Good afternoon. I will be your conference operator today. [Operator Instructions] Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that today's call may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws, including, but not limited to, statements about BridgeBio's future operating and financial performance, business plans and prospects and strategy. These statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these forward-looking statements. For a discussion of these risks and uncertainties, please refer to the disclosure in today's earnings release and BridgeBio's periodic reports and SEC filings. All statements made here are based on information available to BridgeBio as of today, and the company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements made during this call, except as required by law. With that completed, BridgeBio, you may begin your conference.

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining BridgeBio Pharma's Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. I'm Chinmay Shukla, Senior Vice President of Strategic Finance at BridgeBio. With me today are Neil Kumar, our CEO, who will provide opening remarks and discuss overall corporate performance; Matt Outten, our Chief Commercial Officer, who will provide more details about our commercial performance, particularly the continued success of Attruby; and Tom Trimarchi, our President and CFO, who will review our financial results. During today's call, we'll cover our strong commercial execution in Attruby's third quarter on the market. We'll provide updates on our late-stage pipeline, including the Phase III readouts of encaleret and BBP-418, which were announced this week, as well as discuss infigratinib in achondroplasia, which we expect to read out in early '26. We will end with a discussion of our robust financial position. Following our prepared remarks, we will open the call for Q&A. For the question-and-answer session, we will also be joined by Ananth Sridhar, Anna Wade and Justin To, who lead encaleret, BBP-418 and infigratinib, respectively. With that, I'll turn it over to Neil for his remarks.

Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. As always, this is a forum in which we communicate salient aspects of our business that are of interest to investors, and we welcome your questions and feedback along the way. On the first 2 of these calls we have done, I've focused my early comments on Attruby, which continues to be the core of our business. As both Matt and I will elaborate on, we see continued momentum, both scientifically and commercially in this franchise and are ever more confident today that we will achieve our goal of 30-plus percent market share by volume in the years to come. But I wanted to start today by talking about our recent R&D progress. As you all know, we had the distinct privilege of announcing 2 stellar Phase III top line results over the last 3 days. It is quite the coincidence that these readouts happen to stack on top of one another after 6-plus years of working on these programs. But these few days serve as a testament to the longer-term productivity of the R&D engine we have created. Slide 10 of our updated corporate presentation shows the industry-leading time lines that we have been able to achieve, and Slide 11 shows the remarkably high probability of technical success across our programs across the nearly 10 years that we've been operating. Probabilities of technical success north of 70% start to move us from a lottery ticket-like entity to an engineering company-like entity, one that will undoubtedly face failure, but that can reliably produce medicines that matter with reasonable cadence. The speed and efficiency of the BridgeBio engine is only possible because we target well-described genetic diseases at their source. It's also the product of our decentralized hub-and-spoke model that is fueled by our…

Thanks, Neil. I'm excited to share our Q3 progress and discuss some of the positive trends behind Attruby's continuing success, along with the excitement that the new Phase III data from both encaleret and BBP-418 have created. Starting with Attruby, as we have seen throughout the year, the ATTR-CM market continues to expand with growth coming from all segments of the market. We've been particularly encouraged by the increase in prescribing from both returning and new physicians with a steady rise in first-time prescribers adopting Attruby in their practice. Importantly, once physicians begin prescribing Attruby, they continue doing so, a clear reflection of the consistent clinical performance we've seen in real-world use. This persistence stems from Attruby's differentiated profile of being the only near-complete stabilizer on the market versus a partial stabilizer and a partial knockdown. Attruby has also shown the fastest time to separation from placebo to date. While patients are getting diagnosed faster and at a younger age, many continue to go undiagnosed or progress on their current medications. When that happens, they need something that can stabilize the tetramer and do so quickly. The bottom line is that patients and physicians want a medication that works well and works fast and Attruby continues to deliver on both efficacy and speed. As we look towards Q4 and the 1-year anniversary of the launch of Attruby, there are several factors I would like to highlight. First, Attruby's strong launch trajectory continues to demonstrate consistent growth across all market segments. We expect this momentum to carry into the coming quarters, positioning Attruby for meaningful share expansion over time as awareness and adoption continue to increase. Second, the ATTR-CM market itself continues to grow quarter-over-quarter with no signs of slowing. This ongoing expansion effectively enlarges the total opportunity that Attruby is…

Thank you, Matt, and good morning, everyone. I'll now discuss our financial results for the third quarter of 2025. Please note that our commentary on today's call will focus on GAAP financials unless otherwise indicated. Total revenues were $120.7 million in 3Q 2025, consisting of $108.1 million of Attruby net product revenue, $4.3 million of royalty revenue and $8.3 million of license and services revenue compared to $2.7 million of the same period last year. The $118 million increase in total revenues was primarily due to a $108.1 million increase in net product revenue from Attruby driven by strong growth across all market segments. We also recorded $4.3 million in royalty revenue from ex-U.S. net sales of Beyonttra in Europe and Japan. Total operating expenses for the third quarter of 2025 were $259.3 million compared to $193.9 million in the same period in the prior year. The $65.4 million increase in operating expenses was primarily driven by a $68.8 million increase in SG&A expenses, partially offset by a slight decline in R&D expenses. This reflects our continued investment in the Attruby brand awareness and ongoing investments in our late-stage clinical programs. Turning to our balance sheet. We ended the third quarter with a strong cash position of $645.9 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, which provides significant cash runway to continue supporting our transition into a diversified late-stage multiproduct business. In closing, our commercial launch of Attruby continues to accelerate, and our pipeline has never been stronger. Following the positive results from LGMD2I/R9 and ADH1, we now look forward to top line results from achondroplasia in early 2026. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Chinmay.

Thank you, Neil, Matt and Tom. We will now turn the call over to the operator, who will open the line for questions. We kindly request that you limit yourself to 1 question. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question will come from the line of Salim Syed with Mizuho.

Congrats on all the week's successes. Neil, Matt, maybe this one for you. Possible to comment on the percentage of new patient share. I know last time you provided the number, I think it was 18% to 20% on the 2Q call. Just wondering if that's increased since then. And if that remains the primary focus for growth? Or are you also seeing an increase in the switch category?

Yes. Salim, good question. I'll take a crack and Matt, you can elaborate if I miss something. I mean I'd say our naive share, it's hard to tell, honestly, because we don't have all the numbers yet from Alnylam and Pfizer for the quarter. But our best guess is that the naive share is well in the 20s now. We've seen double-digit growth, obviously, in overall script quarter-on-quarter number, and that script growth has been even more profound in the NBRx setting. That means that we've seen a little bit of a downturn in the switch setting, and that's mostly because we're seeing a lot of combo use. There's some work that we could do in terms of reminding people that why not use the best stabilizer on top of a knockdown if you're going to go that route, but our NBRx share continues to grow nicely. Why do we focus on that? I mean, you know this as well as I do. But ultimately, your peak steady-state share is pretty simple, right? It's a fraction of new patients that you're capturing multiplied by the fraction of the total market that is new each year divided by the annual dropout rate. And if you look at this marketplace, the annual dropout rate is pretty high, something like 40% is what we modeled when you certainly look at Pfizer. And the fraction of the new markets that are adding patients to the market, it's not just replacement over time is going to be greater than that. So any time those 2 things are -- effectively, that fraction is greater than 1. What you ultimately want to do is maximize a fraction of new patients that you capture. So whatever if it's at 30%, then we're going to be a multiplier of that on peak year share. So -- as we look forward over the course of the next 3 to 4 years, obviously, our goal is 30-plus percent market share. We're well in range to do that even with the numbers that we have today, and I expect them to continue to grow.

Our next question comes from the line of Tyler Van Buren with TD Cowen.

Congrats on another solid quarter of Attruby commercialization. So could you elaborate on the ATTR cardiomyopathy diagnosis rates and if you're continuing to see momentum build since the launch? And forgive me, but I have to ask a second one. So there are some centers that might prefer AMVUTTRA as they collect money on a much higher ASP despite the cost that it adds to the system. So curious to get your thoughts on that market dynamic. Do you expect this to impact a minority of the centers and patients -- and is it something that you have to adjust your strategy to in those centers?

Yes, 2 great questions, Tyler. Thanks for them. And I would say just in terms of market growth, again, until we get the full revenue numbers from Alnylam and Pfizer, I won't know precisely or be able to back into precisely the number of scripts on the quarter. But I can say pretty reliably, if you go back 1 year, so quarter and what that looked like this quarter last year, there's been a pretty robust and continued growth in diagnosis. Certainly, what we're seeing in the field is a lot of growth in diagnosis. new practices, as you can see from our ACP data as well as doctors finding more of these patients. I think the PYP reimbursement concerns were overstated. We don't see that being a drag in terms of people finding new patients. And there's a lot of excitement and education going on in and around this category. If you go to any of the conferences, and I'm sure the same is going to be at AHA, these sessions are packed. People are keen to learn more about ATTR cardiomyopathy. And with all the publications ongoing, there's a lot of people who want to throw their hat in to be part of the next wave of learning in this space. So I expect that diagnosis rates will continue to increase and get us closer to that 250,000 that ultimately we should get to in the U.S. Second question on the buy-and-bill dynamic. I mean it's not -- I don't think we have to adjust our strategy because we always knew that, that was going to be the case. Certainly, there are certain centers of excellence that if you have a reasonable CFO at a hospital system, you're going to be 340B pricing. And so there's a lot…

Our next question will come from the line of Biren Amin with Piper Sandler.

I got to say it's the first to have 3 positive investor calls by a single company in 1 week. So congrats on that. My question, you talked about market access as a top priority for the company. Thoughts on Pfizer matching the 28-day free trial with VYNDAMAX, any impact from this program that you foresee?

Yes. Great question, Biren, and thanks for the compliment there. We see it as a positive. Anytime you actually roll out a program that's generous to patients, I assume our competition is going to match it. And ultimately, it gets us thinking about what else we can do. I mean, I think if you look across the totality of our programs, they continue to be the most generous in the space. But overall, we welcome that type of competition. It shouldn't really be access ultimately that's driving the differential share that we gain. Ultimately, all we want is an even playing field, and that's what we've been talking about writ large across the payer and provider landscape and then ultimately to let our efficacy data speak. If you add anything?

No, I think that's exactly right. It's it's not a bad thing when someone copies a good program. And so in terms of it impacting, I don't think we've seen an impact from it. It's -- when you're the first one to do it, I think people remember that one maybe a little bit more, but we were happy to see them offer that. Any competitor ought to be thinking about doing the same thing, whether it's the free drug for life that we did for our patients in the clinical trial or with the 28-day free trial. So I think...

Maybe one final thing, Biren. Obviously, our LDN is completely differently designed than theirs and the entirety of the patient and physician experience is pretty different, not just because of some of the programs that we rolled out. So I'd encourage you to go and hear from patients and physicians, just how quickly are they receiving therapy in the context of our drug and how easy is it for them to continue on the drug product. regardless of the programs that are put in place, just the way we've designed this with a high-touch, white glove rare disease approach has meaningful advantages.

Our next question comes from the line of Mani Foroohar with Leerink.

You have Ryan on for Mani. Congrats on the quarter. Maybe just could you talk about how you see the size of the OUS opportunity relative to that of the U.S. and ATTR, particularly as those launches start to ramp up?

Yes, I can take that, and Matt, you can elaborate on it. I think the OUS opportunity has been quite interesting, obviously, as I mentioned in my outset comments, Bayer has done a very, very nice job in the countries that they've commercialized in to date. What makes it interesting, obviously, is ultimately, in some ways, they're able to fast forward to what I think the ultimate answer is in the United States, which is accurate advertising, obviously, issuing some of the incomplete statements around near complete stabilization that our competitors have. And I think secondly, a lot of the experts are able to look at the totality of the data and understand from a health economic real-world evidence standpoint, which therapy should be used frontline and which therapies should not. So I think we're relatively advantaged in that marketplace in terms of share. Where we're not advantaged, obviously, from an overall market standing standpoint is the price point. The price point is going to come down as we move from some of the countries we're already commercializing in countries like the U.K. And so ultimately, I expect to see the ratio of sales between Europe and the U.S. to be pretty similar to what we see in TAF. But again, I think Bayer has done a really nice job of accelerating some of those market dynamics in Europe in ways that we simply can't do given the current status of the playing field in the United States.

Our next question will come from the line of Josh Schimmer with Cantor.

Quite the weak for you guys. Have you had any discussions with payers regarding what might happen to formulary positioning of Attruby when TAF generics do enter? And separately, have you discussed with payers the use of combination therapy as it stands now? I'm a little surprised they're on board with it given the cost and the lack of data.

So no, to the first question, we've been focused on Attruby solely and really getting it as on equal playing field with TAF and to date. I think on the second, we also haven't had conversations around combo therapy. I think we've had conversations with physicians around it, and I expect that payers will do more to control this category as we move forward. But right now, the mechanisms of B versus D and things of that nature make it, I think, a slow-moving train in that respect. It will ultimately happen, but I don't think it happens in the next 6 to 12 months.

Yes. And I think we just really remain -- as Neil said earlier, we just remain focused on making sure Attruby is available to any patient who wants it. And as long as that is out there, we feel really good about our data, and we can fight it out in the doctor's office versus trying to fight it out in the payer space.

Our next question comes from the line of Cory Kasimov with Evercore.

So your prepared comments noted the impressive growth, both in unique prescribers as well as prescriptions per prescriber. Can you talk about what's primarily driving that momentum, whether it's the greater penetration within existing accounts, expansion into new centers or improved conversion rate?

Yes, I won't break it down quantitatively, but it's actually kind of equivalently both. And I would say one interesting piece is a lot of these new prescribing HCPs are effectively capitated parts of a center of excellence or the referrers into centers of excellence. One thing we were finding early on were some centers of excellence where our share might not have been as high. When we went and spoke to the physicians, they would say, yes, we believe that Attruby is a stellar drug, and we would like 30%, 40% of our patients to be on it. But if a patient comes in already on TAF, we're not going to change them. And so it behooved us to get out to those practices that we weren't covering. We have a smaller sales force than does Pfizer or Alnylam. But we've started to do that, and we've employed some IT techniques as well so that we get sort of alerts anytime someone is prescribing. And we're just getting to know some of those what people call ancillary or satellite practices better. So both things have been driving the scripts.

Our next question comes from the line of Anupam Rama with JPMorgan.

Just 2 quick ones for me. Just I'm wondering what the marketing message is around -- to docs around patients with mixed phenotype for Attruby. And then actually a higher-level strategic question. After the first couple of days of this week, like the path to top line diversification here is pretty clear, and I know we're waiting on infigratinib. But Neil, maybe following on some of your prepared comments, how should we be thinking about investments into kind of the early-stage and mid-stage pipeline? And when do we learn more about those programs and catalyst time lines and things like that?

Yes. Thanks for those questions. On mixed pheno, honestly, we don't see -- I mean, this is more of a question that we get from investors than we do from physicians or in the field. For the most part, the patients that we serve have to do with cardiomyopathy, and that's the salient set of characteristics that drive their mortality and morbidity. In and around mixed phenotype, the best thing we can do is continue to hammer our variant message. Obviously, variants are where you get mixed phenotype, you don't get mixed phenotype within the context of the wild-type population. And as we suggested in our prepared comments, we continue to, I think, publish the most impressive data within the context of the variant population, that 59% hazard reduction, I think it's the largest point estimate and the only statistically significant point estimate in that space. Again, stay tuned for some of the things that we're going to be publishing at AHA, but I think it builds on that within the variant population. And all of that connects back to the fact that biochemically, we have a differentiated binding profile for those variants. And I think if you look at the JACC paper associated with the AMVUTTRA trial, you can see that they didn't quite do in variants what people suspected they might in terms of a differentiated efficacy. So we continue to believe we have the most efficacious profile within that space and the V122Is are going to be the most common of the variant population that we see. I would say, finally, just on that variant population, it's just another good example of how we're trying to really view Attruby as a unique property and look to see whether or not we can in presymptomatic patients, intervene early…

Our next question will come from the line of Andrew Tsai with Jefferies.

Congrats on the strong execution. My question is around -- back to Attruby. You're accumulating a lot of real-world evidence suggesting better efficacy over tafamidis. That's great. But I'm curious what your guys' thoughts are in doing a head-to-head study to fully prove that out. I'd also imagine that could help mitigate against any risk of a future tafamidis generic, so kill 2 birds with one stone.

Yes. I mean, I think great question. Thanks for the question. A couple of comments there. Number one is, I think we've been doing a lot of this sort of head-to-head competitive. We are a better stabilizer across the 4 in vitro assays across every single serum TTR measurement that we've seen across NT-proBNP, across whatever point estimates we can look at where you can line things up, it appears that we are a better stabilizer and that better stabilization leads to better outcomes. I'm not so sure that, that is going to continue to resonate with the clinical community versus kind of the area that we're set off now in, which is describing what's unique about our property given the fact that it is an ever more potent stabilizer. So some of the things you're seeing in terms of publications in the variant population in terms of AFib and the cardiac arrhythmic population, some of the things that we'll be looking at in terms of the cardiorenal axis, those are all completely unique. And I think aspects of the compound that are -- they won't easily be matched by the other therapies in this space. So I would say that's one thing. The second thing is the double-blind head-to-head is something that I still think about a lot, but the double-blind head-to-head that's doable for us at this size is a double-blind head-to-head against serum TTR, which we obviously win, and I'm not so sure it drives any market share or a double-blind head-to-head against NT-proBNP, which I also think we will pretty obviously win. But also, I'm not sure it would drive a ton of market share. And the reason I say that is I think people are really -- they think about different patient populations, what patients…

Our next question will come from the line of Danielle Brill with Truist.

And since we're going to expect a positive Phase III, maybe I'll pivot and ask a question on infigratinib. Neil, what are the most important differentiating elements for infigratinib in achondroplasia in view? Is it more about efficacy or route of administration? And can you talk about safety and how important that is? What level of hyperphosphatemia is acceptable in your view?

Yes. Great question. One thing I've learned from Matt and others now having a commercial franchise is that the customer is always right, and you can never really tell why a customer may prefer one drug product versus the next. That's what makes market share relatively hard to project in the absence of head-to-head -- double-blind head head-to-head trials. The good news here is that we're more efficacious, we're safer and we're more convenient with an oral ROA. So whatever your preference in terms of why you're determining which drug to use, infigratinib is going to win. As a scientist, obviously, down deep, I would prefer the most efficacious product win. And I think we've already demonstrated and we'll continue to demonstrate superior efficacy. Why? Because, as you know, this targets this well-described condition at its source, addressing both of the salient effector signaling pathways. It's superior in every preclinical model. It's superior in animal models. It's superior in Phase II data. It's the only product that's provided proportionality impact. And I think over the longer term, we'll provide a broader diaspora of impact for this community that we serve as compared to the CMP products. So I don't think there's any aspect. We obviously don't see the hypotensive results, and I don't think we're going to have as robust a Section 4 as the CNP products have in terms of safety. I think this will be a safer product. Grade 1 hyperphosph, I think it could be 15%, 20% could be -- like people do not care about that as much as the Street cares about that. Again, what they do care about are things that ultimately would be things associated with hypergrowth, spinal situations, things of that nature. And we see no evidence of any safety issues in and around that. So I think the drug will be more efficacious, safer and ultimately more convenient. And I think that will open up the market, which obviously is starting to stagnate a bit given the current profile of the drugs. I think we can continue to address unmet need. And I think however you want to slice and dice it, we'll have a great offering for the community here.

Our next question will come from the line of Jason Zemansky with Bank of America.

On all the progress. Maybe to connect some of the dots from your previous comments here, I mean, in thinking about infigratinib as a growth driver, I mean, you've guided to opportunities of $2 billion each in achondroplasia and hypochondroplasia. Can you walk us through some of your key assumptions here given the competitive landscape? Is this more that you're capturing share from a competitor? Are you growing the market appreciably? I mean what gives you confidence in both of these numbers?

Yes. I mean I think, first, we do tend to estimate these numbers starting with the treatable population and making assumptions in and around there. Certainly, in the context of an already launched product, we're going to be looking to both take share as well as to grow the market. I think it's important to realize that there are substantial parts of the unmet need here that aren't addressed by once-daily injectables. We've heard that when we go out into the community. We've heard that in talking to physicians. I think it's a bit unfair to look at the market sometimes with a suboptimal therapy and conclude that, that is the market size. I play in EPP as well, and I wouldn't look at CLINUVEL's product and determine that EPP is an extraordinarily small market. So I think the unmet need is relatively well described in terms of numbers of patients. And it's not in the context of this condition that we don't know how to find the patients and that they are not already well identified. So I think it just comes down to offering them something that they want, and I think this could be that from our research.

Our next question will come from the line of Paul Choi with Goldman Sachs.

Congrats on the string of good news this week. I also want to stay on the topic of achondroplasia, Neil. And as you know, the current approved product is 3/4 of the sales are coming from ex-U.S. with only 1/4 of the sales from the U.S. market. And so could you maybe comment on what could be market expanding for the U.S. market in particular here? How large -- you talked a little bit about the TAM, but just sort of what are the key factors from market expansion happening here? And then in terms of the product, just sort of how much you think incremental the hypochondroplasia opportunity could be to your infigratinib sales?

Yes. Thanks, Paul. I'm a bit remiss to comment on the commercial tactics or performance of one of our competitors. There's nothing in and around the unmet need, the physician community or the community affected with achondroplasia that's starkly different between Europe and the United States. And so I think, again, a solid therapy could work well in both markets. And I'd expect actually the normal ratio that you see with drug products to be true in the context of this category as well. So why the launch hasn't gone that well for our competitor in this case? I mean, number one, I go back to injectables. We do hear a lot of needle phobia, particularly in the U.S. markets, which we know better since we're a U.S.-based company. So we talk a lot to folks here, and I think there is a reasonable amount of needle phobia. I can't comment on the way that they've targeted and their commercial sales force, but recall that in Europe, generally, you have centers of excellence that have taken on a higher percentage of the population in any given geography. So it's easier to identify precisely who to call on and when to call on them. So I think the dynamic could -- that could lead to a slower ramp for them here in the United States. But again, I just go back to the treatable population, both for hypochon and achon. And I think that even under conservative assumptions, this is a large unmet need that then translates into a reasonably large TAM.

Our next question will come from the line of Martin Auster with Raymond James.

This is Thomas on for Marty. I want to add our congrats on all the news this week. I actually want to circle back on the CALIBRATE data this morning. Could you provide any more detail on the serious treatment-related adverse events observed with encaleret in periods 2 and 3? And anything to say about those on standard of care in period 1 as well would be helpful.

Yes. So this is really a -- I mean, it sounds serious, serious related TEAE is a serious thing. But in the context of these drugs, it's all hypercalcemia. So basically driving calcium levels in the serum higher than what you had intended. And in the case of the standard of care, it actually was quite high. Again, like standard of care is taking calcium. So this does happen. You titrate it. In this case, the patient had to go in to the hospital and received IV fluid until that blood calcium was decreased. Actually, in the case of encaleret, it was much milder. It was a very mild digression into hypercalcemia, but that patient had some altered mental status and UTI, obviously, nothing to do with the drug at all. So that's what took them into the hospital and they were dosed down, no discontinuation. So again, I think the most important part here is that the drug is probably -- we saw less discontinuations on drug than we did on standard of care. So the drug is safer than standard of care and obviously driving 76% normalization versus less than 5% that's profound. And I think in large part because you've got an allosteric mechanism that very precisely targets the calcium sensing receptor. So very much like Attruby or acoramidis, when you've got something like that, you've got a small molecule with a very specific target, not likely to have a significant side effect profile.

Our final question will come from the line of Trevor Allred with Oppenheimer.

Congrats on the quarter. I wanted to follow up again on encaleret as well. Can you give us -- can you talk a little bit more about what gives you confidence in encaleret as a $1 billion-plus product? And can you talk a little bit about your expectations for the potential upside opportunity in chronic hypopara?

Yes, sure. I guess I don't necessarily like to talk about things in terms of the dollar amount, but I'm curious what's your price assumption? We haven't determined the price, but what will be your pricing assumption on encaleret for ADH1?

I think I'm in the range of $200,000.

So less than Yorvipath?

Yes.

Why?

I mean it could be more than that...

That's like 8x or 10x the population. Anyway, that's an extremely low number. I've not heard that. But let's just put it in a normal rare disease context of whatever, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 in that range, you're talking about a couple of thousand to 3,000 patients on drug to achieve the touch of numbers that you put forth. And we always start with prevalence here. Obviously, the prevalence is much higher than the identified population. But the thing -- and I think in large part due to like what happened over the last 5 or 6 years, where everyone claimed every large -- every genetic disease was a super large disease. Recall, this is not SCITX1 OR GACI or one of these conditions that severely limits lifespan. For those conditions, I think over -- you take the number and then people apply the genzyme factor and say, it's going to be 4x larger, not usually because those children aren't necessarily having children. Most of those mutations are germline. Those are very, very constrained populations. Same would be true, for instance, for Canavan disease, which is another disease we work on. It's not going to be a large population. It just -- it makes no epidemiologic sense that it would be. In this case, totally different, a large population, mostly germline that even when untreated, allows people to go on and have children. Obviously, 2, 3, 4 different studies that we and others have conducted suggesting a prevalence of up to 12,000 in the U.S. That's not going to be off by an order of magnitude, 1,000 people on the ICD-10 code, 3,500 patients already identified. And an easy way to identify them in terms of going and looking at the nonsurgical hypopara community and doing genetic testing is another tailwind…

And that will conclude our question-and-answer session. I'll hand the call back to Chinmay for closing comments.

Thank you, everyone, for joining us for our Q3 2025 earnings call. We appreciate the interest and look forward to updating you on the progress of our company in 3 months. Thank you.

This will conclude today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.