Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining Kiniksa's call to discuss our first quarter 2026 financial results and recent portfolio execution. A press release highlighting these results can be found on our website under the Investors section.

As for the agenda, our Chief Executive Officer, Sanj K. Patel, will start with an introduction.

From there, Ross Moat, our Chief Operating Officer, will provide an update on ARCALYST commercial execution. Then, Kiniksa's Chief Medical Officer, Dr.

John Paolini, will review our KPL-387 development program and the ongoing Phase 2/3 clinical trial in recurrent pericarditis. After that, Mark Ragosa, our Chief Financial Officer, will review our first quarter 2026 financial results.

Finally, Sanj will share closing remarks and kick off the Q&A session, for which Evan Tessari, our Chief Strategy Officer, will also be on the line. Before getting started, please note that we will be making forward-looking statements today that are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from such statements.

A review of these statements and risk factors can be found on this slide, as well as under the caption Risk Factors contained in our SEC filings. These statements speak only as of the date of this presentation, and we undertake no obligation to update such statements, except as required by law.

With that, I'll turn it over to Sanj.

Thanks, Jonathan, and good day, everyone. Kiniksa continues to build strength across the business, which is driven by both our commercial progress with ARCALYST and the advancement of our pipeline programs, including KPL-387 and KPL-1161.

On the commercial side, the end of the first quarter marks the fifth anniversary of the FDA approval for ARCALYST in recurrent pericarditis. Through our consistent and effective execution over those past 5 years, we've established and developed the market for this debilitating disease.

This has enabled a fundamental shift in the treatment paradigm for patients and led to significant growth for the ARCALYST franchise. Within our clinical portfolio, we continue to advance the KPL-387 Phase 2/Phase 3 study in recurrent pericarditis.

Data from the Phase 2 dose-focusing portion of the study are on track for the second half of this year. We also expect to start the Phase 3 portion of the program by the end of this year.

In addition, we are advancing KPL-1161 closer to the clinic. This is our FC-modified IL-1 alpha and beta inhibitor with a target profile of quarterly dosing.

As we've previously shared, we plan to start a Phase 1 study by the end of this year. Our robust financial position, together with profitable ARCALYST revenue growth, gives us the ability to invest in value creation across the business.

Commercially, ARCALYST continues to be on a robust trajectory 5 years from launch. We intend to capture the additional opportunity that remains across the recurrent pericarditis market.

Adoption of long-term IL-1 alpha and beta inhibition with ARCALYST is expanding in the approximately 40,000 patients each year in the United States who experience recurrent pericarditis flares. In the first quarter of this year, this expanding adoption contributed to ARCALYST sales growing to $214.3 million.

Looking to the rest of the year, the marked increase in both the breadth and depth of prescribing we observed in the first quarter provides momentum going forward. As a result, we've now raised our full-year 2026 revenue guidance to $930 to $945 million, from our previous guidance of $900 to $920 million.

In summary, Kiniksa is a well-capitalized, growth-orientated company that is well-positioned to maximize the substantial ARCALYST commercial opportunity that is available to us. The company's portfolio programs have numerous milestones throughout the rest of the year and that also have the potential to create meaningful value.

Now, Ross Moat.

Thank you, Sanj. Our continued commercial execution has driven strong revenue growth in Q1, leading to an ARCALYST net revenue of $214.3 million, which represents an increase of more than $76 million compared to the first quarter 2025, and approximately $12 million over Q4 of last year.

This revenue growth was driven by strong underlying commercial metrics, which outpaced the Q1 industry-wide headwinds related to copay resets and changes in insurance plans. In particular, growth was achieved by two key commercial dynamics.

Firstly, we saw an acceleration in the growth of new prescribers through the quarter, which resulted in the highest quarterly increase in new patient enrollments since launch. This bodes particularly well for the rest of the year, as the new, larger prescriber base, along with the durability of average duration of therapy, has enabled us to increase our full-year revenue guidance from between $900 to $920 million to between $930 and $945 million.

Secondly, in Q1, our gross-to-net increased compared to the prior quarter, as expected. However, it was lower than Q1 of 2025.

This was mainly driven by changes to our copay support program, where we made enhancements to our assistance program design, which reduced the average copay payout per patient relative to prior Q1s. With the momentum created early in the year, combined with our strong underlying commercial foundation, we believe we are well-positioned to continue driving ARCALYST growth through the rest of the year, and believe there is substantial opportunity ahead to support many more recurrent pericarditis patients.

In Q1, thanks to the strong execution from our team, approximately 400 new prescribers wrote ARCALYST for the first time, representing the highest quarter-on-quarter increase launch to date. This brings the total number of prescribers to more than 4,550.

As a reminder, with more than 25,000 healthcare professionals seeing recurrent pericarditis patients in a given year, there is substantial opportunity ahead. We also saw growth in the number of healthcare professionals who became repeat prescribers during Q1, resulting in approximately 1,320 prescribers in total who have now prescribed ARCALYST multiple times.

The acceleration we've seen in both the breadth and the depth of prescribing reflects our continued commercial execution as well as the growing understanding and adoption of interleukin-1 alpha and beta inhibition as the treatment choice following the prior use of NSAIDs and colchicine, as recommended in the 2025 ACC concise clinical guidance. Earlier this month, we announced the initiation of our highly targeted direct-to-consumer campaign, Hearts Hope.

This campaign is designed to identify and target patients who may be suffering with recurrent pericarditis and not currently taking ARCALYST, with the aim of empowering them to discuss ARCALYST with their healthcare provider. Through digital innovation, including the use of AI, we are able to deploy DTC in a way that's cost-effective, highly targeted, and ultimately applicable for a rare disease market.

We have focused on utilizing our existing patient database and added search optimization and machine learning models informed by de-identified claims, demographics, and consumer market data to define an enriched population of potential recurrent pericarditis patients to deliver tailored content, opposed to a traditional DTC approach of broad-scale and high-cost marketing. The centerpiece of our campaign is a connected TV commercial that is directed to potential patients through their individual streaming accounts on platforms such as YouTube and Hulu, as well as across social media channels.

This campaign is informed by our market research, which demonstrated that when a recurrent pericarditis patient inquires about ARCALYST to their provider, the healthcare professional is receptive to the inquiry, and it results in ARCALYST being prescribed in around 80% of cases. As previously mentioned, our ARCALYST franchise is growing, is profitable, and has significant opportunity ahead.

This has allowed us to make disciplined investment decisions to expand our reach, to capture the opportunity, and help more patients. With that, I'll turn the call over to John to cover our KPL-387 development program.

Thank you, Ross. As a brief refresher, we leveraged our extensive clinical experience with the IL-1 signaling pathway when designing the integrated development program for KPL-387 shown here, broken down by phase of development.

The core component of the program is the Phase 3 placebo-controlled, event-driven randomized withdrawal study. Just as in RHAPSODY, the pivotal study which supported ARCALYST approval in recurrent pericarditis, the primary efficacy endpoint for Phase 3 will measure the reduction in risk of pericarditis recurrence as the primary demonstration of KPL-387 efficacy for the label.

We believe, from our regulatory interactions, that this study will be sufficient to support registration as a single pivotal study. As a reminder, to maximize operational efficiency, we combined the Phase 2 dose-focusing trial and the Phase 3 pivotal trial into a single integrated Phase 2/3 protocol so that Phase 3 could initiate independently of Phase 2 execution.

We added long-term extensions to all trial activities. We previously guided that we expect data from the dose-focusing study outlined here in red in the second half of this year.

Today, we guided that we expect to initiate the Phase 3 portion of the study by the end of this year. The Phase 2 dose-focusing study builds on insights from previous clinical trials with rilonacept, and it is designed to define the KPL-387 PK/PD relationship, as well as to support the data-driven approach for affirming the dose level for the Phase 3 pivotal trial.

Looking at the rilonacept Phase 2 precedent in the left panels, the single active-arm study demonstrated that IL-1 pathway inhibition with once-weekly rilonacept resulted in rapid and sustained reductions in reported pain and inflammation with C-reactive protein in patients with active recurrent pericarditis and elevated C-reactive protein over the initial 6-week treatment period, as well as the subsequent long-term extension through 24 weeks. Now, looking forward, the KPL-387 Phase 2 dose-focusing study, which is assessing four dose levels in up to 20 patients per arm, mirrors the rilonacept Phase 2 study in terms of study population, number of patients per arm, and the primary endpoint, which is time to treatment response.

The study framework has been adjusted for the specific attributes of the long-acting pharmacokinetics of KPL-387. Thus, development stage-appropriate data, which are expected in the second half of this year, are designed to provide useful information on the cadence and magnitude of initial response, as well as the duration of action of KPL-387 dose levels, affirming the dose level for Phase 3 and informing Phase 3 outcomes measures.

I will now turn it over to our Chief Financial Officer. Mark?

Thanks, John. This morning, I will cover our first quarter 2026 financial performance.

As always, you can find our detailed financial information in today's press release. In the first quarter of 2026, we continued to build strong momentum across the business, advancing ARCALYST, progressing our clinical portfolio, and maintaining a strong financial position.

Starting on the left-hand side of this slide with our income statement, as you've heard from Sanj and Ross, ARCALYST revenue grew 56% year over year to $214.3 million in the first quarter. This growth was driven by strong expansion in new prescribers and new patient enrollments, which more than offset the impact of industry-wide seasonal headwinds.

Operating expense growth year over year was driven by several factors: higher cost of goods sold due to ARCALYST revenue growth; increased collaboration expenses aligned with higher ARCALYST revenue and collaboration profit; higher R&D primarily due to increased clinical and manufacturing costs associated with the development of KPL-387; and additional SG&A primarily driven by investment associated with the commercialization of ARCALYST, including personnel and leveraging new technologies to enhance our targeting strategy and reach additional patients and HCPs. As a result of this strong revenue growth against more moderate expense growth, net income increased significantly to $22.6 million in the first quarter of 2026, compared to $8.5 million in the first quarter of 2025.

Turning to the right-hand side of this slide, you'll find the calculation for ARCALYST collaboration profit, which drives total collaboration expenses. In the first quarter of 2026, ARCALYST collaboration profit continued to grow faster than sales on a year-over-year basis, up 73% to $151.2 million.

Finally, at the bottom of this slide, we ended the first quarter with a $468.1 million cash balance, representing $54 million of net cash generation for the period. We expect to remain cash flow positive on an annual basis under our current operating plan, enabling us to continuing to help patients while creating additional value in both the near and long term.

With that, I will turn the call back to Sanj for closing remarks.

Thanks, Mark. As you've heard, Kiniksa is well-positioned to build significant future value as we grow our IL-1 alpha and beta inhibition franchise.

We are dedicated to helping as many patients as possible with ARCALYST and to advancing the development of our clinical portfolio in order to bring additional therapies to patients suffering from debilitating diseases. With that, I'll now turn the call back to the operator for questions.

Operator?

Great. Thanks very much for taking our question, and congrats on the strong quarter.

Can you discuss what you have seen in terms of increased demand from the early days of the DTC campaign, acknowledging that it is still pretty early on, and what other plans do you have to accelerate demand in future, either via patients or prescriber targeting? Thanks very much.

Hi, Nick. This is Ross.

I'll take a pass at that. Thank you very much.

As you said, it's early on for the DTC campaign. We just announced it pretty recently that we're focusing on DTC in a very targeted way in order to go and try and reach patients who we believe are recurrent pericarditis patients and in order to kind of inform them and educate them in how to go and speak with their healthcare providers about the potential of ARCALYST and recurrent pericarditis.

It's early days. One thing that I'll share with you is that, while we also understand that when patients go in and speak to their healthcare professionals proactively about ARCALYST, the patients get prescribed ARCALYST in around 80% of the cases.

It's also true that there's only around 14% of recurrent pericarditis patients who are actually unaided aware of ARCALYST. We know that there's a big awareness gap out there with patients.

We know patients are very widely dispersed across the country. This is our approach of going out, trying to identify those patients and serve up appropriate, very targeted, very tailored messages that can help appropriate patients to be empowered to go and speak to their healthcare professionals about ARCALYST.

We're excited about the campaign, but as you said, it's early days. We are focused on many different initiatives to accelerate the growth.

As a reminder, last announced, we were around 18% penetrated into the 14,000 patient population, not accounting for patients that are even in their first recurrence. As we've seen a strong growth in patients on their first recurrence as well over time.

The opportunity is very significant. We're focused on continuing to execute incredibly well across our commercial organization.

We're focused obviously on digital marketing, of which the DTC campaign is a part of a much broader umbrella of digital marketing. We'll also focus on peer-to-peer education and growing this new wave of how to treat recurrent pericarditis patients, which has been really transforming over the last 5 years of the availability of ARCALYST on the market.

We're very excited about the future. We have a multifaceted approach to how we're going to continue to grow the breadth and the depth of prescribing and help more and more patients.

Very helpful. Thank you very much.

Hey, guys. Thanks so much for taking the question, and congrats on a strong quarter here.

For KPL-387 and the second-half dose-focus update, John, I was wondering if you could comment a little bit as when you look at the totality of the range of endpoints and assessments that you're going to be looking at in Phase 2, how do you think about which ones are most important in sort of the ultimate dose selection moving to Phase 3? Thanks so much.

Sure. Good morning, Anupam, and thank you for that question.

Yes. With regard to the Phase 2 trial, which is currently ongoing, the value, I think, of Slide 13 is that it shows you what kind of data we had generated in the past in the Phase 2 program with rilonacept in terms of three critical elements, which is, of course, what we call the cadence and magnitude, which is basically the time of onset of action and the degree of suppression of pain and inflammation with C-reactive protein, and then the additional element of durability of response.

That's what we showed previously with rilonacept, and so carrying that forward to the KPL-387 program. Again, with that initial dose of KPL-387, what we've shown in our models, regardless of the dose level selected, we expect to see high drug levels, which would be modeled to have a rapid cadence in terms of onset of action and magnitude of effect in suppressing the initial inflammatory response.

Then the additional scientific question that we intend to glean by looking at the different dose levels is that duration of action of the four different dose levels that we look at in trial. Then from that, we integrate all three of those elements to build the PK/PD relationship and affirm what we believe to be the therapeutic concentration, as well as the dose level that we would carry forward into Phase 3.

It's really the integration of those three critical elements.

Thanks so much for taking the question.

Hey, thanks for taking the question. Just a couple quick ones from me.

First off, on the DTC ad, is it fair to model in the incremental spend year over year on marketing as the DTC component, or is there some additional sales guys or other folks that you hired, or other expenses going in there? Then the second one on 387, on the transition study, the treatment duration is 16 weeks, which is different than the 12 or 24 weeks that you've looked at in the Phase 1 or Phase 2.

Is there any reason you picked 16 weeks versus having a little bit more apples-to-apples duration comparison, at least for patients who are moving from ARCALYST to 387? Thanks.

Hey, David. On the first one, I think, as you heard us talk about on the call, SG&A did go up as a result of sort of personnel-related expenses as well as sales and marketing initiatives, which Ross has sort of covered.

I think we continue to invest responsibly in the commercialization of ARCALYST, as shown by collaboration profit continuing to grow faster than revenue. I think we haven't really guided to spend, but I think it's worth sort of noting that on a percentage of sales basis, SG&A has been fairly consistent over the last year.

Then

with regard to your question, David, thank you for that question about the transition to KPL-387 monotherapy dosing and administration study. Yes, the 16-week treatment duration for the posology portion of the study is, in fact, appropriate for this type of study.

This study is really designed to look at well-controlled patients as they move from their prior therapies to KPL-387. In this study, patients are transitioning from regimens of NSAIDs and colchicine, from corticosteroids, and IL-1 pathway inhibitors, including anakinra and rilonacept.

What we had seen previously with regard to rilonacept was a time to monotherapy of under 8 weeks in the RHAPSODY program. This program is designed to basically move patients off of those other therapies onto KPL-387 and achieve monotherapy within that time window.

Then, of course, there are additional doses that are administered to achieve steady state by the week 16 time point. Then importantly, patients transition to a long-term extension where they can continue to receive KPL-387 for up to 2 total years.

It's a well-designed study to inform that element of the label, if you will, clinical practice for transitioning patients to KPL-387.

Maybe a quick follow-up. Obviously, you'll look at the patients by prior treatment to determine if anyone has a new attack of pericarditis that, of course, you'll know which prior treatment they're on, and you'll stratify accordingly, or how are you thinking about the differences in prior treatments for the transition?

That's a very reasonable statement. If you look at, for example, the ARCALYST label, it covers all of the different therapies that patients can transition from.

It talks about NSAIDs and colchicine. It talks about corticosteroids.

Then we didn't do this study specifically for recurrent pericarditis for anakinra because that had already been done for DIRA. What we reported in that trial was how patients responded and across the different treatments, and the time to monotherapy.

Similarly, in this trial, of course, you would look at each one of those different types of dosing regimens that patients came from and then look to make sure that the transition to KPL-387 is robust. It's important to point out that the duration of action of KPL-387 with our anticipated Phase 3 dose level is once-monthly dosing, which covers most of that initial transition period depending on the therapy.

Got it. Thanks.

Hi. Good morning, guys, and really great quarter.

Congratulations. I wanted to ask, I know obviously the DTC program is relatively new, and I just wanted to kind of understand with regard to what's driving the biggest change in new patient starts.

You said that the awareness gap has shrunk, and then you've seen increasing physician adoption. What effect has reimbursement or referral patterns had into this new patient starts?

Thanks, Ed. Appreciate your question.

There are lots of different things driving the increases that we've seen, not just in Q1, but over time as well. Of note, Q1 was the highest ever quarter-on-quarter growth that we've had in terms of new prescribers, as well as the highest ever since the time of our launch, 5 years ago, the highest ever number of new patient enrollments or new prescriptions coming in for ARCALYST.

Clearly, we're at a stage 5 years after our launch where we're growing very nicely with a substantial opportunity ahead. Reimbursement continues to be very strong across all the different payer mixes, and that's both for new patients coming on as well as the revalidation of the scripts, usually after a 1-year time period.

That continues to really be very positive. In terms of referrals, I think, certainly there are some centers out there, around 18 centers, that are centers of excellence, if you like, or whole pericardial disease-specific clinics.

They're acknowledged partially under one program, which is the AHA's addressing recurrent pericarditis, of which we are a sponsor of. That's been a helpful initiative, I think, to grow the expertise and share expertise in how to diagnose and treat recurrent pericarditis over time among those 18 groups.

It also remains the case that recurrent pericarditis patients are broadly dispersed across the country. We have to touch many touch points across the country in order to educate physicians.

We focus on peer-to-peer education to do that, as well as, of course, our sales team and digital marketing initiatives such as the new DTC campaign, which we're excited about. As I mentioned earlier, with only around 14% of patients that suffer recurrent pericarditis having an unaided awareness of ARCALYST, clearly, putting the power in the hands of the patient and the knowledge in the hands of the patient of their disease, acknowledging that many patients go through multiple physicians and multiple misdiagnoses before they get the recurrent pericarditis diagnosis, we think can play a substantial role in helping the awareness and empowering patients to go and ask their physicians about recurrent pericarditis, about ARCALYST, and ultimately could play one of the roles amongst many things that we're doing in continuing to seize the opportunity that we have ahead.

Very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Thank you.

Good morning, and congratulations on the strong quarterly results. I was wondering first if you could maybe elaborate a little bit more on the copayment commentary for the quarter.

Is this going to be something just specific to this particular quarter, or could it be more potentially structurally favorable to gross-to-net over the long term? My second question is on KPL-387.

Just with regard to the transition, the switch study that's ongoing, can you comment if the implication here is that you have a fairly confident view on the dose going forward for the Phase 3, or are you still testing multiple doses there? Thank you very much.

Thanks. Mark, you want to take the first?

Yes, sure.

On the gross-to-net, yeah. I think, Paul, we haven't provided specific guidance on gross-to-net.

We still do not expect major fluctuations relative to 2025, but we do anticipate now that copay support will be favorable to gross-to-net on an annual basis, with the majority of the impact having taken place in the first quarter. I think as we sort of take a look at gross-to-net over the course of the year, I'll kind of say what we've said before here, but we do expect to return to our historical pattern where, absent any sort of prior-period reserve adjustments, we do expect gross-to-net to be highest in the first quarter, to work lower in the second and the third quarter, and then begin to shift higher again in the fourth quarter due to industry dynamics as they begin to play a factor again.

I don't know if there's components to the copay that you want to discuss further than that, but at least that's the impact on gross-to-net.

That's right. Mark, thank you for that.

I'll just maybe add a little bit more flavor onto the copay dynamics, Paul. We did make enhancements to our copay assistance program at the beginning of this year, which ultimately reduced the average copay payment per patient, and subsequently had the knock-on effect to the more favorable gross-to-net versus Q1 of last year, albeit higher than Q4 of last year.

That's driven by a couple of things: firstly, reducing the maximum amount of copay payments that we make per patient; and secondly, we also implemented machine learning solutions to proactively identify patients who are on non-traditional payment plans, such as maximizer plans, in order to kind of pick up those patients, which you may know a lot of these plans are designed to take the cost to the manufacturers all the way until funds are exhausted before the insurance companies pick up on it. By lowering that copay amount for those non-traditional plans, it reduced the maximum amount that we paid per patient before the patients got full coverage under their insurer.

That had the knock-on effect into the gross-to-net. Thank you for the question, Paul.

Good morning, Paul. Thank you for your question about the transition to monotherapy study.

The details of the study design that we've shared so far can be found in clinicaltrials.gov. What you will see there is the overall architecture of the study, but the disclosure does not include specific information of the dose level or dose levels that would be studied.

We will have more to say at a later date about the design of the study.

Great. Thank you.

Hey, guys. Good morning.

Thanks for the question. Just had two quick ones.

Ross, on the commercial side, is there a tipping point for adding more patients to the first recurrence segment? I wasn't sure maybe if you wanted to wait a little bit longer on the awareness and DTC visibility, or do you feel like you have to navigate maybe reimbursement hurdles in that more upstream segment?

Then the second one for Sanj, with the positive cash flow, you got consistent profitability. How do you think about maximizing value from here?

Would you want to be in the Phase 3 for 387 before you take another look at BD? I wasn't sure how you're thinking about it.

Thank you.

Thanks very much, Geoff. Appreciate the question.

As mentioned earlier, we're at or the last reported, we were around 18% penetrated into the two-plus recurrence group, about 20% of prescriptions that we have now are in the first recurrence group. That's grown over time.

We think the 2025 ACC concise clinical guidance is also helpful towards that, as it places the use of IL-1 inhibition prior to the use of corticosteroids. Moving ARCALYST further upstream, if you like, earlier on in the disease.

We think those things are all important. Acknowledging that ARCALYST really has a very broad label, which is agnostic to the number of flares that a patient has suffered.

We have broad patient coverage really across the labeled indication for the majority of plans. We're in a pretty good situation there, which is why we feel that the opportunity that we have ahead is still very significant when you take those metrics around the two-plus recurrences and the first recurrence group.

Geoff, this is Sanj. Thanks for the question as well.

As for many years this team is very much focused on creating value. We also know how to execute.

As you point out, 387, clearly there's a lot of focus right now on getting through this Phase 2 study, having dates in the second half of this year and starting our Phase 3 study this year, which I think is very exciting. Clearly, we're very much focused on capturing further growth for ARCALYST.

Very important, continued effort for us. Then, as you've said, 1161 also should enter the clinic this year.

A number of milestones for us. We balance all that consistently looking at how there are other ways to create value.

As you said, we constantly look at BD opportunities. We have a very, very high bar, though.

We try to stay pragmatic as possible, looking at all the value both internal creates with, via creation from internal value drivers, but also looking at business development. We'll continue to do that.

Capital allocation is very important to us. Being efficient is very important to us.

We've done that very nicely, I think, through this digital DTC effort and looking at AI ways to really do it very efficiently. Trust us when we say that we'll continue to think about value creation all the time and balance it well going forward.

Okay. Thank you.

Hi, good morning, team. This is Fiona on for Roger.

Congrats on the strong quarter, and thanks for taking our question. Maybe just a quick one on KPL-387.

Any meaningful difference in terms of formulation versus ARCALYST? Do you plan to use an autoinjector?

Maybe just down the line, if 387 gets approved, how do you plan your commercial strategy around potentially transitioning to 387? Thank you.

Yes. Fiona, thanks for that question.

I'll handle some of the biophysical characteristics of the molecules to maybe lay a little bit of groundwork, and then turn it over to Sanj with regard to next steps. There is a difference with regard to KPL-387 in that it is a liquid formulation.

That liquid formulation allows for the total dose, if you will, of KPL-387 to be delivered in a single syringe subcutaneously. We anticipate that with the extended pharmacokinetics, which we've shown previously in Phase 1, that that would support once-monthly dosing.

Once you have that profile, it then does set up a situation, if you will, that is quite favorable for the development of an autoinjector. We have not discussed that in detail at this time.

I'll turn it over to Sanj.

Fiona, nothing really to add. Obviously, we'll continue to execute on the ongoing clinical trials.

We talked about those today: the Phase 2, Phase 3 study, starting Phase 3 this year; obviously, entering 1161. Nothing else to add other than that we plan to do them as fast as humanly possible and as well as humanly possible.

Hey, good morning. Congrats on the quarter, and thanks for taking our questions.

Two quick ones from us. First, how should we be thinking about R&D expense for the rest of the year and into 2027 as 387's Phase 3 and 1161's Phase 1 are initiated?

The second question is: you've guided to initiating the Phase 3 pivotal portion for 387 by year-end 2026. Are there any key steps or milestones you need to clear to initiate the study, or is it just a matter of seeing the Phase 2 data before moving forward?

Thanks.

Thanks, Eva, for the question. Maybe just to touch upon the R&D question first here.

Similarly to an earlier question, we haven't provided explicit guidance. That being said, I think on a percentage of sales basis, R&D has been fairly consistent over the last year.

Really with R&D, it's timing of our clinical trials and manufacturing of clinical supply that are the key variables. We've disclosed several ongoing investments that we plan to further advance in 2026, including the development of 387 into Phase 3 and KPL-1161 into Phase 1.

Obviously, the longer trials go on, they tend to get a little bit more expensive. I think keeping in the context of where sales growth has been and where we've been fairly consistent on R&D to sales over the last year is an important metric to keep in mind.

Then,

Eva, thank you for your question with regard to the Phase 2/3 transition. With Phase 2 data expected in the second half of 2026, we're on track for receiving dose level confirmation data in that time framework.

Because the Phase 2 dose-focusing portion and the Phase 3 pivotal portion have been integrated into a single Phase 2/3 protocol, the Phase 3 pivotal trial can begin independently of Phase 2 execution.

Got it. Thanks.

Thanks, operator. Thank you for all the questions and joining the call today.

Look forward to the remainder of the year and, of course, providing additional updates in the future. Thank you.

It's quite fun.