Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for standing by, and welcome to UroGen Pharma's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2021 Financial Results and Business Update Conference Call. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Vincent Perrone, Senior Director of Investor Relations for UroGen Pharma. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Good morning everyone and welcome to UroGen Pharma's fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results and business update conference call. Earlier this morning, we issued a press release providing an overview of our recent corporate highlights and financial results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2021. A press release is available on the Investors portion of our website at investors.urogen.com. Joining me on the call today are Liz Barrett, President and Chief Executive Officer; Dr. Mark Schoenberg, Chief Medical Officer; Jeff Bova, Chief Commercial Officer; and Molly Henderson, Chief Financial Officer. During today's call, we will be making certain forward-looking statements. These may include statements regarding the success and timing of our ongoing commercialization of Jelmyto, planned clinical trials, data presentations, regulatory filings, future research and development efforts, manufacturing capabilities, and 2022 financial guidance, among other things. These forward-looking statements are based on current information, assumptions, and expectations that are subject to change. A description of potential risks can be found in our earnings press release and latest SEC disclosure documents. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, and UroGen disclaims any obligation to update these statements. I'll now turn the call over to Liz. Liz?

Thank you, Vincent and thank you to everyone joining us today. We remain focused on developing novel solutions for urothelial and specialty cancers with the goal of fundamentally transforming the treatment paradigm for what is largely an underserved patient population. In this pursuit I am proud of the progress we made throughout 2021 and in early 2022 further solidifying Jelmyto's place in the market as the only FDA approved nonsurgical treatment for low-grade UTUC and setting the stage for several important commercial and clinical milestones in the year ahead. Despite challenges on our commercial efforts stemming from the global COVID-19 pandemic, we continue to help new patients gain access to Jelmyto, which is a testament to the resilience and perseverance of our commercial team. Growing patient access and awareness continue to drive adoption of Jelmyto, as we set new records for revenue, new patient enrollment and site activations in the fourth quarter, setting us up for strong growth in 2022. Jeff will provide more detail on our commercialization efforts, but at a high level, our commercial team did an excellent job adapting to added challenges placed on the healthcare system by rising cases of the Omicron variant as well as staff shortages in Q4. This led to an all time quarterly high in new product revenue of $16.2 million in Q4, a 42% increase over Q3. Total net product revenue for 2021 our first full year product sales of Jelmyto, was $48 million, which was in line with guidance. Molly will review our financial results and provide guidance for 2022 shortly. However, we remain confident in the outlook for the business as we expect continuing and accelerating adoption of Jelmyto and our second full year post launch. Late last year, we announced the launch of a pilot Named Patient Supply…

Thank you, Liz. Before providing an update on our recent progress advancing our clinical development programs UGN-102 and UGN-301, I'd like to comment on our recently published retrospective analysis in the Journal of Urology, which reported real world experience utilizing antegrade administration of Jelmyto. The study was conducted by Dr. Katie Murray of the University of Missouri School of Medicine and provided a stepwise treatment approach to antegrade administration of Jelmyto. Dr. Murray and colleagues showed that antegrade instillation provided a well tolerated effective method to administer Jelmyto, which did not negatively impact patient comfort. Importantly, Dr. Murray's analysis suggested antegrade administration, which minimizes manipulation of the ureter during the instillation, may help protect against stricture formation that had been reported following repetitive instrumentation of the upper urinary tract. As previously stated, Jelmyto is approved for both retrograde and antegrade administration, and both methods can be performed as an outpatient procedure in the clinic. However, instillation via retrograde administration requires the administration by a physician via ureteral catheter utilizing fluoroscopic guidance, whereas antegrade administration may be performed by a trained nursing professional and does not require fluoroscopy prior to gel Jelmyto instillation, once nephrostomy tube position is confirmed. Dr. Murray and her colleagues offer practical guidance for antegrade administration of Jelmyto, which may simplify Jelmyto administration for both patients and physicians. Switching to UGN-102, I'm pleased to report that since our last update, we have completed the transition from the ATLAS study to the recently initiated Phase 3 ENVISION pivotal trial. ENVISION is designed as a single arm, multinational, multicenter study, evaluating the efficacy and safety of UGN-102 as primary chemoablative therapy in patients with low-grade, intermediate risk and NMIBC. Importantly, we believe ENVISION carries a higher probability of success, given that it does not require a control arm, comparing…

Thank you, Mark. I'm pleased to provide you with an update on our ongoing commercial rollout of Jelmyto. As Liz mentioned, we achieved a quarterly record of $16.2 million in net product sales in the fourth quarter, representing a 42% increase from quarter three. Revenue for 2021, our first full year on the market was $48 million and despite volatility in certain regions throughout the year, which corresponded with the rise of COVID-19 cases, Jelmyto full year revenue trends were favorable in 2021. I'm pleased to report that the momentum, which we ended the third quarter continued through to Q4 and into 2022. With our field force primarily back to engaging with physicians in-person, we've observed a more consistent ramp up in new patient starts, and patient enrollment forms on a week to week basis, thus far in 2022, compared to some of the variability we saw in the same period last year. We are hopeful this is suggestive of a more normalized launch trajectory for Jelmyto in 2022. As we look ahead, we anticipate similarities to last year with respect to sequential quarterly variants heading into Q1, which is attributable for the most part to deductible resets typically seen in the first quarter. However, we expect strong year-over-year revenue growth despite seasonality which is expected with a viable product such as Jelmyto. I'm particularly pleased with the growing enthusiasm and adoption for Jelmyto we are seeing from physicians as our data suggests steady growth in both new and repeat prescribers. The number of activated sites as of March 1 was 832, up from 706 on November 1 of 2021, and representing an increase of 17%. Importantly, the number of repeat accounts or sites that have treated more than one patient increased to 106 from 86 on November 1 of…

Thank you, Jeff and thank you to everyone for joining today's call. Before reviewing our fourth quarter and year end 2021 financial results, I'd like to touch upon the up to $100 million non-dilutive term loan financing we have recently announced with funds managed by Pharmakon Advisors. We are pleased to partner with Pharmakon Advisors, an experienced specialist investor with a strong track record of supporting innovative life science companies. In Pharmakon we have a partner who believes in the opportunity of Jelmyto and its ability to positively impact the treatment landscape of low-grade UTUC, as well as the broadest potential for our pipeline of innovative therapies to address significant unmet needs in urothelial and specialty cancers. The up to $100 million senior secured term loan facility significantly strengthens our financial position and supports our operating needs with what we believe will be sufficient runway to achieve cash flow breakeven by 2025 based on our current revenue projections and financial models. The first tranche of $75 million was received last week and will immediately begin to support our continued commercialization efforts of Jelmyto and our ongoing Phase 3 single arm ENVISION trial of UGN-102. At our discretion, we may draw upon an additional $25 million before the end of the year. The loan will mature in five years from initial funding and we reserve the right to prepay the loan and it entirety at any time, subject to certain prepayment premiums and they call on them. In return, we will make quarterly interest only payments to Pharmakon for the first 48 months of the repayment period, followed by principal and interest payments, with interest accruing using three months LIBOR with a 125 basis point flow plus 8.25%. once again, we are excited to partner with Pharmakon, an experienced industry leader…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Boris Peaker with Cowen.

Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. My first question and maybe on the ENVISION studies, can you comment what it is you need to show ultimately for approval and if there is any kind of meaningful values for partial responders?

Mark, do you want to take that and I'll add any commentary?

Yes, sure, of course, thanks for the question. Well, as I think, you know, the current study is almost identical to our Phase 2 in design, and in terms of the target population. So we are lucky to be able to rely on what we saw in Phase 2 to guide us as to what we might expect in the Phase 3. And just to remind our listeners, in the Phase 2 the complete response rate was 65% with the durability by Kaplan-Meier at a year at approximately 73%. So we think that's a good guide to what we might see in this trial. Obviously, we have to do the trial, but we think those are compelling data and helpful in terms of thinking about what to expect from this trial and I suspect Liz may want to comment as well.

Yes, I mean, I think, look, we have said all along, before we ever saw the results of our first study, our Phase 2 study was, we felt like somewhere around a 50% and 50% durability would be meaningful. The FDA hasn't given us guidance to say specifically, you have to hit this number. What they said is, it's got to be clinically meaningful. So what they will do, and we will do as well is they'll be in contact with key opinion leaders in the urology field to say, do you believe that this is meaningful. And as we've talked about before, likely go to an ODAC. So, which we feel very good about, because we have physicians who said, if it worked for any patient, they have the option, but might have the option. So while we can't comment, when we actually don't have a specific number, we feel confident that even if we're anywhere in this 50% range and 50% range, that that would be clinically meaningful.

And the second part of my question, is there any kind of clearing for meaningless, meaningfulness in the partial responders from the expected [indiscernible] practically?

Yes, sorry about that. Yes, sorry I didn’t and Mark may want to comment as well, but yes we believe there is and actually some of the -- what we're capturing is, in this study, which we had not captured much before, but we actually went back and looked at some data. And the ability to get a partial response actually, also allows you to avoid a TURBT and can be managed more conservatively when you've gotten a partial response. That's what we were seeing so far in the data. And, but we also believe that both for Jelmyto and UGN-102, that that's an area we need to study. So if they get a partial response what if you gave two more instillations would that make a difference? So we plan to study that. But to your point, yes we see a benefit even in the partial responders. Mark, is there anything else to add?

No, that's it Liz, thanks.

Great. Thanks very much for taking my question.

Thanks, Boris.

Our next question comes from Chris Howerton with Jefferies.

Hi, good morning. Thank you so much for taking the questions. I -- a couple from me this morning. First of all, I wanted to know maybe from a commercialization perspective on Jelmyto. I know a lot of the efforts that you've made, Jeff, in the past, has been focusing on clinics and physicians and kind of creating an opportunity for them to prescribe Jelmyto when and if UTUC patient becomes available. But I guess, I'm curious if you've made any efforts on the patient demand side, if you can make any comments on that? Secondarily, I'd also like to know if you've been able to observe any meaningful changes in practice procedures with relation to either surgical ablations or radical nephrostomy, nephrectomies excuse me. And then if I may, the last question, perhaps a parting question for Molly. Just curious if you could give us a little more color as to -- with respect to the cash flow breakeven thinking in 2025? Thank you.

Jeff, do you want to take first and then Molly can chime in?

Sure. Thanks, Chris. Yes, so we are increasing our level of patient marketing for 2022 and the end of 2021, because yes, as you pointed out, patients could be aware of Jelmyto as an option, that's ultimately what we want to see more of. So we do have more in regards to social media, activation, patient awareness as much as we can do while being responsible from a resource perspective. Obviously, we want everyone to know about this, but given the patient population, we're certainly doing a lot to activate the patients. I do know we have some various things in the offices where patients will go in, in the waiting room. They'll be able to scan a QR code, learn more about Jelmyto. And then we do a lot through both the website as well as recognition getting them to go to the website for Jelmyto and utuc.com, which is an unbranded site that really does, really not just our patients, but our physicians use that as a resource to talk to their patients about their disease. So we are doing more, and we'll continue to do more in 2022. Regarding your second question, yes, obviously, the good thing here is RNUs, what we've seen in market research are going down. We continue to want to partner with endoscopic resection. So physicians will use Jelmyto in different ways with endoscopic resection in place of, but the good thing that we've seen in the past two, three years is radical nephrectomies are coming down for patients with low-grade, which is obviously what we've set out to do. So hopefully, I answered. Molly, do you want to take the second question?

Sure. So as it relates to the cash flow breakeven projection by 2025, obviously Chris, that's contingent upon our current models for revenues and expenses but based upon where we currently see the demand for Jelmyto, we believe that with our current infrastructure and the support that we have from the commercial team that we can get to cash flow breakeven by 2025. That does obviously factor in a little bit from UGN-102 in the event we're successful with getting approval by the end of 2024. But as we've already said, we do believe that we can be a stand-alone business on Jelmyto alone. So we feel comfortable that, again, with the funding that we have from Pharmakon and the cash we have on hand that we have a path to get there.

Okay, awesome. Well, thank you very much and Jeff, yes, that did address my question, so thanks again.

Thanks, Chris.

Our next question comes from Paul Choi with Goldman Sachs.

Good morning everyone. This is Charlie on for Paul. Thank you so much for taking our questions. First question from me is just looking for a little bit more color maybe on the 2022 revenue guidance and wondering what are the pushes and pulls that dictate the upper and lower balance of that guidance? And then my second question was just regarding the future UGN-301 combinations and whether we should be expecting UGN-201 to kind of be the priority combination partner there or maybe we should be expecting some other potential partners coming in, in the near future? And then related to the combination trial with UGN-301, should we be expecting that any combination arm wouldn't be started until completion of the monotherapy arm with that monotherapy data in hand? Thank you.

So Jeff, why don't you take the first one, and I'll add any commentary and then turn it over and Mark can take the second question.

Sure. Thanks, Charlie. Yes, so with regards to the guidance for this year, I mean, obviously, one big factor is always COVID-related issues. We -- as I stated, we're starting to get back to a little bit of normal with face-to-face interaction with physicians. That is key for any drug in this launch phase, but certainly for rare disease. And so anything there that could impact elective surgeries is certainly going to have an impact on the number. That's probably the biggest factor. I think we're going to start to see some additional data from the registry that I mentioned, hopefully, obviously, that data once we have that, we'll go out, discuss it. And depending on what it shows, that could certainly give us an opportunity there. And then continuing on that, more data that we have on nephrostomy administration, that continues to grow and as far as the main route of administering versus retrograde. And as we start to generate data there and publish that and get that out there, you could see that grow even further in 2022, probably maybe even faster than expected. So those are sort of the highs and lows. But Liz, do you want to comment?

Well, I guess my only thing, Jeff, and we talk about it quite often is really the depth and breadth of accounts, right? So we have to continue to do both of those. We have to continue to get new accounts on board that have said they're going to use. But the thing -- other thing about what Jeff said is not only from a standpoint of having the rep go in, but it's an instillation. So it's a very high-touch sell. So them being able to go in there and work the account is important. You kind of have to hold their hand until they're used to the account. So doing both from an adoption perspective, both breadth and depth. So which Jeff talked about often. Mark, do you want to just talk about the combination study?

Sure, thanks. So yes, we will be starting with 301. It's a Phase 1 dose escalation study, and we need to acquire some information from first-in-human use from that experience. However, our team has developed very elegant overlapping combination protocol that will permit us to start combinations before the complete conclusion of the Phase 1 with 301. So we will start that before the completion. And as to whether or not we would use 201 first as opposed to another agent, the answer is we are actively exploring that. We do plan to use 201 currently, and we are doing some preliminary in-human work to verify that, that's the best thing for us to do. But we are also actively looking at other potential combination partners for 301. So there's going to be more to tell about that within the next year or so. And Liz may want to comment as well.

Yes. I was just going to say, we'll follow the science. So, whether it is 201 will be the primary will depend on the work that we do. But the intention is to have several. So the intention is not just to do combination with UGN-201, but potentially chemotherapy and other targeted agents, both targeted agents as well as other immuno-oncology agents. So we think that's what the team is working through now and the work that we're doing at MD Anderson will help to identify which combinations are best appropriate. And again, the idea is to test quite a few of them, so we can see what works best and then move forward with those combinations.

Great, that’s very helpful. Thank you all very much.

Right, thanks. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Ram Selvaraju with H.C. Wainwright.

Thanks very much for taking my questions. A couple of quick financial ones first. I was wondering if you could comment on the specific revenue level that you expect to be commensurate with achievement of cash flow breakeven in 2025 and if you expect this revenue level to necessarily be above $200 million? Secondly, I also wanted to confirm whether that guidance effectively assumes that you would be able to discharge your debt repayment obligations to Pharmacon even as a stand-alone business solely focused on Jelmyto, if that's hypothetically a scenario that would also be possible?

Molly…

I'll take those, Ram. So first question on the revenue level, so what we've always said is that we believe we can achieve peak market share of around 25% to 35% for Jelmyto. And if you assume that based upon what we believe and what we've always indicated is a total potential opportunity of about $700 million you can get to where we see that peak opportunity to be, which is probably right around the range that you're referring to in that 2025 year. And then as it relates to the Pharmacon prepayment, we do believe that the success of 102 would be important for us to be able to make sure that we can make that payoff in at that five year mark. And saying that, Pharmacon is obviously a great partner and if we feel like we need a little bit more extension, I'm sure we can have a discussion with them at the time. But right now, we feel very comfortable that we can achieve that payment in five years. But to your point, we do need to have some movement from the 102 side in order to make sure we can fully pay that back. And staying within the cash flow breakeven.

Got it. And then just on 301, I was wondering if you could comment on -- well, actually, before I ask the 301 question, just I forgot one other thing. Can you comment on potential ex-U.S. opportunities for Jelmyto, not necessarily in Europe, which I know is a subject that you've touched upon before, but in other countries, simply based on now the knowledge base has been gathered in the United States, it appears to be a more and more accepted product. What could we potentially realistically expect from an ex-U.S. perspective, from a partnership, from a distribution standpoint for the products in the coming quarters and years?

Yes, Ram, it's Liz. I think the priority for us is going to be Japan, because we know two things about Japan. One, we know exactly what needs to be done, and we know that we can get good reimbursement. So that will be our priority. I mean we've -- to be honest we've had a lot of interest in China and some other smaller, the Middle East. And frankly, we have to balance sort of the price, the revenue we can get, the price that we can get in those markets with the effort, and we're still working through that. But we don't -- we haven't found yet a good analog that gives us the opportunity to be able to get a decent reimbursement. So we're really focused and which was the reason for the Named Patient Program, right? We did that because what happens is in these markets, and I've experienced this in my past, is you need champions. You need the physicians and patients to be going to the payers and saying, we want access to this medicine. Then they'll consider giving you a more innovative price. So we'll continue to work through that. I would say the priority is Japan, obviously, if we find an opportunity that we think is worth it will absolutely partner. But most markets around the world, we have to be careful about because they're still comparing to a generic. So I think we need to have a little bit more under our belt in the U.S. and get some experience in some of these named patient countries, and then I think we'll go forward in those areas. And we've been talking to a lot of partners and I think everybody sort of agrees we're on the right track.

Great. And then lastly on 301, just wondering if you could comment on -- let's assume that the Phase I study reads out positively. What implications might this have for future broader utilization of RTGel, not just with a molecule like zalifrelimab, but with potential other monoclonal antibodies? And if there's any possible read-through that you could get from this context to not only the utilization of RTGel with molecules beyond zalifrelimab in the context of the genitourinary context, but also in potentially other areas of the body where RTGel's unique characteristics might be advantageous?

Yes, you absolutely couldn't say it better myself, but you're right, the work that we do in UGN-301, in combinations will be a testament to the ability to give local delivery, right, of medicines. And I think that we do have many companies sort of watching to see what happens here. Urologists treat locally. And particularly, these cancers we're learning more about it. I'd like for Mark to sort of comment about some of the recent work that we've sort of uncovered that local delivery, especially in the bladder is definitely available. I mean there's definitely benefits to doing that. And so we believe, to your point, specifically in urologic cancers but even beyond that and as you know, we've announced some work with some of the academia in other areas like head and neck and colorectal cancer. So we do believe esophageal cancer there are many other areas of the body in which our RTGel technology could work very nicely. But Mark, do you just want to comment on what we're sort of finding out about local delivery, particularly the immunotherapy?

Yes. Thanks, Liz. And Ram, this is a very interesting question and a hot topic for us. Look, I'll just say that we have lately appreciated through our own work and also understanding the work of some others in the area that there may well be an accessible local immune system at the level of the epithelium, which would be very generalizable when you think about locally applied immunotherapy, which, of course, would be absolutely accessible to our platform in a way that could be clinically exceedingly meaningful for a variety of epithelial neoplasms and not the [indiscernible] Lilly here, but everybody I'm sure, appreciates that cancer is an epithelial disease for the most part. So the ability to interact with the immune system at the level of the epithelium in the context of cancer may be profound, and we are very interested in this topic and working on it hard right now.

Thanks very much.

Our next question comes from Matt Kaplan with Ladenburg Thalmann.

Hi, good morning and thanks for taking the questions. I just wanted to followup on the nephrostomy tube administration, antegrade administration of Jelmyto. Currently, I guess, can you give us a sense in terms of what percentage of procedures use that? And then help us think about the adoption of that route administration and how that impacts potential growth of Jelmyto going forward.

Sure. The -- yes, no, we haven't really commented on the number, but I will say this that it's higher than we expected, given that, yes it's in the label, but we really didn't have until Katie Murray's paper we didn't have a lot of good data. As we continue to get more data and go out and able to talk about that publish it, the reps are equipped with resources that guide practices that are interested in this. And I would just say there's more and more questions come in. More and more folks are administering the first dose retrograde and then the following five in the clinic through a nephrostomy tube. So I do – as I said in the past, I expect this to continue to grow, and it will grow even faster as we can get out there with more data. But there is a significant interest, even physicians who said at launch two years ago, year and a half ago, that they wouldn't consider this route of administration have sort of changed their minds and or tunes and they're open to it. So there are more discussions that are going on. And the real advantage is to the patient, the convenience of the patient and the practice. They can do this in their clinic. They don't have to schedule a lot of time. So yes, there's certainly a lot of buzz and a lot of interest, and it's our goal is to get more data out there, and I do see that growing significantly in 2022 as we do that.

Okay, that's helpful, thank you. And then, I guess, a question for Mark. Can you talk a little bit about the differences between ENVISION and the OPTIMA II study that you think will increases probability of success there?

Thanks, Matt. The study is really the same. We're targeting a relapsing low-grade intermediate risk population, which is exactly what we did in the Phase II trial. So I think, as I said earlier, I think that because the trials are, except for the size, essentially and the number of sites involved essentially identical, I think the Phase 2 does give very good preliminary guidance as to what we might expect in the ENVISION trial. It is the same group of people being treated or same type of patient being treated in an identical manner. So I think we'll have to see what the results look like, obviously, but we are optimistic that the Phase 2 does give us a sense of what we would expect in Phase 3.

All right. Thank you for all the color.

And I'm not showing any further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the call back to UroGen's President and CEO, Liz Barrett for any closing remarks.

Great, thank you. As always, we appreciate your interest in UroGen and we're building a very unique company. We're really proud of the progress that we've made. So, 2022 promises to be yet another eventful year, and we look forward to partnering with all of you to bring these patients better options. So operator, we can disconnect. Thanks again, everybody.

Ladies and gentlemen, you may now disconnect and have a wonderful day.