe multiple modalities are necessary to optimally treat patients with SMA.

This data underscores the significant opportunity we have with apitegromab, the world's first muscle-targeted therapy. To this end, our US customer-facing team is active in the field, focused on disease education programs that reinforce a broader understanding of SMA as a disease of the motor unit consisting of both the motor neuron and the muscle, which is the principal organ impacted by the disease.

We continue to engage across approximately 140 SMA treatment centers, 2,600 prescribing physicians, and their multidisciplinary care teams throughout the US, and our SMA disease education efforts remain a core component of our work in the field. In parallel, we are strengthening and advancing the key elements of our commercial capabilities to ensure launch readiness.

We have expanded our specialty pharmacy network to enhance SMA patient and caregiver convenience. SMA patients currently receiving an SMN-targeted therapy from a specialty pharmacy will be able to access apitegromab through that same specialty pharmacy.

In addition, through our patient access partners, we have established a home infusion network of more than 10,000 affiliated nurses nationwide. We are also working to ensure we mitigate reimbursement and access bottlenecks.

This includes preparations to launch our patient services program, which we have named Scholar Rock Supports. This program is designed to provide comprehensive and individualized support to patients, caregivers, and providers.

In addition, we remain focused on patient engagement and community activation. In January, we launched the next phase of our disease awareness campaign called Life Takes Muscle, aligned with our objective to deepen community awareness of the importance of targeting muscle.

Finally, we continue to engage with payers, advancing discussions with national and key regional payers, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. At US approval and launch, I look forward to discussing our comprehensive SMA patient access support program in more detail.

While we make substantial progress in preparing for the launch in the US, we are also advancing launch readiness across key European markets in anticipation of a mid-2026 EMA decision. In Germany, we have established local leadership, initiated our compassionate use program, and are progressing reimbursement planning to enable rapid access following approval.

Across the broader region, we are advancing reimbursement dossiers in multiple countries, strengthening our distributor relationships, and we are building out our EMEA infrastructure to support future commercialization. In closing, we have invested thoughtfully to build the commercial foundation necessary to support a world-class launch, and we believe apitegromab is well-positioned to play a central role in the next era of SMA care.

Our team is prepared to move quickly upon approval and to deliver on our commitment to the SMA community: one patient, one caregiver, and one family at a time. With that, I'll turn the call over to Vikas.

Vikas?

Thank you, Keith. Our financial objectives for 2026 remains consistent.

We are focused on supporting our commercial build to deliver a strong apitegromab launch, funding R&D activities to advance our pipeline and expand our leadership in the myostatin and muscle space, and continuing to evaluate opportunities to strengthen our balance sheet in a way that supports long-term shareholder value. In keeping with these objectives, I'm pleased to provide our fourth-quarter and full-year financial results.

For the fourth quarter, we reported $91.9 million in operating expenses, which included $19.4 million in non-cash stock-based compensation. Excluding stock-based compensation, operating expenses were $72.5 million.

For the year ended 2025, we reported $384.6 million in operating expenses, which included $75.6 million in non-cash stock-based compensation. Excluding stock-based compensation, operating expenses were $309 million for the year ended 2025.

Turning to our balance sheet, we ended 2025 with $368 million in cash and cash equivalents. During the fourth quarter, we strengthened our cash position, adding $60.4 million from the exercise of warrants that were set to expire on December 31st.

We continue to strengthen our balance sheet and are pleased to announce today that we secured a new debt facility for up to $550 million with Blue Owl Capital. This debt facility consists of four elements.

First, upon closing, $100 million was immediately available to us, which we have used to repay our prior $100 million debt facility with Oxford Finance. Second, an additional $100 million is available to us this quarter, which we expect to draw down by March 31st.

Then, following FDA approval of apitegromab, we have the option to draw up to $150 million in additional capital. Lastly, we have an option for additional incremental facilities of up to $200 million at the mutual consent of Scholar Rock and Blue Owl.

This debt facility provides us with additional flexibility as we transition towards a global commercial-stage company while investing in our pipeline. In addition to the $150 million available from the debt facility upon FDA approval of apitegromab, we will look to monetize our priority review voucher to further strengthen our balance sheet.

Looking ahead, we continue to operate with a tight financial plan. Our prioritized investments remains focused on our apitegromab commercial launch readiness in the US and Europe, strengthening our supply chain to support the pipeline and commercial demand for apitegromab, and advancing our highly innovative clinical programs that Akshay discussed earlier in the call.

With that, I will turn the call back to David. David?

Thanks, Vikas. In closing, we remain focused on bringing apitegromab, the world's first and only muscle-targeted treatment to improve motor function, to children and adults living with SMA as rapidly as possible.

We are encouraged by the progress that has been made and by the continued momentum across our regulatory, clinical, and commercial priorities. With a strong foundation, clear strategic priorities, and a world-class team, we are well-positioned to make 2026 a transformative year for Scholar Rock as we continue to work with urgency on behalf of children and adults living with SMA.

We look forward to updating you on our continued progress throughout the year. With that, we'll now open the line for questions.

Operator?

Thanks for a very comprehensive update. David, just to put a pin in it, is Novo now ready for reinspection, open for reinspection?

Then assuming the reinspection does go, quote, "well," what would trigger your resubmission? What do you need to see from that reinspection to be able to push the button on the refiling?

Thank you.

Thanks, Eric. We are gratified really since our Type A meeting in November with the shared sense of urgency and high priority that both FDA and Novo has made the remediation of the Catalent Indiana facility.

You got a sense from the call just the drumbeat of progress week after week, month after month. We like the high engagement we continue to see.

Given the constructive meeting in early Q1 and then the following site visit, really the gating item now just is a reinspection follows these routine manufacturing activities as Novo moves into full-scale production. As far as our trigger, we would look for obviously a successful reinspection, as you noted, and we're assuming that given the progress that has been made, and that would then trigger.

We are at the ready to submit our BLA submission very, very quickly. It really would be with some level of confidence that it was a successful reinspection.

Hi guys. Good morning.

Thanks for taking my question. Not to belabor the point on timing here, but I know you're confident about the ability of Novo to resolve the issue.

In the event that you do have to revert to your backup facility, you've guided to a supplemental filing in the second half of the year, what would happen to timelines if that needed to be the primary filing?

Thanks, Tazeen, very much. As I noted on the call, we're gratified in the rapid and steady progress that has been made between FDA and Novo.

We do think of apitegromab and the importance of apitegromab for the SMA community as a key driver in this. Not the sole driver, but a key driver in this.

I would say that we are pleased with how rapidly we are moving forward with an additional vialer. Our assumption is whether or not it were to be a supplemental BLA, which is our plan, or whether or not we had to fall back We've always looked at that as an important effort on our part no matter what because we cannot control everything in this process, and we don't really believe that that timing would be altered tremendously in terms of if it were not an sBLA.

We've thought about it. It is our plan that it will be an sBLA.

That's the level of insight, information, and confidence that we have. Nonetheless, we would be prepared to pivot should need be on behalf of children and adults living with SMA.

Hey guys. Thanks so much for taking the question this morning.

First one is, can you elaborate on what it meant that the FDA sent a field team? What was the purpose of that and is that routine?

Then the second one, just to loop back on sort of a better understanding the next procedural steps post the reinspection and what the timelines could be there? Will you get verbal communication, or is written documentation what you'll see, similar to a normal inspection?

Thanks.

Thanks, Tessa. It's a good question because certainly nothing has been completely ordinary about this process.

I do think what has created some level of extraordinary behavior with kind of a constant drumbeat of progress, I think it was really set off by that in-person Type A meeting that we held with FDA and where there really was with CureSMA in attendance, with Novo in attendance, there was a shared sense of urgency to bring apitegromab to patients. While I can't really comment on what was the overall sort of objective, we do think what it shows is, for just weeks after a really constructive meeting with Novo in early Q1 where there were no new requests by the FDA of Novo into their remediation plan, we think it just continues to show high priority by the FDA to send a field team out to interact with the site and to indicate that after routine manufacturing activities, which have since recommenced at the facility, they would be in line for a reinspection.

Overall, we just feel good about the drumbeat of progress here, and we're quite pleased. We would expect given these sort of rapid and steady pace that we've seen over these last three months that anything else that follows the timing of a reinspection, the timing of resubmission, that review, hopefully, it continues to follow sort of this commitment that has been made to rapidly progress the apitegromab file so that we can deliver this drug to children and adults living with SMA.

We'll certainly keep you apprised on that progress.

Thank you.

Hey guys, you have Ryan on for Mani. Thanks for taking our question and congrats on the update.

Maybe just one sticking with the review, kind of based off your latest conversations with the FDA, I'm curious what your expectations are for a turnaround time following BLA submission to eventual approval? Are there any details that still need to be worked out, label, etc., with regulators?

Then maybe just as a second one on the pipeline, can you talk about the strategy for 439? Is this something that you plan to keep in-house, look for broader strategic options, is it best suited in rare neuromuscular diseases or potential broader applications?

Thanks.

Thanks, Ryan. Regarding the timing, again, just to remind everybody tuning in today, in our CRL that we received last year, the sole approvability issue was the state of compliance at the Catalent Indiana facility.

We're certainly very focused on working with FDA and Novo on that. As I noted earlier in the call, we are planning, and we are ready to rapidly resubmit our BLA following successful reinspection.

Again, we would just point to, without really being able to comment on timing, we would just kind of point to the evidence of the progress over these last three months and how attentive the FDA has been to remediating this facility and how focused Novo has been to really working with urgency as well. We'll keep you apprised on that timing.

Regarding the pipeline and 439, Akshay?

Yeah. 439 obviously is a very important, exciting drug.

It's a high-potency anti-myostatin antibody, appears to us, at least from the preclinical work, to be about 10-fold more potent. It could be a very low-volume, small-volume, infrequent administration type drug.

I think that creates very interesting and exciting possibilities in the rare neuromuscular space for us. At least at the current time, we think this is Scholar Rock proprietary asset, and we have no intentions of out-licensing it.

We'll share further development plans after we get the topline Phase 1 data later this year.

Hey guys. Thank you so much for taking my question.

Timelines-wise, not to belabor the point, you continue to expect inspection, BLA resubmission, US launch, everything to happen in 2026. For the launch to be in 2026, can it still happen with a Class 2 submission?

Our due diligence suggests that this is most likely going to be a Class 2 submission. In any of your recent conversations with the FDA, was there any hint or indication for a potential CNPV for apitegromab?

Thank you.

I didn't get the last part of that, Kripa. Could you say any indication of

Commissioners priority voucher?

Oh.

The National Priority Voucher?

These are all very good questions, Kripa. As you might imagine, we've thought about it all, right?

With all of the information that we have and the progress that is made, we were pleased and confident to reaffirm the guidance that we provided today of a 2026 BLA resubmission and US launch upon approval. We would certainly point to sort of this steady FDA prioritization and progress with Novo over these past weeks and months, and it remains very steady.

I think we have thought about Class 1 versus Class 2. What we've seen actually in our own sort of analysis of this, even when Class 2s are sort of granted, oftentimes the decision is taken up before that six-month timeline.

Again, I'm just reminding you that the sole approvability issue for us has been the status of the Catalent Indiana facility. We are planning for the resubmission to be happening once we have indication that it was a successful reinspection.

We'll keep you apprised of that, but we certainly are very, very comfortable with the guidance that we have provided. Then regarding the Commissioners sort of, I would just say that we are just staying in close communication with the FDA on all of our different initiatives and just keeping in the forefront the very high priority that exists with the SMA community in the United States to gain access to the world's first and only muscle-targeted treatment.

We look forward to continuing to keep you guys apprised on our regulatory progress there with FDA.

Great. Thank you so much.

Hey guys, good morning. I'm not going to ask a submission question.

Can you talk a little bit about the expectations for the label as it relates to either ambulatory, non-ambulatory, and with no issues regarding age subgrouping, given that you had what sounds like a very successful review process and only CMC was the outstanding part, how should we think about a broad label? Then a follow-up, assuming approval, maybe for Vikas, can you just remind us, given that your drug is a weight-based drug, how to think about the comparable pricing relative to other drugs, and if models should reflect anything philosophically as it relates to the differences in how the drugs are administered?

Thank you.

Thanks, Michael. Akshay on the label, and then Keith on the weight-based element of the drug and pricing.

Akshay?

Michael. We were gratified by all the progress made during the initial cycle.

We had gone to a very advanced stage with the draft label, and the FDA had really worked hard to get to that stage. With the Catalent issue being the only outstanding issue, we anticipate that it would be relatively straightforward to get aligned with the FDA on the final label after our BLA resubmission.

Now, all of that being said, the details are ultimately, that's up to the FDA, but we know from the conversations leading up to the September PDUFA date that kind of the guiding principles are what the FDA has shown before in the SMA space. The trial design that supports the approval, that's important.

If you note that the totality of our package, we have experience with both non-ambulatory and ambulatory. We have experience with children 2 years and older.

We have experience with patients on risdiplam and nusinersen. I think that these are important guiding factors.

The agency's also previously has tended to look at the broad applicability or not of the therapeutic hypothesis and the mechanism of action of the drug to try and maximize getting these drugs in this terrible disease to as many patients as possible. Now, those are the kind of guiding principles.

I think we have to await the ultimate BLA resubmission and see where we end up. We've been pleased so far with how straightforward FDA's approach has been.

Keith?

Yeah. Then on price, I guess, first of all, it's not really appropriate for us to comment on specifics at this stage.

I do promise you when we have approval and we have our launch call, we will get very specific about the pricing. Mike, as you mentioned, because it is weight-based dosing, you are going to see a range, it's not going to just be one set price for all.

Look, when we think about pricing of apitegromab, we think about three key factors: and it's the rarity and the severity of SMA, it's the progressive nature of the disease, and, in combination with SMN-targeted therapies, our data from both TOPAZ and SAPPHIRE have just demonstrated compelling clinical benefits. We will get into all of the specifics on pricing on the launch call.

Thank you.

Hi. Thanks so much for taking our question.

Looking ahead to launch, what commercial analogs would you point us to as we think about the initial uptake and launch trajectory? Then maybe another one on subQ apitegromab, do you think approval will require a full clinical study in SMA, a smaller bridging study, or primarily human factor studies?

If you could give us a timeline to market, that would be awesome.

Thanks very much, Amy, and yeah, what I would say is that, for sure, we've been pleased in our engagement with the patient community, the caregiver community, as well as, as Keith noted, neurologists' appreciation that not only addressing the motor neuron component of the disease, but for the first time, to really be able to address directly the muscle component of the disease, which is a principal organ that is clinically impacted and affected by the disease. We sense that there is a lot of interest in accessing the drug, and that in and of itself could support a very nice uptake at launch.

I think what Keith and I have looked at, though, is this is essentially a q4-week infusion. It will have a miscellaneous J-code for some period of time.

We know that there are payers, for example, Medicaid, that could be a little sluggish at launch. We recognize payers in and of themselves, it's not a matter of if they reimburse, but sometimes it takes time to reimburse.

We believe robust demand, but we think that will be met with initially some access speed bumps that could impact our launch curve. Overall, the long-term opportunity that we see for apitegromab in the US and beyond, we feel like is quite significant for us, and we're really looking forward to the eventual approval and then Keith and team launching apitegromab to the SMA community.

With respect to your question on subQ and clinical regulatory strategy, I'll hand that over to Akshay.

Thanks, David. For subQ apitegromab, what we have is very interesting and supportive data that the subQ route is viable, shows excellent bioavailability and a PK/PD profile.

Now, we know a lot about apitegromab in terms of PK/PD from our prior work via the IV route of administration. We obviously want to leverage that and find a path forward for subQ apitegromab by saying, this is a drug that's well-characterized and studied by a different route of administration, but if we can mimic the appropriate PK/PD, then there's no reason why it could not be equally safe and effective.

Now, those are all discussions that we need to have with the FDA. The initial approvability of the drug, of course, is very important, but subsequent to that, we hope to get aligned with regulators on that approach.

Ultimately, we can't guide the timelines today, but we're hoping as the year progresses to engage with regulators and formulate that final plan with them to discuss the path forward.

Great. Thank you.

Hey, good morning, guys. This is Charlie on for Jeff.

Maybe just thinking about the second fill-finish facility, if you guys were to switch over to that one, would it completely de-risk the supply chain from a US and EU launch perspective? Then on the launch, what specific leading indicators of payer and physician readiness are you guys tracking?

Maybe you guys can give some color on that. It'd be helpful.

Thanks.

Absolutely. I'll start with the second vialer, and then Keith, you might need clarification on the second?

Can you repeat the second question, please?

Sure. What specific leading indicators are you guys paying attention to to indicate, payer and physician readiness that you're tracking?

Great. Second fill-finish, we are really pleased with the progress that we have been making.

As I mentioned, tech transfer commenced in Q4, engineering runs are underway, and there are additional manufacturing runs to follow here in the very near term. We're working urgently.

Again, our assumption is this is going to be our second vialer, and we're going to submit an sBLA. Should we rely on this facility solely, we are confident that we would be de-risking as well our US and EU commercial opportunity.

We wanted to be very thoughtful in selecting the right second partner for fill-finish, and we're gratified that we have done that. Also, as I noted, really pleased with the progress that's being made at a very rapid pace.

Keith.

When it comes to the payers, we've been really pleased with the access that our team has been able to get, as I stated in the prepared remarks, to not just the big national payers, but also now regional payers, and even some Medicare and Medicaid while we've had more time. We've been able to have in-depth discussions with them, and our medical team has been able to go through the SAPPHIRE clinical data with them.

The bottom line is, just as what's been shared in a lot of the CureSMA data and some of our own market research, neurologists and patients, they want more, and they need more. That's why we understand three-quarters of these physicians already believe in multiple modalities to treat SMA.

Hi, this is Salvatore Caruso on behalf of Marc Frahm at TD. Thanks for taking my question.

Just one quick question to kind of cross some T's and dot some I's regarding the status of the MAA review. Will that market also be served by the Novo Catalent Indiana facility?

If so, has the EMA taken any actions in response to the FDA inspection findings?

I'll start and then I can hand it over to Akshay. There is a mutual recognition between both FDA and EMA.

This steady and rapid progress we're making with FDA actually serves us very well for the current MAA review with regulators. It's very important that we continue to make this progress forward.

As I noted, the continued remediation and eventual successful reinspection will really support our EMA decision near mid-year. Then as I noted, if for some reason we were to rely on the second vialer, that would also be very important.

For now, we're very excited with the rapid and steady progress that's been made. Akshay, anything?

You covered it, David. I think the other thing is that we've kept in close touch with the reviewing authorities in EMA, they're fully aware.

They're supportive, and we're all aware of the mutual recognition of these capabilites which will obviously support the approval.

Thank you.

Great. Thanks for taking the question.

Guess a couple for me. Has the FDA requested or could they request additional safety data that could extend review of apitegromab?

Then on FSHD, just wondered would you be looking at any functional endpoints in the Phase 2 study that you're planning, and could this be a more appropriate indication for SRK-439 longer term? Thank you.

Thanks, Etzer. It's a great comment, and we can remind you that the BLA resubmission will be a fairly rapid and small resubmission, but there would be an update to sort of our safety database, which was called out in our response letter from the FDA.

Akshay can comment on that and then talk about any sort of functional outcome measures for FSHD. Akshay?

We're aligned with the FDA, and the November meeting was useful in many regards, including that, and so which aspect of the safety database needs to be updated and so forth, that's all agreed to, and so we're ready and prepared with this BLA resubmission. I don't see any great issues there, but it's a good question, and obviously we should always provide the FDA with the latest safety understanding of our drug, which we will do.

With respect to the PROVE Phase 2 study in FSHD, the primary endpoint will focus on increase in lean muscle volume measured very sensitively by imaging techniques. We will have quantitative myometry in there, which is a validated approach in FSHD, to understand the functional impact of any potential change in muscle mass.

We look forward obviously to those data, too.

Thank you.

Hi, Malcolm Hoffman on for Evan. Thanks for taking our question here.

Thinking about the financials of the business today, you mentioned the new debt facility secured with approvals in US and Europe coming this year. I just wanted to ask how are you thinking about expectations for time to profitability, and whether you anticipate any additional need for financing ahead of that kind of profitability hinge point?

Thanks.

Thanks, Malcolm. Vikas?

Hi, Malcolm. We have not given a forward-looking guidance at all here, but we will follow most likely the normal rare disease kind of revenue trajectory, which leads you into very similar levels of profitability time frames of 2 to 3 years from launch.

It also depends on how our pipeline progresses during that time, and we will weigh into profitability versus investing into the future. Overall, looking at our fundamental principle of creating long-term shareholder value.

Thanks, Vikas. Thanks, Malcolm.

Hey, good morning, guys. Thanks for taking the question.

Just drilling down on some of the prior discussion around review timing, I know you've talked a lot about FDA's sense of urgency on apitegromab. I guess, is there good precedent for FDA spending less than 6 months to review a Class 2 resubmission?

Can you just clarify, does your guidance for commercial launch in '26 assume a Class 2 resubmission and the full 6-month review? Then separately, just on OPAL, could you talk to what you're seeing on enrollment trends there and just what that tells you about the underlying awareness of apitegromab in the SMA community?

Thanks.

Thanks, Allie. Maybe I'll just point out one example on the Class 2 not taking the full time.

I think it's important because we have been mentioned occasionally here during this current journey with Regeneron. In 2023, at the same facility, Regeneron did have a CRL, had a resubmission.

I believe it was a Class 2 resubmission, and yet it was approved within essentially a sort of a 60-day window. We have more examples than that.

I just point to that because it's a little bit relevant given the fact that it was a CRL and it was the same facility, and I think it had to do with some assessment of the facility post an inspection. I would just point your attention to that.

So

Akshay?

I think you lost my train of thought. What was the second question?

OPAL. OPAL,

that's right. The enrollment's going very well.

I think the first thing to say actually, before we get to OPAL, is there's very wide knowledge and appreciation for a muscle-based approach in the patient community and the prescriber community, and Keith has spoken to that. The fact is, it's particularly high and patients' families and physicians are awaiting the approval of this drug.

Now, consistent with that, they see possibilities for this drug throughout the entire patient age range and disease severity range as a community. We're gratified by the very nice progress with OPAL.

I'm not going to share details today, but yes, we're seeing a good clip of enrollment. As we get later into the year, we'll clarify, as the sort of clinical timeline comes into sight, exactly when we'd have data and so forth.

Certainly consistent with knowledge of the drug and its potential, there's very good enrollment in OPAL.

Allie, I would just add, as Akshay noted in the prepared remarks, we have a deep commitment to the SMA community, and I'm really, really pleased that we are making sure no patients are left behind by opening up this under-2 study. We're super excited to be doing this work in the youngest of patients with SMA.

Hey, this is Gugan on for Kalpit. Previous myostatin inhibitors in FSHD increase muscle mass without meaningful functional improvement.

Can you give some color on how apitegromab aims to address this historical hurdle and what a clinically meaningful functional improvement might be in the planned Phase 2?

Sure. Akshay?

I think you're pointing to earlier drugs that didn't have a very clear and well-validated mechanism of action and potency and safety profile. The earlier generations of anti-myostatins, we believe, didn't have the potency and selectivity of a drug like apitegromab in our opinion.

More importantly, another point you raised is the ACE-083 example, I suspect, and ACE-083 did a study in FSHD and they're injecting locally in one isolated muscle. Now, one can't expect that to result in global functional improvement.

We do know separately that globally applied strategies like intense physical therapy or anabolic agents that increase muscle mass, such as testosterone and other similar agents, that those kinds of agents clearly show an increase in muscle mass and also increase in functional capacity. We've incorporated quantitative myometric testing into the Phase 2 to evaluate changes in muscle function.

The primary approach on the primary endpoint obviously is to document changes in lean muscle volume. We look forward to getting those data, and that's a validated approach in that indication, and we'll share the data when we have that.

Thanks, Akshay.