Good afternoon, and welcome to the Mind Medicine Second Quarter 2023 Financial Results and Corporate Update Conference call. Currently, all participants are in listen-only mode. This call is being webcast live on the Investors and Media section of MindMed's website at mindmed.co and a recording will be available after the call. For opening remarks, I would like to introduce Rob Barrow, CEO of MindMed. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our second quarter 2023 financial results and corporate update conference call. The press release reporting our financial results is available in the Investors and Media section of MindMed's website and our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2023, will be filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Joining me today is Schond Greenway, our Chief Financial Officer; Dr. Dan Karlin, our Chief Medical Officer; and Dr. Miri Halperin Wernli, our Executive President. During today's call, we'll be making certain forward-looking statements including without limitation, statements about the potential safety, efficacy and regulatory and clinical progress of our product candidates, financial projections and our future expectations, plans, partnerships and prospects. These statements are subject to various risks such as changes in market conditions, difficulties associated with research and development and regulatory approval processes that are described in the filings made with the SEC, including the most recent annual report on Form 10-K and quarterly report on Form 10-Q. Forward-looking statements are based on the assumptions, opinions, and estimates of management at the date the statements are made, including the non-occurrence of the risks and uncertainties that are described in the filings made with the SEC or other significant events occurring outside of MindMed's normal course of business. You are caution not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements which are made as of today, August 3, 2023. MindMed disclaims any obligation to update such statements, even if management's views change, except as required by law. We are very excited to be providing this financial and business update as we rapidly approach an exciting and critical period for MindMed. Over the past year, we have made significant progress on our R&D pipeline which has positioned us for…

Thanks, Rob, and thank you all for joining us today. We will now turn to our financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2023. As of June 30, 2023, MindMed had cash and cash equivalents totaling $116.9 million, compared to $142.1 million as of December 31, 2022. We believe that our cash position allows us to accelerate our preparation for moving quickly into our pivotal program for our lead development candidate, MM-120 and will be sufficient to meet our operating requirements beyond our key development milestones in 2023 and into the first half of 2025. The net cash used in operating activities was $27.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2023, compared to $28 million in the first six months ended June 30, 2022. R&D expenses were $14.8 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2023, compared to $9.3 million for the same period in 2022, an increase of $5.4 million. The increase was primarily due to increases of $4.4 million in expenses related to clinical research for our MM-120 GAD study, $0.8 million in preclinical activities, $0.6 million in internal personnel costs as a result of increasing R&D capacities, and $0.2 million in connection with various external R&D collaborations, partially offset by a decrease of $0.5 million in expenses related to our MM-110 program, and a decrease of $0.1 million related to our MM-402 program. General and administrative expenses were $14.4 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2023, compared to $7.6 million for the same period in 2022, an increase of $6.8 million. The increase was attributed to professional services fees and expenses related to our proxy contest, in connection with our 2023 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders and additional costs to support the growth of our business. Our net loss for the quarter ended June 30, 2023 was $29.1 million, compared to $17 million for the same period in 2022. I will now turn the call back to Rob, who will provide some closing comments.

Thank you, Schond. As we come to a close, I want to extend my sincere appreciation and gratitude for the critical work and unmatched execution that has brought MindMed ever closer to realizing our mission. I'd like to thank our highly talented and deeply committed team, our research collaborators and clinical investigator teams, our investors and many other individuals who have been supportive, including especially our patients and their families. We are working tirelessly to deliver on the therapeutic potential of our pipeline, and transform the treatment landscape for many individual with brain health disorders. With that, I'd like to thank you all again for joining us today and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you. We will now conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Charles Duncan with Cantor Fitzgerald. Please go ahead.

Hi. Yes, Rob and Dan. Thanks for taking our questions. Congratulations on the GAD enrollment progress and the Zydis deal that looks to be pretty interesting. I know other companies have been satisfied with working that technology. I had just a couple of questions on the ongoing GAD study. And so we'll start with the four different dose levels and placebo, I guess I'm wondering, what do you anticipate for the dose response? And then secondarily, for moving forward, what is more important to you? Is it a certain P value, or is it a responder rate for efficacy? I guess given that this is not a pivotal study, I would anticipate that the totality of data is most important. But what are you looking for out of this study when?

Yes. Thanks so much, Charles for the question. So first, in terms of what we're expecting across the dose levels, certainly what we've seen from historical studies in healthy volunteers gives us some insight in terms of the acute pharmacodynamics of in 120 or LSD. But very little, and I think it was highlighted in the FDA's recent guidance, the little is actually known about the relative response to these different doses or really across a broad range with any of the psychodolic drugs. And so we're going in part of the statistical methodology allows for the nomination of candidate response curves. Now, I think based on historical data where particularly the data that came out of UHB last year, where we saw there was a degree of correlation between the magnitude of the acute perceptional effects need the ultimate clinical response in that study. We have an expectation that at higher dose levels in the range, we're studying -- we would see a more robust response. But of course, the entire study is designed to ultimately elucidate what that response curve. And that translates nicely over into the second part of your question, in terms of what's most meaningful, what's most important moving forward? Certainly, as a dose optimization study, one of the key features is to identify a dose that we can transition into subsequent combo research and in pivotal studies. And in connection with that, we're looking to also quantify the magnitude of the effect size at the different doses, but also at the dose we would tie select to take forward. That in terms of an outcome is really key in understanding the magnitude of the effect is going to, of course, drive the patient numbers and the powering of subsequent clinical studies. And so in that context, certainly, from a clinically relevant perspective, we would certainly want to see a response that is in line with or better than the current standards of care, as I mentioned earlier in the call, in effect size of 0.4 or below. So, something there or above would be certainly supportive of moving forward in our view. But obviously, given the historical evidence in some of the preliminary studies of LSD, we think there is a really compelling opportunity. And if we see a higher effect size of even more exciting about the opportunity for it. And of course, it would also imply either higher power or lower required patient numbers as we progress in plan.

That's helpful, Rob. If I could ask one additional final follow-up question regarding the phenotype of the sample or the patient sample that you're enrolling. You have a pretty broad range age range, 18 to 74. I guess I'm wondering what you think about that in terms of heterogeneity, I mean some of those patients may have had a general anxiety disorder for quite some time. would you anticipate there to be an age interaction effect? And have you incorporated such analyses into your statistical analysis plan?

So I'll take -- make a brief answer and then turn it over to Dr. Karlin, our Chief Medical Officer to respond further. I think high level, when we look at the study and we certainly the rich data that we'll have coming out of the study, I think we'll have a lot of insight and be able to do many, many layers of analysis to understand both the activity of the molecule and the clinical response. It is not planned as a primary secondary analysis to look at specific age effects or specific effects in terms of the duration of prior diagnosis with JD but that said, of course, we'll be exploring an exploratory analyses extensively any of the characteristics that could be impactful in forming EBITDA and subsequent good. Dan, do you want to take anything further?

Yes, I could just add and thanks for that question. The GAD is interesting in that it is obviously a heterogeneous diagnosis progress in age, but also that there is an accumulation of disease burden lever in life, which makes it somewhat different than other speaking erotic illnesses. And so both age as a factor of analysis and duration of illness because it's certainly possible that older phones have only recently development disorder as well. So we're awfully interested in that and interested in how both the acute effects vary with those factors, and of course, how longer-term efficacy varies with both duration of disease and

My last question is for Schond. As Dan was finished, he tailed off a little bit. So Schond, quick question regarding the cash -- and I think you mentioned it was sufficient to fund -- fully fund into the first half of '15, I think, is what you said. I guess my question is, do you anticipate being able to operationalize a Phase III study, perhaps by the end of '24. And does -- is that cost included in your projections, or would that change depending on the design and size of that Phase II?

Appreciate that, Charles. I think I will kick it over to Rob to talk a little bit about aspects on the Phase III. But as it relates to guidance, we pretty much just said that we are pretty set for having a run rate into the first half of 2025 and obviously, assuming a success as Rob has mentioned before that the goal is to pivot and move quickly into Phase III. We haven't given any guidance as to the time line on the cars. I don't know, Rob, if you want to add any additional color there?

Yes. Thanks. As John said, we haven't given guidance on the specific timeline for -- in the Phase II or initiation of a Phase III study, but certainly we're very much of the mind that we need to be fast and efficient with our development program and move seamlessly through to subsequent phases of development. So we are undertaking all of the preparations and as much engagement in preparation to seamlessly and very quickly transition into those later stage. -- regulatory discussions that don't do the launch of those later-stage studies. So as we come to data and as we start to give further guidance on this precise time lines. We'll certainly update as well the impact and obviously the financial guidance is associated with any further scoping of the later-stage development program.

Okay. That makes sense. Thanks, Thanks, Sean, for taking my questions.

Our next question comes from Brian Abrahams with or RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

This is Navin on for Brian. Congrats on all the progress that you were able to make this quarter. I was wondering if you could give me a little bit more color on the cattle and formulation deal that you had mentioned that with the oral dissolving dosage that you have that you might be able to extend out IP production a little bit more. If you could tell me whether you think that the dissolving dosage would be something that would appear on a potential label? And if the PK can't be replicated by like a typical LSV sublingual dose solid dosing? And then as a follow-up to that as well, do you think that this formulation will be something that you end up bringing into Phase 3, or would be the go-forward formulation, or does that kind of depend on how the Phase 1 trials that you intend to run with the Pan out.

Yes. Thanks so much for the question. So in terms of our dose selection, it is certainly our intent to take for the ODT formulation in the subsequent clinical trials with M120, in particular, assuming a successful Phase 2 study to take it forward in the pivotal clinical trials and to commercialization. -- in a marketing application approved. In terms of the performance characteristics and the predictability, one of the key features of the Zydis technology is also the rapid rate of disintegration and with drugs that have obviously acute perceptual activity that we anticipate in development and certainly later downstream would result in a period of time in the clinic. Every interval of time is important and the ability to have a dosage form that integrates almost immediately in the mouth and then gives an opportunity for pregastric absorption to drive faster uptake and absorption in the body could be quite important in terms of differentiating the product from historical products and certainly from an oral capsule or a solid oral visage form that is subject to gastric dissolution disintegration and subsequent absorption. So our view is that it offers a really a compelling opportunity to differentiate potentially on the pharmacokinetics and certainly in terms of the dosage form. And based on all that we know in the proprietary information we have about the performance of LSD by modern pharmaceutical standards, this technology, the manufacturing process. All of this is something that we've been able to take additional steps to protect from like property perspective. And also that we think would be very difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. The ability to differentiate that product pro`, the ability to differentiate, particularly when it comes to things that would potentially have an impact on the safety or the performance of the molecule often what potentially differentiate a product. And really, you can look at some other products to the first part of your question such as Biohaven NURTEC ODT success has been taken for in clinic and ultimately to launch now owned and marketed by Pfizer.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And if I can ask a follow-up as well. So as you're thinking about – as you're thinking about actually designing some of the pivotal studies moving forward. Based upon the FDA's new release guidance on how to run trials for psychedelic where they recommended placebo-controlled trials as well as low and high dose studies or using blinded raiders and dual monitors. How are you kind of -- or how is that newly released guidance kind of impacted your thinking about designing these trials moving forward.

It's a great question. This is a conversation and a intellectual discussion we've been having with FDA and I've been a part of both Mind and other organizations over the past several years. And there's obviously a dynamic with the secondary drug class, where the acute prosocial effects, particularly high doses is at risk for functional unwinding. The phenomenology of an administration section of a psychedelic is quite unique and quite profound. But it's also really important that we don't lose sight of the fact that almost every potent CNS drug ever developed, but particularly some of the recent ones such as SPRAVATO itself, it has dealt with a similar challenge. The functional and blinding logs not pathogenic or psychedelic in nature with SPRAVATO. It is associated and you can see that very, very plainly displayed when you look at the adverse event tables for SPRAVATO versus a placebo. Placebo-controlled research is the gold standard and demonstrating effect. And I think as we've approached and, of course, explore all of the available potential options we could use for control conditions, it really the most robust control condition that could be taken forward into any study and one of the significant challenges. And I would note that the FDA guidance certainly discusses this, but leaves – there’s plenty of room for, I think, appropriately so, for subsequent discussions and an agreement with the division in terms of the path forward and appropriate controls. But when we do know and think about the intent of a control condition is both going to aid in the interpretation of safety data, that is noted in the guidance, it will be nearly impossible without a placebo condition to determine the attributability of adverse effects or any sort of safety findings and therefore, for safety interpretation of placebo is absolutely paramount. And also really important, if we're actually trying to mitigate a functional unblinding that a control condition that would be used other than a placebo to mitigate that potential functional unblind would have to be a dose that is perceivable, giving someone a dose of LSD, for instance, that doesn't rise to the level of having any sort of perceptual effect, doesn't really aid, doesn't really mitigate the risk of functional unblinding while it does hamper the ability to adequately interpret safety conclusions. So in our view, using a subperception of dose of a Psychedelics is really one of the most challenging to argue for because it really doesn't aid in the thing we're trying to overcome and does create challenges in terms of interpretation of the study results. So our view is that the appropriate control in studies with psychedelics and our MM-120 program is to use placebo-controlled research, which again is the gold standard for all clinical research. And it's something that we certainly will be putting forward and feel quite strongly about as before in development.

Okay. Thank you so much for taking my question.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from Elemer Piros with EF Hutton. Please go ahead.

Yes. Good afternoon. Rob, can you hear me, please?

I can. Thanks. Hi, Elemer.

Yes. Hi. So, coming back to the Zydis technology. Obviously, there are a number of precedents you referred to at least one, and the improvement in onset of action and bioavailability. Can we extrapolate to -- specifically to MM-120, what magnitude of improvement could be estimated based on historical data, the number of on actual product candidates that have been tested with the technology itself?

Yes. Thanks, Elemer. Yes, it's a great question. In terms of extrapolation from other molecules, there's a number of physiochemical and other performance properties that dictate the rate of pregastric absorption for any molecule, and certainly, one of the strong reasons for proceeding with a Phase 1 study to characterize exactly that to characterize the rapid nature of onset, the time to onset of any absorption and the time to onset the sort of perceptional activities will give us the specific insight. So, as we progress through that study very quickly and have the data become available, I think we'll be able to give much more precise and probably be a little bit premature for me to extrapolate from other molecules. But certainly, some of the initial in silico modeling we've done has given us confidence that we would see an opportunity for enhanced performance and enhanced PK profile that will both potentially be differentiated and could be more attractive. And so, that was one of the motivating factors for taking that product forward. And as we come to PK data with that formulation, as compared to our Phase 2 formulation, and what we'll have direct insights can provide a much more extensive answer on the exact difference.

Yes. And hearing your commitment to move forward, once you better characterize in Phase 1, it certainly appears that it cannot make things worse, it won't disimproved by availability. Is that correct or safe to say?

Well, it's certainly one of the features of a molecule that is highly potent penetrable and that we know when we give a solid oral dosage forms such as a capsule that then requires a first time and dissolution time a product that is administered in the mouth and then swallow, for instance, with water, presumably would have a similar degree -- similar profile upon entering the stomach. And so, while we certainly need to demonstrate this and want to characterize the response, we feel like there is a limited downside risk in terms of worsening outcomes for the connect -- but again, that is subject to confirmation and why we're moving forward with the PK bridging study.

Sure. And my second question is about the draft guidance and the nature of inclusion of placebo and a low dose of the active drug. Do you think that you will have done enough work in this Phase IIb to at least partially satisfy that, or do you think that you would have to continue an exploration of identifying what is the true safety profile of MM-120, and what is the differential between the low dose and the presumably most effective dose in terms of clinical effect.

So in terms of selection of a dose for a to be informed by the results from our Phase II dose optimization study, which I think it's worth reiterating that the reality is this is the most extensive and rigorous expiration of dose response in a patient population, certainly with LSD, but to our knowledge with any drug in the entire class. And so we'll have a very rich data set and a lot of information that we can in used to support decision-making and proposals for subsequent clinical trials. In terms of characterization on safety, it's really a function of the doses that a sponsor would be intending to move forward and ultimately bring to a marketing application. So as we identify those doses and see the response, it certainly will inform subsequent development. But I think there's – there's multiple questions that a program can ask. And at times, one of the questions put forward is to characterize, of course, the lowest effective dose. That's quite different approach than using a Sub-Perceptible dose that presumably does not have a robust clinical response and using that Sub-Perceptible doses, the control condition in lower placebo. That's where we really focus and with respect to the guidance, I feel that it's really appropriate to bring forward placebo-controlled research into also clinical trial.

Understood. Thank you very much, Rob.

Thank you,

Our next question comes from Francois Brisebois with Oppenheimer & Co. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for taking the question. Just a couple here. In terms of the PK for the Zydis formulation, the ODT formulation, do you share when you would expect that data to come out? And is that data that you'll share or just use internally to figure out how to use it in a freight trial.

Yes. We haven't given guidance to the exact date when it would be available and the extent of the dissemination of those results that may be used primarily for internal decision-making to support dose selection and transition of moving into a Phase II meeting and hopefully, assuming a successful Phase II study moving into pivotal studies. But at that point in time, once we have sufficient data and sufficient clarity on the results of that study and the implications for dose selection, we'll certainly be in a position to share more about the outcome of that study.

Understood. And in terms of the digital efforts, is this something that you'll share? Is it something that you intend to use in Phase III or anything that we should expect to see in the Phase IIb, or is this -- any color there on when we can expect to see data on the digital effort here?

Yes. So the digital medicine program -- and I'll ask Dan Karlin to speak a little bit further to it, but it is not being used currently in our Phase 2b study. But certainly, as we continue to explore and align with the agency, both CDRH and Cedar on the path forward and the inclusion of our digital medicine applications in clinical research. Really want to make sure we have alignment there before we make any commitments to exactly when it would be used in our development program. But certainly, our intent as we progress is to integrate it into clinical research with MM-120 at some point. And we, in parallel, have a number of opportunities through our collaboration to conduct local research with our MM in that system, in conjunction with LSD and also even more extensively with for at administrations, which gives us that ability to be really effective, really efficient in our development approach for the CMD product that we could ultimately then leverage over into a product that we aim to be labeled for use within the 120. A – Dan Karlin: And I had one -- [indiscernible] when we are currently in the process of collecting data. And prior to inclusion -- certainly in a clinical program, we want to be sure that we were confident that we could interpret and understand any data coming from with software medical device product and that CDRH and Cedar. We’re also comfortable with the interpretability of those data. So that would be an ongoing conversation as we approach the pivotal program as we continue to develop the MSMS product.

Okay. Great. And then just lastly, can you just remind us of how understood is the potency difference maybe when you compare psilocybin into LSD. And if it's -- the amount full that it's different, how understood is that just as we're trying to gauge the dose response and the different doses of your Phase 2b? Thank you.

Yes. Thanks. So there's obviously -- there are some studies, including with our collaborators at University Hospital Basel that have looked at the comparative effects -- the perceptional effects at least of various doses of LSD and psilocybin. And when we look at that kind of collectively, generally, the approximation -- and it is just approximation, but that 100-microgram dose would correspond more closely to about a 20-milligram dose of psilocybin. And by extrapolation, a few 100 microgram dose would be something more along the lines of 40 milligrams of psilocybin. In terms of, again, those acute participant rated magnitude of perceptual effect. Now the extent to which that correlates with other target engagement and other clinical outcome assessments is certainly a very different question. But when you think of the potency of the molecule, it seems -- it appears to be about 200 times more potent than psilocybin which, of course, with the dose range we're testing because it's a pretty extraordinary range of doses in comparison that will be explored, including when we look at the historical data, including both the 50 -- or all of the 50, 100 and 200 microgram doses, which very well may help us achieve a level of acute perceptional activity that we would think correlates to some degree of clinical response. But that's, of course, what we're asking in the study and what the data will inform us around in terms of which of those doses, we believe is most appropriate to take forward based on the response in the disease population.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Frank.

Our next question comes from Jonathan Aschoff with ROTH MKM. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Hi, guys. I was curious if you could just a little housekeeping question. This G&A how much of this 2Q was related to the annual meeting? And so kind of what might we not expect to see recurring?

Appreciate that question. We haven't actually broken that out. But if you're looking for kind of a forward cadence on just operating expenses in general, I think the way to probably look at that is we're getting into kind of the tail end of our Phase II enrollment for 120 and also we're on the back end, as Rob mentioned earlier, with our ADHD program as well as we all are hearing more and more about our M402 program. So I think that if you look at the general cadence in the first half of the year -- I'm sorry, in the back half of the year, the expenses would be -- you will probably see an uptick on the higher side in the back half of year relative to the first half of the year.

So I mean, G&A should progress at this level, it shouldn't come down, you're saying.

We haven't given any specific guidance on the G&A line item. I think it's more prudent to look at it just as an overall on the operating expense line for the overall company? And so again, I think the way they look at it, we haven't given any hard guidance on a number of these different components, but I just want to give you something directional to generally think about

Okay. 2H over higher than 1 -- got it for OpEx. Thanks. So the onset for 120 as it is now, what is it? And what are you looking for out of ODT 120 for onset?

So it's great, great question, Jonathan. So -- when we look at, again, historical studies of LSD in various forms, it appears that the MAX has been reported somewhere between 60 and 90 minutes. And so something that would be quite differentiated would be anything -- and again, it's really important that this is a unique drug class. It's a unique product candidate with which, of course, brings along unique considerations around the things that could impact the ultimate safety and effectiveness of a product such as the time to onset of those perceptual activities, the ultimate duration of the perceptual activities and of course, the standard PK metrics, such as the T Maxima, AUC and such. So anything that brings in the speed of absorption would impact the time to onset potentially of perceptional activity that again or the PD effect of the molecules. And so we're looking at observing faster absorption than what we've seen with print oral capsule and ultimately seeking to characterize the differentiation between again, that's time to first absorption, but also the time to the maximum concentration in those other standard PK characteristics. Anything that brings in that time line, even by a small period of time could be impactful in terms of the duration of the overall response. It could be quite impactful because I think it would be difficult to justify a downstream product such as a generic entrant that had different perceptual time course different perceptual profile and assume that it could be reliant on the same sort of activities. So when we see these unique characteristics and unique considerations around a drug class is, it's really important that we're -- the precision in terms of the performance of our product.

Okay. All right. And you were mentioning pre gastric, I guess you're trying to get around, is there much of a food effect or not really?

Well, the food effect would certainly could potentially be impacted by the extent of pregastric absorption, something a formulation, for instance, that absorbs primarily pregastric would be at lower risk for a food effect, of course. And so it drives both the impact of things such as gastric retention but also the time, the speed to which you see absorption of the API and ultimately, that drives the time line to first onset any sort of PD effects.

Okay. And can we assume that the dropping of enrollment was overwhelmingly due to you're going to go forward with an ODT and you still have close enough to 90% power. So why bother with 20 more?

It was -- that decision certainly was informed as we looked at and finalized the statistical analysis plan, looked at the likelihood of obtaining our primary study objectives and undertook to understand the likelihood of seeing a statistical positive result in the event that we see a clinically meaningful result. And as I mentioned, even if we see marginal improvement over the standard of care where we see effect size of 0.4 or less, it still gives a high degree of confidence in the ability to detect with a statistical and clinically meaning full effect with 180 patients. So when we look at, of course, any sort of savings and efficiencies we can build into the program. We're always searching for those, and this was an opportunity to do exactly that without having to sacrifice on the power, the length of success of the study.

Yes. Sounds totally rational. Thank you, guys.

Thanks, Jonathan.

Our next question comes from Patrick Trucchio with H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good afternoon. This is Luis signing in for Patrick. I'm to give you a little breather and ask for the kind of a different question. I'm trying to model the population, the patient population for GAD, and there has been a recent study is saying that according to the increased prevalence rates of GAD and another modes disorders, I might be familiar with the study in mesalamine use disorders. So this suggests $20 million suffered from GAD in the past year. Can you provide some context on this data specifically if we're looking at a new normal and a 10% prevalence in this post-pandemic era, or do you think this is going to plateau and then come down?

Yes, it's, of course, very difficult to predict epidemiological changes in terms of the prevalence of the individual diagnosis. But we certainly anecdotally, as we're out in the world and engaging with payers, with providers, with patients, we hear over and over and over again, both the magnitude of the problem and several conversations where we talked about we solved for a viral infectious disease pandemic, but we have an ongoing pandemic or epidemic and mental health disorders. And really anxiety as a symptom cluster but generalizing in itself has been something that's been grossly overlooked, and we have new data that shows just how much it's been overlooked, how significant of an issue it is. And so certainly, the relative lack of focus for innovative new treatments to target GAD over the past couple of decades -- the fact that there hasn't been a lot new. And over that same period, we've seen, based on comparison to the historical -- in the latest data, we see a substantial a tripling of the prevalence of GAD. And to us, that signifies the reality that has been overlooked is still a significant unmet need to target GAD patients. And with our study coming, it seems to be, in our view, coming right at the appropriate time where the need has never been greater and our opportunity has never been greater of our extension.

Thank you. It is helpful. If I'm allowed, I'll just ask a quick question on your 402 program. When is the Phase 1 trial expected to start -- and if you're looking at any specific biomarkers were meeting data to determine target engagement? And what will be your target population here? Thank you. A – Rob Barrow: Thanks. So our Phase 1 study is intended to be initiated by the end of 2023. We also have the parallel study ongoing through our investing initiative through our collaboration with University Hospital Basel, which we've been informed we anticipate being able to report study results from that study in the first half of 2024. As we progress as we get further for the long in terms of design, what will be speaking more to the specific population and alternated specific endpoints of that clinical program. But certainly, our intent is to characterize the safety of the PK, the pharmacodynamics of MM-402 in healthy volunteers, but also as early as possible in development to bring in patients who are otherwise healthy, but the diagnosis of spectrum is order to ascertain the acute response to MM-402 administration, both for understanding the pharmacokinetics and safety, tolerability, the PD effects and ultimately, trying to get some indication of if this is a molecule MDMA and R-MDMA particular -- particularly where we want to observe some characterization of the acute effects of the molecule in many as we anticipate that would be something that would potentially even impact self-reporting over the course of a day of exposure. So we are seeking to bring in patients as early as we possibly can in the development program to get some indication that we are seeing activity and of course, then expanding and continuing on to later stages of development.

That was great. Thank you.

There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the floor back over to Rob Barrow for closing comments. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, operator, and thanks, everyone. Thanks, everyone, for the questions today. We appreciate you joining us and look forward to providing further updates.

This concludes today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation, and have a good day.