Good morning. My name is Rob, and I will be your conference operator today. I would like to welcome everyone to the call. [Operator Instructions] I'd like to introduce Beth DelGiacco, Vice President, Corporate Communications and Investor Relations. You may begin your call.

Thank you. A press release was issued earlier today with our third quarter 2025 financial results and business update. This can be found on our website, along with the presentation for today's webcast. Before we begin on Slide 2, I'd like to remind you that forward-looking statements may be presented during this call. These may include statements about our future expectations, clinical developments, regulatory timelines, the potential success of our product candidates, financial projections and upcoming milestones. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by these statements. Argenx is not under any obligation to update statements regarding the future or to conform those statements in relation to actual results unless required by law. I'm joined on the call today by Tim Van Hauwermeiren, Chief Executive Officer; Karl Gubitz, Chief Financial Officer; and Karen Massey, Chief Operating Officer. Luc Truyen, our Chief Medical Officer, will be available during Q&A. I'll now turn the call to Tim.

Thank you, Beth, and welcome, everyone. I'll begin on Slide #3. At the start of the year, we set a bold growth agenda anchored in our long-term road map for value creation, Vision 2030. Today, VYVGART is delivering meaningful impact in 2 blockbuster indications with MG and CIDP. Our prefilled syringe is now approved in most major markets, fueling new patient and prescriber adoption. We've also made significant pipeline progress and will enter 2026 with 3 Phase III assets. At the same time, we are investing in our next wave of growth with 4 new molecules in Phase I development by year-end and a vibrant immunology innovation program driving future opportunities. Slide 4. Today, I'm joining you from AANEM in San Francisco, where we are engaging with the neurology community and sharing new data that reinforce our commitment to continuous innovation in rare neuromuscular diseases. I would like to briefly highlight several key data sets presented this week that underscore our leadership in gMG. VYVGART has set a high bar in gMG, driving rapid, deep and sustained responses. Our gold standard for patient impact is for patients to achieve minimum symptom expression or MSE. New data from the ADAPT subcu study showed that up to 60% of patients reached MSE with 83% maintaining it for at least 8 weeks, highlighting the durability of VYVGART responses. We also know that steroid reduction is recognized as a critical outcome for both patients and prescribers. Building on earlier data showing meaningful steroid reductions with VYVGART at 6 months, we now see this sustained through 18 months with over 55% of VYVGART patients reducing steroids to below 5 milligram per day. We also presented data from the ADAPT SERON study, which met its primary endpoint, showing significant improvement in MG-ADL at week 4 compared…

Thank you, Tim. Slide 8. The third quarter 2025 financial results are detailed in this morning's press release. We are proud to report an outstanding quarter, reflecting exceptional execution and sustained momentum in our business. In the third quarter, we reported total product net sales of $1.13 billion, marking a historic milestone for argenx as we surpassed for the first time $1 billion in VYVGART sales in a single quarter. We achieved growth of 19% or $178 million in product net sales when comparing to the previous quarter of this year and 96% or $554 million in growth when comparing 3Q on a year-over-year basis. If you look at the breakdown by region, product net sales were $964 million in the U.S., $60 million in Japan, $94 million across our rest of the world markets, including our partner markets and $9 million for product supply to Zai Lab in China. The product net sales in the U.S. specifically grew by 20% quarter-over-quarter, reflecting the impact of our investments in the PFS launch earlier this year. PFS is now firmly established as a growth driver in our markets, supporting our continued momentum in gMG and CIDP. The gross to net adjustments in Q3 and the net pricing in the U.S. are in line with the prior quarter. Next slide. Total operating expenses in the third quarter are $805 million, representing a 5% increase compared to the second quarter. Our R&D expenses increased by 9% or $28 million and our SG&A expenses by 4% or $11 million. Building on our solid revenue performance, we continue to invest in our growth opportunities. Therefore, expect our expenses to continue to grow in the single digits for the rest of the year. This will result in our combined R&D and SG&A expenses to land just north of $2.5 billion at between $2.6 billion and $2.7 billion. Cost of sales for the quarter is $109 million. Our year-to-date gross margin remains consistent at 11%. Our operating profit for the quarter is $346 million, and the quarterly financial income is $43 million, which results in profit before tax of $386 million. The year-to-date effective tax rate is 13%. After tax, the profit for the quarter is $344 million and $759 million on a year-to-date basis. Our cash balance at the end of the quarter, represented by cash, cash equivalents and current financial assets is $4.3 billion, which represents a nearly $1 billion increase in cash since the beginning of the year. I will now turn the call over to Karen, who will provide details on the commercial front.

Thanks, Karl. Let's go to Slide 10. As we close the year, it's inspiring to reflect on how far we've come since VYVGART's first approval 4 years ago, reaching more than 15,000 patients globally across 3 indications and 3 product presentations. We're transforming patient outcomes, redefining what patients can demand from their treatments and pioneering an entirely new class of medicine with our first-in-class FcRn blocker. This quarter is a continuation of delivering that transformative impact. Today, I'm excited to share how our commercial strategy continues to turn innovation into access and impact for patients and how we plan to sustain our growth momentum into 2026. Slide 11. Once again, the team has delivered an outstanding quarter, reflecting growth in all indications across all markets. The prefilled syringe is performing exactly as expected, driving increased VYVGART demand among patients and prescribers who embrace a more flexible treatment option. More than half of patients starting on PFS are new to VYVGART with the rest switching from Hytrulo vial or IV. Since the launch of PFS for self-injection, over 260 prescribers have written their first ever VYVGART prescription, expanding our prescriber base and setting the stage for continued patient growth. We've also strengthened payer access, securing additional policies to enable more patients to initiate treatment. Growth outside the U.S. is strong with the PFS approved in most major markets. I'm excited to now share how we're executing on our strategy to strengthen our MG leadership and build the momentum to establish an equally strong foothold in the CIDP treatment landscape. Slide 12. In MG, we have consistently delivered new patient growth for 15 quarters while executing on our strategy to unlock the full 60,000 patient opportunity, advancing 2 label expansion studies in seronegative and ocular MG and driving earlier adoption of VYVGART…

As the heart of our success is our commitment to transforming patient outcomes, with multiple pathways to realize Vision 2030, we're not just positioned for sustained growth, we are building a legacy of long-term value for patients and shareholders. We have the strategy, the signs and the momentum behind us. But most importantly, we have the passion and purpose to redefine what's possible in immunology. With that, operator, we'll open the call up to questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Rajan Sharma from Goldman Sachs.

Just one clarification actually just on the formulation mix. It obviously seems that the PFS is driving the growth. But could you just confirm that all of the other -- or the other 2 formulations are still growing underlying in both CIDP and MG? And then just on the pipeline, I know it's a little bit further out for you at the minute, but I'd be interested to get your perspectives on Sjogren's disease. We saw some Phase III data from Novartis ianalumab yesterday. I'd be keen to get your thoughts on that and how you think VYVGART could potentially differentiate and what represents a clinically meaningful signal?

Yes. Thanks for the question. Maybe I can take the first one on the PFS and Tim, if you want to comment on Sjogren's. So you're right, prefilled syringe is the major driver of growth this quarter, and that actually continues the trend that we've seen over time since Hytrulo launched or since we launched the subcutaneous version. Having said that, the IV does continue to be an important contributor to the business and to the results that we saw this quarter. There is definitely a segment of patients and physicians that prefer the IV option. So the fact that VYVGART has all 3 presentations, and they're all contributing to our performance is important for both -- for obviously, for MG, whereas for CIDP, the focus is on Hytrulo as approved in presentation. Tim, do you want to comment on Sjogren?

No. Thank you, Karen, and thank you for the question. So I think it's important and great news for patients, Sjogren's patients to see the Novartis data, which clearly showed a statistically significant win in Sjogren's. When we look at the efficacy, we believe a 2-point improvement is considered clinically meaningful, so there's definitely room for improvement. We have strong conviction, of course, in efgartigimod based on our own Phase II data and peer data in Phase II. This is a precision tool, which we believe is going straight after the circulating immune complexes instead of a more broad general B-cell suppression. So the data need to speak and the trial is well underway. Thank you for the question.

Your next question comes from the line of Tazeen Ahmad from Bank of America.

I wanted to get some color about how you're thinking about the CIDP launch. Specifically, our survey work indicates a high level of excitement from physicians to want to move efgart into frontline therapy ahead of IVIg. I wanted to hear what your feedback from the sales force is and what efforts would be needed in addition to what you are already detailing in order to make efgart the first-line option for patients in CIDP.

Yes. Thanks for the question, Tazeen. And we're hearing very positive feedback from prescribers about the CIDP launch as well. And what -- the feedback that we're hearing is that the real-world experience for CIDP patients reflects what we see in the clinical trials and importantly, around efficacy and safety. And then obviously, we have the convenience. You'll recall that in our clinical trial and in our label, we have the approved indication for all patients. And so what we're seeing at the moment is that the early experience is from IVIg switch patients, so 85% of our patients are coming from IVIg switch. But we are seeing some of the patients that are starting naive where they haven't started with IVIg, they're not switching and we're having -- just like in the clinical trials, we're seeing good real-world experience with that. So we see that we're at the beginning of the growth curve for CIDP. We see continued momentum. We see continued expansion of the prescriber base. And I think that over time, we'll start to see more penetration in the market across all patient segments.

Your next question comes from the line of Derek Archila from Wells Fargo.

Congrats on the progress. Just as the narrative shifts to VYVGART pivotal readouts in '26, I mean, can you give us a sense of the revenue potential for those indications and how they may compare to MG and CIDP? And I can sneak in a second, I guess, what diligence got you excited about pursuing Graves with VYVGART. I know there's been some debate about the unmet need there.

Yes. Thank you, Derek, and thank you for the question. What we have been saying publicly is that revenue potential-wise, each of these Phase III indications roughly represent an MG-like opportunity, and we will be giving more detailed information when we come closer to the market. You know that Graves has always been on our indication list. I think there's a clear biology rationale. It's established how you do the clinical trials, and we have been digging deeper into the unmet medical needs. So whilst it is true that it is a subset of patients doing well on the cheap available medication, there's a substantial subset of patients which are not doing well. And again, from that point of view, it may resemble MG, but a subset of patients is in bad need of an alternative medication because there's not much left once you feel the cheap available medication today. Thanks for the question.

Your next question comes from the line of Alex Thompson from Stifel.

Congrats on the quarter. I guess on the empasiprubart discontinuation in DM, I wonder if you could speak about sort of the trial issues, the enrollment issues you had there. Was that due to the IV presentation and how that compared to the myositis trial with efgartigimod? And maybe you could also comment on the CIDP, empasiprubart enrollment as well and if that's being affected?

Alex, thank you for the question. We have the benefit of having Luc with us, our colleague and Chief Medical Officer. So Luc, why don't you take the question on the discontinuation of DM and the excitement which we have about ALKIVIA.

Yes. Thanks, Tim, and thanks for the question. Yes. So most of the -- this is also a POC trial, Phase II trial that we were running, of course, in a highly competitive enrollment environment. And of course, it didn't help that C5 read out negatively. And we set the bar high for what we want to see, so our inclusion criteria are pretty robust to make sure that we can have a readout that would be predictable for Phase III. And the enrollment just stumbled on that. And then we, of course, have to make decisions within our portfolio with all the work we have, what we keep trying or what we say, okay, DM is an important indication and ALKIVIA during which DM enrolled pretty well. But right now, for the C2, we felt we had to reprioritize.

And then on your question on CIDP enrollment, we just started those empasiprubart trials, so are still too early to say on how our enrollment is projecting there.

Your next question comes from the line of Yatin Suneja from Guggenheim.

Just a quick one from me. With regard to the thyroid eye disease studies, could you just talk about the expectation in this indication, how you're thinking about the potential positioning? And then I think also just talk about -- is there a way to capture some of the TED patient population with Graves' study that you might be running now?

Yes. Thank you, Yatin. For TED, we decided not to disclose too much about positioning. I think we first need to wait for the data to speak. We think there is a convincing proof of concept out there from a peer molecule. And the jury is out to know how this mechanism of action is going to differentiate itself from the available mechanisms of action. And it's fundamentally different biology, fundamentally different mode of action, but the data need to speak for themselves. I think there is ample of room for improvement, both on the efficacy side and the safety side. And you know we're running this trial as well with the prefilled syringe. TED and Graves are basically presentations of the same spectrum, the same disease biology, underlying disease biology. And so with venturing into Graves, which we announced today, we are actually increasing our efforts in the thyroid space. Thank you for the question.

Your next question comes from the line of Yaron Werber from TD Cowen.

Congrats all. Really nice quarter. I have a couple of questions. Maybe the first one, can we -- any chance to get an update on 121, the IgA sweeping platform and then 213, the long-acting VHH of efgartigimod? And then secondly, maybe when we look at sales, sales essentially have now quarterly sales more or less doubled since about a year ago, as you noted, when you launched also CIDP and obviously, PFS is now launched. I'm just trying to get a sense, can you -- how much of the growth is driven by CIDP versus gMG?

Yes. Karen, why don't you start with the commercial question on the relative growth drivers that impact? And I will take the pipeline question.

Yes, absolutely, happy to. Yes, so you're right, we saw when you zoom out, nearly 100% growth year-over-year, as you said. And what we see in the underlying fundamentals of the business is strong growth across both MG and CIDP, both contributing to the growth that we're seeing for the quarter and over the long term. So if you look at MG, in particular, I think it's important to note, we're the #1 brand of biologic at this point, and we're growing faster than the market. And that market is expanding quickly with biologics being used earlier in the treatment paradigm. And then, of course, in CIDP, just a year out from launch, we're seeing expansion in our market share there as well. And I spoke earlier about the increased penetration into that market. So I would see -- I would say what you can expect moving forward is continued growth in both MG and CIDP, and contribution from across the different markets and geographies as well.

Thank you, Karen. And then, Yaron, on your question on the pipeline, which I really appreciate, both ARGX-121 and 213 are swiftly progressing through the Phase I studies. Remember, in the dose escalation, single dose, multiple dose, we are, of course, first and foremost, interested in safety and tolerability, but these are also molecules which are going to unveil their potential to the PD effect. So you know that the ambition level for ARGX-213 is to move to monthly dosing with an equivalent PD effect as VYVGART and no compromise on safety. And for ARGX-121, the IgA removal sweeper, the objective is to have a very fast and very deep IgA reduction. So these Phase I trials will disclose a lot about the potential of these molecules, they're on track, and I would say stay tuned for the first data disclosure soon. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] Your first -- your next question, sorry, comes from the line of Danielle Brill from Truist Securities.

Congrats on the quarter. Maybe I'll ask a question about the seronegative opportunity based on our conversation yesterday. Can you talk about your confidence in the opportunity from a commercial standpoint and the approval based on the subgroup data that you presented? And I'm also curious if you could share any MSE data findings given the importance of that endpoint to prescribers?

Thank you, Danielle, and we have the benefit of having Luc on the phone. So look, maybe you show some color, you share some color on the path into submission and then how -- from where you sit, the likelihood for an approval? And then maybe, Karen, you comment on the importance from a commercial point of view.

Yes. And Danielle, thanks for the question. So we are very excited by the outcome of the SELON study because we invested a lot in running the biggest trial in seronegatives with a rather innovative design, including diagnostic adjudication. And they really -- the overall results really enforces VYVGART's potential to really move the dial in this underserved population, as Karen already said. So we met the primary endpoint, which by design was on the overall population with a clinically meaningful and highly robust statistical significant reduction in MG-ADL score. And we also, as we showed at AANEM with James Howard presenting, showed that over consecutive cycles, this impact with benefit accrued deeper and deeper. Now this was seen across the 3 subgroups. So the MuSK, which -- coincidentally, we have one of the biggest MuSK data sets here, triple seronegatives and then LRP4. And across these 3, the benefit moved towards the same direction. And that for us is the basis that we have quite some conviction in the benefit we are providing to these patients. But of course, ultimately, it's going to be a review decision by the agency. But we feel pretty confident that we can have a great discussion on the real benefit that we're bringing to this underserved population.

Thank you, Luc. And Danielle, on your MSE question, there's a ton of data to unpack. So the long-term follow-up, the deep dive into these patients, there will be much more data sets disclosed going forward into the future. So please stay tuned. And Karen, why don't you comment on this significance from a commercial point of view?

Yes, happy to. And I think this is a significant opportunity from a commercial perspective, and we're certainly very pleased to see such strong data from the SERON study. So as you know, we're the leaders in the MG market, and our strategy is to expand that leadership with the broadest label possible. So SERON or seronegative opportunity is one angle for that. The other is ocular MG, and we know that we have the data readouts coming next year for that. So we're well on our path of executing our strategy of expanding our market leadership. And the opportunity that we see in seronegative with the 11,000 patients is very high. One of the indicators that we think is important is how fast this clinical trial enrolls across all 3 of the subtypes. And I think that really demonstrates the unmet need and the enthusiasm about VYVGART in these subtypes. So I'm looking forward to the approval, if we get the approval, and I know the team is looking forward to being able to bring transformative impact to patients -- in seronegative patients as well.

Your next question comes from the line of Akash Tewari from Jefferies.

This is Amy on for Akash. Congrats on the quarter. Just a quick question on myositis. Curious to see what your bar for success is across the 3 subsets and how you are thinking about integrating the new steroid tapering protocol while still mitigating placebo risk?

Thank you, Amy, and thank you for joining us on the call today. So of course, the first thing we want to achieve in this basket trial is to achieve statistically significant separation from placebo. It is generally understood in the community that a total improvement score of 20 represents a clinically meaningful benefit. You may recall the Phase II data, which we presented where we did a sensitivity analysis looking at TIS of 20, but also TIS of 40 and even 60, where you just see an increasing effect of VYVGART, which is very exciting. So that's how you should frame or look at success in the clinical trial. Thank you for your question.

Your next question comes from the line of Richard Vosser from JPMorgan.

Maybe you could talk a little bit more around the rationale for the change in endpoint for the EMPASSION trial for empa and MMN, and give us an idea of what you're looking for around the group strength endpoint.

Thank you, Richard. Thank you for joining us and great question. Luc, this is a great question for you, right?

Yes. Thanks for that question. So we made that change in close consultation with the agencies. On that endpoint had a precedent and felt that this could indeed be an indicator of a meaningful outcome. And so that's why we made that switch. We had strong data on this endpoint, by the way, from our Phase II trial where there was accruing benefit over time on this measure. So we feel pretty confident that with this switch, our probability to show the benefit of empa is more or less unchanged from the prior endpoint, the MMN routes, on which we also keep doing the work, which is going to be a key secondary, which will provide further insights in the dimensions of benefit.

Thank you, Richard [indiscernible], I think this is a great advantage for us because the alternative was MMN routes, which was still going through an important validation step. But now we see CBUR and CDUR using the same endpoints in a specific indication for IVIg in the past and now VYVGART going forward. So we're welcoming that harmonization. Thanks for the question.

Your next question comes from the line of Samantha Semenkow from Citi.

I wonder following the lupus nephritis data that you've seen, is there anything you can take from that data set to help inform additional indication selection for efgartigimod or even 213 going forward? And then just relatedly, how are you thinking about additional indication expansion for empa? And do you have any plans for subcutaneous formulation development there similar to your playbook that you have for VYVGART?

Yes, Samantha, thank you for the question. From a playbook point of view, it is indeed the intention to leverage our subcu platform across all indications. But maybe, Luc, you want to comment on the lupus nephritis data?

Yes, yes. And thanks for that question. So we're still fully digesting it. But just from the top line evaluation, it was clear that right now, there isn't a path forward to a registrational study. And given that we want to be transparent about these things, we put it in here, but we're still trying to fully understand the data, which, to your point, may inform further decisions on a path forward potentially with another asset in the portfolio.

Your next question comes from the line of Myles Minter from William Blair.

Congrats on the quarter. My question is back on the ianalumab data that we just saw and placebo responses in Sjogren's disease. I'm just wondering whether that 5.5, 5-point change from baseline in ESSDAI, is that within your expectations for your ongoing UNITY study? Or just saying that data change your expectations and potentially powering assumptions for that trial?

Thank you, Myles, and that's a great question. In Sjogren's, I think we badly need better endpoints. That's why in the Phase II proof-of-concept study, we explored the effect of the drug across an entire spectrum of endpoints, also some of the new endpoints which are coming. But unfortunately, today, the regulator still forced to use ClinESSDAI because the CRESS and STAR endpoints haven't been fully validated yet. I think the placebo effect which you see in this study is actually quite consistent with the placebo effects, which we have seen in historical trials. So it's the ballpark which we expected when we were designing the clinical trial and powering the clinical trial. Thank you for the question.

Your next question comes from the line of Sean Laaman from Morgan Stanley.

Congrats on the quarter. This is Morgan on for Sean. We have 2 questions. So first, just wanted to get your thoughts on J&J announcing the head-to-head for Imaavy versus VYVGART in gMG.? And then second, I know you provided guidance on OpEx for the rest of the year. But given all the pipeline indications and trials you have going on, I wanted to know if you could provide any guidance on OpEx and the potential lift over the next 12 months or so?

Luc, do you want to first comment on that study from J&J, please?

Yes. Thanks, Tim. Thanks for the question. So I want to start by saying at argenx, our goal is always to prioritize evidence generation that will really add significant value to the patient and the community. And if we look at this design of this head-to-head trial, I'm afraid it will not provide that much new information that benefits patients because of the primary endpoints chosen and the timing of the readouts, we already know that when you stop dosing VYVGART or [indiscernible] for that matter, that IgG's will return to baseline. That is not novel. So this study will just prove different PD effect of 4 doses of VYVGART versus continuous dosing. And I don't think that, that really adds. And it's also not in line with how VYVGART is actually used in the real world today. And at AANEM, for example, we have poster # 12 for those who are interested to show the long-term data on subcus that shows that with a regimen that really triggers new treatment when the start of deterioration happens that you can keep people well below the significant difference of minus 2 points. So to me, that, therefore, creates this question how much added value will this study bring and understanding, and overall, our perspective on competitive landscape hasn't really changed with this. We welcome competition because it's good for patients, and we get to better outcomes ultimately for that patient community, but we have not seen really meaningful differentiation being offered here. And so we continue to be confident in the bar we have set. The accumulated data shown at AANEM with all the data out there across both pediatrics, long-term data, the seronegatives are really in line with our mission to present data that really add value.

Yes. Thank you, Luc. And I want to remind the audience that for the long-term follow-up in the subcu study, we now reached 60% MSE in our patients, 85% of these patients have sustained MSE of 8 weeks or longer. I think that's what matters to patients most. Thank you for the question.

Morgan, thank you for your question on operating expenses. Just to repeat what I said earlier, this year, we will end between $2.6 billion and $2.7 billion. Our capital allocation priorities is clear. We're investing in growth. We're not going to talk about the operating expenses and guidance for next year now. But what we will say is that the increases you saw in Q3, you can expect that to continue going forward. Thank you for the question.

Your next question comes from the line of Jacob Mekhael from KBC Securities.

With $4.3 billion on your balance sheet, how are you thinking about external innovation in the future? I believe you did an early-stage deal earlier this year, but should we expect more of those going forward? And are there any technologies that you think would be a good fit with your internal efforts?

Yes, Jacob, and thank you for the question, and thanks for joining us today. Just as a quick reminder, all innovation at argenx starts with the collaboration with external world. So at the core of each pipeline asset is a very strong fabric of collaborators. It is true that with the increasing cash balance, our aperture for novel biology, which we're hunting for is opening up. We are no longer just looking in academic labs, but we're also involved in a number of constructive discussions with young biotech companies, typically not a place where you find exciting biology. So we're looking for the same biology. The hunting ground just increased, thanks to the balance sheet. So stay tuned. In our innovation mission, more of that biology will be coming in.

Your next question comes from the line of Luca Issi from RBC Capital Markets.

This is Cathy on for Luca. Congrats on a robust quarter. And we have a question on VYVGART for gMG. We've been hearing from a few KOLs that patients are receiving the drug using shorter off cycles compared to the label. And that is because these physicians are worried that these patients relapse towards the end of the off cycle, so they prefer to restart the next cycle sooner rather than later. Is that consistent with your understanding? And if so, this is an important tailwind that is partially offsetting your gross to net headwind? Any color there much appreciated. And if it's okay, we have a quick follow-up on seronegative MG for Luc. Any rationalization around why triple seronegative patients are not as responsive?

Cathy, thank you for the questions. So first of all, in the ADAPT trial, we adapted the cyclical dosing of the drug to the individual need of the patient. And that's also what the label says. So the label is not prescriptive in how you use the cycles, you redose based on clinical judgment. So it is possible that there is a subset of patients which needs the drug more frequently. There's also a tail of patients which needs to dose much less frequently and there's the whole individualization concept behind VYVGART. So your information is correct. Actually, we presented these data in the poster where you see the total distribution of patients with an average cycle of 5.2 per year, with a number of patients needing it more frequently and a long tail of patients needing it less frequently. The seronegative question is intriguing, right? Luc, why don't you pick up this one?

Yes, yes. And it's important to realize that triple seronegatives often have a longer diagnostic course and therefore, present often also with a more severe disease, which is actually what we have observed in ADAPT SEROM. And therefore, and talking through, of course, experts in the field, our hypothesis is that the initial signal may be lower because repair mechanisms need to kick in and so forth. But what is really encouraging for us is that in the subsequent cycles, they really get to meaningful benefits. And in that sense, that story is not too much different from what we've seen in non-seronegatives. And so we find that encouraging. We -- of course, we'll continue to look into the data, as was already said, around can we get to MSE also in these patients given their longer disease journey. But overall, we feel the totality of the data fully supports a robust benefit here.

Your next question comes from the line of Thomas Smith from Leerink Partners.

Let me add my congrats on the strong quarter. Just on Graves, we recently saw some long-term follow-up data from a competitor FcRn suggesting a potential to drive long-term disease remission in this disease. I was just wondering if you could comment specifically on that data set and how important the potential disease modification was in your decision here to pursue Graves with VYVGART. And then you mentioned some excitement around the market potential. I was just wondering if you could maybe expand on that and share some of your initial assessment around the potentially addressable market here?

Yes. I will start with taking the answer and maybe, Karen, you can shed some qualitative color on our excitement around the size of this opportunity. It is correct that there are data out there from a peer in the FcRn space. We shared the passion for FcRn with our peer group. Whilst it is interesting, we have to be very careful because this was a very small sample. So I think it warrants further investigation in a large properly controlled clinical trial. So stay tuned for more data coming out of more advanced clinical trial work. And maybe, Karen, a few words on excitement around Graves.

Yes, happy to. I mean whenever we select an indication, we look through 3 lenses: the biology, can we develop the indication, and we always look at the commercial opportunity through the lens of what is the real unmet patient need in this indication? And can we bring transformative outcomes in the patients. And so when we looked at the Graves indication, what we saw was that there's a large prevalence of the disease, and there is a subset of patients that has a clear unmet need that we think they've got based on the proof of biology study, based on the convenience of our subcutaneous dosing that we think we could fulfill that need. It also creates that franchise, if you will, opportunity given the connection to TED that Tim talked about earlier. So we see that there's a significant commercial opportunity here and look forward to seeing the clinical data readout. Thanks for the question.

Your next question comes from the line of Douglas Tsao from H.C. Wainwright.

Just maybe sticking to the subject of Graves' disease. I'm just curious just -- obviously, it is a spectrum along with TED. And so just given the start of the study, I mean, are you thinking about targeting a particular time point in that progression? And do you think it's realistic or possible to potentially show that you're able to sort of modify the course of disease in terms of progression to TED?

Yes. Thank you for the question. We're not going to comment in this call specifically about the trial design. The trial will come live relatively soon, and we will be presenting trial design, inclusion/exclusion criteria, et cetera, in the appropriate conferences, so stay tuned. On the potential disease modification, it's an interesting hypothesis. I think we need more data to come to a firm conclusion there. But thank you for the question.

Your next question comes from the line of Victor Floch from BNP Paribas.

Actually, a quick follow-up on the peer assets that one of the analysts was mentioning before. That's exactly the one you've actually used to leverage their Phase II data to go straight to TED a few years ago. So I was wondering that is that asset is going to report some Phase III data in the not-so-distant future. So I was just wondering whether these data sets was a relevant proxy for [indiscernible] out of success in TED or if you have any comments to be made?

Yes. Thank you. It's hard for us, Victor, to comment on the time line of clinical trials of third parties. I think we're best off asking the question to them. The way we look at this type of Phase II work is it is a proof of biology. I mean it is an FcRn antagonist. It is firmly establishing the role of FcRn and autoantibodies in the disease. And we know these diseases are autoantibody-driven. I would be very careful jumping to conclusions because as we know, in the FcRn class, not all FcRns are made equal. I think VYVGART is a unique Fc fragment. It's uniquely engineered based on a unique understanding of the biology. So I would not just cross-compare between molecules in the same class. We have already seen in other indications that actually it is just not appropriate to do. So strong proof of biology, stay tuned for the argenx data, I would say.

Your next question comes from the line of Xian Deng from UBS.

So I have a question on VYVGART Phase II data in myositis, please. So just wondering for the Phase II data, there were about 23% injection site erythema. So just wondering if you could share any comments on that and any strategies to mitigate that. And so in general, just wondering how serious do you think that is? And in terms of physician feedback, given in a small subset of patients, they might have interstitial lung disease. So just wondering what's your mitigation strategy there? And if I may also squeeze in very quickly, Roivant recently announced a positive Phase III data for their JAK/TYK2 inhibitor, brepocitinib in dermatomyositis. I mean, of course, you are running the trial in a much broader general myositis overall, so just wondering what's your comment on the competitive landscape, please?

Yes. There's 2 questions in one, right, but that's not a problem. Luc, yes, we have seen the data in DM. This is, I think, a large market, huge unmet medical need. There will be multiple molecules which will be playing in this marketplace, and we are welcoming this molecule. It's going to help us shape and build that market. It will not be the solution for each patient. I think you will need a portfolio of therapies to adequately deal with these patients. They're very complex patients. Back to the erythema, it's much to do about nothing I would say. These are very mild erythema. It's typically your first administration where it can happen and then it disappears. This is nothing new. We have reported that as well in our MG and CIDP patients. So we know the phenomenon. It's not unusual, atypical. And I think it's mild, it's transient, and it's certainly not stopping us in commercialization of this product in other indications to the contrary. Thank you for the questions.

Your next question comes from the line of Charles Pitman-King from Barclays.

I've got one just on the patient numbers. I know you've not provided us with an update today on kind of the total number of patients tried on therapy. But I'm just wondering kind of what the next milestones are that you could be announcing? I mean, can we assume from today that you've not kind of hit 20,000 across all indications or, say, 5,000 for CIDP, just given the kind of prior 15,000 total ex-China and 2,500 guidance that you gave us at 2Q? And also just related to that, I wonder if you could give us some commentary on just the quarterly patient add dynamics, given you now got MG, CIDP and PFS launched, when should we expect kind of patient adds to peak ahead of the next indication approval?

Thanks, Charles. Yes, we did not provide a patient number this quarter. The last one we provided still stands, which was from 2Q. We did a similar communication rhythm with MG and that we provide patient numbers as we cross certain thresholds. We're not going to share what those thresholds are, but I think it's important to know that we have seen consistent growth and that the revenue in this situation really speaks for itself. And Karen, do you want to talk about the patient growth?

Yes, absolutely. Happy to talk about the patient growth. I'm pleased for the question because I'm really excited about the continued momentum that we see across all indications in terms of patient growth this quarter. And I think when you zoom out, I mean, certainly for MG, it's been 15 quarters of consistent momentum in terms of patient growth as we bring more innovation to patients. And most recently, obviously, the PFS has contributed to accelerating that growth. I think what's really important to note is that with prefilled syringe, 50% of the patients are new to VYVGART, and that's across both indications. And don't forget the 260 prescribers since prefilled syringe launch 2 quarters ago are new to VYVGART. They had never -- these prescribers had never written before prefilled syringe launch. So what you can see is both patient growth very consistently across the quarter with momentum as well as prescriber growth consistently. And that prescriber growth is important because it opens up new pockets of patients in both MG and CIDP and indicates that we're at the beginning of the growth curve for both indications. Thanks for the question.

And your final question today comes from the line of Colleen Kusy from Baird.

This is Nick on for Colleen. Congrats on the quarter. If you could comment on the progress you made in the ex-U.S. launches, whether you think that could be a meaningful top line growth driver for the next year? Or whether you think focus will be more so on deepening penetration in the U.S. and what you view as the eventual market opportunity for ex-U.S. relative to the opportunity in the U.S.?

Yes. Thanks for the question. What you will see is that we have growth across all geographies or all markets. And what we're pleased to see, certainly, if I go through those markets, in Japan, we've launched CIDP. We recently got the PFS approval, and we're pleased to see continued demand growth for both MG and CIDP. So Japan is a very important growth driver for us, and we see that continuing in the future with the PFS launch. If we turn our attention to the other major markets in Europe, in Canada, what we see is that in MG, as you'd expect, it takes a little more time for those markets to come online as we negotiate pricing and reimbursement agreements. We have a narrow price band, and we have good pricing and reimbursement agreements in place. And what we are starting to see is those revenue contributions for those HTA markets increasing. We recently received the approval for CIDP, that's launched in Germany, and we expect that there'll be further launches for CIDP in additional markets in the upcoming months and years. So we expect that there will continue to be growth ex-U.S. But of course, the U.S. will continue to be a strong growth driver for us as well. Thanks for the question.

And with that, that does conclude today's conference call. Thank you for your participation, and you may now disconnect.