Imara Inc Aktie

Okay. Good morning, everyone. I'm Sean Laaman, Head of U.S. Mid-cap Biotech Equity Research at Morgan Stanley, and welcome to Morgan Stanley's Global Healthcare Conference. Before we commence to make you aware of some important disclosures, please see those disclosures at the Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures.

And if you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. For this session, we have Enliven Therapeutics with CEO, Rick Fair; and CFO, Ben Hohl. Welcome both of you.

Thanks, Sean. Appreciate it. Thanks for having us.

Awesome. I might as well jump straight in. So certainly, I've got a few questions here on, of course ELVN-001 clinical differentiation and the CML strategy. So what is the single most important reason you believe ELVN-001 can ultimately outperform Scemblix commercially rather than simply coexist alongside it?

Yes. Thanks, Sean. And again, thanks for having us. We appreciate it. I think candidly, we are very well positioned in our first launch to be sequenced after Scemblix. Scemblix is going to be well established as the market leader in first and second-line CML when we launch with our second-line plus label. In the long run, competing with them in the front line will be about the totality of the profile. We know that treatment selection in the frontline is driven by different factors for different patients.

For a young fit patient who may be looking for a cure, the most potent therapies are most attractive, getting patients into a deep molecular response, ultimately a treatment-free remission is an attractive treatment goal. And there, it will be an efficacy choice. And I think in looking at our data so far in third and later line patients, we look more effective in terms of driving major molecular response in -- relative to Scemblix. So I think in that patient subset in the front line, it will be an efficacy story.

For many other patients, elderly patients, more frail, more comorbidities, it's really about controlling their disease with a well-tolerated agent. And again, there, our specificity to ABL1 seems to show some differentiation from Scemblix. We're essentially equally well tolerated in terms of nuisance adverse events and those that lead to treatment discontinuation for those reasons. But we do seem to have some emerging advantages in terms of cytopenias, heme tox as well as cardiovascular toxicity and hypertension, which may be very meaningful for that patient segment.

So, I can't really answer a single factor. It depends on the patient population. But I think in both of those patient subsets that we see in frontline CML, we have a reason to believe we'd be better than Scemblix in the first choice.

I'd also just add we have some of the convenience factors as well. So we have a better DDI profile and no food effect. So those are things that hurt Scemblix as well. So I think that's a potential differentiation, too.

Awesome. Thank you, Ben. If ENABLE-2 is highly successful, what percentage of ELVN-001's long-term value do you believe resides in later-line CML versus eventual first-line use?

Yes. I mean I think if you look at the market in the U.S. today -- or the market in the U.S. today, about half the opportunity is in newly diagnosed patients and the other half is in patients who've previously been treated and are on their second or later line of therapy. And so I think we have reason to believe we'll be comparably successful in those settings. And so I would say that the base case would be about half and half between frontline and second line plus.

Wonderful. And what efficacy benchmark would cause physicians to actively switch from other TKIs on to ELVN-001 rather than simply using it in newly relapsed patients?

Yes, it's a good question. It's a little hard to say. Again, I think the treatment decision here is a little unlike other hem/onc or oncology indications where efficacy dominates here. I think it is more of a totality of the profile kind of question. What I would say is better drugs always cause patients to have conversations with their doctors.

And what we saw with Scemblix uptake can't be explained by natural levels of switching. So when they entered the market in third and later-line therapy with their first approval, they achieved peak shares beyond 50% relatively rapidly in a market that doesn't have a very high rate of switching. And so that had to be patients saying, "Hey, there's a better treatment available. I'm going to discuss it with my doctor and then sort of prompted switch. So it's a little hard to point to a specific efficacy outcome that will lead to that. But we think the overall profile of our drug will cause many patients to go to their doctor and say, I hear about this new agent, I want to try it.

Wonderful. And I guess of the opportunity set, which is the most important? Do you think superior efficacy versus superior tolerability and/or quality of life benefits? It's probably all but -- how would you wipe that out?

Yes. I think in this class, efficacy and safety and tolerability are hard to separate. So I think what we're all doing is we're all hitting the same target, BCR-ABL1. And our ability to hit that target hard enough to achieve better levels of efficacy is for some drugs, toxicity limited. So the primary limitation of the first- and second-generation TKIs has been that you can't get to a high enough dose to achieve the level of efficacy you want because of the off-target effects.

With our very specific agent, we believe we can do that. So it's almost not like a trade-off between efficacy and safety here. It is because we have a better tolerated agent, we will be able to dose to higher levels of efficacy. And so we should be able to come out and say, you should switch to our drug because we have the best of both. And I think that's been the Scemblix experience relative to the agents that were available when they launched, and I think you'll see something similar [indiscernible].

And think about CML treating physicians. According to your market research, what's the biggest unmet need that 001 could fulfill?

I think at first launch, the clinical question that's not answered today is what is the best treatment after Scemblix failure. Scemblix is being rapidly taken up in earlier lines of therapy. We're seeing increasing numbers of resistance mutations to the allosteric mechanism. And the choices that physicians after -- have currently after Scemblix are the first and second and third-generation TKIs that have all sorts of safety and tolerability liabilities. So I think we will definitively answer the question what the best next choice is, but that's the areas of highest unmet need currently.

In the long run, I think I described there is that patient population that would like to get to cure rather than just be on chronic treatment for the rest of their life. So the ability to drive patients into a deep molecular response and a durable molecular -- a deep molecular response that leads ultimately to treatment freedom is the primary efficacy unmet need, and we think we have a chance to help contribute to that.

Sure. Thank you. I guess sort of as the data unfolds, what are the most important clinical endpoints beyond MMR that physicians tell you will determine prescribing behavior?

Yes. So I think the regulatory approval endpoint, as you pointed out, is achievement of MMR, major molecular response or a 99.9% reduction in transcript level. I've already described deep molecular response, which is a log below MMR, so down to 0.01% transcript level. And the importance of deep molecular response is that a patient who achieves a durable deep molecular response has a chance to go off therapy and remain off therapy for life. So that's an endpoint of interest.

I think discontinuations due to adverse events is an important endpoint here. I talked about tolerability and each drug has its own -- all of the drugs share their on-target adverse events. Those that have off-target effects have different rates of each of those. But I think a good global assessment for clinicians is could you tolerate the therapy and stay on it. So that discontinuation due to AE rate is, I think, an important decision-making endpoint as well.

And when you model the commercial opportunity internally, which patient population contributes the largest share to projected peak sales?

What do you mean by which patient population therapy...

Post-2G TKI failures, post-Scemblix patients intolerance-driven switches or...

Where are we capturing share from the most -- yes. Candidly, we haven't really modeled that. We looked at -- we're looking at it mostly from a prevalence perspective, not an incidence and switching model. That said, I think we will capture portions of all, but I think the biggest improvement we'll make is the improvement we make over the ATP-competitive agents, so first, second, third-generation TKIs.

Okay. On the registrational program, so I guess, what aspect of ENABLE-2 keeps you awake at night?

Sorry, can you repeat that?

So what aspect of ENABLE-2 keeps you awake at night? Is it enrollment execution, comparative performance, changing treatment paradigm or regulatory interpretation?

I'm not laying awake at night worrying about ENABLE-2. The good news about CML is it's not -- we're not blazing new trails in terms of clinical development here. There's a well-established path to approval. The clinical trial we're running is novel in the sense that it's a second-line plus trial. We're [indiscernible] third line plus trial, but the endpoint is well understood. The comparator performance.

These are drugs that have been around for a while, generated a lot of data is pretty well understood. At our end of Phase I meeting this summer, we were able to clarify the major design parameters of the Phase III study. So we have good health authority alignment. And this quarter, we're having an end of Phase II interaction that will allow us to confirm the other details of the protocol. So I guess if I were to lay awake at night, it would be mostly about execution because I think our plan is really, really clear. But I'm really pleased with the way our team has executed so far, and we've maintained or improved our time lines as we've headed towards first patient in.

Sure. And what have you learned from interactions with the regulators that investors might be under appreciating regarding the path to approval? -- if anything...

I don't think of anything...

No. I mean I think we -- at EHA, we also announced the results at the end-of-Phase I meeting. So -- and I think everything has been relatively predictable here in the CML market. And so there haven't been too many surprises. I think the upside is the FDA is -- we hear a lot of comments about the FDA. I think our experience so far has been that they're moving ahead. We're getting timely responses. Everything is kind of moving according to plan.

And how should investors think about the probability that treatment duration and persistence ultimately become more important commercial drivers than early MMR?

I mean I think in the class, that's been the case, right? These are very long duration therapies. So these patients are diagnosed typically in their mid-50s and are on treatment for life. And a decent proportion, say, 50% to 60% stay on the first drug they ever take. So I think treatment duration is the commercial driver here more than share.

Obviously, you have to get share to get treatment duration. But yes, I think we expect that's a major driver, and it is a feature of this drug class that you tend to see -- if you respond, you tend to see durable responses.

And that's why we talk about the overall package of the drug being really important. It's not just efficacy, but it's the safety, tolerability and the convenience factors that hopefully then drive all of that long duration.

Yes. As for the patients who do switch therapies, as many of them switch for tolerability reasons as efficacy reasons. So it's not all about treatment failures. I just don't feel good on this medication. So that's why it's a both, not either question.

I guess, with the rise of -- just a general question, the rise of China-originated innovation, sort of just your line of sight on what might be coming on the competitive landscape, if you can provide any commentary there and whether the rise in China-originated innovation changes the way that you think about the world, either in R&D and BD.

Yes, sure. So I'd say, to answer your question on the CML front, the only assets that we've seen are aware of that are coming out of China are additional allosteric TKIs like Scemblix. And we -- so far, we've seen relatively limited differentiation there. And so I think as far as our position in the market, we feel very secure about it. Obviously, we need to continue to monitor the landscape, and that doesn't mean somebody won't take a stab at a me-too very highly specific ATP competitive agent like ours. But to date, knock on wood, we haven't seen that.

As far as thinking about China broadly, we are -- our pipeline today consists of ELVN-001, our CML asset, a program in Graves' disease that we hope will advance to the clinic sometime in 2027. And beyond that, we've really wrapped up our discovery efforts. So the building of a pipeline at Enliven beyond those 2 programs will likely be about business development. And obviously, China represents the hottest area for that and would be likely the source of a future pipeline for us, important to us.

Right. So my next question, I think you've just answered it, but I'll ask it anyway. So I guess, can the Precision Design capabilities that produce ELVN-001 be systematically repeated, or were those successes largely program specific. But I think the answer to the question is that BD rather than.

Yes. I mean I think the team that started Enliven generated a lot of novel science. The company was really founded about novel chemistry to develop highly specific best-in-class molecules against known biology. And they worked on a number of programs, 2 of them have made it to the clinic to date, 001 in CML, 002 is a HER2 program that we're no longer pursuing further in the clinic.

And I've mentioned our Graves' disease program behind it. There are other programs that we developed that we always have the option of taking forward, but we think these are the best and the most deserving of clinical development. We're not doing new discovery work at Enliven to expand that pipeline further.

Sure. And how would you balance pursuing highly validated targets with pursuing novel biology that may offer greater upside, but substantially higher risk?

Yes. The premise of the company has been to really focus on known biology. I would say the programs that have entered the clinic to date, obviously, are not just known biology, but targets that are well validated with approved therapies. Our Graves' disease program is against very well-understood biology, but would be a first-in-class molecule. So that's novel for us and an exciting opportunity. But the company is not actively pursuing new biology. That's not in our DNA.

All right. And when you think, I guess, sort of looking forward -- even in 2030, do you envisage a focused oncology company with a small number of highly differentiated products or broader multi-asset oncology platform. It sounds like the former.

Yes. I mean, I think our current pipeline is a little interesting in that it's got one program in hem/onc and one in an autoimmune thyroid condition. So, I think that's different. I think the long-term view of the company is at some point, it may not make sense to have both of those programs under one roof. So we always have the option to monetize one or both of the assets in different ways. And then depending on the choices we make there, building the pipeline we build behind that would make sense. But I don't think we have a firm commitment for the direction we're headed in that way.

Sure. Okay. Back on 001, maybe to the audience, just sort of size up what you think the market opportunity here is in the U.S. and then maybe extend beyond potential ex-U.S. plans.

Sure. So the market opportunity in CML as we see it today is about a $10 billion total addressable market. If you assume a price commensurate with asciminib and Scemblix, it's about half of a frontline opportunity and half of a second-line plus opportunity. And then if you take that globally because of the lower prices due to the availability of earlier generation generic molecules, you see about another $6 billion opportunity in Rest of World, so a $16 billion global market today, growing based on price improvements in the U.S. and also the patient population is growing over time, both incidence and extending survival.

Sure. I guess on capital allocation and the balance sheet, with a strong cash position, what specific milestones would justify increasing investment rather than preserving capital?

Ben, do you want to?

I mean as we think that we have $895 million of cash that gets us into 2030. I think the main thing as we thought about the raise that we did post the EHA this year was we really want to get through the top-line pivotal data for the second line plus pivotal trial. So I think we want to maintain that flexibility because that is a huge catalyst for our company. And also getting through into 2030 also would potentially allow us to get through top line pivotal data for our frontline pivotal trial as well.

So those are 2 pretty important catalysts. Obviously, as we talked about the potential Graves' program as well, that is built into that runway. So I think those are the main things that we're thinking about getting through in terms of the biggest catalyst.

Sure. Thank you, Ben. And maybe for investors, just map out the catalyst path that you see for the next 6, 12 and 24 months.

Sure. So Phase III study start this year -- additional Phase I data update from our ENABLE trial in 2027. We'll be initiating a Phase I trial in combination with an allosteric inhibitor to demonstrate potential ability to drive deeper responses for more patients. We'll initiate that trial in '27. So I'd expect data to start to read out from that in 2028. We'll also be initiating a Phase II frontline study in CML, a single-arm study with a cooperative group that we anticipated starting in 2027 and should start to read out data in 2028.

And then, of course, potential IND clearance and Phase I data generation from our Graves' disease program, which I can't give a specific guidance to on time line, but I think it's reasonable to assume we could get that into the clinic in the first half of next year, if successful. And if we do that, then data readouts probably follow within the 6- to 12-month time frame from that.

Sure, sure. I've got a couple of general questions, if you can indulge me here. First one is on AI. So are you implementing AI across your business? And can you point to any specific examples where it's changed the cost for a decision or even a POS?

Yes. I think we're implementing AI in every way that we can figure out how to implement it. It's embedded in all aspects of our business. I think the primary advantages are, I think, accelerating our clinical and regulatory work, getting study startup, getting regulatory documents generated and those sorts of things are low-hanging fruit that we've tackled and I think are making good use of the technology there.

But I see it being used across our team and certainly in our data management group and the way that we are generating and looking at our clinical data and so forth. So specific wins, it's mostly about time lines and efficiently currently, but I can't think of an example where I think it's enhanced our probability of success yet. But again, given what I said about discovery, we're not doing a lot of AI applied novel science because we're really focused on developing the programs that we've already established.

Sure, sure. And last of the general questions, but we've been asking all our companies this just sort of a snap survey. But on the -- I guess, sort of on the regulatory front, sort of where are you most focused? I mean it sounds like FDA, but we've got questions like MFN, tariffs, et cetera, but it sounds like FDA?

Yes, FDA and other global health authorities. getting our Phase III study start is the most valuable thing that we're doing. And so that's obviously our primary focus is FDA, EMA, and other global health authorities. But we are turning our attention to MFN and the other things impacting global pricing and launch sequencing decisions. Those are important things to be thinking about well ahead of our first approval. So turning our attention to that here in the coming year.

For sure. And I don't know if it's too early to ask, but I'll ask, but just your assumptions around pricing.

Too early to ask. Yes.

I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't. Look, I think we're 5 minutes early, but I've come to the end of my questions, but what didn't I ask that I should have or what message would you like to leave investors with?

I mean, I think the message I'd leave you with, I don't think there are any unanswered questions, but the message that I'd leave you with is -- we have a large de-risked Phase III asset, high probability of success in a $16 billion global market with a best-in-class profile based on 200 patients treated in the Phase I study. And those are hard things to find. So that's interesting for investors, strategics, and others.

And we have a potential transformative agent in our pipeline. Graves' disease is an increasingly exciting area. There's a lot of unmet need for patients with thyroid disease, and those patients are poorly served by the available treatments today. And so, it's an area of increasing focus for drug development. We think we have a chance to have a best-in-class asset that is oral, once a day, and with a really attractive clinical profile. If we get there in 2027, we're really excited that could really change the profile of Enliven considerably to a multi-asset, multi-therapeutic area company.

Wonderful. Well, we might wrap the conversation there. Thank you, Rick. Thank you, Ben. Thank you.

Appreciate it, Sean. Thank you.

Welcome to the Enliven Therapeutics June 2026 Clinical Data Update. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Rick Fair, CEO of Enliven Therapeutics.

Greetings from EHA in Stockholm. Thank you all for joining us today. With me from Enliven are Helen Collins, our Chief Medical Officer; and Damiette Smit, our Vice President of Early Clinical Development. We're also honored to be joined by Dr. Dennis Kim, Professor of Medicine in the Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center in Toronto. Dr. Kim will join us later in the call for Q&A.

On today's call, we will be making forward-looking statements. These statements have risks. We encourage you to review our SEC filings for more information. Today, we are thrilled to provide important updates on our lead program, ELVN-001. We will provide an overview of the ELVN-001 opportunity and share exciting new clinical data from the ENABLE Phase I study that will be presented by Dr. Kim later today at the European Hematology Association meeting.

We will also provide an update on recent FDA interactions and next steps for the program. At the end of the call, we will open it up to the audience for a live Q&A. So please submit your questions any time during the call. Today's data and regulatory updates reinforce our conviction that ELVN-001 has the potential to be the best-in-class tyrosine kinase inhibitor in CML.

ELVN-001 is the only highly selective ATP-competitive BCR-ABL1 TKI designed to avoid off-target adverse events and enable dosing levels to maximize efficacy. ELVN-001 was built for the long-term treatment CML patients require with convenient once-daily dosing with or without food and reduced drug-drug interaction potential.

Today's data update will show in a large Phase I data set, a highly encouraging efficacy, safety and tolerability profile that compares favorably to currently available therapies. We believe this clinical profile positions ELVN-001 to compete across all lines of therapy, and we are pushing aggressively in this direction.

We're on track to initiate our initial Phase III trial in second-line plus CML and a Phase II IST in newly diagnosed CML before year-end. We are also well capitalized to execute on our plan with sufficient cash to fund us through the second-line plus Phase III top line data readout. With that quick overview, let me take you through our view of the ELVN-001 opportunity before we dive into the new clinical data.

Since imatinib's approval 25 years ago, BCR-ABL TKIs have transformed CML into a chronic disease for most patients. That said, significant unmet needs remain. Most CML patients require daily treatment for their entire lives. As such, an ideal CML treatment would provide excellent disease control, have very few side effects and be simple to take.

Currently approved TKIs fall short from this ideal in several ways. They are associated with adverse events that can impact patients' quality of life and in rare cases, can be life-threatening. Even the most effective available TKIs fail to drive major molecular response by key regulatory time points in 1/3 to 3/4 of patients depending on line of therapy.

In addition, approved TKIs have clinically meaningful drug-drug interactions and administration requirements that can make them challenging to fit into patients' daily lives. As a result, we see significant switching in the market as physicians and patients actively search for the best treatment for each patient.

CML is a BCR-ABL-driven disease. Today, we have 2 mechanistic approaches to targeting BCR-ABL, ATP competitive TKIs and allosteric TKIs, each with distinct profiles. ATP competitive inhibitors built the foundation of modern CML treatment and remain the most prescribed TKIs in CML. The first generation, imatinib, transformed CML care and launched the targeted therapy era in oncology.

Second and third-generation TKIs improved upon imatinib's response rates and addressed imatinib resistance mechanisms, but all significantly inhibit off-target kinases. These off-target effects cause adverse events that can impair adherence and quality of life and can limit dosing below levels necessary for optimal long-term efficacy.

Asciminib is the only currently approved allosteric TKI. Allosteric TKIs improved selectivity and as a result, tolerability, but still have liabilities. Because asciminib improves upon first and second-generation TKIs, adoption of asciminib is occurring in earlier lines, and that's currently ongoing. As a result, we're now seeing a growing number and incidence of resistance mutations.

Further, asciminib carries some treatment burden, including many clinically meaningful drug-drug interactions and a fasting requirement before and after dosing. The current dual mechanism landscape creates a clear opportunity for a next-generation selective ATP competitive inhibitor that can address the limitations of both approaches.

Why do we need a more selective ATP competitive agent? As you can clearly see from these kinome maps, every approved ATP competitive TKI in CML has meaningful off-target activity. Broad kinome inhibition drives clinically meaningful toxicities, fluid retention disorders like pleural effusion and edema, cardiovascular events and GI effects like nausea and diarrhea.

In rare cases, these effects can be life-threatening. Nilotinib and ponatinib carry boxed warnings for sudden death, heart failure or arterial occlusive events. In all cases, these effects create a burden for CML patients and can be a barrier to successful long-term treatment. This led to the question Enliven's founders asked when they started the company.

Can we develop a highly selective ATP competitive TKI that avoids these off-target effects, can be dosed to optimal efficacy and can be rationally sequenced with allosteric TKIs to address different resistance mechanisms. Fortunately, the answer to that question is yes. Yes, we can. ELVN-001 uniquely binds a P-loop folded-in active confirmation of ABL1. This drives its exquisite ABL1 selectivity as you see in this beautiful kinome tree.

ELVN-001 was also purposely designed with the current treatment landscape in mind with broad mutational coverage across the clinically important resistance mutations to other ATP inhibitors, including T315I. Given its different binding mechanism, it also retains activity against the emerging class of allosteric resistance mutations, positioning ELVN-001 as complementary to asciminib in the CML landscape.

Finally, ELVN-001 was developed with a favorable PK and dosing profile to make it as suitable for long-term use as possible. Based on currently available data, ELVN-001 differentiates from other drugs in this class in this regard. It has reduced potential for clinically meaningful drug-drug interactions, particularly CYP3A4-mediated interactions.

ELVN-001 is not a substrate for common efflux transporters avoiding an important mechanism of resistance. Further, ELVN-001 is dosed once daily with no food restrictions. Combining these design features with the efficacy and safety profile you will see shortly, we believe ELVN-001 has the potential to be a best-in-class CML TKI.

Given its profile, we believe ELVN-001 is well positioned to compete across all lines of CML therapy over time. With 2 mechanisms, we expect physicians to sequence between them as they do in many other oncology indications. When a patient doesn't achieve treatment goals with one mechanism, we expect they will try the other.

At the time of our predicted first approval in second-line plus patients, asciminib will be approaching peak share in frontline and second-line CML. For patients who don't meet their treatment goals on asciminib, we expect ELVN-001 will be a preferred next choice as the best ATP competitive alternative. With the potential future approval in frontline CML, we expect to compete with allosteric's for frontline share. Of course, the outcome will be dependent on the relative clinical profiles. While we don't yet have frontline data to compare, relative safety and efficacy in later-line patients have historically translated to earlier lines in CML.

Our efficacy and safety data in more heavily pretreated patients compare favorably to asciminib. This makes us optimistic about our chances to play an important role in newly diagnosed patients, if approved. The U.S. branded CML market has the potential to be approximately $10 billion split roughly evenly between first-line and second-line plus patient populations.

Our near-term priority is to initiate our Phase III trial ENABLE-2 in the second-line plus setting in the second half of 2026. Based on the data that we will present today and a successful end of Phase I meeting we recently conducted with FDA, we are on track and more confident than ever. We believe this is a study with a high probability of success that will give us access to the $5 billion second-line plus CML market in the U.S.

To gain health authority approval to initiate a pivotal trial in newly diagnosed CML, we believe we will need a meaningful safety database at our Phase III dose and potentially some safety data in newly diagnosed patients. Of course, our Phase I ENABLE safety database is large and growing, so it will serve to support these discussions.

To address the potential need for frontline data, we plan to support a Phase II investigator-sponsored study expected to start before the end of this year. These plans should enable health authority interactions regarding a pivotal study in newly diagnosed patients in 2027 and a potential study start in 2028.

Upon successful completion, this study would give us full access to the $10 billion opportunity in the U.S. We've made a lot of progress this year, and we're excited to showcase that progress today. First, hot off the presses, we just completed a successful end of Phase I meeting with the FDA, where we reached alignment on the most critical elements of our Phase III plans. We aligned with FDA on 80 milligrams QD as the Phase III dose, second line plus is the study population and the plan to randomize patients to ELVN-001 versus physicians' choice of ATP competitive TKI. This has exceeded our expectations for the end of Phase I meeting.

My congratulations and thanks to Helen, Damiette and our entire clinical and regulatory team. We will meet with the FDA in Q3 to align on the detailed Phase III protocol, and then we'll be off to the races to initiate the trial this year. Damiette and Helen will walk you through the details of the data to be presented today at EHA in a minute. But you see a few of the highlights here.

48% MMR achieved by 24 weeks at our Phase III dose of 80 milligrams QD, a 55% MMR achieved in earlier second and third-line patients with consistent response rates regardless of prior asciminib exposure across all lines of therapy. Additionally, with longer follow-up and more patients treated since our presentation at last year's EHA meeting, the safety and tolerability profile remains impressive and appears differentiated from all the approved TKIs.

We appear to have a great-looking CML drug. With these data and our regulatory and operational progress, we are on track to initiate ENABLE-2 in the second half of 2026. This trial has a clear and derisked path to our first approval in second-line plus CML. With that, I'll turn it over to Damiette to take you through the data.

Thank you, Rick. Good afternoon. My name is Damiette Smit, and I'm the Vice President of Early Clinical Development at Enliven Therapeutics. I'm excited to have the opportunity to share the updated data from the ongoing first-in-human ENABLE study with you today.

I will start with the design of the study. Patients were eligible for the study if they had chronic phase CML and had failed were intolerant to or were not candidates for available active therapies. As a Phase I study, the primary endpoint is safety with key secondary endpoints of centrally assessed molecular response by BCR-ABL1 qPCR and pharmacokinetics.

After dose escalation, 3 dose levels were expanded in Phase Ib, 60 milligram, 80 milligram and 120 milligram once daily. The 80-milligram once daily dose was selected as the optimal biological dose and the Phase III dose based on safety, anti-CML activity and PK/PD modeling. Study has continued to enroll at the 80-milligram once-daily dose to generate additional safety and efficacy data.

At the time of the snapshot, a total of 49 patients were enrolled at the 80 milligram once daily. 20 in the original dose optimization cohort and 29 in the additional expansion cohort. Key demographics and baseline characteristics are presented here. First column shows all patients enrolled in the study across Phase Ia and Phase Ib.

Second column shows demographics and baseline characteristics of the 49 patients enrolled to the 80-milligram once daily dose in Phase Ib. Overall, a heavily pretreated patient population was enrolled as 70% of patients had received at least 3 prior unique TKIs, more than half received prior asciminib. It's important to note that most of the post-asciminib patients had received asciminib in the late-line setting and the majority had discontinued asciminib due to lack of efficacy, again, highlighting the difficult-to-treat patient population.

Overall, the safety and efficacy data presented today should be viewed in the context of this heavily pretreated patient population where remaining treatment options are limited. We have now dosed 161 patients. The median duration of exposure was 35 weeks with over 1/3 of patients on therapy for over 1 year.

Importantly, the safety data being presented today represents an extensive data set with 146 person years of exposure and 118 patients treated at doses of 80 milligram once daily or higher. The data shows us that ELVN-001 is well tolerated with the vast majority of patients remaining on study and only 6% having discontinued due to adverse events.

This slide summarizes the safety data. And as you can see, ELVN-001 demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile with a wide therapeutic window. The table on the right shows treatment-emergent adverse events regardless of attribution. Most events were low grade. Importantly, at the selective 80-milligram once daily dose, the safety profile was similar to the overall patient population with low rates of grade 3 or higher events.

During dose escalation, ELVN-001 was escalated to 120 milligram twice a day, which is 3x as high as the optimal dose of 80 milligram once a day. 80-milligram twice a day dose was determined to be the maximum tolerated dose after 2 patients experienced a DLT at 120-milligram twice a day dose.

Overall, the incidence of arterial occlusive events was low and all patients with these events had pre-existing cardiovascular disease and risk factors such as exposure to prior TKIs with the cardiovascular risk profile, including nilotinib and ponatinib. As Rick mentioned earlier, ELVN-001 was designed to reduce off-target toxicities. And now that we have over 150 patients with safety data, the safety profile continues to be favorable and is consistent with the high selectivity of ELVN-001 for ABL1.

Now we'll review the efficacy data. Overall, encouraging anti-CML activity was observed across the study, especially keeping in mind this very heavily pretreated patient population. On the left, key efficacy milestones are presented. At the selected dose of 80 milligram once daily, 17 of 28 evaluable patients or 61% were in MMR by week 24. Among patients not already in MMR baseline, 10 of 21 or 48% achieved MMR and all 7 patients who entered the study in MMR maintained MMR.

In addition, 30% of patients achieved a deep molecular response, reinforcing the potent efficacy of ELVN-001. Helen will speak next about these results in the context of clinical data from other TKIs, but we believe the best comparative data is the asciminib Phase I study, given the similar phase of the study and sufficiently large sample size to interpret efficacy data.

In this study, asciminib achieved an MMR rate of 24% in a less heavily pretreated patient population. Therefore, ELVN-001 achieved MMR rate of 48% is highly encouraging, noting that the ELVN-001 data is not quite as mature as the asciminib data set. The graph on the right shows the cumulative incidence of MMR in patients who are not in MMR baseline. Key observation is that responses occurred early. As expected, patients receiving more optimal therapeutic doses in Phase Ib as depicted in the green and red lines are more likely to response by week 24 than the whole population depicted in the blue line since that population includes both patients treated in Phase Ia and Phase Ib. That curve beyond the week 24 time point in Phase Ib is explained by the relatively short follow-up for these patients and the reduced testing frequency from monthly to every 3 months.

As follow-up continues, we believe that MMR will continue to rise over time as it does in a more mature overall Phase I data set. Now let's take a deeper dive into anti-CML activity observed in individual patients. This shift table shows changes in molecular response category for each of the MMR evaluable patients.

The top row shows the molecular response category at baseline and the left column shows the molecular response category by week 24. Please note that this table does not take into account a key predictor of response, number of prior TKIs. We will discuss that further in the next slide.

The table is color coded so that if a patient's transcript category does not change or improves, the patients are reflected in green part of the table, light green for no change and dark green for improvement. If the patient's transcript category worsens, they would be reflected in the yellow part of the table. This shift table shows that the majority of evaluable patients showed an improved response category and none had worsening by week 24.

I would like to draw your attention to the subgroup of patients with baseline transcripts of 10% or higher as this subgroup has a high disease burden and in the context of a generally heavily pretreated patient population, this group has the lowest likelihood of responding. In this subgroup, 10 of 17 evaluable patients or 59% improved by at least 1 category, which is highly encouraging and supports the potency of ELVN-001.

As mentioned previously, the majority of patients enrolled in the study were exposed to multiple prior unique TKIs and to prior asciminib. We evaluated the clinical relevance of both of these aspects of prior therapy for ELVN-001 in the current data set. On the left, we show MMR by week 24 by number of prior TKIs. Responses were observed independent of the number of prior TKIs that patients were exposed to. As expected, rates were higher in patients who had been exposed to fewer prior TKIs and lower in patients who have been exposed to a higher number of prior TKIs.

That said, meaningful MMR rates were still observed even in patients with exposure to 5 or more prior TKIs. To the right, we present MMR by week 24 for the subgroup of patients, which was exposed to prior asciminib. The key observation is that responses were still observed after prior asciminib exposure and the responses were in line with response rates seen in our overall Phase Ib data.

Now that asciminib is being used more in first and second-line patients, we think it's important to highlight that ELVN-001 does not appear to be affected by prior use of asciminib, which we believe is due to its complementary mechanism of action.

I will now share 2 patient case studies to complement the cohort level data presented today. As Rick stated earlier, although allosteric TKIs have resulted in improved tolerability compared to existing ATP competitive TKIs, the emergence of allosteric resistant mutations is a growing concern, especially with the increasing uptake of asciminib globally.

Based on preclinical data, ELVN-001 has activity against these mutations. In Phase Ib of the ENABLE study, 10 out of 90 patients or 11% were enrolled with mutations associated with resistance to allosteric inhibition. As anticipated, anti-CML activity was observed after treatment with ELVN-001 in patients with these mutations.

Here, we present a patient who had developed an A344D myristoyl pocket mutation on asciminib. Patient enrolled in ENABLE at 80 milligram once daily and achieved a rapid deep molecular response with only low-grade adverse events reported. The case illustrates the biological rationale for using ELVN-001 in patients who have allosteric resistance mutations and supports ELVN-001's potential use in patients after asciminib.

As previously stated, ELVN-001 was also designed to be active against clinically important mutations that can confer resistance to other ATP competitive inhibitors, including T315I. After developing T315I mutation on asciminib, this patient received ELVN-001 at 80 milligram twice a day and achieved MMR, only reporting low-grade adverse events. And while the T315I dose evaluation is ongoing, and we are not presenting a formal cohort level update today, this individual patient provides an illustrative example of preliminary activity of ELVN-001 in the T315I mutation.

So the ENABLE study has now identified an optimal biological dose for ELVN-001 of 80 milligram once daily, which will be taken into Phase III. In the updated data set, ELVN-001 demonstrated a favorable tolerability profile and encouraging anti-CML activity in a heavily pretreated patient population, including in patients with prior asciminib exposure.

Case studies further support ELVN-001's broad activity against a variety of mutations, including those that arise from treatment with asciminib. In summary, the data today exemplify that ELVN-001 was designed for today's treatment paradigm with activity across prior lines of therapy and regardless of prior treatment.

We believe these data provide a strong foundation for the next clinical stage of development. I will now turn it over to Helen Collins, our Chief Medical Officer, who will present the next steps for ELVN-001 .

Thank you, Damiette. I'm now going to present a few slides, which put the efficacy and safety data that you have just seen into context. And I think you'll see why we're so excited about the updated data being presented at EHA. I'll then conclude with some additional details on the path forward for ELVN-001.

So first, I'll start with the efficacy. The first point to keep in mind when comparing this latest 001 data to historical data from other TKIs is that differences in patient population have a meaningful impact on MMR rates. This slide highlights several important differences between patients enrolled in the 001 study and those enrolled in the Phase I asciminib trial and the TERN-701, now known as MRK-4208 Phase I trial.

For the 001 Phase I trial, the initial enrollment criteria specified that patients could not be candidates for any other available therapy. As a result, the study enrolled a difficult-to-treat patient population, including a high proportion of patients in the fourth line of therapy or later, most of whom had received prior asciminib and many had also received ponatinib.

In addition, the trial did not exclude any specific subgroups. Patients with CML resistant to prior asciminib, including resistance associated with BCR-ABL mutations were eligible to enroll. This is an important distinction when comparing ELVN-001 data with results from other programs.

For example, TERN-701 initially enrolled patients in the second-line plus setting and excluded patients with CML resistant to asciminib. Similarly, the Phase I study of asciminib enrolled predominantly third or later line patients and by definition, did not include any post-asciminib patients. With asciminib continuing to move into earlier lines of therapy, we believe the high proportion of post-asciminib patients enrolled in the 001 study, including patients with CML resistance to asciminib is particularly important. Not only is this a challenging population to treat, but it's also likely more representative of the patients expected to enroll in an initial Phase III trial.

On the right side of the slide, you can see the significant impact that line of therapy has on MMR rates. These bars show asciminib MMR rates by treatment line. As expected, MMR rates decline as the number of prior therapies increase. In fact, there's an approximately a threefold difference in MMR rates between second-line and fifth-line patients.

And as a reminder, more than 35% of the patients enrolled in the ELVN-001 study were fifth line of therapy or beyond. The takeaway from this chart is simple: line of therapy matters and it matters a lot. When evaluating efficacy across studies, differences in patient populations must be taken into account.

With this context, let's move to the next slide. Here, you see a cross-trial comparison of the 001 Phase I data with historical data from asciminib and also from bosutinib, which was the most recently approved second-generation TKI and also the comparator arm in asciminib's first Phase III trial. The first key point is the high MMR rate achieved by ELVN-001 in this heavily pretreated patient population.

The achieved MMR rate was 48% in the Phase Ib 80-milligram QD cohort, which is our planned Phase III dose and 40% across the overall Ib population. As we have previously described, the proportion of enrolled patients who have not completed the full 24-week assessment period affects the denominator and therefore, may influence the achieved MMR rate over time. Even with that consideration, we believe these results are highly encouraging.

Importantly, these data compare favorably with historical results for asciminib, which achieved an MMR rate of 24% in its first -- in its Phase I trial despite enrolling a less heavily pretreated patient population. The comparison is even more compelling versus historical bosutinib data, where the achieved MMR rate in Phase I was 15%, again, in a less heavily pretreated patient population.

Taken together, these data support our belief that ELVN-001 has the potential to be the best-in-class ATP competitive BCR-ABL1 inhibitor and the data provide confidence in the design and rationale for our planned Phase III program. The second point is that historically in CML, Phase I efficacy has been predictive of subsequent Phase III outcomes.

As shown on this slide, the MMR rates observed in Phase I studies are similar to the MMR in the subsequent Phase III trials. Based on the efficacy and safety profile generated to date, we believe ELVN-001 is well positioned to demonstrate superiority to second-generation ATP competitive TKIs in our first Phase III trial. And overall, these data give us confidence as we advance 001 into Phase III and strengthens our conviction that ELVN-001 has the potential to compete across multiple lines of therapy, including the frontline setting.

Next, I'll provide some context on the safety. Now that we have safety data on 158 patients, we're increasingly confident that 001 selectivity profile has the potential to provide meaningful differentiation from currently available TKIs. Starting with the top chart, which shows hematologic toxicity, I would like to highlight that these data are new and were not included in the EHA presentation.

The EHA presentation reports hematologic adverse events, which is standard for Phase I presentation. But adverse events require a laboratory to be both abnormal and the investigator to deem the abnormality to be clinically meaningful. So there is an element of subjectivity. In contrast, the data shown here are laboratory abnormalities, which provide a more objective measure and are the metrics typically included in prescribing information.

Viewing ELVN-001 lab data in this more objective way suggests 001 may have less hematologic toxicity, particularly for Grade 3 and Grade 4 events compared with historical asciminib data. This is potentially important because neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were the leading causes of dose interruptions and thrombocytopenia was the most common cause of dose reduction in asciminib's late-line Phase III study.

If ELVN-001 can reduce hematologic toxicity, it potentially could improve patient tolerability and support better long-term treatment outcomes. Another important toxicity is highlighted in the bottom of the chart, which is cardiovascular safety. To date, the incidence of arterial occlusive events has been low at 4.4% for all grades and 1.9% for Grade 3 and 4, with events only reported in patients with cardiovascular risk factors, including prior exposure to nilotinib or ponatinib.

One important point regarding arterial occlusive events is that these events are defined using a broad grouping of preferred terms rather than a single diagnosis. In our analysis, we have attempted to apply an approach consistent with that used by the FDA in its review of asciminib. As a result, we believe the reported incidence is closely aligned with the rates described in the U.S. prescribing information for asciminib.

Supporting the potential for favorable cardiovascular profile, rates of hypertension as an adverse event have also been low with 5.7% of any grade and 1.9% of Grade 3. While cross-trial comparison should always be interpreted cautiously, these rates compare favorably with historical data.

We have previously discussed our expectation that 001 selectivity profile could reduce off-target toxicities such as gastrointestinal events and rash, which are often associated with inhibition of kinases such as KIT, SRC, PDGFR and VEGFR, et cetera. As Damiette showed earlier, we are indeed seeing lower rates of these toxicities compared to historical ATP inhibitors.

What we have not emphasized before is that 001 also has an approximate 32-fold specificity for ABL1 over ABL2. To our knowledge, no currently available CML therapy demonstrates this degree of specificity. Even allosteric inhibitors are reported to inhibit ABL1 and ABL2 at roughly similar levels because of the close homology of these 2 kinases.

The distinction between ABL1 and ABL2 matters because preclinical data suggests the selective ABL1 inhibition might reduce both hematologic and vascular toxicity. Ultimately, only randomized trials can determine whether these observations will translate into clinically meaningful differences. However, it's exciting to see the emerging clinical data align with the underlying preclinical hypothesis.

More good news is that we recently had an end of Phase I FDA meeting, which not only confirmed the go-forward dose of 80 milligrams QD, but the agency supported our proposed design for the initial Phase III pivotal trial, including enrollment in patients in second line and later setting and comparison against physicians' choice of an ATP competitive TKI.

Alignment with the FDA on these key elements significantly advances our planning efforts, and we are looking forward to finalizing the Phase III protocol with the FDA in Q3 and initiating the trial before the end of the year. This final slide summarizes our registrational strategy as of June 2026.

On the upper left, you see the ongoing Phase I study. This is the trial that generated the data presented today. In the top middle, you see the first Phase III trial, which is just discussed, will be in the second line and beyond, and we expect to initiate this trial prior to the end of the year.

The goal of this first Phase III trial is to demonstrate that 001 is the best-in-class ATP competitive inhibitor for patients with CML. The lower box outlines our planned second Phase III trial in the frontline setting. Given the data presented today, we believe ELVN-001 has the potential to be a compelling option for newly diagnosed patients with CML. We want to bring that option to patients as quickly as possible, and we'll start preparing internally in 2027 with a view to initiating this frontline trial in early 2028.

As a reference point, asciminib's frontline trial enrolled over 400 patients in approximately 12 months. We are considering including asciminib in the comparator arm, and we'll make a decision based on our conversations with the FDA and asciminib's positioning when we initiate the trial. The goal of this frontline trial is to demonstrate that ELVN-001 is the best treatment option for newly diagnosed CML regardless of class. Now I will turn the presentation back to Rick for some closing remarks.

Thanks, Helen. So there you have it. We've covered a lot of ground, but maybe to summarize. We have a highly differentiated potentially best-in-class CML TKI as evidenced by the compelling data we shared today. We're on track to start a high probability of success Phase III trial by the end of this year.

We have a strong balance sheet with cash into 2029 and runway beyond the anticipated top line data from ENABLE-2. And last but certainly not least, we have a great team. Over the last year, we've built upon the great foundation already in place at Enliven to be ready for this transition to late-stage development.

I can say with confidence we're ready. With that, I'd like to bring Dr. Kim into the discussion. Operator, please open the chat for Q&A.

[Operator Instructions]

All right. It looks like Dr. Kim, we have some questions already rolling in for you. I think it's phrased in a couple of different ways, but maybe can you discuss your view of the data? What stands out to you compared to other drugs? Or what stands out to you from the data that are being presented today?

I think that the beauty of ELVN-001 is tolerability, tolerability, tolerability, which make us to continue the treatment, which is durability and which will increase the efficacy. So I think that these are the combinations. It's not just one. However, I have to emphasize that it does have excellent tolerability. Because of that, we can increase the efficacy and the patient can continue their treatment. And in future, maybe we might be able to achieve maybe operational cure in future. Thank you.

Maybe another one for you, Dr. Kim. How will you incorporate this in your practice? So maybe talk about your clinical experience in the study so far. You've, I think, been our highest enroller. And maybe talk about how you envision using ELVN-001 in the future.

Yes. So I think that in my practice, I think that as a part of this Phase I study, I try to find out someone who doesn't have any other option. And in that case, I think that I'm stuck. I couldn't go ahead to any potential other drug in the CML therapy. However, now I do feel more comfortable to recommend it to my patients. If they are in trouble for intolerance or they are in trouble for any other kinds of issue, even they have some other comorbidity, I strongly recommend them to go ahead to that kind of treatment switch. And I'm pretty sure that the Phase III study that we are now planning is going to become very positive at the end. And I hope I can utilize this drug in my clinical practice as soon as possible.

Awesome. Thank you. A question for, let's say, Helen. There's a question about why we chose 80-milligram. Address the limitation the 60 or 120-milligram dose that showed better efficacy in the prior update. Maybe you tackle why did we pick 80, and then I'll handle the 60, 120 better at the last update comment.

Well, we had an advantage that a lot is known about the BCR-ABL as a target. And I think as you heard from Damiette's presentation, the decision was a combination of factors. Obviously, we look at safety across those 3 dose levels, 60, 80 and 120 as well as efficacy. And there was no appreciable difference. And so it really came down to PK/PD modeling. And so whereas 80 and 120, both mean a complete coverage of the target by more than 99% of patients. So there's no particular reason to pick 80 over 120 other than the goal is always the biologically optimal dose. So that's how we landed on 80.

So maybe I'll tackle the other part of that question, which was about the "better 60 and 120-milligram group from our last update. So those of you on the call probably recall that in January, we presented data in 2 groups, an 80-milligram cohort, which at that time was fully mature, meaning every patient was past 24 weeks and a 60 and 120 combined cohort that was less mature.

And we did that to specifically show the impact of data immaturity on MMR achieved rates. So in that update, 60 milligram and 120 milligram looked better than 80-milligram QD because it was less mature data, not because we see a dose effect. For clarity, we do not see meaningful differences in efficacy or tolerability in the dose range of 60 milligrams and 120 milligrams QD. And so with this data update, 2 things have happened. Our 60-milligram and 120-milligram group have matured. So those patients are now past 24 weeks, and we've continued to enroll patients at 80 milligrams. So you see that data set is a little less mature.

So correspondingly, the efficacy at 80 milligrams has gone up, the efficacy at 60 milligrams and 120 milligrams have gone down. Ultimately, when the overall data set are fully mature, meaning all patients are past 24 weeks, based on the patient populations that we're enrolling now at 80 milligrams, it seems like our achieved MMR rates would be somewhere in the 40% range, plus or minus. Obviously, results may vary. These are small data sets. But the 48% we're reporting today does reflect some data maturity and many of you have asked those questions. So I want to be clear and direct about that.

Dr. Kim, how would you use ELVN-001 versus Scemblix in second-line CML after a frontline ATP competitive first or second-generation TKI?

Second line specifically?

Second line specifically. And this-- I presume they're asking in the context of a future approval in that setting.

Yes, assuming the future approval of second line, I think that in terms of the tolerability, I'm also using the Scemblix or asciminib in my clinical practice, but sometimes I have some patients ended up to develop some myristoyl site mutation or they ended up to have some issue for their thrombocytopenia or peripheral neuropathy, et cetera, et cetera. However, my patient who is on ELVN-001 in a Phase I study, I think that they are showing a very excellent tolerability. They do feel nothing, I have to tell you.

And I think that their feedback is really good. So that is the reason that I'm going to continue to enroll that patient. Probably at the end, our practice in CML, even in a second-line setting, I think that we will be paying attention to the tolerability profile rather than anything else.

And that tolerability is going to turn out to be a higher efficacy. I think that because there is -- that is the strength of ELVN-001. So I think that based on this, maybe our practice is going to adopt ELVN-001 in the second-line setting. And later on, once you have frontline data, I'm pretty sure that we will be also able to utilize ELVN-001 even in a frontline setting later on.

Appreciate that. Helen, a number of questions unsurprisingly about the second-line plus pivotal trial. Maybe starting with this one. Based on our data, are we planning to cap enrollment of patients who switched from asciminib primarily for efficacy versus tolerability reasons in our Phase III?

So no, we would not. We see responses, as we said, in patients who have received prior asciminib, whether they stop the asciminib due to intolerability or to resistance. And so there will be no reason to cap that patient population.

Can you share which options you primarily expect to be used from among the ATP competitive TKIs in the physician's choice arm And what level of efficacy do you anticipate from the control arm?

So first, I'll say which one will you pick for you think more often in the Phase III trial.

Maybe depending on their reason for the failure for their frontline therapy, it is related to their resistance and you also have to look at their comorbidity, et cetera, et cetera. And probably, if they fail asciminib, then as a control arm, I expect that maybe nowadays, I think based on the ASC4FIRST data, lots of people may consider the dasatinib. However, frankly speaking, we have no data. We have no data. I have -- I published some in vitro data, but there is more for the combination.

But we don't have any data to support -- to get the direct answer, which TKI is better in the patient who failed asciminib. So I think that there is -- it is fair -- it would be a very fair comparison between the asciminib versus dasatinib in that scenario. But for the other cases, like who failed other ATP binding inhibitor, for example, dasatinib and developed a pleural effusion, maybe in that case, who knows, maybe someone would like to pick up the asciminib or imatinib as a control arm. So I think that it really depends on different scenario. You have to accept a very diverse population and the different scenario in that kind of standard TKI drug selection in comparison to ELVN-001.

And in terms of what we expect the comparator arm to perform, I mean, I think you've seen us make this comparison, again, with all the caveats of a cross-trial comparison between the data we're seeing and the data in the third line plus asciminib and in particular, second generation. So you can see that clearly, 001 we don't think it's going to have difficulty beating a second gen.

At the same time, there is not as much information in the second line, and this will be a mixture of people, second line plus. So we haven't presented publicly all the details of our statistics, but you can imagine that we're expecting to be at least 15% better, and we want to make sure that we have some confidence in that.

Thank you, Helen. One clarifying question here was based on the FDA feedback, confirm that we are not planning on including asciminib in the control arm.

Yes, we are not planning on including asciminib.

And that is aligned with FDA.

Again, yes, the goal of this first trial is to demonstrate we're the best ATP inhibitor. Goal of our second trial in the frontline setting is to demonstrate best drug overall.

So you are going to enroll any patient who failed asciminib frontline -- and then we will get the answer. In that case, after the asciminib failure, which TKI, we should go ahead. And my expectation is you will be superior to other conventional ATP binding inhibitors in that setting.

One for you, Dr. Kim. This is about what you anticipate doing with ELVN-001 versus another allosteric like TERN-701. So Question, we saw TERN's MMR degradation with more asciminib usage in prior asiminib patients, I presume, whereas ELVN-001 was able to maintain MMR regardless of prior asciminib usage. Do you think there's enough data here to shut down the class switching debate, i.e., that physicians really ought to make the automatic decision that after an allosteric inhibitor like Scemblix, it's best to use an ATP competitive agent like ELVN-001?

That's a tough question. Now you are now putting in a very difficult position. We don't have the data, but I think that we assume that maybe today they already failed allosteric inhibition, probably maybe we may need some new medication with some new mechanism of action. So my bet is probably the ATP binding inhibitor will be better than the TERN 701. However, we have to generate the data. Very clear.

There are a number of questions about frontline here. I think there's questions about just confirm what the frontline plan is, what do we need to show, et cetera. So maybe I'll reiterate what we described in the presentation, and Helen, you can add anything I miss.

So I think our belief is that we will need safety data at our Phase III dose, 80 milligrams or above, a safety database that has an adequate number of patients with adequate follow-up to confirm that we have a safe agent before we expose newly diagnosed CML patients to an experimental medicine. Further, we believe that we will probably need a small cohort of patient safety data in frontline CML patients. So the plan that we have is to continue to accrue patients at 80 milligrams QD, and we're doing that in our Phase I ENABLE study, and obviously, we'll begin doing that shortly in our randomized Phase III study, ENABLE-2.

And in addition, we are supporting an investigator-sponsored trial, Phase II study in newly diagnosed CML to generate some data beginning in 2027. I think with that combined package, we would engage with health authorities in 2027 with the expectation we could start a study as early as early 2028.

Anything to add to that, Helen? I know our plan. That's good. Let's see. We're making good progress here. We showed data that said in patients with 1 or 2 prior TKIs, we achieved 55% MMR. How are the patients split between 1 versus 2 prior TKIs, Helen?

Well, we haven't made that data public. I mean we don't have that many patients in the second line. So majority of that is the third line.

I'll leave it at that.

Which again is exciting to see that high number when it's mostly third line.

So the question, do you expect the 80-milligram cohort to look more like the 60, 120 cohort when data mature? Any color you can provide on these patients or when these patients are responding in the 24-week time frame?

So I think maybe I'll take the first part, and then Helen or Damiette, you can comment on the time to response question. I think I tried earlier to describe that we acknowledge that the 80-milligram cohort is less mature in this update, so may benefit from some patients who are -- who have not yet responded or reached 24 weeks and that it is reasonable to assume that, that will converge to something that looks more like the overall Phase Ib population when those patients mature.

I will say that when comparing specifically to the 60-milligram and 120-milligram group, the 60-milligram and 120-milligram group were a little more heavily pretreated. So I think the -- ultimately, their MMR achieve rate would be a little bit lower or at least the expected MMR achieve rate there would be a little bit lower than the 80-milligram cohort. Helen or Damiette, comment on time to response. When do we see responses typically?

I mean I can say that the way the trial is designed is that transcript levels are drawn once every month until they're at 6 months and then every 3 months. As you can see from those curves is that in general, we see the responses quite quickly. We do see responses. And again, going back to that slide, you look at the overall patient population. So you'll see that you'll continue to see responses beyond that time point. But the majority of them do happen in those first 24 weeks, which is what we want, right?

And I think with some of these questions, I just want to add about comparing 60, 80, 120, I want to reiterate what Rick is saying is that as we keep pointing out, the things that we know that impact response are the number of prior therapies, right, the transcript level at baseline and then whether patients have stopped a prior drug due to resistance or intolerance. And again, we made no limitations on any of those. And so I think that's why we look forward to getting more and more patients at the 80 milligram, but I think looking at the whole set of 1b, 60, 80, and 120, as Rick said, we expect that the MMR rate to fall somewhere around that 40% plus/minus.

Question here about efficacy in asciminib-resistant versus intolerant patients. I think this was covered on our slide. But Helen, do you want to reiterate kind of what we observed there?

Yes. So obviously, we've spent a lot of time looking at this because as Dr. Kim said, we expect more and more use of asciminib early line, and we need that data as we plan for our Phase III trial. And I think we're very happy, and it's what we would expect. that we don't see a difference between patients who have had asciminib and not had asciminib once you take into account line of therapy and other impact.

There is some impact just like there is for all of the drugs if, as I said, patients stop for resistance. So if you stop whether it's resistance to imatinib, second gen, asciminib, those patients respond at a lower rate than those who stop any of those drugs for intolerance, but there's no difference between asciminib and other drugs.

Question about safety. So it appears many of the treatment-emergent adverse events are just part of the disease -- background disease. Can you discuss what's considered treatment-related versus treatment-emergent?

I mean, I think we take a conservative view of this. Adverse events, obviously, as Dr. Kim pointed out, it's the most important thing, really, I think, for these patients who are going to hopefully have a normal life expectancy. So we count everything regardless, and it's really going to be a randomized trial that will tell us what's related and what's not. And other than that, I guess if we're going to guess, I'll put it back to Dr. Kim, if you think there are some adverse events that you will see in every drug no matter what, even 001 with its selectivity.

Yes. So for example, like a thrombocytopenia, I think the EHA and older CML drug, that is a kind of evidence that the drug is working. And older CML drug, it does also induce pancreatic enzyme elevation, amylase lipase. It's not just one drug is maybe better than the other. I think the older drug, even some other drug in other cancer therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitor, it affect the pancreatic enzyme elevation a lot. So it is not quite just peculiar for the ELVN-001. So I think these are the most common drug-related side effect even regardless of the type of the TKIs.

So other than that, then what kind of other side effect do we see in ELVN-001? I will say nothing. And actually, my patient is now giving that kind of feedback. So it is not an objective finding. It is more subjective. The experience and they do feel nothing in comparison to the other TKIs, while there are other TKIs, they feel they do experience lots of fatigue or sometimes they do feel lots of other types of musculoskeletal pain and et cetera, et cetera, GI toxicity or skin toxicity, et cetera.

Now after switching over to ELVN-001, they do feel nothing. They can go back to their normal activity. So that is the reason that I really like this compound from my practice perspective. So that's why I can recommend this drug to my patients. Thank you.

Thanks. Do we think the competitive Phase IIIs are designed in a way that can produce definitive answers whether ELVN-001 and TERN-701 are superior in the respective categories? I'll take a stab at that and Helen can weigh in. No, these are -- we aren't going to conduct a randomized study versus TERN-701, -- and I think that obviously, there will be an inherent bias in the patients enrolled.

For example, I think it's highly likely that our Phase III study will include a lot of patients who failed asciminib due to efficacy, and we won't see that as many of those patients enroll in a TERN-701 study. So I think it will be very difficult to do that cross-trial comparison.

Ultimately, as we do bigger studies, we'll learn more. As Merck presents more data, we'll learn more. But I would say, ultimately, the acid test will be in newly diagnosed patients. That's the most homogeneous patient population, and that will give a cross-trial comparison there will probably be the most valid.

Helen is nodding her head, so I won't ask her a further question there. Another question about TERN-701. Can I get your thoughts on a poster that was released this morning for HS-10382, which is Hansoh name for TERN-701. What are your learnings and working conclusions? That was a small patient data set out of a single center in China, 21 patients in newly diagnosed CML, where the efficacy looked similar to asciminib and the safety looked directionally worse, obviously, a small data set, cross-trial comparison, caveat supply, et cetera.

I think our thesis on TERN-701 has been that it is a very similar molecule to asciminib and it appears to be an experiment about high dosing and allosteric to see if you get better outcomes. I think what we've seen so far from very early data is promising. But I think Novartis has done quite a bit of experimentation with dose with asciminib and high-dose asciminib looked moderately more effective than standard dose asciminib and also had higher toxicity liability.

And I think maybe the small data set seems to support that, but very early days, and it's 21 patients of data from a single center. I don't think we should overreact to that. We look forward to seeing more data from Merck to understand what they're seeing with that asset.

Dr. Kim is there a potential to combine ATP competitive with allosteric inhibitors in the future to increase the number of responders as well as more patients in MMR? Why not?

My short answer is why not. But now right now, we don't have that kind of clinical trial data. But I think that I'm also working on in future, I think that to me, the best combination, maybe as a frontline that, if your trial is going to be successful, that you don't need a combination. But -- but I think that still there is a room that we might be able to utilize that kind of combination of allosteric inhibitor with the ATP binding site inhibitor as a combination because their mutation profile, and that is somewhat different.

I think that there would be some way to supplement that kind of mutation profile, why not? But I think that if your trial is successful, for example, like your second-line trial or your frontline trial, then maybe the combination strategy is going to die. But yes, but I'm working on. I have to say. I want to see whether my hypothesis is working or it is not working. We just need to generate that kind of data.

We're running short on time. I'll take one more question here. And of course, we can follow up off-line after the call today. For post-Scemblix patients, the 60% MMR rate in 6 patients looks broadly consistent with the 55% MMR rate across all 27 patients treated at the 80-milligram dose. Can you discuss how median follow-up in the proportion of patients with prior intolerance compare between these subgroups and versus the later line subgroups?

So I know that the -- the 60% is in patients who received 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy and prior exposure to asciminib. All of those patients that were evaluable for MMR achievement failed asciminib due to lack of efficacy in that group. So that's obviously a higher proportion than in the overall population.

As we'd expect, that has no bearing on efficacy for ELVN-001 given its different binding mechanism. So I think we can say that safely. Any sense of how the mix between intolerance and lack of efficacy spans across the subgroups in later lines, Helen? I mean it's a majority of the overall population, what we said, 65% of the prior asciminib patients failed due to efficacy, not tolerability.

Yes, majority.

Did that vary by line? Or is it consistent across.

Yes. I mean -- and of course, many of our sites also had competitive Phase I trials, and there was a reason you probably got more...

Well, I appreciate all the questions, and I see we have a few more to get to, but unfortunately, we're at time. So I think we're going to have to conclude the Q&A portion of today's call. So maybe I'll just wrap up by saying we're really excited about the data and the regulatory updates we shared today, and we're really excited about starting the Phase III trial ENABLE-2 later this year.

Thanks to all of the Enliveners who drive our progress every day to our ENABLE investigators and their patients to Dr. Kim for joining us today and to everyone who participated and listened today. If you have remaining questions or questions in the chat that we didn't get a chance to answer, please feel free to reach out, and we'd be happy to follow up. Thanks very much.

This concludes today's call. You may now disconnect.