Newsfilter article unlocker

Okay, good morning. We're happy to be hosting Cavaletta Bio. With us today we have Dr. Steven Nickberger, CEO, Dr. Arun Dutt, the Chief Business Officer, and Steve Cavill, the Chief Commercial Officer. So to start, could you guys provide sort of a high-level overview of where resale stands, the overall strategy post-initiation of the pivotal myositis trial, and sort of key catalysts we should be focusing on for the second half of 26? Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for the opportunity. So Rezacel was the subject of multiple data presentations recently at ULAR in London, and we presented data on over 50 patients, and I think the takeaway is that we can reliably reset the immune system and give immunomodulator-free responses that are durable to the vast majority of patients we treat. The second major point is that we're beginning to develop insights from the translational data in the first month or two that predict whether or not the patient is going to actually reset. And in that vein, there was a very interesting poster presented on Friday out of ULAR. and really giving insight into what we believe are the predictors of durability based on all of the evidence that we've seen so far with Rezacel. And the third thing is we're able to innovate as a result of these insights, right? So our preconditioning-free regimens are starting to be given to more and more patients. In pemphigus and in lupus, we're doing dose-ranging studies to identify the best dose to go forward with without fludarabine and without cyclophosphamide in those indications, particularly in lupus, where the young women are the most sensitive to avoiding, most motivated by avoiding cyclophorphamide. So overall, Resicel looks to have an excellent tolerability profile, a very effective, reliable ability to reset the immune system, and the ability to deliver real advances for patients. So as we move into our myositis pivotal program now, we're excited to kind of layer out the next year or so. Nice. So, you know, kind of going down that vein, before we jump into the ULAR data, so for Rezacel, it's an autologous 4-MBB CD19 CAR-T. And, you Know, given the breadth of approaches being investigated in autoimmunity, how is Rezacell differentiated from not just competitor autologues CAR-Ts, but also allogeneics and bispecifics approaches? is sort of where does Resicel fit in the competitive landscape there? Yeah, thanks for the question. So among autologous CAR-Ts, let's start there. Nature Biotechnology had a review of all of the data that's previously been presented. It was about two months ago. And in this paper, ResicEL looked to have a side effect profile, CRS risk, both the frequency and the magnitude, ICANN's risk, and overall safety profile, tolerability profile, a resicel looks like it will be second to none in the autologous space. A very excellent tolerability and safety profile with the vast majority, 97% of patients, no ICANNS of any sort. You know, 94% of patience, either no ICANDS, which is about two-thirds of them, or if they have ICANNs, it tends to be a fever and not much else. So really excellent safety and tolerability profile to start with. So among autologous products, we feel really good because they're all pretty much effective in comparable ways, and the difference in autoimmune disease is going to be safety. So that brings me to InVivo, and I think I'm going to very quickly comment on bispecifics. Far better than rituximab. They will replace many of the chemotherapeutic or other agents that are currently used in these diseases. There'll be better therapy for many, many, patients. Chronic therapy, when added on to existing therapy, they'll be great. For all those patients, terrific. For patients who no longer want to be patients, you want to reset, and that's what we believe we can do reliably and well. In vivo, really interesting data presented recently, right? Legend had some CD1920 data that looked very promising for those patients that they treated. And in the Colonia data, BCMA targeting in vivo CAR, their data also looked very interesting. What neither of them has done yet is demonstrate safety over the long term, right? So any integrating product, I think, is, I don't know if it's a non-starter in autoimmune disease, but it's got a very high hurdle to prove safety, both in the short term and in the long term. And remember how safe resicel is compared to whatever else you're looking at in the future. That's the bar for safety. The other thing that needs to be proven is durability, right, and durability of treatment effect, not the persistence of the cells. So in the legend data, they rightly highlighted that the durability of the CAR persistence was 116 days. They still had CAR T cells. By 116 years, our patients are regaining their normal B cell population. So it's just a fundamentally different approach. Over the next few years, we expect to launch Rezacel for myositis, for scleroderma, for PC-free containing regimens and other indications, and that will be the standard against which they will be judged in safety and in durability. By the time these drugs first develop the right product for autoimmune, then actually become developed for those diseases, we will have four, five, six years of durability data Similar to the jacks against the TNFs, you need to have durability data to compete. You need tohave safety to compete, so I think there's a very long road ahead for the in-vivo autoimmune products, but it's thrilling what's happening in cancer. Yeah, no, I totally agree. I think it's avery interesting innovation, butit does take a long time to kind of get these things optimized, so for in-veo CAR-T. Now, jumping to the ULAR data, so last week you shared several important updates at ULар, So let's start with the data in myositis, as this is, you know, your lead indication. So you showed that five out of six dermatomyositis patients and three out of four patients with anti-sympathetic syndrome achieved immunomodulator-free remission at week 16. So could you frame this result in the context of read-through to your ongoing pivotal reset myositic study? Yeah, I'm happy to do that, Mark. Thank you for the question. I think a nice place to start is patients, when they're coming on this study, are discontinuing all of their immunomodulatory medicines prior to infusion of a single weight-based dose of Resicel. That's where we started in the Phase 1-2 study, and that's where the registrational study starts. Now, the way we designed the study, the registration cohort being an extension of the Phase 4-2 study, there is really quite a lot of overlap between the inclusion-exclusion criteria and the patient population in the Phase 1, 2 versus the registracional study. So with the data that you just quoted that we reported last week at ULAR, 80% of those patients and five out of six dermatomyositis patients, adults, and the first juvenile dermatomyicitis patient all were able to, at week 16, achieve either a moderate or a major TIS response while discontinuing and remaining off all immunomodulators for the duration of the follow-up. Now, not only that, but in those patients who achieve the primary endpoint, they all maintain their response through the latest follow-up, which we now are seeing in dermatomyositis as long as one and a half years. Now, that's an opportunity to not only, in our minds, achieve a positive registrational study where, if you assume very conservative assumptions on the control group, we need 50% of patients to achieve the primary endpoint. But more importantly, maybe I can turn it over to Steve for this point, as we start to see the emerging durability of resicel in dermatomyositis in particular, really shaping ourselves up to be favorable from a commercial and value perspective to generate the type of data that we need to have patients and the healthcare system overall benefit. But Steve, maybe I'll turn it over to you for that. Yeah, yeah. It's an important piece, right? So, you know, Stephen talked about the Nature Biotech article. You know, we're kind of clearing that first toxicity question around the program. Best in class, it appears to now. The second thing, and it, you know, we just have to wait this out to see how long these patients continue to respond. So now you're starting to see that, right, a year and a half. The reason why the year and half milestone is very important is in the private insurance side of the house, which is the overwhelming majority of payment for Resicel. This is obviously a very different patient population than the ones I've been involved with in cancer, which ist extremely important, and we could talk about that on the side. But the fact that the commercial insurers have been very clear in terms of the milestone that they would like to be seeing a minimal of a year, year and a half, and two years plus. Obviously, they'd like to see multi, multi years. We all would. But in terms of that initial milestone, and this is the important part of this point, though, we've done the research around this because we knew going into ULAR what the data was we were going to be presenting. So we did some research with payers as well as U.S. providers, hospitals. And what we did not present to them, which we will because we're building it right now, is the economic impact models that drug-free represents for them in this patient population. It's significant. So it's very exciting now from a payment perspective. We're starting now to clear that hurdle, that requirement around durability. And as we get closer to them and closer to our launch of the program, we'll be able to demonstrate the economic effect which is obviously going to have a lot of interest for them anyway. Gotcha. That makes a lot sense. So, you know, on the line of durability, you guys mentioned that durability in dermatomyositis patients is 1.5 years, but in ACEs patients, durability was more variable. And I was, you now, I was wondering if there's any sort of mechanistic differences or disease ideology that could explain the result and how you're thinking about treatment and responses for the ACEs subgroup. Yeah, absolutely, Mark. Just a little bit of context. So the way our registrational study is designed, it's a 17-patient study where the vast majority of the patients, 14 of them, will be adult dermatomyositis. The remaining three, antisensitase syndrome patients. That's a reflection of the prevalence in the U.S. where probably 80% to 85% of patients represent the adult dermatomicitis portion. So let's say 60,000 patients in the US roughly from a prevalence perspective. The remaining small piece of things represent the ACEs patients. I would say in those two different subtypes, what we are seeing, to your point, is divergence in what the durability appears to be. In the antisynthetase syndrome patients, these patients have rapid responses, deep responses, and at least in the phase 1-2 data, most of them are achieving the primary endpoint. However, somewhere between month 6 and onwards, and this is the case in our data and in the academic data also presented by Shett at ULAR actually this past week, it seems at some point in that journey, there is an emergence of disease activity that requires immunomodulatory medicines to help continue to control disease. Now, a lot of times these patients are significantly better off than when they originally started refractory to 3, 4, 5, 6 medications sometimes with severe active disease. However, what we are seeing is that the persistence of autoantibodies in many of these cases in this particular population may point to a CD19 negative subset of cells that may be responsible for continuing to drive some emergence of disease versus in dermatomyositis where it seems like when resicel is able to do its job completely but transiently deplete the B cell population, that is sufficient for maintaining those responses, at least in the patients we followed so far, through latest follow-up and as long as one and a half years as Steve referenced. So, in ACEs, it seems like there is, from a physiologic perspective, a difference in the mechanism of disease, which may allow for rapid and deep responses early, and some emergence or breakthrough of disease as we continue to follow. So it's still more to be learned, but those are some of the early findings. Got you. And sort of, you know, kind of understanding that finding, are there particular indications where you think, you know, a resin cell could be, you know, best applicable given, you know, like you're saying, there are CD19 cells that are, CD19 negative cells that aren't active in this particular subset? It's exactly, so it's a really good question. It's a good question, and it's exactly why we designed the studies across the portfolio the way we did. So each of our studies evaluate a single weight-based dose in cohort patients in phase 1, 2 studies. As we gather that data in that population, the ability to see how that data is and make decisions as a company based on that data to determine, does this make sense to extend to registrational study? Does it make sense? Does it continue evaluating? Does it makes sense that this should not be an indication where CD19 CAR-T should be developed? We came up with that design kind of as a cross-functional team. This is now three or four years ago, so that we could efficiently develop RezaCell broadly across the portfolio, and by using that same weight-based dose, extend the learnings in one indication across more, but still able to make independent decisions across each indication based on the data that we get. And so a great example here is in our myositis registrational program, we are now prioritizing juvenile dermatomyositis in addition to adult dermatomyicitis, because not only does the data seem to show that there's the opportunity for durable responses to emerge, it also allows us to become potentially eligible for a priority review voucher. So those are learnings that we've been able to sort of attain and apply into that study directly that's been, you know, I think really beneficial for us. Got you. So along for the pivotal study design, you recently initiated the registrational study in myositis. And if you can walk us through sort of the recent myositIS study design with any timelines for data, but also, you Know, given the recent changes in commentary from the FDA, could you provide any color on your FDA interactions regarding study alignment and point selection and your overall confidence in the single-arm study design? Yes. So a few highlights, and then I want to turn it over to C for an important feature here in terms of why the design is important for commercial uptake. Patient study, single- arm evaluating a weight-based dose of resicel, primarily dermatomyositis, now prioritizing the juvenile dermatomyicitis data, which we'll plan to submit when we submit the myositis VLA. Importantly in this study is the opportunity to evaluate outpatient dosing. And with the safety profile that Steve and Stephen talked about in terms of what is emerging for resicel, where in myositis we've had no ICANs observed whatsoever in the patients that have been treated to date, we've seen all patients either have no CRS or grade 1 CRS, a transient fever, across the portfolio so far based on the data reported at ULAR. All of this has helped us enable the ability to enable outpatient dosing in the registrational setting and in the Phase I-II expansion cohorts, actually. And maybe I can turn it over to Steve to talk about why outpatient dosing, there's no question from a patient and provider experience perspective, can be really positive. But maybe, Steve, you can talk about what that means for the commercial opportunity and the reduction of burden on the health care system. Yeah, I mean, normally side of care, you don't really, there's not a lot of conversation around that with a lot of product launches. However, with cell therapies in particular, it's been one of the biggest rate limiters for autocar T therapies for cancer. And if you look at just the treated eligible patient population in cancer therapies, you see anywhere between 20 to 25 percent of all eligible patients actually being treated. One of the challenges, the reason for that was that there was only so much inpatient capacity to treat these patients. So here you are basically, you know, you're launching into large patient populations and, you Know, the ecosystem cannot actually, you know, take those patients and treat them all as an inpatient administered product. So one of the key strategies behind RezaCell and the toxicity profile is what enables this to happen is to safely treat these patients in the hospital outpatient setting first and eventually to transition into the full outpatient sitting. And it's all predicated on this toxicity profile that was originally discussed by Stephen up front, is that you have now what appears to be the safest product in the class that's going to enable that to happen. So obviously, patients love being able to take it as an outpatient, right, of course. The hospitals love it because payment's much better for them. That's been an also rate limber for them, and the payers love this because now you're able to treat these patients and totally reduce total cost of inpatient admissions, and you're looking at, you know, taking from a million-dollar-plus patient administered in the inpatient setting and significantly reducing that cost point for a payer. So it's an exciting part of the launch, and it's a key focus for us as we move forward. For sure. Yeah, keeping hospital beds open is great for everyone. Absolutely. So what safety parameters are you monitoring, or what specific criteria are you tracking in the study to support an outpatient label, and what proportion of patients do you expect will be treated in the community outpatient setting upon a red cell launch. Yeah. You take peace, and I'll take doc. That's great. Let's do it. Yeah, sure. So from a safety profile or sort of parameters perspective, what are we looking at? It's really in the peri-infusion period, how is the patient being managed, and is this something that is suitable for the outpatient setting? Now, one of the things that we've been able to leverage, and this is for the guy on my right here, Steve, who led the effort at Legend with Carvicti, is there's already a significant outpatient infrastructure developed in the oncology setting for CAR-T. And that's with the safety profile across the products that is substantially more significant, more severe CRS and ICANNs, where self-therapists are now accustomed to understanding what the protocol is to manage CRS, what the protocol is manage ICAN. And already in the CAR-VICT-E setting, nearly half of new outpatients were being started or half of new patients starts were happening in the outpatient setting. With Resicel, we're seeing with a significantly more favorable safety profile in terms of lower CRS frequency, lower CRC severity, lower ICANN frequency in particular, a real opportunity to move much earlier in sort of the line of therapy, not the line therapy, but in terms how Resicels can sort of move early to launch in the outpatient settings. It's why we incorporated the option in our outpatient study to begin with. And maybe, Steve, you can walk through kind of how we see the transition to outpatient happening and how quickly what that speed looks like. Yeah, that's a key point. You know, we've talked about, you know, what Rue was talking about, my old program with CARVICTI, it took about three years to get to that point of about 50% or so new starts in the clinic for these hospitals. The rate limiter, again, that you start to run into is these patients are still extremely ill, these end-stage and even mid-stage cancer patients that many of these programs are treating historically. The beauty that I keep coming back to is the beauty of this program. These folks are ambulatory, they're younger, and they're working class, right? So they want to continue to continue on with their lives. The adoption sequence and outpatient here that we're starting to see in the research that we'RE performing based upon the profile that we have been demonstrating at ULAR, that data, is way faster than the three-year point that I referenced in terms of my old program. So you're going to, like I said earlier, you're going to see a very rapid adoption on the back of the infrastructure that's been created with Carvicti. Many of the sites are the same. And again, all the data that we're seeing that we are fielding right now is suggesting a rapid uptake there, so fast that we are looking at how do we safely now move this to your point about really community practice. Community practice, it's limited right now. You see it a little bit, it spotty with Carvicti. So the proof of concept's been established in really sick patients, okay? Like I said, it is our intention to follow the model that we created before, but really start to open it up. You have to do it. In order to reclassify these CAR-T therapies to really treat the patient populations to fulfill the potential of them, you have to be able to do that. It's the first time ever that a product like this had a profile to enable you to actually get there. Got you. So you touched on the inclusion of juvenile demyelocytosis patients. And given you have rare pediatric disease designation for a reticel in JEM, how many JEM patients will the pivotal study enroll? And also, could you talk about the significance here for both review timelines and capital infusion? Yeah. So we were fortunate enough to actually have, and I know one of your questions, Mark, was talk about FDA kind of discussion and how those are going. So I don't think we forgot it. but we can fold it into this question. I think the nature of the RMAT designation that we received long ago in myositis leveraged or provided us, afforded us the opportunity to have frequent interactions with the agency really over the last several years now. And one of those interactions was actually our Type C meeting back in April of 2025. And there was the point where in those discussions with the Agency, what was determined was that at the time of submission of the myositis BLA, they encouraged us to submit the available pediatric data in the population on the basis that if the PK PD looks similar in the pediatric population and the adult population, then that may provide the grounds for potential inclusion of the pediatric data, pediatric indication into the adult indication into the overall myositus BLA. And this is really only possible because unlike every other CAR T player in the field, we are advancing a weight-based dosing regimen. And that weight-base dosing regiment allows us to transition seamlessly into the pediatric population. It's why we opened up the study to juvenile myositis to begin with years ago. And so as we stand today, what our plans are are to submit the available juvenile dermatomyositis data at the time of submission of the adult myositus BLA overall. And it's one of the reasons why we narrowed in our guidance into 2H27 for the BLA submission for myositis because we want to ensure that we have robust 16-week and 52-week outcomes in that patient population to enable the maximum chance of inclusion of the pediatric indication into the initial BLA approval because that's what affords us the opportunity to have the priority review voucher. And what we can say from our early canvassing of the sites in juvenile dermatomyositis is that the physician urgency to treat and the patient and advocacy strength with which they advocate for something like Rezacel to provide immunomodulator-free outcomes for their patients, for kids who can go back to school, kids who can resume normal daily activities of life, is so strong that it was really a clear opportunity for us to be able to deliver for these patients and this population as a whole an opportunity to get Rezacell in the context of this initial registrational study and an initial, hopefully, initial approval. And on the capital infusion point? On the capital infusion point, yeah. Pediatric review. Oh, from the priority. Those priority review vouchers, if you look in the last probably three months, have three to six months, have sold anywhere from, you know, let's say $180 to $200 million on. Now this is multiple sales. I think for us as an emerging biotech company why that's important is if we are able to obtain the priority review review voucher at the time of approval that's now immediate non-dilutive capital that comes in and allows us to fund the business to fund a launch in a way that's really differentiated because most companies don't have that opportunity and so when we think about doing all the things that can help steve enable an excellent launch and when we can think about funding the business within myositis and within the broader portfolio that type of capital infusion really can come in handy yeah for sure it's really meaningful yeah yeah um so in the last few minutes i know we have several other programs to touch on, so we're going to pivot to Reset-SSC. Yes. So you additionally announced plans to initiate the single-arm registrational study in systemic sclerosis in the fourth quarter, and you showed strong data at ULAR demonstrating durable responses through Week 36 for that indication. Could you walk us through the key findings at ULR and the decision to pursue SSC as the second Res-Zell registritional study? Absolutely. So SSC is one of the highest burden in terms of mortality and morbidity of autoimmune diseases that exist in the landscape. I think you summarized it nicely, actually, in terms of what the key findings were. The one point I would add on is that in systemic sclerosis, what we saw pretty consistently is that the responses actually seem to increase in magnitude over time as patients remain off all their disease-specific medications. So the data we saw at week 12 versus the data we saw week 24 versus the data we thought week 36 and then even if you extend it out a little further to week 52, those responses seem to be increasing in magnitude over time. And for us that was an interesting finding consistent with the academic standard of care is with 52 weekend points for the two approved drugs in the is let's say at week 36 an average or a median 7.5% improvement in And that can be hard to contextualize, it just looks like numbers on a paper. But the two approved medications at week 52 in their registrational studies actually had FCC worsening in one at 52 weeks, and the other had FCC stabilization, which means from time zero to week 52, there was either no change in FCC, or the worsening was simply less than the worsened that you would have if you were not on that medication. Again, in contrast with Rezacel, what we're seeing is an improvement of 7.5% at week 36 across the patients that were identified, and that type of really unprecedented data across the field in terms of CAR-T enabling these sorts of outcomes is really what guided us, one of the main things that guided us to enable the registrational design that you just mentioned briefly. For us, it's a 25-patient single-arm study with a 52-week FPC-based endpoint in patients with ILD. And we think based on the FATE-1-2 data that's emerged, that really sets us up really favorably for what the registrational study could be, which we expect to initiate in the fourth quarter of this year. Gotcha. Just to repeat, all of that is after you discontinue all of your immunomodulators. There's not, I think, enough light shed on the outcomes that we are discussing about Resicel in those 50-some-odd patients. They're all in patients who frankly are no longer patients there's not taking any medicines anymore the vast majority of patients are no longer on any medication and when we talk about other modalities or you know other categories of drug remember those are all on top of existing therapy with chronic administration of the new and probably very expensive therapy right so So when you put it all together, the proposition for resicel in autoimmune disease, I think compares quite favorably on the safety and tolerability to, frankly, any alternative modality, any alternate therapeutic opportunity that you may have for these patients if they want to go off their medicines and they want to no longer be a patient. This is the one way you can get there. if I tell you that the primary side effect of Rezacel is safety related to a fever that occurs day 7 to day 12, in that range, in about a third of patients. Last time we saw an ICANS was about 14 or 15 months ago. Now, we may have one tomorrow, and we'll have them from time to time, but the risk of ICANS is, you know, we've dosed 50 or 60 patients in that period of time. This is not autologous CAR-T of the past when it comes to the safety profile or when it comes to value proposition. And then the flip side that we're not talking about today, but is our ability to industrialize and automate manufacturing and lower the cost of goods to among the lowest in the industry at launch. It's just something nobody's ever seen before. So I think it takes diving in to really explore each of these in order to understand the value proposition that is Rezacel. Yeah, another, I think, key value proposition in data you showed at ULR was around the no preconditioning program. And so for those unfamiliar, maybe, could you explain why eliminating preconditions could be such a key value composition for patients? Yeah, absolutely. So what we've established with Rezacell with precondicioning to start with, and this is in the 50-plus patients that Stephen just referenced that we presented, is an ability to reliably see an immune system reset. And we actually, in the translational poster on Saturday, defined what the immune system reset was, both from a B-cell depletion perspective and a B cell repopulation perspective. I know we don't have enough time to go into it, but it really is a poster worth looking into because those parameters are going to be key as we look forward to evaluate how other modalities do or don't achieve immune system resets, and for us, guiding our own efforts in the PC-free regimen. So what did we share in PC3? In the first two patients with lupus who were treated with the lowest dose of resicel without preconditioning, we saw in one of those patients, they achieved essentially the hallmark of immune system reset from a depletion perspective. And we saw another, the second patient achieve a 90% decrease in peripheral B-cell depletions. And so overall to us, what that demonstrated was similar to the patients that we reported in PEMFIGUS at that same lowest dose, we appear to be at a threshold dose where some patients respond, some patients may respond, but not completely. And for us, with the safety profile that we've talked about throughout this discussion, we believe really strongly that the opportunity to dose explore and find the optimal dose to achieve immune system reset and the subsequent clinical outcome for a sufficient number of patients to receive a PC-free regimen is there in front of us, and we're already enrolling at the next higher dose cohort in both pemphigus and in lupus. So really encouraged by that data, really encouraged for the opportunity it can provide patients. And here I do think it depends based on the indication or the disease. In lupis, I think what we can say is that the urgency to remove preconditioning is at an order higher than it may be in some of the other indications because of the demographics of patients that are affected. So by that, I mean most patients with lupus that are enrolled in our studies and across the field are women of childbearing potential. And when you can eliminate preconditioning from the regimen and ideally achieve similar sorts of outcomes, especially from a translational perspective, that then can lead to clinical outcomes that are similar. We now have the opportunity to differentiate ourselves from really every other player that's in the field of lupis, and again, really excited for that opportunity. Yeah, no, likewise, I agree. I think the and potential to get rid of preconditioning is huge for the field. Sort of in the last couple of minutes, could you just remind us of your cash runway and sort of how you're thinking about cash burn in the context of pivotal study expansion, expanding your programs, and also commercial build-out as you potentially get ready for the first Red Star launch? Yeah, sure. So after the – for those who aren't familiar, we recently completed $150 million financing, which included many of our current investors, a number of new large mutual funds, sovereign wealth funds, and Eli Lilly among the investors from a corporate perspective. With that cash, in addition to the cash on hand, brought us to about a quarter of a billion dollars of cash. That will take us well into 2027. And we expect that we'll be able to have, in 2027, the delivery of our pivotal data on myositis. We'll begin to see enrollment in scleroderma. We are not committing to specific timelines for presenting the preconditioning-free data, the PC-free data in lupus or in any other indication, partly because we recognize that this is incredibly important information and we are clearly leading the field. And frankly, from a competitive standpoint, we don't want to educate the world on what's going to work well in terms of dosing. The opportunity to break away from the field with regard to PC-free is paramount. So the timeline and nature of disclosure there is going to be more thoughtfully kind of created over time that makes sense i think that's a good place uh to end it thank you so much to the team really appreciate your time thank you thank you thanks mark appreciate it thanks buddy