Alan: be initiating an operationally seamless global Phase 2-3 study in the first half of this year, the design of which I will now review. Equilibrium ADCS is a seamless Phase 2-3 study, which allows us to capture the many operational efficiencies of continuing sites opened in the Phase 2 part of the study into the Phase 3 part. The purpose of the Phase 2 is to evaluate safety and the efficacy of a range of doses of F2 melanin in patients with active ADCS over a treatment period of three months. Based on our short-term dosing data from the NIH study, it looks like a simple single dose of etumelanin would very effectively and rapidly correct the excess cortisol output from the adrenals in most patients with ADCS. Now that we are entering Phase IIb, it is important to confirm this with longer-term dosing and to identify the right dose of etumelment to use in the confirmatory phase three part of the study. You can see that we are testing the dose range of 20 to 80 milligrams per day of etumelment in the phase two segment. We are testing lower doses than those used initially in the proof of concept NIH study. And this is a testament to the potency of this unique mechanism of action. The 20 milligram dose is being studied in an open label arm in which glucocorticoid replacement can safely be used reactively only if needed based on the occurrence of a low serum cortisol result. The 40-milligram and the 80-milligram doses will be evaluated in a randomized placebo-controlled segment of Phase II. At these higher doses, we will be evaluating the utility of a proactive approach in which glucocorticoid replacement and the eptomelanin will be initiated at the same time. Based on the results of the Phase II part of the study, an aptum melanin dose and glucocorticoid replacement paradigm will be selected for the Phase III part. The Phase III part is powered to show a statistically significant difference in 24-hour urine-free cortisol output between the active treatment arm compared to the placebo arm. An open-label extension, or OLE, long-term treatment segment is also included in the study. Overall, the equilibrium ADCS study is designed for efficient and comprehensive assessment of the safety and efficacy of etumelanin in the treatment of ADCS, a disease which historically has been among the most difficult to treat medically. We believe moving the century-old treatment paradigm forward is long overdue for these patients, and we are excited to get this important study started in the first half of this year. With that, I'll turn it to Toby to walk through our financial results.
Toby: Thank you, Alan. Turning to slide 14, our financial results for the fourth quarter 2025 reflect our continued disciplined execution and strategic investment in advancing our pipeline and commercialization of Pelsonify. In the fourth quarter, we recognized $6.2 million in total net revenue consisting of $5.4 million in net product revenue from the U.S. commercial launch of Pelsonify and $0.8 million from our licensing agreement with our Japanese partner, SKK. Our total revenue for full year 2025 was $7.7 million. Cost of product revenue in the fourth quarter was $1.1 million. Prior to Palsanify's approval in September, manufacturing costs were expensed through R&D as zero-cost inventory. To date, We have only distributed zero-cost inventory and expect to continue to do so for the next several quarters. The cost of product revenue from this quarter relates to the expansion of our commercial manufacturing capacity as well as the distribution and fulfillment costs of Palsonify. Our research and development expenses for the fourth quarter were $85.1 million. compared to $90.5 million in the third quarter. The decrease is a result of startup costs for our ongoing clinical studies that were recognized during the third quarter. Selling, general, and administrative expenses were $53.7 million for the fourth quarter, generally steady compared to the $52.3 million in the third quarter since our field force, commercial team, and corporate functions were already in place prior to approval. We used $326.2 million of total net cash for the full year 2025, reflecting continued clinical development and commercialization activities. This result was favorable relative to our guidance range of $340 to $370 million, primarily due to working capital timing and a modest increase in cash flows from employee option proceeds during the fourth quarter. We ended 2025 with over $1 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and investments. This does not include the net proceeds of $380 million from our January 2026 public offering. Immediately after our January 2026 public offering, our cash, cash equivalents, and investments totaled approximately $1.4 billion. As of February 13th, 2026, we had approximately 104.7 million shares of common stock outstanding. On a fully diluted basis, we had 121 million shares outstanding. This includes our outstanding options, unvested restricted stock units, and shares expected to be purchased under our employee stock purchase plan. Moving to slide 15. For 2026, we expect GAAP operating expenses to be between $600 and $650 million. We expect non-GAAP operating expenses, which exclude cost of revenue, stock-based compensation, depreciation and amortization, to be between $480 and $520 million. The anticipated increase in operating expenses relative to 2025 reflects the ongoing investment in the recently initiated clinical trials, as well as the inclusion of a full year of commercialization activities supporting Peltonify. Based on our current operating plans and cash position, we believe that existing cash and investments will be sufficient to fund our operations into 2030. This provides us with significant runway to execute on the commercialization of Palsonify, pivotal readouts for the ongoing clinical trials in carcinoid syndrome, adult CAH, pediatric CAH, and ADCS, and to achieve proof of concept for 9682. I'll now turn the call back to Scott for some closing remarks.
Scott: Thank you, Toby. To wrap up, Krenetics is well positioned for an exceptional 2026. We're simultaneously executing across our entire portfolio. We're driving the U.S. launch of Palsonify while actively advancing our global regulatory path. On that front, we're pleased to announce that today we received a positive CHMP opinion for Palsonify in the treatment of acromegaly, a milestone that reflects both the strength of our data and the potential benefit for patients in the EU. In addition, We continue advancing clinical trials of paltucetine, etimelnet, and our novel non-peptide drug conjugate CRN9682 across multiple endocrinology and oncology indications. Finally, in discovery, we're rapidly advancing our early stage assets to fuel the next wave of growth. We remain committed as ever to transforming the lives of people with endocrine diseases and creating long-term sustainable value for all of our stakeholders. Finally, I'd like to say that 2025 was a great year. Thank you to everyone who helped us achieve our most substantial year yet. With that, I'll turn it back to the operator to begin Q&A.
Operator: Operator? Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, please press star followed by two. When preparing to ask your question, please ensure your device is unmuted locally. First question comes from Maxwell School with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Matt: Please go ahead. Great. Thank you very much for taking my question, and congrats on all the progress. So now that you've outlined the Phase 2-3 design today, were there any key learnings from the Lancet GRACE data or the FDA's relic-correlant PRL that informed how you're thinking about clinically meaningful endpoints or just overall study structure? Thank you.
Scott: Thanks, Matt. I'll let Alan handle that question. Thank you.
Alan: Well, actually, so the basic structure of a Cushing's disease study is well-precedented. The primary endpoint, for example, is known to be normalization of urine-free cortisol for drugs in which you can measure cortisol as the biochemical marker for Cushing's disease activity. Relacoralent and other glucocorticoid receptor antagonists actually prevent endocrinologists from using cortisol as a marker of activity because they block the glucocorticoid receptor and result in compensatory rises in cortisol. So it's a different metric, I would have to say. In the case of the glucocorticoid receptor antagonists, you have to use sort of downstream surrogates like measuring the improvement in glycemia that can be seen when you treat Cushing's. In our case, I think we can measure both cortisol itself as well as important corollary clinical outcome benefits like improvements in glucose and improvements in blood pressure, et cetera.
Matt: Great. Thank you.
Operator: We now turn to Yasmeen Rahimi with Piper Sandler. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Yasmeen Rahimi: Good afternoon, team. Congrats on the equilibrium study initiating and the very innovative design. Just wanted to ask a question on Pelfontify. I would love to maybe get color around how maybe starting script shaped up into January and February. And if you saw any trends, just trends going from December to the beginning of the year. And I'll jump back into the queue.
Scott: Yeah, thanks, Yaz. Look, I'm super pleased with the launch of Talsonify. I'm particularly pleased by the stories we're hearing back from prescribers and patients and the real world experiences that are starting to accumulate. And I think you'll start hearing about those experiences now that people are out there starting to think about case series and other types of reports, and I'd look forward to that, you know, throughout the year and in the coming years, actually. So I don't really want to get into quantitative comments on trends for the quarter. You know, it's still early days, and we have a lot of work to do, but generally, I'm very pleased that patients are starting to benefit from the hard work we've put into this for the last many, many years.
Isabel: Yes, we are very pleased because our strategy is really resonating. Efficacy first is an important message for us. And what we are hearing back from physicians and patients is that particularly the FASM set of action and the symptom control are resonating. The fact that it works in two to four weeks is really allowing the physicians to have an early positive experience as well as the patients. So we are focusing on execution across the board, activating the patients, activating the physicians, and continue to engage with payers successfully. Thank you. Thank you.
Operator: We now turn to Alex Thompson with Stifel. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Alex Thompson: Hey, great. Thanks for taking our question and congrats on the quarter as well. Maybe as a follow-up here, could you comment as to whether you think sort of this 200 enrollment form that you recorded in 4Q is a reasonable run rate moving forward? Is that bolus or are you seeing consistency with what you saw in 4Q? And if you're not able to sort of answer that, can you talk about the sort of time from enrollment form to commercial therapy? Thanks.
Scott: Yeah, Toby, why don't you respond?
Toby: Yeah, I think, you know, it's premature to sort of comment on extrapolating that 200 enrollment form. We feel very pleased about that number. And just because there's a lot of headwinds and tailwinds that you have. You have at the beginning of a launch, there's some patients who were on our open label extension program who came on to commercial supply. But then you have kind of continued momentum through increased field interactions going forward. I think on your second question, you talked about the time it takes from the Quick Start patient program as well.
Alex Thompson: Yeah, I guess, you know, from when you receive your enrollment form to when you're getting on reimbursed therapy or on Quick Start, how long is that?
Toby: Yeah, you know, we haven't really guided to that. What we're really pleased to say right now is that at the initial point of kind of measurement, About 50% of the patients are reimbursed for commercial or Medicare, Medicaid, and the other 50% go on to that Quick Start program. We have a few touch points along that way, and because it's relatively early days in the launch, it's difficult to kind of predict how long those patients will come off Quick Start and be on reimbursed care. But the first bottle they get is for 30 days, and then we have check-ins every 15 days thereafter.
Alex Thompson: Thank you.
Operator: We now turn to Tyler Van Buren with TD Cohen. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Tyler Van Buren: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Congrats on the progress and enjoyed the prepared remarks on ADCS. Just maybe I could fit in one more on the launch, but a little bit less so on the near term, a little bit more on the medium term. Just over the course of the year, What do you expect a cadence to look like? Is it going to be lumpy because it's kind of an orphan launch? Or is it going to be more linear or exponential as we exit the year? Curious to get your thoughts on that. And second, since you mentioned the zero cost inventory, can you tell us what level of sales that inventory equates to roughly?
Scott: Yeah, thanks, Tyler. You know, so I did a lot of biophysics earlier in my career, and we were trying to fit curves to data points. And I can say I suspect it'll be lumpy, but I don't think there's enough data to start fitting an exponential or a linear curve to this yet. You know, the teams out there every day, we're getting great uptake around the country with a broad set of prescribers, and they're getting more comfortable with it. But we've got other things coming up. It's, you know, we had a pretty good snowstorm this last week and that that showed up a little bit. So I think it'll be lumpy. And, you know, we're we're experimentalists at this point, not theoreticians. You want to comment a little more, Isabel?
Isabel: Yes, you know, we are on target for our goal to become the number one acromegaly treatment in the future. And we are continuing in our execution that we had described before. First, we are focusing on the switching of the market and naive patients. Then we want to focus on expanding the market. We don't only want to have patients on Palsoni 5, but we want to help transform care and elevate care as a premier endocrinology company that we want to be. We want to be the partner of choice. So, so many patients have lost hope and are not on treatment that we think we can bring them back. So, as physicians and patients gain experience with our drug, and given that the drug is delivering better, even better in the clinical trials in the real world, we expect that we will be able to continue to expand the marketplace.
Toby: And maybe to your second question, Tyler, on the cost of product revenue. You know, I'm so glad you asked that question. It always makes a CFO happy. And we have a little bit additional details on our Form 10-K that we just recently filed. So as you note in our income statement, we have about a million dollars of cost of product revenue noted in worth quarter. And in page 72 and thereafter on our Form 10-K, We broke that down a little bit more and we said that there was about $826,000 related to manufacturing readiness and a second slot supplier qualification. And then another $250,000 of that $1 million allocated towards sort of packaging distribution fulfillment. We noted also that there was less than $100,000 related to the zero cost inventory that I referred to in my prepared remarks. So looking forward, we kind of expect cost of product revenue. If you were to do apples to apples, you would see of that $5.4 million, you would see about that $250,000 and that less than $100,000 of being cost of product revenue.
Tyler Van Buren: That's awesome. Thank you.
Operator: We now turn to Gavin Clark-Gartner with Evercore ISI. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Yashan: Hey, this is Yashan for Gavin. Thank you for taking the question. Just a quick one on Pelsonify. We were just wondering how pair dynamics are looking so far, and specifically if you're noticing any significant pushback on the pair side or new cadence in terms of step edits to get on Pelsonify. Thanks.
Isabel: Thank you. So we are very pleased with how market access is progressing, and we don't see real barriers to treatment, so that's very positive. We have most of our coverage already based on our labels, so our prior authorizations are proceeding, and we're proceeding well with medical exceptions as well. So we continue to monitor the marketplace and engage with the payers, and if we ever have a step edit, We moved very quickly from the coverage of treatment to a clinical review, and that had moved very fast in the process. So, so far, as we announced in fourth quarter, 50% of the claims have been reimbursed, and 50% of them moving to Quick Start, and we remain committed to move that Quick Start in less than the average of rare diseases, less than 57 days. Great.
Yashan: Thank you.
Operator: We now turn to Brian Scorney with Baird. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Luke: Hi, team. Thanks for the question. This is Luke on for Brian. So on the ADCS study, there's a mention that the phase three endpoints may change based on phase two data. I suppose is that something that's agreed on in advance with FDA? And can you help us understand what would trigger this change?
Alan: Yeah, thanks for the question. I think the main purpose, one of the main purposes of the Phase 2 part is to find the right dose for Phase 3. And then in Phase 3, it would be a traditional prospective parallel group placebo-controlled comparison trial. The primary endpoint is pretty much set by the FDA, and that is the percentage of patients who achieve a normal urine-free cortisol at the end of treatment. This is a 24-hour urine collection, which sort of measures the integrated output of cortisol over that period of time. And the hurdle for the study is to show there's a statistically significant increased proportion of patients who achieve that goal on drug versus placebo. Yes, what we will learn from phase two is the dose. It is very unlikely we would change that primary endpoint, however, for phase three.
Operator: Our next question comes from Joe Schwartz with LeeRinc Partners. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Joe Schwartz: Hello, Cornettasins. Thanks for the update. I was actually curious on 9682 and wondering if you can give us any insight into how you're selecting patients for the BRAVIS trial. Are you, do you have a working hypothesis for, particular biology that are more likely to respond to it based on the turnover of their disease or their SST receptor density? Have you detected any signals in preclinical data? And how do you hope to put it relative to current options? Thanks.
Scott: Thanks, Joe. I got to say 9682 is currently the apple of my eye. The compound is something we worked so hard on, both from a concept and from a development and an optimization point of view. And the patient selection is really very simple. We have a basket study with all kinds of different patients with somatostatin-2 receptor-expressing tumors. The core criteria is they have to have, on a somatostatin PET scan, higher density in tumors compared to the liver. And they have to have progressive disease, or why would they come into a clinical trial like this? And we're very pleased that the reception by the community has been strong and the screening queue of patients is always there. So we're just working our way through it. In terms of preclinical models, we showed some fabulous data with essentially small cell lung carcinomas, which are a high-grade lung neuroendocrine tumor. We've done some other tumor models, but so many people have cured tumors in mice that we're now at the real point where we're looking at these different tumors in humans. And the reason we designed this study is in such a broad way is we want to make sure we capture the different populations of patients who can benefit. And as a reminder, it's not just neuroendocrine tumors of which, you know, it'll range from relatively slow growing neuroendocrine tumors, grade one or grade two, up to more aggressive grade two or three, and even up to neuroendocrine carcinomas or like small cell lung is a very aggressive point of view. But we'll also be looking for patients with meningiomas, which are almost always somatostatin receptor positive and often very difficult to treat. We'll be seeing perhaps some HR-positive breast tumors, head and neck tumors. And as we start working our way up the dose escalation, defining the tolerability profile, We may start to see some hints, but what we'll really look for is signals when we get into those expansion cohorts. And it's, as you saw from the trial design, it really allows us to bring in any type of patient with SST2 positive tumors.
Operator: Thank you. We now turn to John Walban with Citizens. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
John Walban: Hey, thanks for taking the question. A few on equilibrium. Wondering how you're thinking about disclosure data from the phase two before the phase three, if the same patients are going to be able to roll over, and if you discussed it all with FDA, a randomized withdrawal design, and any advantages and disadvantages to what you landed on here. Thanks.
Alan: Thanks for the question, John. So, actually, the phase two part of the ADCF study is a three-month treatment experience, and when they finish that, they would be eligible to roll directly into an open-label extension study, those patients. When we get into phase three, the same thing. It will be new patients who would also, when they complete that treatment period, be eligible to roll into the same open-label extension. You know, we have certainly looked at the history of ADCF, development of drugs for Cushing's, and randomized withdrawal has been done in the past. For example, LINC3 was one of the registrational trials for Ocelotorstat. A lot of methodologic problems with that kind of study design, and I think, you know, most in the regulatory community would consider what we're planning here a prospective parallel group trial placebo-controlled as sort of the most definitive demonstration of drug safety and efficacy. There are carryover effects to worry about in randomized withdrawal designs that you do not have to confront here, and I think this is just a cleaner study.
John Walban: Okay, and then when you have the Phase II results, will we be learning just what dose you'll be moving forward, or will you be giving out data on the endpoints as well?
Scott: Well, I think it's a little early to be too specific, but I do think that we'll want to communicate Phase 2 results at an appropriate scientific conference. You know, it's important for the community to realize that the experiences we're seeing in phase two to help motivate investigators and patients to sign up for phase three.
John Walban: That makes sense. Thanks, Scott. Thanks, Alan.
Scott: Thank you.
Operator: We now turn to Catherine Delarusso with LifeSci Capital. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Catherine Delarusso: Hi, team. Congrats on the quarter, and thanks for taking the questions. Maybe another one from us on the BRAVUS study. Just a couple of questions. I guess if you could comment on what we can expect from an initial data readout here in terms of, you know, metrics and cohorts we can expect to see. And then maybe on the bar for safety, what are your internal benchmarks that you're striving for? And I guess how does that relate to whether or not you pursue a PRRT-naive versus experienced patient populations going forward?
Scott: I'll take the last part, and you want to take the first part, Ellen? So, I don't think PRRT is a prerequisite or really that relevant for 9682. PRRT is great and it demonstrates that, you know, somatostatin targeted therapies are really important in these populations. but it's not for everyone and it's not always easy to get. And so we're not requiring people to step through it or, anyway, I'm just, just want to remind folks that this is a much more democratic therapy than a radiotherapy.
Alan: And let me just add though that, you know, in a phase one oncology trial, traditionally, you would be enrolling patients who've been through other therapies, including things like PRRT in the past. And these are patients often who are sort of out of the conventional options at this point in time. But I do agree, though, with time, in theory, this mechanism of action, it could be sort of a non-radioactive PRRT someday where it is used sort of in an earlier stage of treatment than we would test in a phase one trial. In terms of what we're looking for, you know, we're in a dose escalation phase now in this study, and we are, you know, traditionally in an oncology study, we would stop when we get to a maximally tolerated dose. These days, you don't necessarily have to go that far, but in general, We want to see the primary sort of endpoint for this part of a study is safety and toleration. We hope this would be fairly well tolerated for all the reasons we've been through in terms of why this kind of approach might result in, you know, not only an effective, well-targeted therapy, but also a well-tolerated one. But, you know, of course, we also, as part of the clinical care for these patients with sort of advanced cancers, they will also be having regular imaging studies, CT scans or MRI scans to measure the size of their tumors. And we follow formal resist criteria to understand if there are stable disease, partial responses, or any, you know, according to the standard resist criteria, we would classify this. This is kind of a long-term prospect, though. Many of these tumors are on the slow-growing side. So that kind of response data will take time to evolve over time, but certainly we hope to have enough information coming out of this dose escalation study to go into the expansion part of the protocol where we would enroll more patients with the most likely to respond tumors, including some of these non-neuroendocrine tumor SST2 positive kind of tumors that we know of, such as meningioma. I hope that's helpful.
Catherine Delarusso: Yes, absolutely. Thank you.
Operator: We now turn to Dennis Ding with Jefferies. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Dennis Ding: Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. I have two on the NDC. Number one, what's the big picture strategy here? And I'm curious if you plan to be a major player in oncology, like If you see good activity in HR-positive breast cancer or small cell, is that an area you would move aggressively into, or is your priority to remain mainly in endocrinology and in endocrine-related tumors? And then number two, for the phase one, I'm assuming you'll get a lot of nets. So how does SST2 expression change in the second and third line, and there's any difference in patients who have had experience with Lutathera versus those who didn't? And if you can comment on the ORR for chemo in this late line setting that we should be thinking about once you go into dose expansion, that'd be helpful. Thank you.
Scott: Thanks, Dennis. Yeah, so this is Scott. I'll take the big picture and then hand it off to Alan for more about the expression. So I'm really interested in this whole notion of using small molecule targeting for variety of payloads. And I think it offers just some core benefits compared to antibody targeting or peptide targeting, for example. As you know, with an antibody targeting, you're always going to be limited to a relatively long time in circulation. You're going to be limited by the types of epitopes you can address. You're going to be limited by bioconjugation reactions to the linkers and payloads that are suitable. And all that goes away when you just stay with small molecule chemistry like 9682. And we first pioneered this idea in the radiotherapy space and spun out Radionetics, which is doing very well, thank you very much. And now we're continuing in the non-peptide space for First, neuroendocrine tumors, as you say, I do think because of the way the radioimaging is used and radiotherapies are used, the bulk of those patients in routine care are neuroendocrine tumor patients, but that's growing pretty rapidly outside of that. And the general strategy is to see where the science and the medicine takes us. So I expect this to take us outside of our core neuroendocrine tumors, which is 100% synergistic with the carcinoid syndrome program. And as I think about it in discovery, we are just beginning with this platform. So I can imagine additional types of payloads, maybe targeting SST2 first, because it may be that this payload may not be for all SST2-expressing tumors. But we're also exploring other types of targeting because GPCRs that recognize these peptide hormones are often very difficult to target with antibodies. And we're looking at various different types of payloads. What else can we do? So it's a blue sky area of research, and I'm very excited to see where it goes. So I talked for a little while, Alan, but maybe you want to address about line of therapy and expression.
Alan: Yeah, it's a really good question. Is there any change in SST2 receptor expression over time as patients receive various treatments. And what I can say is that one of the eligibility criteria for this phase one study is positive SST2 receptor expression as documented on clinical receptor nuclear medicine imaging studies that DOTATATE kind of scans. So we know... As part of the screening, not just historical. Correct. So patients have to have known SST2 expressing a tumor at the time of enrollment into our study. So we know they're still there in our patients. I think as a general rule of thumb, it may depend on what kind of tumor you're talking about, but certainly the well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, generally the SST2 receptors hang around for a long time.
Dennis Ding: Thanks. And then...
Operator: We now turn to Catherine Novak with Jones. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Catherine Novak: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions. Thinking about CAH, you know, now that prescribers have had about a year of experience with chronicity, are you hearing anything from them about reimbursement or price point? Do you anticipate having similar pricing power when it comes to your launch in CAH? And similarly, do you anticipate having different price points for pediatrics and adults? Just wondering what we can learn from their launch so far.
Scott: Yeah, thanks, Catherine. I think it's premature to really think about pricing at this point in the game, but we're definitely doing our work to make sure we illustrate the full potential value of the molecule in our clinical program. What I can take away from the chronicity launch is it's first new drug for CAH since glucocorticoids, and it's been doing quite well. And I think there's a hunger for new agents. And I think that, you know, based on the pharmacology we've seen so far, Atsumana will be able to do things that no other agents can do for these patients. So I'm excited to expand this in the open label extension we have going now, where we should have 20-something patients, be able to talk about them at some point in the not-too-distant future. But also, I've got great enthusiasm from the investigators I've met and the patient communities I've met for our Phase 3 program in CAH, and I really look forward to being able to complete that enrollment and start talking about data as soon as we can.
Catherine Novak: Fantastic, Scott. Thank you.
Operator: We now turn to Douglas Sao.
Scott: We have some more juice to squeeze from that orange.
Operator: We now turn to Douglas Sao with HC Wainwright. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Douglas Sao: Thank you very much. Thanks for taking the question. Maybe, Isabella, just as a start, I think you indicated that about 50% of patients are initiating therapy on the Quick Start program. I'm just curious if you have Any insight or perspective on how we should think about how that might evolve over the next year or a couple of years? You know, would you anticipate we sort of stay at that level or should it trend down? And then I have a follow up on 9682. Thank you.
Isabel: Yes, you know, over time, the Quick Start program will be less prominent as we get more access, direct access in formularies. So we are expecting that, you know, perhaps within, I think, 18 months we'll have the program, but eventually, you know, to transition to just paid treatment. So that's how I see the evolution of the plan.
Douglas Sao: Okay, great. Scott, to your point that sort of 96 to 82 is sort of now the apple of your eye, and I think this is the most you've talked about sort of an interest in terms of expanding on this platform. And I guess I'm just curious, you know, how we should think about or how you're thinking about sort of the pace of innovation on this side of the business versus sort of your initial focus on sort of endocrinology.
Scott: Oh, so thanks, Doug. Great question. We are still really committed to endocrinology. Don't take this as anything other than, you know, the newest and shiniest drug in our pipeline. And I'm really looking forward to seeing something come from it. But we are working very hard to expand the endocrine side of the business. One of the things I've been learning as we've launched and I've been doing ride-alongs with some of our salespeople and our MSLs is how useful it will be in the future for us to walk into an office and be able to talk to them about their various types of patients, their acromegaly patients, their Cushing's patients, their CAH patients, and some of them even see neuroendocrine tumor patients. I think there's a huge synergy there. But now as we start moving from neuroendocrine tumors and carcinoid syndrome into perhaps treating the tumors themselves, I just do want to see where this technology can take us. So it's early days. We're waiting to see how 9682 performs and what we can learn from it. It's a whole new platform, but... You know, we're planting seeds, and this tree should bear fruit one of these days.
Douglas Sao: Okay, great. That's really helpful to hear. Thank you, and congrats on the harvest.
Scott: Thanks, Doug.
Operator: And our final question today comes from Andy Chen with Wolf Research. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Andy Chen: Hey, thank you for taking the question. Just curious if you can comment on your competition's growth, recent revenue trajectory in CAH. What do you think is happening here? Do you feel like you have a greater opportunity, or do you think you have a lesser opportunity given the recent trajectory? Do you think it's slowing down? And if you have any commentary on whether you think certain patient segments are tougher to capture, that'd be great. Thank you.
Scott: Oh, yeah, no. I mean, we don't have a field force out there talking to docs about CAH, so I think that's more a question for the folks out there with that drug. But I will say that I do think the things we're learning about acromegaly and the acromegaly prescribers and the community endocrinologists, many of whom do see CAH patients, and the capabilities we're building are directly transferable to the CAH patients patient population. So it's part of the whole synergy that we've thought to build both in our pipeline and then later in the marketplace by focusing on endocrinology, which is something that, you know, Alan and I have done our whole careers and many others here in the company have spent their whole careers on. We've consistently talked about we are not just a sponsor coming in with a new molecule and plan to be gone from endocrinology. We're part of that community, both as sponsors of clinical trials and now selling drugs, but also in research and collaborations.
Isabel: So, yes, you know, for me, Palsonify is the beginning of the story, and you can see it's a highly differentiated profile. And if you start looking at the competitive market in acromegaly, for instance, today we published in the Journal of Clinical Biotechnology our indirect treatment comparison where we showed superiority, even statistically significant superior to a place. So we are prepared to deliver as well in our future molecules as well. This is just the beginning.
Toby: Thank you.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our Q&A and today's Chronetics Pharmaceuticals fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results. We'd like to thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect your lines.
