Hello, everyone. I'd like to thank you all for attending the 2022 full year financial results conference call. I'm here with Robert Lutjens, our Head of Discovery Biology. I draw your attention to the press release and the financial statements issued earlier today, which are available on our website. I also draw your attention to our disclaimer. We will be making certain forward-looking statements that are based on the knowledge we have today. I will start this conference call by giving a quick overview of our recent achievements before handing over to Robert, who will review our clinical and preclinical pipeline. I will then review our 2022 full year financial results. Following that, we will open the call for Q&A. Our partner, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, continued to make excellent progress in executing their global Phase II study in epilepsy patients with ADX71149, [indiscernible] in Part 1 of the study and progress to Part 2. An independent interim review committee has been established by Janssen to review the data from Part 1 and make a recommendation on the future direction of the study. We expect to announce the recommendation from this independent interim review committee early in Q2 this year. We continue to believe there is value in dipraglurant and have substantially completed our evaluation of the future development. We have identified post-stroke recovery and pain as interesting areas of future development in addition to PD-LID. However, we are currently pursuing collaborative arrangements to advance future development. We continue to be excited by our preclinical pipeline, which has made excellent progress, with multiple clinical candidates rapidly advancing towards IND-enabling studies. We've selected a drug candidate in our mGlu7 NAM program for stress-related disorders including posttraumatic stress disorder and are progressing this drug candidate into IND-enabling studies. We expect to start dosing in…

Thanks, Tim. [indiscernible] ADX71149 Phase II epilepsy clinical study. As a reminder, 71149 is a metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 2 or M2 positive allosteric modulator discovered in partnership with Janssen Pharmaceutical and by Johnson & Johnson Company using Addex's proprietary allosteric modulator platform. Janssen have extensively profiled ADX71149 in preclinical models of epilepsy and have demonstrated both stand-alone antiepileptic efficacy and a strong synergistic effect in combination with Keppra. There is a large market opportunity as more than 2 million patients are taking Keppra and many have breakthrough seizures or a suboptimal response. Furthermore, despite several available treatment options and many of research [indiscernible] of alternative or improved therapies to treat the seizures. Interestingly, Keppra, while being largely sold as a generic, is still leading the market of anti-epileptics with close to $1 billion sales revenue per year. Janssen has completed an extensive preclinical and clinical package and are currently running both a Phase II study and an open-label extension study in epilepsy patients. It is important to note we have significant economics in our deal with Janssen. We have prelaunch milestones of EUR 109 million, low double-digit royalties on net sales and Janssen are responsible for all costs. Now I would like to show you some of the preclinical data. I mentioned the synergistic effect obtained in preclinical models of epilepsy. Here is the compelling data obtained by our Janssen colleagues in the 6Hz model, a highly predictive model of epilepsy, with a combination of 71149 and Keppra and which has been instrumental in the decision taken by Janssen to move this program into epilepsy. The left graph shows how the effect of levetiracetam is dramatically increased in presence of a low dose of 71149, producing a 35-fold shift in efficacy. And the right graph shows the result obtained…

Thanks, Robert. I'll now switch to an overview of the financials. Starting with the income statement, we recognized $1.4 million of income in 2022 compared to $3.2 million in 2021. The primary source of revenue is research funding from our collaboration with Indivior, which we expect to reduce in 2023 as drug candidates move to late-stage clinical candidate selection, and our partner takes over more of the operational execution of the development. In terms of expenses, R&D expenses were $14.7 million in 2022 compared to $12.8 million in 2021. The increase of $1.9 million is primarily due to the increased R&D outsourced activities linked to clinical candidate, so clinical activities that wasn't going in the first half, as well as, to a lesser extent, share-based compensation costs. Given that we have terminated clinical activities in 2022, we expect R&D expenditure to be significantly lower in 2023. G&A expenses were $7.3 million in 2022 compared to $5.8 million in 2021. The increase of $1.5 million is due to increased share-based compensation costs. Finance loss of $0.3 million in 2022 relates primarily to exchange gains due to the strengthening of the U.S. dollar over the period. Now to the balance sheet. Our assets are primarily held in cash, and we completed 2022 with CHF 7 million of cash held in Swiss francs from equity offering. Other current assets of $0.9 million primarily relate to receivables from Indivior and R&D prepayments. Current liabilities of $3.3 million as of December 31, 2022, decreased by $0.9 million compared to the end of last -- 2021 and primarily relate to R&D payables and accruals. Noncurrent liabilities of $0.1 million as of December 31, 2022, decreased by $1.4 million compared to December 31, 2021, primarily due to decreased retirement benefit obligations calculated under IAS 19. Now to…

[Operator Instructions] The question comes from the line of Raghuram Selvaraju from H.C. Wainwright & Co.

So firstly, I was wondering if you could frame for us what Janssen might consider an unexpectedly positive outcome from the epilepsy proof-of-concept study. And in what context they might frame it as such, for example, from a competitive perspective from the standpoint of being able to combine the molecule with other existing antiepileptic drugs and so forth?

Okay. So where do I start? I think we have to remember that when Janssen started this study, they were going to recruit 60 patients and 2:1 randomized, and that was going to be 1 cohort. And they then modified slightly once they'd started, and now they have publicly announced on clinicaltrials.gov that they are going to have up to 3 cohorts. Now because of this, they're not stopping recruitment. And therefore, that's why they've established this independent interim review committee. So [indiscernible] Part 1. You'll remember that, as Robert mentioned earlier on in the presentation, the endpoint is -- the end of Part 1 is how many patients got to the baseline seizure count and how many didn't, and then how that is split between active and placebo. Now what we know from Janssen is that they're going to report to us a go/no-go decision. So we are not going to and I don't think Janssen are going to get much granularity from the independent interim review committee as they really don't want to unblind the study as they move other cohorts. Does that answer your question?

Sorry, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. No, no, that's very helpful. And I think what we wanted to get a better sense of was if there's likely to be a sort of upside surprise as it were from this clinical study result. Let's assume that the baseline is for a positive outcome, but what would constitute a positive upside surprise. But I think what you've done is frame it quite nicely. So we appreciate that. The second question is in relation to the M4 allosteric modulator in the context of xanomeline plus trospium data so far. And I was hoping that you could clarify a little bit, first of all, how you expect the allosteric modulation approach on the M4 target to potentially present advantages versus xanomeline plus trospium because, obviously, xanomeline as a single agent was not successful. That was the reason why they came up with this combination approach. And secondly, whether you think the xanomeline plus trospium clinical development programs represent an appropriate template for the future development of your lead candidate or if your lead candidate is going to follow a somewhat different path. And if so, why?

Yes. So maybe, Robert, you'd like to.

I'll answer the first question. Sure. So yes, I mean, it's a very good question. I mean the main, I would say, and first difference between Karuna's approach with xanomeline in that this is a, I would say, nonselective. It's an M1, M4 agonist. So its mechanism of action is activating the M4 receptor. Coming with a positive allosteric modulator, we know that we have all sorts of benefits compared to agonists, where we are helping the activation of the receptor, making the receptor more sensitive to its natural ligand asset [indiscernible] and therefore, also respecting the natural rhythm of receptor activation. So the other difference with xanomeline of our approach is that we have highly selective [indiscernible] compound that we have, where we demonstrate a high brain penetration. So that's, I think, in a nutshell, what is differentiating. And going forward, if you again, comparing an agonist approach versus a positive allosteric modulator approach, with an agonist, as long as the agonist is on board, we will be activating the receptor. And we know that this is a receptor that gets desensitized and gets internalized and so with a positive allosteric modulator. This can lead to tolerance and with a positive allosteric modulator, we have demonstrated that, not yet for the M4, but for some of the other positive allosteric modulator programs that we've worked on, but this is not happening. So we don't -- basically, we don't see tolerance appearing with -- when we're chronically testing the compound.

Yes. Regarding the clinical side of things, I think we'll be looking much more closely at Theravel because I mean they are developing a positive allosteric modulator on the M4 PAM. So we'll be watching very carefully what they're going to be doing in the clinic.

Just as a follow-on to that, I thought I would ask a somewhat provocative question. It's well documented that PureTech Health, which was one of the original inceptors of the company developing xanomeline plus trospium, has done very well with that investment. And my understanding is there is a historical link between PureTech Health and Addex. So I was wondering if you could perhaps comment on the degree to which PureTech Health is aware of your activities on the M4 allosteric modulation side and what their thoughts are as to what has already been demonstrated from a clinical success perspective vis-à-vis xanomeline and trospium.

I mean all I can say is we're having multiple discussions with multiple parties across our portfolio, and that includes the M4 PAM. I mean, as you can imagine the -- as you know, the Karuna data has certainly lit up the field, and there's a lot of excitement. There's been a number of deals already done on other M4 PAM programs. I mean there was a Neurocrine acquisition of the Heptares Sosei program. The Vanderbilt program, went to Neumora. But there are plenty of other CNS-focused pharma that are watching this space and discussing with us. That's all I can say.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from the line of [Peter Ellik] from [A-Consult]. Q – Unidentified Analyst: I have a very simple question. I noticed in the annual report that the compensation for the Board has almost tripled from '21 to '22 and for the executives, it has almost doubled in the same time. Can you explain why?

Yes. This is all linked to some reorganization of the share-based compensation program. So it's all noncash compensation. And it's driven by the IFRS 2 calculations that are linked to the reorganization of the equity incentive plan.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from the line of Edouard Riva from ZKB.

I will have 2 of them. The first one being as seen in the slide that you expect 2 IND-enabling studies for the GABAB, the one that Indivior is going to develop and the one you are going to develop in 2024. I was wondering why wouldn't this happen earlier? What are the steps that lead to the start of the IND-enabling studies?

Yes. So I mean this program has been extremely successful. It's generated a lot of molecules with different profiles. You may be aware that Astellas has a GABAB positive allosteric modulator, which is in Phase II clinical development for alcohol use disorder. This is the indication of primary interest to Indivior. And therefore, Indivior are profiling, many, many -- well, several compounds in parallel in multiple preclinical models and doing a very, very thorough job, in fact, a much more thorough job than we expected. And that's why, if you look back historically over the guidance, we are certainly delayed. And this is for good reason. And they are doing a very thorough job to select compound. Now the way the selection of compounds works is that Indivior needs to select the compound first before Addex is able to select -- until Indivior selects, Addex not able to select. But what we are doing is we are now profiling, I would say, at risk a number of compounds in some of the indications that we're interested in. We mentioned Charcot-Marie-Tooth, which we have profiled in the past, but we are now looking very closely at chronic cough and certain types of pain as well. And again, these are areas where we are getting some significant interest from potential business partners. And because this is carved out of the collaboration with Indivior, once we've selected compounds, we will actually be free to license them to partners should we get interest or develop them ourselves.

Understand. And my second question would be regarding ADX71449. Are you already recruiting for the second part of the study? Or are you waiting for the independent review committee?

Well, as I said, they are -- this is an open recruitment and as they say in clinicaltrials.gov, they're going to do up to 3 cohorts. We are able to say that cohort 1 has completed. And therefore, you can assume that patients that are being randomized are now being randomized into a second cohort.

And so those 3 cohorts are only for the second part, not for the first part?

Well, the study has a Part 1 and a Part 2. Cohort 1 was completed with 60 patients with a 2:1 randomization. And those 60 patients have completed Part 1 and those that didn't hit their baseline seizure count in that -- in Part 1, have now rolled over into Part 2. And the patients who did hit their baseline seizure count have been offered the open-label extension study.

Dear speakers, please be advised at this moment, we do not have any more audio questions, and we will hand over to the written questions. So now we have the first question from [Jesse Brockton]. Can you tell us how many patients from each group advanced from Phase I to Phase II in the seizure study?

So when you say Phase I to Phase II, you're talking about Part 1 to Part 2, I assume? The answer is we don't have any information on that.

Thank you. We have also another question from [Jesse Brockton]. Can you state with confidence that J&J will communicate the data with you and then us from the seizure study?

Yes. With confidence, we will get the data, and we will be able to communicate it. I have no information on timing though. So I can't give you any guidance on when that will be.

Thank you. Now we have another question from Jesse Brockton. Please give us a time estimate of the communication of the conclusions of the interim review board of the seizure study.

Yes. So the guidance on the reservation of the independent review committee is early in Q2 of this year.

Thank you. Now we have another question from Patrick Marquis. Which part, if any at all, of the EUR 109 million milestone payment from Janssen is coupled to that ADX71149 epilepsy Phase II study, Part 1, related to go/no-go decision?

We're not authorized to disclose any granularity around the EUR 109 million milestone. I'm afraid we're not authorized to disclose the answer to the question.

Thank you, dear speakers. [Operator Instructions] Dear speakers, there are no further questions at this time. And I would like now to hand the conference over to the management team for any closing remarks.

Well, thank you very much for attending the conference call, and we look forward to speaking to you on the next call. I wish you all a very nice day.