Kymera Therapeutics Inc Aktie

[Audio Gap] chatting with Kymera Therapeutics. Up here on stage, we've got a couple of members from the management team. We've got Bruce Jacobs, who's, of course, is Chief Financial Officer; as well as Jared Gollob, who is the Chief Medical Officer. Gentlemen, thanks for making the trip over from Boston.

Thank you.

Thanks for having us.

So maybe we can just start off with a quick overview of the company. Maybe talk to us about atopic dermatitis is a very, very popular space to be looking at these days. That's just one of the many things that you've got going. Can you just talk in general about the platform and how you differentiate from others who might be pursuing similar indications, and then we can go into more specifics from there.

Sure. Thanks, Tazeen. Maybe I'll start, and Jared can chime in. So it's a good time for that question. Kymera actually last week celebrated our 10-year anniversary of the company's founding, May 4, 2016. So it's been a great opportunity for us to reflect on all that we've accomplished over that time, but also what we still have in front of us. But the company obviously was founded at the time on the promise of targeted protein degradation. And since that time, I think we've been incredibly productive as a discovery engine.

We've taken now 6 programs into the clinic. Over time, we've narrowed our focus really to immunology, where we think there's enormous opportunities. And I think have developed one of the better track records for targeting very unique, difficult-to-address targets with large opportunities, with clear biologic rationale and human genetics supporting them and puts us in a very good position with both the programs that we have in the clinic today, and I'm sure we'll talk about both STAT6 and IRF5 as well as those that will come in the future. And we still have an intention and goal to introduce at least one new program annually.

So excited about where we are as a company. This is -- obviously, every year is an important year for Kymera. This year is of particular importance as well because we've embarked on these Phase II studies for KT-621, one in atopic dermatitis and one in asthma. And I'd say the highest level of focus at the company right now is on executing on those trials. And we expect to complete the AD trial this year. I'm sure we'll get into that throughout the conversation. Asthma next year, and we'll have data we expect for both in 2027. So it's an exciting year for us in that regard.

Going back again to the overview, IRF5, which is our next program after STAT6, is in the midst of a healthy volunteer study. We'll be able to share data in that -- for that program in the second half of this year. And again, working to introduce one new program annually. At the same time, we have a couple of programs partnered, one with Gilead, one with Sanofi. Those continue apace as well. So really a lot of opportunity to progress all these molecules towards ultimately helping patients, which is the fundamental goal of the company.

Okay. So for STAT6, you guys are, I think, the most advanced in terms of data that's been shown so far in atopic derm, but you're not alone. There's quite a few companies pursuing this indication. So you can look at it that derisks it because a lot of companies are willing to spend time and money on this. But on the point of differentiation, do you think that these molecules are meaningfully different from each other?

Yes. I think in terms of, say, small molecule inhibitors, for example, of STAT6 versus degraders, we think that there is significant differentiation because the pharmacology of degraders allow us to degrade STAT6 completely and keep it down 24/7, which is really the sort of inhibition you need if you want to replicate what upstream injectable biologics do to the IL-4/13 pathway. So we're able to achieve that because of the catalytic mechanism of our degraders.

Small molecule inhibitors, and we looked at these as well preclinically, they're just not capable of that level of inhibition 24/7. Small molecule inhibitors because there's a stoichiometric sort of relationship, you get waxing and waning of exposure after a dose, and therefore, you get waxing and waning of pharmacology. So I think it will be very difficult for an inhibitor of STAT6 to hit the pathway completely and consistently and maintain that inhibition the way a degrader can. So I think that gives us a significant advantage pharmacologically over the inhibitors.

So yes, you talked about degraders versus inhibitors. In a clinically meaningful definition, what do you think that would manifest as?

Well, I think -- look, I think ultimately, it will have to come out on clinical efficacy, right? So the ultimate test will be in randomized placebo-controlled studies and looking at efficacy with standard AD endpoints, for example, or asthma endpoints depending on the study. So I think it will have to come out in the clinic ultimately. I think some of the early phase studies will be able to start to give a sense perhaps with inhibitors. There are several inhibitors in Phase I now that might start to give people a sense for what degree of inhibition are you seeing? What sort of effect are you having on biomarkers even in healthy volunteers like TARC and eotaxin-3, how do those compare to what we showed in Phase I.

You'll start to be able to make some comparisons. But ultimately, I think the true test is going to be when you're up against a placebo when you're in a dose range finding Phase II study. And again, I think just because we're able to maintain deep degradation over time without any letup, which is much more like what you see with biologics like dupi, whereas the inhibitors, we don't expect to have that same level of suppression, we think probably will compare favorably at least across studies once there are Phase II data out there.

Okay. If you think about how people describe 621 rightly or wrongly, they call it the oral dupi. So I wanted to get your thoughts. Do you like that term? Do you think that the main difference is the dosing? And how are you thinking about the overall efficacy profile over time as you compare it to DUPIXENT, especially as that goes at some point, biosimilar?

Well, I think, obviously, the history of that term is really rooted in the fact that we are -- STAT6 as a protein is downstream from IL-4/13, obviously, the target of dupilumab, and there's good reason to believe that if we can fully block that target as we expect to be able to do, that we have the opportunity to come close and hopefully actually replicate the -- both the efficacy and safety of dupi. So I think that's obviously the derivation of that. Obviously, it's up to us to show that. I can say that everything we've seen both preclinically all the way up through our smallish patient study, the Phase Ib 22-patient study has supported the fact that it does seem to look and act like dupi. We've seen efficacy levels that look comparable and the safety has been quite clean. But obviously, as I said, it will be up to us to replicate that in these randomized placebo-controlled trials, which we're in the midst of doing right now.

It's an exciting opportunity. You talked about AD. It's obviously a very prevalent disease. And as successful as dupilumab has been, the penetration is still quite low, and there is a large number depending on what source you evaluate, 40 million to 50 million people that have moderate to severe Th2 diseases that are effectively not on systemic therapies. And that might be for various reasons, aversion of needles. It might be insurance reasons. It might be just fear of having to admit that they have a serious disease. We think that's a great population for 621 should it achieve the TPP that we're hoping to see with the drug.

And so a lot gets made about how patient volumes will shift from injectables to orals, how many and so forth. I think the point we try to make is that there's a large number of patients out there available and frankly, excited about an oral mechanism, and that's where we'll mostly be focused.

And I think as Bruce said, while the term dupi-in-a-pill helps people to understand mechanistically what we're trying to do with 621, I think ultimately, we feel that KT-621 will stand on its own merits, essentially independent of dupi and maybe those comparisons down the line will start to go away.

So based on the data that you've presented so far, can you talk to us about what you'd expect to see at the next data update for AD?

Well, I think, so for us, right now, all focus is on the Phase IIb BROADEN2 study, which is a dose range finding study. We have 3 different doses of KT-621 versus placebo. It's 16 weeks of dosing, daily dosing followed by a 52-week open-label extension. So this is the first placebo-controlled test for KT-621. So clearly, we want to see that the drug itself has superior activity over placebo. The primary endpoint is percent change from baseline in EASI at 16 weeks and a number of secondary endpoints that look at EASI and pruritus and a number of other relevant AD endpoints in all different ways.

And so I think really, what we want to see is that this is a drug that is superior to placebo. We want to see that it's safe and well tolerated. Of course, there will be cross-study comparisons in terms of what did we see versus what has been seen in prior dupi studies. But really, the aim of the Phase IIb is to pick the dose that we then bring into Phase III, not just Phase III in AD, but potentially Phase III across other type 2 indications, for example, other cutaneous type 2 indications that could include indications like CSU. Whereas with the asthma study, which is separate, which is the BREADTH study, which is ongoing, that's in Phase IIb study. We'll also have a Phase III dose come out of there. And that Phase III dose will be used not just in asthma, but also in potentially other respiratory indications like COPD, CRS with NP, et cetera.

We're obviously very encouraged by the Phase Ib data, but that was by its own right, limited in terms of number of patients was not placebo-controlled. So I think this will be a real opportunity to really see what this drug is capable of delivering. And we were asked many times for that study to put what's our bar of success, and we're asked that again. For IIb, I think the point is, as Jared mentioned, is really to be able to pick a single dose to move into Phase III, but everyone will be able to look up where dupi was at 16 weeks and make their comparisons, and then we'll see where it falls out.

Yes. On the point of the safety profile, mechanistically speaking, would you expect to see conjunctivitis show up at a certain point?

Yes. We get asked that question a lot. It's a really relevant question. What we've said is that because we are blocking the same pathway, IL-4/13, and we know that with dupi or drugs that block IL-4/13, one does see conjunctivitis predominantly in AD patients. Our expectation is that we should also see conjunctivitis. We may see conjunctivitis because we're also blocking that pathway.

Now with that being said, the mechanism for conjunctivitis in AD patients in response to IL-13, IL-4 targeted agents is unknown. So we don't really know what causes the conjunctivitis. So it's always possible there could be something unique to the antibodies that might be different from small molecules that might contribute. But our base case is that mechanistically, we would expect to see something similar. I think we'll learn a lot from the ongoing Phase IIb study to really know, are we seeing it? And if so, is the frequency similar or not to what's been seen previously with dupi?

And we didn't obviously see any cases in the Phase Ib, but it was 22 patients. And at that time point, 28 days, dupi only has about a 5% conjunctivitis rate. So you might have expected, right, one patient. So the fact that we had none, it's hard to make the call whether it was truly nothing or just small numbers. But obviously, we'll learn a lot from the Phase IIbs.

Yes. So based on our feedback from physicians, they don't, at this point, consider conjunctivitis to be rate limiting in use. It's certainly not for DUPIXENT. But do you think that, that bar has been set by dupi, I think it's 14% in the approved dose that you see conjunctivitis in general. The higher you go from there, does that kind of impact the way you think of the market opportunity for 621, if it's the case that it's higher?

Yes. I think probably we'd like not to see a significantly higher rate of conjunctivitis or greater severity. It's possible we could see the same, we could see less. And even though it is a sort of "nuisance adverse event" that usually doesn't lead to discontinuations or dose changes, it is something that patients and clinicians are aware of. So if we're going to see it, we'd like to be in that same ballpark. We don't want to see more of it necessarily. Now if we did see a little bit more, would it matter? I think if our efficacy is strong and we have an oral drug, I don't think that would be an issue.

Are there any other side effects to be looking out for here?

Well, I think with dupi, I mean, you see a very low incidence of viral infections over time, whether it be mostly herpes simplex. Sometimes you can see sort of facial eczema, facial rash and maybe 5% to 10% of patients who are getting dupi. Those are the main things that people have seen, maybe a little bit of arthralgia in a small percentage of patients. So those are some things that we'd be on the lookout for. The fact that we haven't seen any of this so far either in our preclinical work or in our Phase I means that these are not for us sort of "adverse events" of special interest. But I think we will be looking for those because those are things that have been seen with dupi.

I mean the data that we've been able to generate through all the preclinical work and then into the -- both the healthy volunteers and the Phase Ib has been as good as we could have expected from a safety standpoint. I think that speaks to, as we said earlier, what's known about the pathway, also the selectivity and potency of the drug being what it is. And so we went into the human exploration here having dosed at 30 to 40x the efficacious dose in preclinical studies without having seen any adverse events. So we come in feeling good, but obviously, that's the point of these studies as well.

And again, as we said earlier, the Phase IIb, it's a dose range finding study. So the aim is to look at safety and efficacy across the 3 doses and look at that in composite and then make a decision about what is the appropriate dose to bring into Phase III.

Do you just want to have one dose?

Yes, ideally, we'd like to have one dose in Phase III. And I think we should be able to achieve that given all we learned about sort of exposure response relationship in Phase I and what we'll learn hopefully from the 3 different dose levels that are in Phase IIb.

Okay. So next year is a big year for the company, right? You've got both the AD and the asthma Phase IIbs revealed. I think you've guided to midyear for AD and closer to year-end for asthma. When you do show the AD data, do you think that derisks the asthma study?

It's a good question. I mean I think we think of those studies as being separate. It's interesting that in the Phase Ib AD study, we did look at some respiratory endpoints. So in that study, we had some patients with comorbid asthma and allergic rhinitis, and we were able to see a nice impact of the drug on those comorbid illnesses as well as a nice impact on a lung biomarker called fractional exhaled nitric oxide. So even in the AD patients, that already give us confidence of what we think the drug can do in asthma, which we already knew preclinically, we had a very strong effect in the house dust mite asthma model.

And so I think, yes, I think the AD study can shed some light on potentially what we may end up seeing in BREADTH. But with that being said, the endpoints are different. They're different populations. And so I think we have to sort of view them separately, the AD readout first and see how we impact those AD endpoints. And then I think hopefully, the BREADTH study will stand on its own. The BREADTH study, just as a reminder, also 3 different dose levels versus placebo. It's a 12-week endpoint -- primary endpoint, which is change in FEV1 from baseline, and there are a number of other secondary endpoints as well for that study. So -- and it's also for patients with eosinophilic asthma, we call it high EOs, high FeNO.

So I think we expect, hopefully, to see encouraging results from both, but I think they'll both be sort of stand-alone studies and will tell us a lot about the Phase III dose to take into either AD or other skin indications or maybe even GI indications coming out of the AD study and then the asthma study, if it's a positive study, telling us what dose to take into asthma, COPD and other respiratory indications.

But I do think -- I think it's a fair statement, though, that if we indeed -- the AD will read out first, right? So we started just to level set on timing. We started that study last year. We expect to complete enrollment by the end of this year. And then that will -- once we announce that, that will start the clock for when you expect to see the data. I think positive results from that AD study will certainly make us feel more confident of the likely outcome in asthma, just given what's known about the mechanism, so that's...

Yes. And it does seem like other mechanisms of action for approved drugs, it seems like it's part of the natural progression from AD to asthma and other related indications.

Yes, exactly. If you look at dupi and its impact across all type 2 diseases, whether they be respiratory, cutaneous or GI, it's also worked across the board. And so we do have similar expectations there as well. I think for us, it's more a question of what is going to be the appropriate dose to take into Phase III on the respiratory side versus on the derm side.

And as you think about market opportunities for both of these, is there one that's meaningfully bigger as you sit here today for 621?

Bruce, go ahead.

Well, no, I think there's an enormous opportunity for both. We talked about the untreated -- when I say untreated, but the population that is not interested for a variety of reasons in advanced systemic therapies is significant. The other area that we haven't talked a lot about is the pediatric population. Obviously, many of these diseases afflict children. For right now, we're approved in the AD study, adolescents and up. But you can rest assured that the pediatric population is going to be a big focus of our time, attention and our investment going forward. So I think they're both significant opportunities.

Asthma, in particular, is interesting because they're so much known about what they call the atopic march and how patients worsen over time. So the sooner we can treat patients, I think the better for the prevalence of the disease. And if you talk to parents, and we have talked to many about the pain that both they feel and the children feel from having to give an injection, it's a real impediment and a traumatic experience for a lot of families. So we're excited about having the opportunity to intervene there with a small molecule oral approach.

Yes. And certainly, one of the reasons we chose to start with AD and asthma just because those populations are so large, 80% of dupi's revenues come from those 2 indications. And so it represents a very large opportunity for adults, adolescents and pediatric patients. Obviously, the other indications are very important as well, but starting with those, I think, made the most sense.

There's a question that's becoming more and more asked in my conversations, which is whenever DUPIXENT has a biosimilar in a world where there might be multiple different options for AD, does that, in your view, make it a little bit easier because you would be an oral option and for insurance companies that are always looking to kind of have patients step through therapies, would this be something easier that it would be able to get insurance to initially let you use earlier?

It's a good question. I think time will tell how the market unfolds. I think most people believe and expect that dupi -- that Regeneron and Sanofi will do their level best to extend the time line for generic entry. And we've heard anything from the early 2030s to 2033, '34 and beyond. We expect that we will likely be entering the market when -- before a generic dupi is on the market. So I think that's in our expectation, the most likely scenario. Obviously, a lot has to come to pass for that to be the case. But we -- again, going back to the patient population, I think we're focused intently on this large number of patients that are not on biologics today. Is it possible and perhaps even likely that some number of patients will likely want to switch? Certainly, but we would certainly like to be an early line of therapy for a big number of patients, which is what our goal is.

Okay. I did want to touch upon 579, IRF5, so mechanistically speaking, why does it make sense to pursue this for autoimmune disease?

So yes, there's been a lot of interest in IRF5 from both big pharma and biotech for years, in large part because of the very strong genetic association between mutations in IRF5 and susceptibility to lupus to IBD and to RA. The real problem has been just not being able to drug it. It's difficult to drug because there are multiple IRF family members. So you want to be specific for IRF5 if you want to have a drug with a good safety profile. And there are also multiple different isoforms of IRF5 itself. You have to be able to block all of the isoforms of IRF5. So that's been the main stumbling block.

But IRF5 has been of great interest because it's selectively expressed in certain immune cells like dendritic cells and monocytes and macrophages and B cells. And it's involved in controlling type 1 interferon response, controlling production of pro-inflammatory cytokines like IL-12, 23 and 6 and also involved in B-cell activation and autoantibody production. So you get all of that by targeting one protein.

So again, I think the limitation has been being able to target it. But now that we have a degrader that is highly selective for IRF5 that hits all of the isoforms of IRF5, we've been able to show preclinically that we can degrade IR5 completely and that it's safe and well tolerated. And we've also shown importantly in preclinical lupus models, several different models that we are even more active than either standard drugs that are approved or other active drugs that are in development. And we've also shown that recently in a model of [ IVD ] as well.

So I think we have a real profound opportunity here for targeting IRF5 to transform how diseases like lupus, inflammatory bowel disease and RA are treated with an oral drug that we think can be dosed safely to fully block IRF5, but by affecting multiple different pathways, not just single pathways, really have a transformative effect on the treatment of these diseases.

Okay. So as you think about the level of degradation that you think is going to be needed to produce clinically meaningful results, is that going to depend on the indication? Because I think this mechanism has been tried by others, and it's also been a little bit of a challenge to get good data. So you've talked about your view about differentiation of your platform, but how should we be thinking about level of degradation you're looking for?

Well, I think we've shown in our models of lupus and IBD that even 80%, 85% degradation is enough to give us very strong activity. I think our expectation in the clinic, just as we've had the expectation for other programs previously, is that we want to see at least 90-plus percent degradation of the target, and we feel we'll be able to achieve that based on our preclinical results. Do we need that level of degradation? I think we still don't know whether we need 95%, 98% degradation to impact these diseases, especially since our preclinical data suggests that 85-or-so percent might be sufficient.

But I think we want to understand in Phase I, can we get at least 90% degradation? Can we push the dose to get higher levels of degradation? Are those doses safe and well tolerated? And when we do see degradation, are we impacting the pathways that IRF5 is signaling through. So TLR7, 8 and 9 doing ex vivo stimulation assays as part of our Phase I study to really show how degradation in vivo in healthy volunteers translates then into impact or hopefully inhibition of those TLR7 pathways, which I think we were able to show at least 90% degradation and blockade across these 3 different TLR pathways that would hopefully translate into being able to see activity in a subsequent patient study.

Okay. So when is the next data update from that program?

So we're running the healthy volunteer study now, and the timing will be once we complete the MAD portion. Typically, we do a SAD and then partway through SAD, we start MAD. Once we finish the last MAD cohort and collect that data, then we'll share it with everyone. So we've guided to the second half of the year. We'll be able to give more specificity as we get closer. It just depends on how many cohorts we end up enrolling. So we'll hopefully have that data then, and we also plan at that time, if we haven't already done so, to share more data or more details around the plans for the next study, which, as we have said, is likely in lupus.

Okay. And then how many different indications do you think you'd want to pursue at the same time? Because I remember, this was in January, one of the questions that Nello was asked when we all met up in January was how many different programs do you think the company can support given the size of the company. So what's your thought because you're the Chief Medical Officer, how comfortable are you going to be?

We'll do everything. No, I think for IRF5, I think it's going to depend on first, let's see what we see in Phase I, if we get the levels of degradation and pathway inhibition that we want with doses that are safe and well tolerated. I think that will bring us into our first patient study, which, as Bruce said, will likely be a lupus study.

If we feel as though there's a pathway forward in lupus, then the question becomes as you're asking, okay, well, do we start to think about development in inflammatory bowel disease given the promising results we've seen in our preclinical models there? Or would we be interested in other type 1 interferonopathies like Sjogren's disease, where there's also strong genetic association or systemic sclerosis or even rheumatoid arthritis. So I think that remains to be seen. So maybe I'll punt it a little bit, but I think these are all potential opportunities for us. I think what we see in Phase I, what we see in the lupus proof of concept and how our preclinical animal model data continue to evolve will probably inform ultimately whether we parallel track or not other indications along with lupus.

The premise of your question is a good one, which is that the breadth of the opportunity in some of these targets is significant, right? Obviously, we've talked about AD and asthma with STAT6, but there's COPD, there's chronic rhinosinusitis, there's EoE and several others. Jared mentioned a couple with IRF5. I think we've -- obviously, we're a well-capitalized company, but there's also human resource constraints ultimately and broadly pursuing all of these indications. And so I think we'll continue to be rooted in the science, what indications are most supported by the preclinical work we do with obviously a commercial lens as well and then try to make the right resource allocation decisions as we advance both these programs through clinical development.

And I think Bruce maybe mentioned this upfront, but in terms of how we build our development group, we always try to be very proactive. And now even though we're in Phase IIb, we're already looking ahead to Phase III and building our development group to be able to manage multiple Phase IIIs. And then the same thing goes if 579 ends up being a productive successful program, then we want to be able to be staffed up to be able to support doing additional trials there across multiple indications.

Yes. And so on that point, what's your view going forward is probably for Bruce on business development, either partnering what you have, continuing to partner what you have with others? Or do you even think that there is a reason for you to bring in things that you don't have currently?

So as you might imagine, because of the opportunity in both of these programs, there's been plenty of companies who have kindly offered to lend assistance to our development efforts. Thus far, we've been focused on keeping these 2 programs internally run and wholly owned, and that's the plan for the foreseeable future. I think the opportunity that we might pursue would be one where we could, I'd say, capitalize on the breadth of the opportunity in a greater way than we could do ourselves. But heretofore, we have the team and the capabilities and importantly, we have the capital to execute in the case of STAT6 on these Phase IIb studies. So we'll see what happens beyond that, but that's our intention.

We have a business development effort as well that's looking at in-licensing opportunities, mostly in areas in immunology that would be synergistic to the programs we have today, but that also has to compete with a very productive internal discovery engine as well. And there's a lot happening on that side as well. So nothing to project and predict, but I just know that we're going to do what we think is the right -- take the right strategic option to really maximize very, very large opportunities in front of us.

Yes. On that last point...

Yes. So I think we've tried to stay focused on our core competencies, which is really on small molecule development. And so it would be difficult for us to venture into areas that were not kind of our core area of expertise. So most of the internal work we have, as you might imagine, is around protein degradation for small molecules more broadly. Could we in-license something a little bit afield from that? Certainly, if we thought there was an opportunity to perhaps combination therapy down the road is going to be an interesting area of development, that's one that we're exploring.

With that, we are just about out of time. So I want to say thank you again for making the trip over from Boston.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Good day, everyone. My name is Stefan, and I'll be your conference operator today. At this time, I'd like to welcome you to the Kymera Therapeutics First Quarter 2026 Results Call. [Operator Instructions] At this time, I'd like to turn the call over to Justine Koenigsberg, Vice President of Investor Relations.

Good morning, and welcome to Kymera Therapeutics Quarterly Update Conference Call. Joining me today are Nello Mainolfi, our Founder, President and Chief Executive Officer; Jared Gollob, our Chief Medical Officer; and Bruce Jacobs, our Chief Financial Officer. Following our prepared remarks, we will open the call for questions from our covering analysts.

[Operator Instructions] But before we begin, I would like to remind you that today's discussion will include forward-looking statements subject to risks and uncertainties described in our most recent Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. Please note, any forward-looking statements speak only as of today's date, and we undertake no obligation to update them.

With that, I will now turn the call over to Nello.

Thanks, Justine, and thanks, everyone, for joining us this morning. Next week marks the 10-year anniversary of Kymera's founding, and it represents more than just a milestone. We have stepped into a new chapter where we believe the strong foundation we've built over the past decades positions us to deliver transformative medicines for patients around the world.

In the past 10 years, we've built unique capabilities, including our hit finding approach to identify ligands to historically undrugged proteins, building on that, creating new rules on how we identify dry-like highly specific and potent degraders, importantly, key insights to deliver high fidelity of clinical translation and finally, creative early clinical studies to derisk clinical development -- late clinical development.

We have continued to refine our target selection strategies such as we believe we've built one of the most compelling oral small molecule pipeline in the industry. As we look to the next decades, our guiding principles remain unchanged. We'll continue to focus on both signs, demonstrate early proof-of-concept to support our investments and build medicines that we believe can change the standard of care for many diseases.

And we'll obviously be looking to make the final step becoming a fully integrated global commercial company that delivers groundbreaking medicines for patients around the world. And it's these principles that have shaped our innovative and increasingly differentiated pipeline.

We're laser-focused on our wholly-owned programs such as KT-621, KT-579, where we're applying targeted protein degradation to well-validated disease-relevant pathways in immunology. At the same time, we're extending our reach through partnership like our work with Gilead advancing KT-200, our first molecular glue program and Sanofi with IRAK4. What ties it all together is our commitment to pursuing high-value disease-driving targets with precision and to do it repeatedly across different therapeutic areas.

The sharp focus and the consistency of results we've delivered is what gives us confidence not just in individual programs, but in our ability to broaden and expand our pipeline. We've done a lot of groundwork over the past few years as we sit here today, we're well-positioned to execute on our strategy and deliver on the groundbreaking promises of our programs. Our immediate priority is execution of the 2 KT-621 Phase IIb studies.

In atopic dermatitis, we're on track to complete enrollment this year in the BROADEN2 study, and we expect data by mid-2027. We continue to be encouraged by the level of interest from both investigators and patients, and it's clear the enthusiasm for the trial is high. We're tracking with our internal expectations for asthma as well, where the BREADTH study readout is expected by the end of 2027.

As we advance these studies, we'll continue to assess a broader development strategy, including areas such as COPD, EoE, chronic rhinosinusitis and others to maximize the value of the program. Turning to IRAK5. We expect to report healthy volunteer data from the KT-579 Phase I study in the second half of 2026.

The overall goal is to demonstrate that we can safely degrade the target and the biology translates in humans in a way that's consistent with what we've seen preclinically. IRAK5 has been a target of particular interest across the industry for a very long time. Jared will spend more time on the opportunity, but what's compelling here is that by selectively degrading IRAK5, we have the potential to impact multiple key drivers of disease with a single mechanism.

If we think about lupus specifically, we're addressing autoantibodies, Type 1 interferon, pro-inflammatory cytokines, all through one pathway. While individual drugs can address specific -- each specific pathway, we believe a single mechanism such as an IRAK5 degrader has the potential to address all pathways and potentially have greater therapeutic potential.

We also have several opportunities emerging in our early research pipeline and expect to disclose the next target later this year when we reach development candidate. Before I move on, I wanted to touch briefly on our Gilead collaboration. We recently announced that Gilead has made the decision to advance KT-200, our CDK2 molecular glue, which could enter the clinic as early as next year.

This program is a great example of the power of Kymera's R&D capabilities. Our ability to reach a target like CDK2 with a highly selective molecular glue really speaks to the depth and reach of our capabilities. CCNE-amplified tumors need specific agents to address the underlying biology. CDK2 selective blockade has not been achieved by any investigational drugs, in my opinion. Mostly because of the homology and cross-reactivity with CDK1.

We designed an absolutely selective molecular glue degrader to achieve this target product profile. I'm thankful to Gilead for believing in this program early on and now for taking KT-200, Kymera Therapeutics discovered development candidate into development. Special thanks to our CDK2 team for delivering this molecule in record time.

So everything we're doing across all this program is to build long-term value. This isn't just about incremental progress. It's about our commitment to developing medicines that we believe can change treatment paradigms and expand access to important treatment options. KT-621 is the best example of our strategy in action.

Our continued engagement with KOLs reinforce the growing anticipation for a therapeutic that can potentially fundamentally change the treatment paradigm in Type 2 inflammatory diseases. As you all know, we have shared compelling data sets, including most recently AAD. With that as a backdrop, I thought it was worth stepping back and framing what makes this opportunity so compelling.

When it comes to treating these conditions, patients and physicians are often forced to make trade-offs. What they want most is simple, a safe, effective and convenient option. We believe KT-621 is well-positioned to meet that need with the potential to deliver the efficacy of biologics and the convenience of an oral pill. And that matters because patients' preference is clear.

Given the option, many would choose oral therapy over the burden of injections, especially for chronic diseases that require long-term treatment. In fact, most patients are being treated with suboptimal therapies such as topical creams, which can be massive ineffective or with inhaled medicines, often because they or their prescribers are not comfortable moving to advanced systemic injectable therapies.

KT-621 can change this dynamic completely, allow patients that are not well treated by these local therapies to access a simple, accessible, effective and trusted oral pill. So when you put it all together, the mechanism, the clinical profile and the simplicity of administration, we believe KT-621 can stand on its own has the potential to represent a true paradigm shift.

As a result, our focus is to expand the market and redefine what patients and physicians should expect from treatment. When you take a broader view, the scale of opportunity really comes into focus. This is a slide you've seen before, but it's worth revisiting because it highlights just how much untapped potential still exists in Type 2 inflammatory diseases, particularly for new entrants that can expand the market.

Importantly, nearly 50 million patients could benefit from better therapies. This opportunity is not just about taking share from existing treatments. It's about reaching the much larger population of patients who are untreated or undertreated today. We're already doing the work to better understand the patient population, market dynamics and access landscape, and these insights are guiding our development and ultimately, our commercial strategy.

If successful, KT-621 could become the preferred option and potentially shift treatment earlier in the disease course where earlier intervention can meaningfully reduce disease burden and progression. At AAD and through recent advisory board meeting, the feedback has been consistent. There is clear demand for a convenient effective oral option and strong excitement around this mechanism.

With that, I'll turn it over to Jared to discuss our clinical pipeline a bit more, including KT-579. Jared?

Thanks, Nello. Given the growing focus and attention on our IRAK5 program, I'd like to use most of my time this morning to highlight why we are enthusiastic about this program and target. There is a significant unmet need in autoimmune diseases like lupus, which are characterized by broad immune dysregulation rather than disruption of a single pathway.

While biologics have successfully validated individual targets such as Type 1 interferon, pro-inflammatory cytokines and B cells, these approaches act downstream and only narrowly address the underlying disease biology. As a result, many patients continue to experience inadequate responses.

This is where IRF5 becomes particularly compelling. It is a genetically and biologically validated transcription factor that functions as a master regulator and central amplifier of immune responses across multiple autoimmune diseases. When dysregulated, it drives coordinated activation of multiple inflammatory pathways, effectively locking the immune system into a persistent inflammatory state.

Importantly, human genetic data connect increased IRF5 activity to these pathways that are known drivers of autoimmune disease. This biology supports our confidence that modulating IRF5 has the potential to translate into meaningful clinical benefit. KT-579 is designed to selectively degrade IRF5 and thereby rebalance immune activity by simultaneously modulating multiple downstream disease-driving pathways.

Our goal is to rebalance the immune system more comprehensively and deliver a durable response compared to injectable biologics that target single pathways, while also offering the convenience of oral dosing. We continue to generate compelling preclinical data demonstrating activity across multiple disease-relevant models.

These results reinforce our confidence in IRF5 and support the potential for KT-579 to offer clinical benefit. We plan to present preclinical data, including new data in IBD models at DDW next month and Focus at EULAR in June. We have already generated a robust preclinical data package and have shown that we can effectively and selectively modulate this central node of inflammation.

As you'll see here in our lupus models, KT-579 demonstrated strong and durable activity associated with deep IRF5 degradation. Importantly, the level of activity observed compares favorably to both approved therapies and other clinically active agents evaluated in similar preclinical settings.

Taken together, these data further support the potential of IRF5 degradation to drive meaningful disease modification in autoimmune conditions like lupus and IBD. I should also note that from a safety perspective, IRF5 is not essential for host defense against infectious pathogens, which suggests there may be an opportunity to modulate the immune system through IRF5 targeting without the risk of bacterial or viral infections.

IRF5 knockout mice do not show any susceptibility to infections. And in our 4-week GLP tox studies in nonhuman primates and rodents, we did not observe any adverse findings. We've now advanced KT-579 into the clinic. The Phase I healthy volunteer study is designed to evaluate single and multiple ascending oral doses with a focus on achieving greater than 90% IRF5 degradation in blood and a favorable safety profile.

We will also assess pharmacodynamic activity using ex vivo stimulation assays to understand the impact of IRF5 degradation on key inflammatory pathway biomarkers upregulated by TLR7, 8 and 9 agonists, including Type 1 interferons, pro-inflammatory cytokines and inflammatory pathway gene transcripts.

It's our expectation that we should see a 50% to 80% reduction in these biomarkers across the 3 TLR pathways assessed if we're engaging IRF5 effectively, which would suggest the potential for IRF5 degradation translating into clinical activity in subsequent patient studies with KT-579. Looking ahead, we expect to report Phase I healthy volunteer data in the second half of 2026.

Following that, we are planning a proof-of-concept study likely in lupus where genetic and biological rationale for IRF5 targeting is particularly strong. We will share more details on the planned design later this year. Before I wrap up, I did want to touch briefly on our STAT6 program. There continues to be a lot of excitement around new mechanisms in AD and KT-621's profile continues to resonate well.

Last month, we had the privilege of presenting the KT-621 Phase Ib BROADEN data at AAD during a highly attended late-breaking trial results session. In addition to the presentation, we had a strong presence at our booth at AAD and meaningful engagement with the AD patient community, including patient support groups, which reinforced the real need for new treatment options and excitement over the potential of KT-621 to provide an effective and safe oral therapy for AD.

We also connected with a number of KOLs and investigators who shared their enthusiasm for KT-621 and viewed it as one of the most promising new approaches to treating AD. New in the AAD presentation was the first detailed look at impact on Body Surface Area or BSA, a measure of the extent of AD skin lesions. We saw an overall mean reduction of BSA of 49% at 4 weeks across the 2 dose groups, reflecting a substantial reduction in disease burden.

This, like other key clinical efficacy endpoints included EASI and pruritus was in line with published data for dupilumab at week 4. These early data continue to highlight the potential of KT-621 in AD, and we look forward to learning more in our randomized placebo-controlled Phase II studies.

We are actively enrolling the KT-621 Phase IIb BROADEN2 and BREADTH studies in AD and asthma and look forward to sharing data from these studies by mid-2027 and late 2027, respectively. Overall, we are highly encouraged by all the progress with both KT-621 and KT-579 and look forward to keeping you updated as these programs progress in the clinic.

With that, I'll pause here and turn the call over to Bruce.

Thanks, Jared. As I walk through the first quarter results, please refer to the tables found in today's press release, which was filed this morning. Collaboration revenue in the first quarter of 2026 of $34.4 million is attributable fully to our Gilead partnership. More broadly with respect to Gilead, we received an upfront payment of $40 million upon signing the licensing and option agreement last year, which now has been fully recognized in our revenue.

As Gilead has exercised its option on KT-200, we are due to receive $45 million investment from Gilead, which is expected to be recognized as revenue in the second quarter of 2026. And as a reminder, under this agreement, we are eligible for approximately an additional $700 million in total milestone payments. Also on the partnering front, we continue to expect Sanofi to advance KT-485 into Phase I testing this year, which will include the receipt of a milestone upon dosing the first healthy volunteer.

As a reminder, under the structure of the Sanofi agreement, we have the potential to realize nearly $1 billion in total milestones. Now with respect to operating expenses, R&D for the quarter was $98.2 million. Of that, approximately $8.6 million represented noncash stock-based comp. The adjusted cash R&D spend of $89.6 million, which excludes that stock-based comp, reflects an 18% increase from the comparable amount in the fourth quarter of 2025.

On the G&A side, our spending for the quarter was $20.4 million, of which $7.4 million was noncash stock-based comp and the adjusted cash G&A spend of $13 million, again, excluding that stock-based comp, reflects a 30% increase from the comparable amount in the fourth quarter of 2025. I should note that this quarter's G&A growth was elevated relative to our typical run rate, primarily driven by the timing of certain expenses.

And with that said, we expect G&A growth to moderate in the coming quarters. And finally, we ended March with a cash balance of $1.55 billion, providing a runway into 2029. This allows us to complete both the KT-621 Phase IIb trials in AD and asthma and to fund a large part of the first Phase III trial for KT-621 in AD.

The runway also allows us to advance KT-579 through initial proof-of-concept testing to progress our research pipeline and to grow our organization and build our capabilities as we prepare for later-stage development and ultimately commercialization. Overall, we remain well-positioned and well-capitalized to execute on our clinical programs and pipeline.

With that, we'll pause while we regroup in our conference room and assemble the queue for your questions. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question will come from Ellie Merle with Barclays.

This is Jasmine on for Ellie. I just wanted to ask a bit more about the IRF5 data at healthy as we expect later this year. So in your remarks, I know you said you're looking for 50% to 80% modulation of the biomarker pathways in the ex vivo stimulation assays. Can you help us understand a little bit better how you get to that threshold and elaborate on what you would expect this to translate to clinically?

Yes. Thank you. Maybe I'll start and then pass it to Jared to spend a bit more time on the details. So obviously, whenever we set out these expectations are always based, especially for the first human translation or our preclinical data. Just remember, this is a critical node that actually intersects 3 key pathways. So we see that when we block this node, even not even -- we don't need to even get above 90% degradation, we're able to see modulation of a series of downstream biomarkers. Maybe, Jared, you can speak to how we come up with those numbers.

Yes. So the we assess these pathways, in particular, the TLR7/8/9 pathways with ex vivo stimulation of whole blood. That's how we're planning to do it in Phase I using agonist to the TLR7, 8 and 9 receptors. So essentially, the way we came up with 50% to 80% is that our expectation based on our preclinical in vitro data is that if we're able to degrade IRF5 by at least 90%, we should be able to see that range of blockade of these particular pathways.

Now that 50% to 80% is approximate-- whether we end up seeing within that range or more than that remains to be seen. But that's an approximate level that we would expect to see of inhibition in conjunction with at least 90% degradation of the target.

And maybe just to add, if this was a single pathway, like we've seen, for example, 621 with STAT6 and we have a downstream biomarker that is activated, obviously, we expect complete blockade of that one biomarker.

But given that these are multiple pathways and this pathway is also signaled through other receptor, this is why there is a range because it depends on what pathway, what stimuli, what biomarkers. That's how -- that's why there is a bit more nuance into this biology.

Okay. That's helpful. And then one quick follow-up. Should we expect enrollment completion for the 621 AD study as more of a near-term event or likely later in the year based on the trends that you're seeing?

Yes, great question. Look, I think we've said from the beginning of the study, we expect to complete enrollment by the end of the year. So we're going to stick with that guidance. I think the expectation will be that when we complete enrollment, we will communicate it.

Our next question will come from Brian Cheng with JPMorgan.

It's great that you have laid out the expectations for IRF5 degradations in healthy volunteers. But just kind of looking ahead into lupus patients, do you have a sense of the level of IRF5 degradations that we need to see in lupus patients where you start to see some clinical benefits?

And in other words, is there a minimum threshold of IRF5 degradation that you need to hit in patients? And for this mechanism, how translatable is it from healthy volunteers to patients in terms of IRF5 degradation?

Yes. No, thanks, Brian. So let's start with what we're trying to do here. So as we've done now, this is the sixth program, the human translation is focused on understanding key parameters, which is what is the exposure and dose needed to achieve a level of degradation X and then what level of degradation X translates in terms of clinical benefit as well as safety in patients.

So we always do this in multiple steps, as you know. So right now, what we're trying to figure out is what is the dose and exposure that gives us the level of degradation that we believe is therapeutically relevant. Based on preclinical data, and as you know well, if we -- if the preclinical model -- animal model data will always translate in humans, we would have cured all diseases.

So all this preclinical data has to be taken with a grain of salt. But what we've learned preclinically is that as low as, let's say, 80% degradation is sufficient to drive, let's say, efficacy benefit in this mouse model, benefits that actually are comparable, in many cases, superior to standard of care or drugs in development.

So with that in mind, our goal is always to being able to demonstrate more than 90% degradation because that gives us the flexibility to then titrate pack in a dose-ranging study and establish as we're doing for 621 now, what is the level of degradation needed to achieve maximal and minimal efficacy.

So that's the same we're going to do with 579. I think we want to establish, as Jared said, robust degradation. We want to see more than 90%, knowing that that might not be necessary. But for us, I think it's important to demonstrate that. And then translation of degradation between healthy and patients, which was the second part of your question, historically, we have never seen a difference of degradation between healthy volunteers and patients.

Remember, these are catalytic molecules that do not perform depending on expression of targets, but actually perform depending on exposure of drug and thresholds of exposure. So we expect that whatever we see in healthy volunteers will translate in patients. We've shown that with 621. We've shown it with IRAK4. We've shown it also in other programs in other disease areas.

Our next question will come from Faisal Khurshid with Jefferies.

This is [indiscernible] on for Faisal. Just wanted to ask about the initial enrollment in BROADEN2. Have the initial patients tracked with your expectations with respect to the baseline characteristics?

Thank you. Great question. So I think we're not going to comment on what -- where we are with baseline characteristics. I think it's a bit of a futile exercise until we complete the study and share the data. What I would say historically, we've said that if you look at the early dupilumab studies, the baseline entry criteria in terms of severity of disease have been historically higher, meaning more severe than more recent studies.

And that have been -- we said also historically that there are maybe 2 main reasons. One is that given that there are drugs on the market, more severe patients, especially in these highly advanced sophisticated clinical centers.

So more severe patients have access to these therapies. And also generally, the other main reason is because of the competitive landscape and the general, again, way that sites and investigators enroll in these studies, you've seen a bit more of a less severe population in studies.

And I'm not talking about our studies. I'm talking about studies in the past, I would say, 5 to 6 years. So we continue to have this expectation that a study that is run today, a global study has a mean baseline that is in the mid-20s based on what we've seen historically, what we've seen in the Ib. But I'm not going to comment about what we're seeing in the current study. We'll do so when we release the data.

Our next question will come from Brad Canino from Guggenheim. Brad is just asking this question, we'll just move on to Biren Amin with Piper Sandler.

Can you hear me now? Great. Okay. Maybe just to start [indiscernible]

Biren, it's not working. Maybe you can try again in a bit or I don't know if you're underground. Give it a shot in a couple of minutes, we'll circle back.

We'll move on to Brad Canino with Guggenheim.

Good developments with Gilead and the molecular glue for the CDK2. I'm wondering if you could just discuss what technology advances the Kymera scientists have been able to unlock for this technology and how to achieve the needed protein-protein interactions. And should we expect more named pipeline molecules to emerge as glues over the next few years?

Yes. Thanks, Brad. And you know -- I think you know Kymera well enough to know that we've always looked at the technology as a mean to unlock value for patients through going after difficult to drug or undrugged targets. And so we always look at what is the right technology for the right target. So CDK2 is a very interesting problem, right? We know that if you have CCNE amplified tumors, there is a mechanism of resistance to 4/6 that goes to CDK2.

If you can get to CDK2 either alone or probably more excitingly in combination, you can really have profound effect in breast cancer and other type of solid tumors that unfortunately affect lots of women. And so what has been the challenge with CDK2 has been that there is a high structural homology between CDK2 and CDK1. And CDK1 doesn't actually bring any benefit to efficacy and actually only brings safety issues.

And the comment I made earlier, which I'm really comfortable standing by, I don't believe there are absolutely selective CDK2 agents out there, at least in our hands. And so you're going to run into dose-limiting toxicity. I'm sorry if I'm going too long here. We're going to run into dose-limiting toxicity because CDK1 comes in play, and you actually do not exploit fully the power of CDK2, either mono or in combination.

So why we're using molecular glues for this target is because in the traditional binding site that people use for CDK2, which is the ATP binding pocket, there is just a high structural homology. We have published on an ATP binding site based heterobifunctional degrader and while we were able to have enough selectivity, it wasn't good enough for us.

So we moved on from that effort. And so we said, how do we get absolute CDK1 selectivity. We did it through a protein-protein interaction enabled molecular glue that is outside of the ATP binding pocket. So this is the kind of the premise to my answer, which is, yes, I mean, you should expect Kymera to have other programs from our pipeline that will use this concept because this is just a continuation of protein degradation.

It's just, again, solving a different problem with a slightly different solution. And yes, we expect to see more from there in any therapeutic areas. This is not just relegated, let's say, to oncology.

Our next question will come from Geoff Meacham with Citi.

This is Nishant on for Geoff. I want to go back to the data you presented at AAD. So in terms of the body surface area, you saw higher reduction at 100 milligram versus 200 milligram. So you didn't see much dose response. Is this simply like a small sample noise or is there like a pharmacological explanation such as like maximal degradation plateau effects?

Yes. Actually, I'll let Jared actually speak to the data. I just want to remind you and everybody that 100 milligrams and 200 milligrams gave the same degradation. Hence, we expect to see similar activity. But Jared, maybe you can speak to BSA, which I actually don't remember.

Yes. If you look at the error bars on those graphs, they're actually overlapping. And so the differences between 100 milligrams and 200 milligrams are really not significant differences, and it's probably a function of the small ends.

I think whether you look at BSA or EASI or the other clinical endpoints that we looked at through 4 weeks in that study, you don't always see complete overlap of the curves, but you do see overlap of the error bars. So I think that tells us that we're seeing comparable activity across doses across multiple different endpoints.

Got it. And then just a follow-up on that. In terms of EASI versus BSA, you see like a gapping magnitude, again, given like it's a small sample size. Is this expected given that EASI captures both extent and severity while BSA measures just extend alone. Does this suggest to you that there is deeper severity improvement with this molecule versus surface area clearance at 4 weeks?

Can I just jump into this, Jared? I'm not going to actually address the specific question. I just want to say that we've said -- I've said multiple times, let's try not to overinterpret the individual numbers in such a small study with, as Jared said, the confidence interval between the 2 doses were almost completely overlapping.

I think the important take home from the study is that all these measures showed a robust effect, consistent across all measures and consistent with upstream biologics. But Jared, if you want to add on the particular topic.

No, I think your point is the main one. I think BSA and EASI, there are overlapping but sort of distinct measures, right? As you said, BSA is looking more at the extent of disease. EASI is taking into account both the sort of severity of individual lesions as well as the extent of disease. So there's an overlap there. But the bottom line is that we're seeing a comparable robust effect on both of those endpoints with KT-621.

Our next question will come from Mayank Mamtani from B. Riley Securities.

Congrats on the progress. So on STAT6, there's a lot of activity in the inhibitor landscape, for example. So I was just curious what questions, Nello, you have for some of these highly potent claim to be selective approaches emerging. From the preclinical data, KT-621 does stand out based on whatever is available, but we'll probably get some clinical data next year from you and others.

So just curious, how do you expect the clinical data here to maintain your leadership? And then just quickly on the 621 physician excitement maybe between AD and asthma and recognize you are yet to present your data at ATS next month. Any thoughts on between the 2 indications, the importance of oral versus maybe less frequent injectable? Like if you've teased out what matters more to the different set of clinicians?

Okay. Well, those are 2 robust questions. So on the first one -- thank you. So on the first one, small molecules, degraders, we've touched on this also extensively in the past. So first of all, recognize that STAT6 has been seen as a key difficult undrug target by huge potential for more than a decade.

So it's actually quite exciting to see so many companies, large and small, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into this mechanism, mostly, I would say, following the exciting data that we started to share as early as January of '24, but obviously, we've been working on these targets for multiple years. So I think it's great, first of all, that there is a lot of enthusiasm around this target.

The reason why we believe that degraders are going to be highly differentiated is because we are so fortunate that while obviously, technology requires a level of understanding that is not easily commoditized yet. So these molecules, though, with obviously, the challenge that it takes to make highly specific component degraders, the upside is that they are catalytic in nature and require exceptionally low exposures.

We're talking about nanomolar to picomolar to completely remove STAT6, which allows us to have complete degradation at very low doses and importantly, at very low exposures so that we can deliver a drug once a day. And actually, technically, you could probably deliver a drug less frequently than once a day. With a small molecule inhibitor, as you know, you're inhibiting stoichiometrically the target.

So one molecule blocks one protein. So for this type of protein, you require a large amount of molecules in the body, in all tissues for 24 hours. And this becomes a challenge with regards to PK exposure, safety, safety therapeutic index.

And so in our experience, and I think we've said this publicly, we've invested actually quite heavily in small molecule inhibitors to actually answer the question, do we need a degrader if an inhibitor is good enough? Our answer is, yes, you need a degrader because inhibitor can't quite reach the level of pathway blockade that a catalytic degrader can.

So I think the beautiful thing about drug development is at the end of the day, I can spend the next hour trying to convince you that I'm right. But the best thing is that we'll generate data soon enough. And I think that will be the final nail on the cockpit on this argument for us, I hope.

With regards to your second question, so we've had the fortune and hopefully, we did also something good about generating and importantly, presenting our data in many medical conferences. We were fortunate to be selected at the podium at [ EADP ], which I believe was probably the first time for healthy volunteer data, I might not be sure. And then we presented at AAD.

We presented [ ATS/T ] preclinical data we'll present later. So there is a very high appreciation from the medical community, both AD and asthma, about the potential of an oral drug in this space. I just want to remind you, whether it's AD or asthma, the majority of patients are not controlled well or not treated well with either local therapy like inhalers or topicals and not enough of them are on advanced systemic biologics.

So our goal is actually -- our goal is not to compete with less frequent dosing. That might come in place. It's just the market dynamics. But we're actually trying to mobilize the millions of patients that are sitting on the sidelines because they feel or their prescribers feel they're not ready for an injectable biologics, and we offer that biologics like oral pill that would change their lives.

And so I think what we're seeing in other disease areas, it's a complete different paradigm shift. And that's really what we're focused on. I think this obviously resonates with investigators and more importantly, resonates with patients based on our experience.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question will come from Judah Frommer with Morgan Stanley.

Maybe just building on the last one, I think it's fair to say you've established a sort of playbook for Phase I studies in AD. So just curious to get your take on that excitement for 621 on the oral aspect versus the mechanism aspect. There are others going after oral drugs, but maybe in more novel targets.

So the level of excitement for the oral nature of the drug, but also the fact that you're hitting IL-4/13, which is so well understood by docs. And then just within the landscape, curious specifically maybe on anything around IL-18 that you see as interesting within AD or more broadly and how that could apply to the IRAK4 program.

Yes. Thanks, Judah. I like your 90 years in your backdrop. You're 80 years older than Kymera at Morgan Stanley. So yes, to answer your question, I think you put it exactly right. The reason for the excitement for 621 is not just about the oral drug. I think it's the combination of oral, which is needed in this still early market, but combine it with the sense of understanding and comfort of a well-validated pathways like IL-4 and 13.

And I think that's really what's making this drug and this program very unique in the space. I mean, as you know well, there are several other potential oral mechanisms out there, which, to be honest, I hope that they have a path forward beyond early Phase I data. I think, obviously, what the burden approved for a mechanism in the IL-4 and 13 pathway, I assume, is a bit less than it is for completely new pathways with completely unproven efficacy and safety. So I don't know, Jared, if there was anything to add to the second part.

Yes. And the only thing I would add to the first part, too, is just around -- because you talked about mechanism, Judah. And I think there is an appreciation that the unique PPD mechanism, that catalytic mechanism of action that can lead to durable, maintained complete target suppression and pathway suppression that equals what you can get with upstream injectable biologics.

I think that's a big selling point here with regard to degraders versus small molecule inhibitors. You asked about IL-18. I mean, IL-18, some of those initial data coming out of [ autoimmune ] are interesting, right? And I think it sort of speaks to the fact that AD does not have this one flavor of inflammation, right?

Obviously, Th2 is one of the main drivers of the pathophysiology, but other types of inflammation, whether it be Th1, Th17 driven, probably have some contribution as well and seeing activity with the drug targeting IL-18 probably speaks to that.

Again, it was not as well validated a pathway here in AD. It's interesting to see the results coming out of that. And it makes one think of interesting possibilities down the road maybe for combination therapies by bringing on other drugs that are hitting other types of inflammation in addition to Type 2 inflammation.

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

Can you hear me? All right. So on BROADEN2, I noticed in the press release that you're also including adolescents in addition to adults in the trial. But I think more recently, there was some inclusion criteria changes in the trial where you're now requiring, I think, adult patients needing at least 3 years of chronic disease, whereas with adolescent, it's a requirement of at least 1 year. Can you just maybe talk about the implications of that change?

Yes. So I mean, the addition is the inclusion of adolescents to the study. Again, this is part of our overall strategy to change treatment paradigm for adult and more importantly, I would say, for young children and adolescence is step one, right?

This is a disease of young children usually diagnosed in the first probably 6 years of life. And a drug like 621 could have a huge potential in children. So that's the main reason why we want to study this drug in younger population as early as possible. Jared, I don't know if you want to comment to the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Yes. I think in terms of exclusion, the Hanifin and Rajka criteria, right, for AD, like you want to make sure that your patients have AD. So one element of that to make sure you're getting patients with that diagnosis is they need to have a diagnosis for a certain number of years.

So for adults, obviously, because they're older, the cutoff there is at least 3 years. With adolescents because they're younger, had the disease for a shorter period of time, there's a 1-year cutoff. And again, the reason for both of those is to give you increased certainty that these patients truly have a diagnosis of AD.

Got it. And then maybe just one question on IRF. There's clearly IR translocation in naive B cells, plasma blasts and monocytes in patients with lupus. I know translocation in healthy volunteers as well, but is there anything you could do ex vivo to evaluate the impact of IRF degradation on translocation?

Yes. It's unlikely that we're going to see activation or translocation of IRAK5 in healthy volunteers. So I don't think that's what we're going to be looking for. We're going to be, as Jared said, looking at ex vivo stimulation of the blood with or without translocation. Again, I think there's probably close to 0% chance we'll find that in healthy volunteers, but we'll interrogate the pathway regardless of that.

Our next question will come from Alex Thompson with Stifel.

Maybe again on the ongoing AD and asthma studies, can you talk a little bit about kind of more color on enrollment progress, site activation, your level of oversight of these sites? And then maybe could you tell us how many patients have been dosed at this point across both studies that would be helpful.

Yes. No, obviously, great question. As I said, we're trying not to comment on these things, not because we want to be secretive. I think it's only productive to do it at the end. I think what I can say is that the studies are on track, both in terms of site activations and patient enrollment.

And so the time lines that we put out are obviously still relevant. As I said, I think the best way to manage this particular question is as soon as we complete enrollment, we will communicate and then maybe then we can answer more specific questions about what we've seen and pace of enrollment, activation, et cetera.

Our next question will come from Marc Frahm with TD Cowen.

Maybe just back to prior comments about the attractiveness of oral options and the enthusiasm also for the mechanism. Maybe can you contrast 621 with the IL-23 space because we're seeing that launch just starting now in the psoriasis space.

And just how much should we view the success, hopefully, of that product as a proxy for 621 versus how different do you think these markets are in terms of their eagerness for an oral therapy?

Yes. Thanks, Marc. I don't want to hitch our wagon on to any other mechanism or drugs because we don't control those. But it is a fair point that I think we're seeing finally something we've been saying for a while, which is novel oral mechanisms that can deliver, in some cases, close to biologics like activity having a ton of enthusiasm.

Obviously, the psoriasis market is very mature. There are drugs that you can dose every 3 months or even less in some cases that are extremely effective. We're seeing even less frequent dosing. Obviously, you start to wonder what's the driver for that, but that's likely is not what we're working on.

And so the question is very mature market, can an oral drug with good efficacy and safety even impact the landscape? And it looks like it will. I mean I was at AAD and lots of -- not to advertise for J&J, our friend at J&J, but lots of dermatologists were super excited about that drug. So clearly, even in a well-established, super mature market where there are already multiple blockbuster drugs, a drug like that seems to be highly differentiated.

So we're talking in AD where there is no oral drug with good safety and efficacy. There is really only like 2 category of drugs approved, and IL-4, 13 and then all these other IL-13s that are not differentiated and JAK inhibitors. So this is where psoriasis was 10 years ago. So bringing to the market something that is so differentiated, so early in the treatment in the market evolution, I think will have a much bigger effect than what we might be seeing IL-23 in psoriasis.

So I think it validates, but more importantly, I think our opportunity is probably much more impactful given the -- again, the maturity of that market. One could point to the obesity space, but that's a whole different market dynamics. But you're seeing also there, these new orals are activating all new patients, mostly new patients, right? And that's really what our -- I think what many of these oral drugs are there to do is to really serve the millions of patients that are not on these advanced therapies.

Our next question will come from Joe Catanzaro with Mizuho.

A quick one for me on along the lines of 579's preclinical data at DDW and maybe also your comments on mechanism earlier. But there seems to be a growing effort towards developing combination therapies in IBD. So I wanted to ask about IRF5's mechanism and where you see it as most orthogonal or complementary with existing mechanisms in IBE like alpha-4 beta-7, IL-23, TL1A.

Yes. Fortunately, I'll let Jared answer this one. So Jared, I'll give you 30 seconds to come up with an answer why I say what I'm going to say. So fortunately, I think what we're trying to do here at Kymera is bringing a completely new mechanism to the IBD space, hopefully. Obviously, we haven't committed to developing in that space yet, but versus obviously combining existing mechanism or other things. But Jared, maybe you can speak to the science.

Yes. I mean I think one of the great aspects of IRF5 is that it really controls signaling through multiple different pathways. We talked about Type 1 interferon. We talked about B cells and autoantibodies, but also myeloid cells, monocytes, potentially neutrophils, also dendritic cells. And when it comes to inflammatory bowel disease, the myeloid component, in particular is very important in diseases like ulcerative colitis, for example, where you have cytokines like IL-12, TNF, IL-6 and others that are driving that inflammation.

And so I think being able to target IRF5 in IBD really helps get at that particular component of inflammation that's really important in ulcerative colitis and will lend itself to potentially combining with other mechanisms that go beyond those particular pro-inflammatory cytokines if you want to be able to tackle multiple different aspects of the pathophysiology of a disease like UC or Crohn's.

So I think that's the beauty of it. I think the other aspect is the potential safety profile of IRF5 and being able to knock IRF5 down hard and not really having to be risk of infectious complications that also will lend itself to combinations.

Our next question will come from Jeet Mukherjee with BTIG.

Maybe coming back to the market opportunity for KT-621. Nello, before you mentioned you're looking to mobilize patients on the sidelines because they aren't ready for an injectable. Could you maybe put some numbers or quantification around how big that population is on the sidelines due to needle aversion or phobias around that, particularly in atopic dermatitis?

Yes. Yes. I mean -- and to be clear, I don't think what's driving that is needle phobia. I mean there is a percentage of it. I think it's probably relatively a small percentage. I think most of it is, again, it's the barrier to an advanced systemic injectable therapy that both prescribers and patients have for just accepting or feeling like there is a need of having a protein injected in your body for a disease like atopic dermatitis.

I think that's really what's blocking people for transitioning from topicals into advanced systemic therapies. And the numbers are out there, we talk about -- there's probably 40 -- if you just talk about AD, there's probably 40 million patients with moderate to severe AD. But maybe it's easier to do -- we have the number of 50 million that includes also other Type 2 inflammatory diseases.

So only -- really only almost less than 2 million patients have received [indiscernible], Nivo, RINVOQ in these diseases. So some companies do the math differently, but those are the numbers. If you look at diagnosed moderate to severe patients, we're talking about tens of millions of patients. If you look about treated patients with this advanced systemic therapy, we're talking about less than 2 million. So that's the opportunity, and that's far greater than, for example, the opportunity in psoriasis these days.

So I think it's really hard actually to put the value on 6:1 right now. I think a lot of us are being quite conservative for a good reason. We're still relatively early in the development of the drug. But I believe strongly that post this Phase IIb data, we need to get much more, I think, aggressive with what we're really talking about. And I think maybe that would be a good time to talk about more discrete numbers.

Our next question will come from Sudan Loganathan with Stephens.

My question is on the 621 program for asthma and related downstream indications. As we get our first look at asthma data in the late 2027, does that outcome dictate read-through and investment in going forward with COPD and other related indications? And also, are there any other go/no-go decisions much like this coming in the next 12 months as we start seeing more data for 621?

Yes. No, I think as we said, thank you multiple times, it's really about dose selection. We hope to be able to take the Phase III dose that we'll use in asthma in other diseases. We have absolute confidence that this drug will work in all Type 2 diseases. So we're really waiting for the Phase III dose that will come out from the Phase IIb asthma study.

And our next question will come from Kripa Devarakonda with Truist.

This is Anna on for Kripa. Just one question on 621. I know you haven't disclosed the doses that you're going to be pursuing, but I was just wondering if you could give us a sense of the dose response range you're hoping to show with the 3 doses.

Yes. So I don't think we're going to get into it. I think we always think about the opportunity to explore a lower dose in which you'll see less activity for both kind of mechanistic and regulatory reasons. And then obviously, a dose that would be optimal to move forward within the 3 doses. And so that's how we're thinking about the dose selection.

Our next question will come from Brian Abrahams with RBC.

So on 579, as you think about optimizing its therapeutic window, you mentioned you'll be looking at degradation and some of the biomarkers. Anything specific that you're going to be looking out for on the side effect side there, just based on the mechanistic or preclinical data? Is it just over-suppression of the immune system or any other things that IRF5 or the other IRFs may be involved in metabolism, epithelial cells, et cetera? Thank you.

So based on preclinical data, we really haven't seen in animals at least adverse events of meaningful impact. And so -- or any actually. And so the question is always this theoretical infection risk. We know that all the IRFs are contributing to pathogen surveillance. And so we believe that removing only one should not have an impact on that. So I think that's -- we'll see, obviously, as things progress. But we don't expect any particular adverse event here with this drug of note.

Our next question will come from Tazeen Ahmad with Bank of America. My apologies. We now have Derek Archila from Wells Fargo.

This is [ Hal ] calling in for Derek, thank you for the question. So we were at AAD and we hear also KOL noting KT-621 as the most promising candidates in AD. A question on the efficacy. I think they wanted perfect safety.

On the efficacy side, I think we are hearing that even if it's less effective as to -- some of them point to 70% as effective, others using Otezla as an example, they will still be very excited. So I guess my question is like what you are hearing on what's enough to kind of really mobilizing those patients with not on biology, but be open to this oral option.

Yes. I mean you said it. I think I agree with you. And obviously, we've heard the same things. which is you don't need to have biologics like efficacy to mobilize millions of patients from topical therapy. Again, the only reason why we keep pointing to a dupi-like profile is because this is the data we've seen so far. But if we end up seeing less, I think this could still be a huge drug in the space.

Thank you. Well, that's all we have time for questions for now. So I'd now like to turn the call over to Nello Mainolfi for closing remarks.

Well, thanks, everybody. I'm sorry, we kind of ran out of time, and hopefully, we didn't leave anybody behind. But we're always available to take more questions offline. Thanks again for following us and for all the engaging questions, and see you soon on the next one.

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us on the final day of the Barclays Global Healthcare Conference here in Miami. I'm Ellie Merle. Very excited to have Kymera Therapeutics here with us today. They have one of, I think, the most exciting platform technologies in biotech. Joining us from Kymera is Bruce Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer, for a fireside chat.

Bruce, thank you so much for making the time. Maybe just high level to start, can you give us an overview of Kymera as a company and your growing pipeline in I&I?

Sure. Ellie, so first of all, thanks for having us. I think this is the OG Miami March Conference. So we're happy to be ending our week here. So thank you. Yes. So it's a good time to ask that question. Kymera is actually coming up next month on our 10-year anniversary of the company's founding.

From the beginning, the company was founded to really capitalize on this exciting new modality, targeted protein degradation. And we approached it in a, I would say, a little bit of a unique way with a very disciplined, and I would argue, strategic approach to target selection, where we went into this company formation, this endeavor with a focus on targets that had not been addressed with conventional technologies, conventional small molecule technologies, where there were large markets of unmet need, but where there were proven and known biological pathways.

And we thought in doing so, we could really ultimately derisk the molecules that we were developing. And the company started with an approach that had both oncology and immunology in our sights. But a few years ago, several years ago, I should say, when we met with some success in our first immunology programs, we really narrowed our focus to these immunology targets.

And as a result, you see the pipeline that we have today. We built a team of upwards of 250 people with, I'd say, some incredible strength in lead discovery, in chemistry and really capabilities across what you would need as a biotech company to prosecute this pipeline. And we're excited about the programs that we're developing, those that you don't know about, but we will soon and really excited about the future.

Programs that we'll learn about soon. Any more color on timing?

No, I think we've said that historically that our goal is always to introduce one new program annually. So this year, hopefully, will be no exception. We've recently said that we would expect probably in the second half of this year to introduce our next program, likely in immunology, but we'll -- you'll have to wait for more than that.

Great. Well, we certainly look forward to that. There's a lot of companies in the targeted protein degradation space. Maybe I think its probably the leader in the space. Can you talk about why you think your approach is differentiated?

Sure. To say it's differentiated requires us to know everything others are doing, and that's sometimes from the outside hard to know. But I would say that probably from the beginning, the target selection approach that I just alluded to a moment ago is perhaps what made us unique.

Now others have followed us. So we're not alone in many of the targets we're pursuing today. But across our existing pipeline, I think what you see is really high-value targets that don't have good solutions. If you talk about -- we'll talk about, I'm sure about the STAT6 program.

We'll talk about IRF5, I would guess. Those are long targets of great interest for a long, long period of time across pharma. And because of the capabilities we've built, again, in lead discovery and also in all the work we do in lead optimization, our chemistry teams and others, I think, have unique capabilities to really prosecute those very, very difficult to address targets.

And I think that's where a great opportunity is to ultimately achieve our goal, which is to bring drugs to market that serve these patient populations that are large but with really significant unmet need.

So to me, that's where a lot of the unique aspects of Kymera come to the forefront. There's definitely a sense of urgency and intensity about how we have built the company and what we're trying to do because I think you need to have that intensity and that urgency with the size and scale and scope of some of these problems that we're trying to solve.

Absolutely. Well, it's a great place to talk about STAT6. Walk us through the data that was seen so far. And in particular, like atopic dermatitis is becoming an increasingly competitive space, not that there aren't a lot of patients, but sort of where do you see STAT6 fitting in this overall landscape?

Great. So last year, obviously, was a big year for Kymera and for our STAT6 program, both in June and in December, we had really, I think, important, and we would argue and believe derisking data releases first in healthy volunteers in June, where our principal goal was to show that we could degrade this target, which, again, the first to show that down to the levers -- lower limits of detection really and do it in a safe manner with really, I would argue, pristine safety in that healthy volunteer study.

And that helped us move then into a patient cohort, understandably small, 22-ish patients. But again, very, very compelling results, we believe, where the degradation again reached those lower limits, 94%, 95%, 98% range of degradation, almost to the point where it's very difficult to measure STAT6 in the blood and skin.

And for the first time, we were able to show an impact on some of these clinical endpoints, EASI scores, itch, quality of life measures that while it's very difficult to compare across different trials, I think gave us increased optimism that this pathway does indeed do what we expect it to do, that it has the same similar impact as blocking the IL-4/13 receptors, but doing it by eliminating STAT6 that is downstream from those receptors.

So very encouraging results, certainly in the intended patient population, which is atopic dermatitis. And we also had a chance, as you recall, to look at some patients with comorbid diseases, particularly asthma, which is the target for one of our Phase II studies that's currently underway, and we saw some encouraging signs there as well.

So everything that we saw in that patient cohort really supported what we've been able to build preclinically in terms of the overall package, which is that if you can block STAT6 fully, there's the potential to show activity that looks a lot like competitive biologics out on the market, obviously, Dupi being the most significant one.

And we do think there's a tremendous opportunity to bring an oral agent to this market. Dupi is an incredible drug, very efficacious, great safety track record. It does, though, obviously require injections, which is not ideal for all patients.

And there are a large number of patients in the -- if you look at the broader Th2 population that are untreated or at least treated with non-advanced systemic therapies treated with steroids and the like.

And that tells you that there's patients looking for better solutions. And if we can, as a company, deliver an oral alternative that has comparable efficacy and safety profile, which, again, we'll need to prove in the future studies, we think the market opportunity would be significant.

So we're excited about what we were able to share last year. This year is a big year for the STAT6 program in terms of execution. We started the atopic dermatitis trial late last year. We're well on our way with that and plan to complete enrollment before the end of this year, share data by mid-2027.

And the asthma trial also has started. That began a little bit later. We just spaced them out more for operational reasons, but that began earlier this year. and we'll enroll that trial through this year and into next year with a plan to have data by the end of 2027.

So we're focused intently on executing on those 2 studies. Obviously, we have some other programs we can talk about. But for STAT6 and KT-621, that's our primary focus this year.

Yes, absolutely. Those are certainly very, very important readouts next year that we're all eagerly anticipating. But I mean it's interesting, right, atopic derm, I mean, as an oral, you could show efficacy that's probably less than Dupi and have a large market. But here, in my view, you're showing signs that you could potentially be better than Dupi. So how are you thinking about that in terms of what's been seen in the preclinical models and the data so far? How you think you compare? And I know it's early, and we'll have to wait for more data.

So you know us well enough to know that we try not to put very specific bars and hurdles out there for -- particularly for clinical activity. The primary focus of our efforts with these Phase II studies is to, first of all, show that we can translate everything we've seen in the smaller patient studies in our healthy volunteer studies in animal models into a broader trial, randomized placebo-controlled trial in AD patients.

So we want to show that we can translate the level of degradation and ultimately, hopefully, we'll see the similar clinical activity. The other goal, if not probably, frankly, the primary goal is to allow us to select a single dose for a Phase III study.

So this will be 3 active doses. We haven't disclosed what they are, but 3 active doses and placebo. The objective would be for the AD side to move into a Phase III study with 1 single dose in AD, similarly for asthma to move into a Phase III study with one single dose.

When it comes to the efficacy profile, I think, obviously, we will see. Our view is that we would like to be in -- we use a very scientific term in the ballpark of what Dupi has been able to show. Whether it would be slightly better, slightly worse, comparable, I think that's what we'll learn from the data.

But I think if we can be in the ballpark, I think we'll have a very, very competitive drug given the size of the population out there that really is -- would be excited about an oral alternative to these injectable biologics.

And in terms of the Phase IIa data, I thought you have a late-breaker presentation coming up. What should we be looking to see there?

So we're very excited about that. Obviously, investors love data. So we don't always have the luxury as an earlier-stage biotech company to wait for these big scientific meetings to share our data. So we shared the healthy volunteer data in June. We were able then to do a late breaker for that data last fall at the AAD conference, which was great because it really gave us the opportunity to present the data to a broad universe of clinicians out there.

Similarly, for the patient cohort, which we shared with you all in December, we do have a late breaker at AAD later this month. And again, it's a great opportunity to share that data more broadly. The response out of the AAD was phenomenal. We had a standing room-only audience.

We're hoping and expecting a similarly large following when it gets -- when it comes to AAD. And one of the intentions of the Phase Ib is to build some excitement around the program, which we think will contribute to excitement around the enrollment for the Phase II studies.

And so having this data at the AAD conference, I think, will help build some more awareness of and appreciation for the data. You shouldn't expect there to be anything incremental. It's really a kind of a rehash of what you all have seen. But again, for some of these folks in the audience, it will be new.

Aside from that, we will expect to be active this year sharing data. Most of it is things you've seen, although we have a small Japanese study that was done in healthy volunteers that we haven't yet shared.

We said it's consistent with what you've seen in U.S. healthy volunteers. We'll share that. We're also working on a couple of publications this year that we hope will make it through. And so it will be an active year of getting the word out there about the STAT6 program, but less so on incremental data.

Okay. That's really helpful context. In terms of the data, I just want to -- we talked about atopic dermatitis, but I think what's so interesting about this target is the potential to work in so many different indications. Could you elaborate on what was seen in the atopic derm patients in the subset that had comorbid asthma?

Yes. So thanks for asking that question. So one of the exciting -- many exciting parts of the Phase Ib study were that we're able to look at some comorbid diseases and the impact that KT-621 had on those patients. And there was a small group of asthma patients with comorbid asthma, 4 patients in total. So understandably a small selection.

But we saw some impressive results there. So I would say, a meaningful reduction in [ FeNO >50. ] And I think that what that told us is that drug is getting into the lungs and has promise in that indication as well.

Obviously, we saw some nice easy reductions and itch reductions that gave us increased confidence that AD is going to be obviously a very meaningful potential indication for 621. But getting this additional data in asthma in a study that was really designed around 80 patients was a nice incremental piece of information. I think it was a surprise to investors.

We hadn't talked a lot about doing it. But we felt going in, frankly, that given what we know about the pathway that we had good reason to believe that 621 would be applicable and impactful in all the diseases where Dupi is approved.

And I think that asthma data just put one more piece of data behind that confidence that we have in that likelihood. So we're excited about that. Again, another piece of data that hopefully will help build excitement around the enrollment in the asthma trial, which is ongoing right now.

And so Dupi is approved in many more indications beyond just AD and asthma. So let's fast forward next year, this hypothesis plays out. We see positive data in AD and asthma, and you move forward into Phase III in both of those indications.

Then you're also sitting on the decision of how many more Phase IIIs do you start and how much do these costs. So walk us through the calculus, how you're thinking about that indication selection and sort of the phasing of all of these Phase III starts.

Sure. Great. Well, so if this drug is effective and safe as we believe it will be, I think our ultimate goal is to be approved everywhere Dupi is approved. And so the question really then becomes what is the timing and sequence of those pursuits.

It would require upwards of 20 Phase III studies to achieve approvals in all of the indications. That's an endeavor that if you try to do that concurrently, I don't think any company could do it let alone Kymera. But that having been said, I think we have a very deliberate strategy about expanding the indications we're going to be pursuing.

And it's predicated on a development strategy that has these 2 Phase II studies in AD and asthma, really effectively supporting subsequent work in both dermatology indications and in respiratory indications. And so the hope is that once we complete these Phase II studies, it will position the company to be able to start other Phase III studies even beyond AD and asthma.

And so we haven't shared a ton yet about the sequencing strategy. I would say that if you look at the current Dupi market, AD, asthma, EoE, COPD accounts for the lion's share of the market. So one can assume that those are probably likely to be prioritized by Kymera, I can tell you that much.

In terms of the exact timing, I think we'll share more as we move forward. The other really important part of our clinical development strategy will be finding a way as quickly as possible as we can into the pediatric population.

And historically, the protocol is that you complete a Phase III in adults and then subsequently move into Phase IIIs with pediatrics. We will do everything we can to get this drug ultimately into the hands of younger patients as quickly as possible, understanding that ultimately, the FDA will dictate how we get there.

But that's just a market of enormous unmet need. Again, Dupi is a wonderful drug, incredibly efficacious and safe, but it's not a pleasant injection. And if you're a parent injecting your 6-year-old, it's not a happy time. So I think if we can make this product ultimately accessible to that population, I think that's an area of enormous need.

So that's, I guess, how we're thinking about the development strategy. But you can assume that we appreciate that there's an enormous breadth of opportunity here, and we're going to take advantage of it.

We've capitalized the company in a way to allow us to do that. We have $1.6 billion on the balance sheet. That runway takes us into 2029 and really gives us the maximum opportunity to maximum optionality to pursue these broader list of indications.

Makes sense. That's a very helpful context. So in the second half of this year, you said that we'll get data in healthies and IRF5. Certainly, there's a lot of excitement when we saw data in healthies and STAT6.

But walk us through sort of the biology of IRF5, what we can expect to learn in healthies around the biology and target engagement.

Great. Yes. Thanks. So it's one of the kind of side benefits of having a year of execution on STAT6 has been that we've been able to get more focus and attention directed towards IRF5, which is an exciting target that probably didn't get its fair share of investor questions last year, but it's changed for sure this year.

IRF5 is a great target. It's been long pursued as well in pharma, but also has been on drug. It's a very, very difficult and challenging target to address. There's multiple IRFs that share some many similarities that make having a selective IRF5 target difficult to achieve. And also within IRF5, there's many different variants. And so you want to hit all of those as well.

So we've, I think, cracked the code there. We found a molecule that's like our others, is highly selective, and we think ought to demonstrate a really strong profile when it moves through healthy volunteers and ultimately into patients.

IRF5 is what we kind of call a master modulator of immunity. Importantly, it sits -- it's got -- first of all, it's got exceptional genetic support. It's very strongly linked with diseases like lupus, RA, IBD. And so that's obviously important and a critical part of our target selection strategy.

So it certainly checks that box. It sits downstream from many important pathways, Type I Interferon, pro-inflammatory cytokines, autoantibodies. And while there's drugs and diseases like lupus that impact each of these pathways individually, we think I5 could be one of the only ones that can impact all 3 of these pathways.

So if we fast forward to the healthy volunteer study, which has commenced, we announced last month that we had started dosing. As with all of our studies in healthy volunteers, the first goal will be to show that we can degrade the target fully and that we can do it safely.

From our clinical studies, from our preclinical work, we think we probably need 80% to 90% type degradation. So that's what we will hope to show. Obviously -- and that it's well tolerated.

The other important part of the study will be looking at biomarkers. So IRF5 is only activated in the disease setting. So we won't be able to show like we did for 621 reduction in those biomarkers because, again, it's not -- the target isn't activated -- the pathway is not activated in those healthy volunteers.

But we will be able to do some ex vivo stimulation studies to look at some of the pathways that I talked about, Type I Interferon, these pro-inflammatory cytokines, et cetera. And I think that will give us an indication if indeed degrading IRF5 is having an impact on those pathways.

So it will be an important and exciting study. We'll have that data before the end of the year. Our goal then is to move quickly thereafter into our first patient study. We said that would most likely be in lupus, but our plan would be to share more details around that as we move into the latter part of this year.

Great. That's really helpful. And so if you move directly into lupus, like what -- theoretically, if you could give a little bit more color on what that could look like? Would that be a Phase Ib? Would that be a Phase II?

Yes. I think we'll probably save the answer to that question for an update later in this year. We've built most of the development strategy for that program. We just haven't shared it all broadly.

I think we want to get a little further in the year until we shed more light on it other than just to say that the most likely first indication will be lupus, which has, again, a very, very strong genetic association with IRF5 and I didn't touch on this earlier, but we've done a lot of preclinical work that gives us excitement about the potential of targeting I5 in that lupus population.

Great. And yes, if you could also talk about some of the target biology in IBD and RA and some of the other potential areas that this could work.

Sure. So it's a tad bit premature other than to say what I noted earlier that there's very strong genetic association -- we have done -- as I said, most of our preclinical work is centered around lupus. We have some additional work we've done in RA. And then we have some work that is ongoing in IBD that we plan to share as we move through the year, but we'll save that for a later time.

Great. And just to wrap up on the portfolio more broadly, as you think about target selection from here, you obviously have this platform technology, but what are sort of the attributes of targets and indications that you think about as you advance more programs into the clinic?

Yes. Well, thanks. So we're really focused on having the strongest oral immunology pipeline in the industry. We think we're there, but we also have great opportunity to expand upon the existing portfolio with new targets and new molecules.

So as I said, we've got a few that we're working on today. I think everything that we're doing fits within the model that I discussed right at the outset, which is known biology. So we're not taking huge biology risk, big areas of unmet need.

Many of these markets are dominated by biologics. And so because of the appeal of an oral daily molecule, and I'm sure you've seen all these studies that say that 75% to upwards of 90% of patients that are on biologics would prefer an oral mechanism if it were equally safe and effective. Obviously, that's critical. So we think there's great opportunity.

So all of our targets meet those criteria. I'd say about 80% of our work is ongoing in immunology. And so it's most likely that you'll see some targets in that area, but we have some other things that are progressing through the pipeline as well.

But really, we're trying to build a pipeline with other targets that look like STAT6 and like IRF5 and that they have just really areas of big unmet need where an oral daily molecule would be a regimen that would be highly appealing to a group of patients who either are already on biologics and would love to find something maybe less invasive or frankly, and more importantly, is that really broad population like you see in AD of patients who are untreated because they're just not satisfied with the alternatives out therapy.

There might be orals that have safety baggage that they don't want to accept or again, they don't want to deal with the invasiveness of an injection. So we're excited about the pipeline. We've built a great team. And as I said earlier, incredible capabilities in hit finding and in chemistry that give me great optimism that we'll continue to stick to that one new entity per year goal that we've had for a long period of time.

Great. A question that I get from investors a lot is how to think about which assets you might want to keep wholly owned versus partner because obviously, you have a rich platform that can produce many assets. We've seen a lot of deals in the STAT6 space. How do you think about this strategically?

Yes. Well, we're building a company that we believe can and will be a fully integrated biotech company. We've capitalized the company. We built the team and the capabilities to do this ourselves. So partnership is not something that is a priority for us, certainly not with the STAT6 program. I think the question that -- where that becomes more pertinent down the road is when we have multiple Phase III studies going, we have multiple programs, how much can we, as one company do ourselves.

So I think if you see us partner in the future, it would be more likely because we've just reached the level of what we can progress through clinical development on our own. But it's really not central to our strategy.

And given we're capitalized to take these through trials ourselves, it's not something you should expect in the near term.

Great. That's helpful context. Well, awesome. Thank you so much for joining us today and sharing all your insights.

Thanks, Ellie. It's great to be here. Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Good day, everyone. My name is Kahai Illani, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome you to the Kymera Therapeutics Fourth Quarter 2025 Results Call. [Operator Instructions] At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Justine Koenigsberg, Vice President, Investor Relations.

Good morning, and welcome to Kymera Therapeutics Quarterly Update Conference Call. Joining me today are Nello Mainolfi, our Founder, President and Chief Executive Officer; Jared Gollob, our Chief Medical Officer; and Bruce Jacobs, our Chief Financial Officer. Following our prepared remarks, we will open the call for questions from our publishing analysts.

[Operator Instructions] Before we begin, I would like to remind you that today's discussion will include forward-looking statements subject to risks and uncertainties described in our most recent Form 10-K filed with the SEC. Please note that any forward-looking statements speak only as of today's date.

And with that, I will now turn the call over to Nello.

Thank you, Justine, and thank you, everybody, for joining us this morning. As this is our year-end 2025 call, I wanted to spend a few minutes recapping what was an incredible year for Kymera. Those of you that know us well appreciate the fact that we're always forward-looking, highly focused on what's in front of us. And the bulk of the call would feature just that.

But given how important our 2025 accomplishments were, I'm hoping that a quick reflection on the year will provide some context for the foundation we have set for 2026 and beyond. Before we start, I would like to mention that this year, we will celebrate our 10th year anniversary since Kymera's founding in May of 2016.

Over the past decade, we've executed on our strategy and have built the capabilities, the platform and the team to deliver on our goal to develop the next-generation breakthrough immunology medicines. We've accomplished so much in our short history, but arguably, 2025 was truly a breakout year. I'll start with the significant progress in our first and best-in-class STAT6 Degrader Program.

We shared outstanding results from both our Phase I healthy volunteer study and our Phase Ib study in AD patients. In the healthy volunteer study, KT-621 demonstrated robust STAT6 degradation with excellent safety and tolerability. That was followed by a highly encouraging impact on efficacy endpoints in Phase Ib that supports our view that KT-621 has the potential to deliver robust efficacy in line with pathway biologics with the convenience of oral daily dosing.

On the strength of these 2 studies, we launched our first Phase IIb study in atopic dermatitis patients last fall and started the asthma Phase IIb early this year. Jared will talk more about our KT-621 clinical development plans, but both studies are benefiting from the awareness of and appreciation for the data we have recently shared as well as from clear enthusiasm from clinicians and patients around promising oral options.

We were busy advancing the rest of our pipeline as well. In May, we unveiled our first-in-class IRF5 program, supported by a compelling preclinical profile and validating human genetics. Last year, we completed IND-enabling studies, and we're excited to announce this morning that after IND clearance from the FDA, we recently initiated dosing in the Phase I healthy volunteer study with KT-579.

Finally, we're building on the success of our internal pipeline by advancing our existing collaborations with Sanofi around IRAK4 and by signing a new partnership last year with Gilead around our first-in-class CDK2 molecular glue program. Bruce will provide an update later in the call on the potential upcoming collaboration milestones, which would be incremental to our financial position.

Speaking of finances in 2025, we raised almost $1 billion, bringing our year-end cash balance to $1.6 billion. We believe that this amount of capital, which extends our runway into 2029, will enable us to execute on our broad development plans that are designed to realize the full potential of our wholly-owned programs while maintaining the productivity of our discovery engine, which we expect will expand our innovative pipeline.

Now with 2025 behind us, our focus is squarely on 2026 and beyond and the multiple milestones we plan to achieve. For KT-621, we expect to complete enrollment in the AD study this year and share data by mid-2027. The first patient was dosed in the asthma trial last month, and we expect to share that data in late 2027. In the meanwhile, we're planning to report scientific publication and presentation to continue to build awareness of this exciting program.

This is an important year for KT-579, our lead IRF5 degrader. We expect to complete the recently started Phase I healthy volunteer study and share the data later this year. And the next step will be to advance the program into a patient proof-of-concept study, which we expect to be in lupus soon after that. Our partner, Sanofi, is expected to start the healthy volunteer Phase I trial with KT-485 this year.

We also hope to be able to advance our CDK2 program in partnership with Gilead into further development. Finally, our goal continues to be to announce at least one new program annually, and we're targeting the second half of this year to share our new development candidate program.

We clearly have a busy 2026 plan, which makes me particularly happy to announce the most recent addition to Kymera's leadership team, Neil Graham, who joined us as Kymera's Chief Development Officer. Neil is a seasoned life sciences executive with more than 30 years' experience in global drug development in both early and late-stage clinical trials across a wide therapeutic spectrum, including dermatology, allergy, rheumatology, virology and pulmonology.

Neil has led several groundbreaking programs, including the development of dupilumab at Regeneron. We're thrilled to have him join our team as we enter the next phase of our growth and look forward to his contributions as we continue our efforts to build a fully integrated commercial company.

Now before I turn the call over to Jared, I wanted to spend the remainder of my remarks speaking in more details of the unprecedented market opportunity of our STAT6 program. I can't overstate the opportunity we have to significantly increase the number of patients who are treated effectively.

We hear overwhelmingly from both physicians and patients that current advanced therapies, including biologics, just aren't sufficient. There is a palpable excitement for the potential of a simple and convenient oral therapy for Type 2 diseases that doesn't compromise on safety or efficacy. We have cited these numbers in the past.

We believe there are about 140 million diagnosed Type 2 patients in the U.S., 5 major EU countries and Japan. Of this total, about 50 million patients are estimated to be in the moderate to severe category. Yet despite this significant need, only an estimated 2 million patients are treated with advanced systemic therapies, mostly biologics and overwhelmingly with dupilumab.

So the question is why are so many patients not treated with advanced systemic therapies? The gap is clearly not due to lack of need, but it reflects barriers built into the current treatment paradigm. There are many patients who rely on local therapies, most often topical or inhalers depending on the diseases.

However, most of these treatments do not address the underlying drivers of Type 2 diseases and as a result, do not deliver adequate treatment for many moderate to severe patients. There are existing oral systemic therapies in both asthma and AD, for example, but those can be limited by efficacy.

And certainly, for example, in the case of JAKs, safety concerns, including box warning and the requirements from blood monitoring and initiation and/or during treatment. Finally, injectable biologics have delivered important advances and now account for the majority of systemic therapy use, actually more than 75%.

However, they're associated with significant treatment burden, injection site pain, needle fatigue, burdensome loading regimens after often 4 to 5 injections in the first month, cold stain storage requirements and ultimately with high drop-off rates over time. So when we ask why so many moderate to severe patients remain untreated with advanced therapies, the answer lies in the limitation in efficacy for some, safety concerns for others and very real convenience and access hurdles built into the system.

The consequence is that millions of patients who would benefit from more effective therapies remain untreated, cycling through suboptimal options and living with inadequately controlled disease. This is the unmet need, and this is the opportunity in front of us. Going from patient numbers and unmet needs to market opportunities, the gap is even larger.

As previously mentioned, about 2 million patients are currently receiving advanced systemic therapies for Type 2 diseases. This segment represents an annual market value of about $20 billion with dupilumab serving as the predominant drug. Although this is already a significant figure, the broader market opportunity is much larger. given that there's tens of millions of patients that are not reached by current approved drugs.

In fact, I would characterize the current Type 2 market as very early in its development. Historically, the introduction of new products and mechanism has expanded immunology markets by enabling access to additional patient populations. In addition, an oral therapy that overcomes many limitations associated with existing treatments while maintaining safety and efficacy could, for the first time, provide a viable alternative for millions of patients across all age groups.

It is reasonable to assume, in my opinion, that the current market for Type 2 diseases is positioned for substantial expansion well beyond the current $20 billion. In fact, a comparable example can be found in the psoriasis market, which has experienced a fivefold growth over the past decade, mostly thanks to new drugs and oral therapies.

I think this all comes well together when we consider the limitation of existing therapies and what KT-621 has to offer, a drug that has the potential to deliver biologics-like efficacy and safety without requiring patients to compromise efficacy and safety for convenience, a drug that has the potential to change the way patients are treated around the world. How will it do so?

In two important ways: one, expand the existing treatment -- treated patient population, which for us is the #1 goal. Second, provide an easy and convenient alternative to patients currently on injectable biologics, many of whom, based on our market analysis and industry survey data are eagerly waiting to switch to an oral therapy. So then how might this paradigm shift look? And what will it mean for patients with Type 2 diseases.

Our goal and the cornerstone of our development plan is to position KT-621 as the product of choice for this large underserved or inadequately [ deserved ] patient population. In many inflammatory diseases, advanced systemic treatments are typically reserved for patients who fail conventional therapies, which in turn are typically biologics.

We believe having an effective safe oral medicine, we can fundamentally change the treatment paradigm, making it practical to intervene earlier in the disease course rather than waiting for significant progression or treatment failure.

If successful, we believe KT-621 has the potential to shift advanced therapy from being a last resort for a small subset of patients to a mainstream option for millions and improve standard of care. I hope that context around the market opportunity makes it clear why we believe that KT-621 has the potential to be one of the biggest programs in the biotechnology and pharma industry.

With that context, let's turn the call over to Jared and discuss clinical progress with KT-621 and KT-579, our IRF5 degrader. Jared?

Thanks, Nello. As you've heard, we're building significant momentum across our pipeline, driven by the strong scientific, clinical and operational foundation that we've established. This morning, I'll discuss our ongoing KT-621 Phase IIb trials in atopic dermatitis and asthma. I'll then provide additional context on our clinical development strategy for KT-579, our oral IRF5 degrader. I'll begin with KT-621, our oral STAT6 degrader.

In December, as many of you are aware, we released the BroADen Phase Ib results, providing the first look at KT-621's impact on patients with atopic dermatitis. The data demonstrated a dupilumab-like profile that strongly supports continued development of KT-621 in both AD and asthma. Across all of the study's objectives, we exceeded expectations.

We demonstrated strong fidelity of translation from healthy volunteers to patients with deep STAT6 degradation in blood and skin. We observed a significant reduction in Type 2 biomarkers across blood and skin lesions, including TARC and Eotaxin-3 and importantly, also in lungs as measured using fractional exhaled nitric oxide or FeNO testing.

The greatest impact on FeNO was observed in AD patients with comorbid asthma who had the highest baseline FeNO levels. We also achieved robust improvements across all key AD clinical endpoints, including EASI, Pruritus NRS, IGA, SCORAD and patient-reported outcomes or PROs, addressing disease severity and quality of life. For all of these endpoints, KT-621 data were in line with or numerically exceeded published data for dupilumab at 4 weeks, further highlighting the exciting potential patient impact.

In addition to these effects on AD, KT-621 had a clinically meaningful impact on patient-reported outcomes, measuring disease control in patients with comorbid asthma as well as on symptoms and quality of life in patients with comorbid allergic rhinitis. And importantly, KT-621 was well-tolerated with a favorable safety profile.

I should also note that we recently completed the 6- to 9-month GLP toxicology studies in rat and nonhuman primate and consistent with earlier KT-621 tox studies, we did not observe any adverse findings of any type across all doses and concentrations tested. We now have 2 parallel Phase IIb dose-ranging placebo-controlled trials underway in AD and asthma, supported by the positive biomarker and clinical endpoint results in both AD and comorbid asthma from BroADen.

The BROADEN2 trial in approximately 200 adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis has a primary endpoint of percent change from baseline in EASI at 16 weeks. The study continues to progress as planned with completion of enrollment expected by the end of 2026 and announcement of top line results by mid-2027.

We will update you all on enrollment later in the year, but we can say now that we are confident in achieving this timeline based on the strong interest from patients and clinicians in a safe and effective oral therapy and given the high level of awareness of and appreciation for the KT-621 data we have generated.

Moving on to asthma. Just last month, we announced that we had dosed the first patient in our Phase IIb BREADTH trial in approximately 264 adult patients with moderate to severe eosinophilic asthma. The trial's primary endpoint is change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 at 12 weeks.

Using pre-bronchodilator FEV1 will allow [indiscernible] effects across dose levels in a smaller, faster study and will inform dose selection and probability of success for subsequent Phase III trials. Data from this trial are expected in late 2027. Taken together, we expect to generate data in close to 500 patients next year from both KT-621 Phase IIb studies while also continuing to build our safety database with long-term treatment in AD patients rolling on to the 52-week open-label extension portion of BROADEN2.

Importantly, these trials are designed to support parallel Phase III development beyond atopic dermatitis in asthma and other Type 2 dermatologic, respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases as part of the overarching regulatory strategy for KT-621. Turning now to our novel IRF5 degrader program. We view IRF5 as an exciting new opportunity to address complex autoimmune diseases.

We continue to receive positive feedback from KOLs and investigators on the potential of KT-579 to offer an effective oral treatment for diseases such as lupus, IBD and RA. This past fall, we presented additional compelling KT-579 data in lupus and RA preclinical models at the American College of Rheumatology meeting in Chicago.

Chronic heterogeneous inflammatory conditions like lupus, RA, IBD and others are driven by broad immune dysregulation across multiple inflammatory pathways, including Type 1 interferons, pro-inflammatory cytokines and B cell-derived autoantibodies.

While biologics have clinically validated each of these pathways individually, the current treatment paradigm has been constrained by the reliance on injectable therapies optimized for narrow segments of disease biology and therefore, incapable of addressing the full complexity of the inflammation underlying the various disease manifestations. As a result, many patients experienced incomplete responses or loss of efficacy over time.

An oral medicine capable of modulating multiple disease-defining immune pathways simultaneously could enable more effective and durable disease control and potentially expand access to treatment across broader patient populations. IRF5 is a genetically validated transcription factor that functions as a central amplifier of immune responses.

In autoimmune diseases, where there is strong genetic association with IRF5, persistent IRF5-mediated immune activation drives skewed inflammatory signaling across Type 1 interferon, pro-inflammatory cytokine and autoantibody pathways.

KT-579 is designed to selectively degrade IRF5, enabling modulation of these interconnected inflammatory pathways through targeting of a single master regulator with a goal of rebalancing the immune system while avoiding the infectious adverse events caused by broad immunosuppression.

We are encouraged by the strong genetic rationale, our compelling preclinical efficacy and safety data and the potential to deliver a novel oral therapy across multiple serious autoimmune diseases with significant unmet medical need. With that said, we are now focused on advancing KT-579 in our ongoing Phase I healthy volunteer trial and reporting the first-in-human data in the second half of 2026.

In terms of the Phase I specifics, the study is designed to evaluate both single and multiple ascending doses of KT-579 administered orally once daily compared with placebo. The primary aim of the SAD/MAD study is to demonstrate robust degradation of IRF5 in blood, which we define as a reduction of approximately 90% or greater at dose levels that are safe and well-tolerated.

Because the IRF5 pathway is not activated in healthy volunteers, we plan to use full blood ex vivo stimulation assays to assess the functional impact of IRF5 degradation on the induction of Type 1 interferons, pro-inflammatory cytokines and inflammatory pathway gene transcripts by TLR7, 8 and 9 agonists.

It's our expectation that we should see a 50% to 80% reduction in these biomarkers across the 3 TLR pathways assessed if we're engaging IRF5 effectively, which would increase the probability of IRF5 degradation translating into clinical activity in subsequent patient studies with KT-579. As we did with our STAT6 program, we also expect to conduct a Phase Ib patient study and intend to share more details on the design and patient population later.

We have said, however, that we would expect to focus the study on lupus patients, which we believe is the right patient population for our first proof-of-concept study given the strong genetic association of IRF5 with lupus and the robust activity of KT-579 across multiple mouse models of lupus.

I'll now turn the call over to Bruce for a review of the fourth quarter results. Bruce?

Thanks, Jared. As I walk through the fourth quarter results, please reference the tables found in today's press release, which was filed this morning. Collaboration revenue in the fourth quarter of 2025 of $2.9 million is attributable to our Gilead partnership. More broadly, with respect to Gilead, we received an upfront payment of $40 million upon signing the licensing and option agreement last year.

Under this agreement, we're eligible for up to $750 million in total milestone payments, including $45 million payment payable if and when Gilead exercises its option on the CDK2 program at the declaration of a mutually agreed upon development candidate. In addition, Sanofi is advancing KT-485, our oral IRAK4 degrader, with plans to initiate Phase I testing this year.

We expect to share additional updates on this program in the coming months, including the receipt of a milestone upon dosing of the first healthy volunteer. As a reminder, under the structure of the Sanofi agreement, we have the potential to realize nearly $1 billion in total milestones.

While these 2 potential near-term milestones are not reflected in our current cash guidance and are not expected to materially impact our runway, they remain important validation points and support a continued advancement of these partnered programs and the downstream value we can realize.

We look forward to sharing further progress as these programs move forward. With respect to operating expenses, R&D for the quarter was $83.8 million. Of that, approximately $7.6 million represented noncash stock-based compensation. The adjusted cash R&D spend of $76.2 million which excludes that stock-based comp, reflects a 16% increase from the comparable amount in the third quarter of 2025.

On the G&A side, our spending for the quarter was $16.9 million, of which $6.9 million was noncash stock-based comp. The adjusted cash G&A spend of $10 million, again, excluding that stock-based comp, reflects a 1% increase from the comparable amount in the third quarter of 2025.

And finally, we are well-capitalized to execute on our goals. As Nello mentioned previously, we ended in December with a cash balance of $1.6 billion, providing a runway into 2029. This allows us to complete both KT-621 Phase IIb trials in AD and asthma and to fund a large part of the first Phase III trial for KT-621. The runway also will allow us to advance KT-579 through initial POC testing and to progress our research pipeline as we scale and grow Kymera.

With that, we'll pause while we regroup in our conference room and assemble the queue for your questions. Thank you.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Marc Frahm with TD Cowen.

Congrats on all the progress. Maybe a high-level one for Nello. Since your Phase I data came out with the STAT6, a handful of other kind of early mid-stage programs in AD have also read out data, and there were some data even ahead of yours. So over the past year, there's just a lot going on in AD.

What's your kind of vision for what the treatment of AD looks like and how these therapies all fit together when you roll the clock forward a few years? And then maybe if I can sneak a little bit in for Jared also. Just for IRF5, can you just remind us what really could be learned in the healthy volunteer portion of that trial beyond target engagement and safety or do we really need to learn more and have to wait for that lupus cohort to enroll?

Thanks, Marc. Great question. So I'll start with the first one. So just to remind you, as we shared today, hopefully, even more clearly than before, the AD, I would say the Type 2 diseases market is still very early. Again, there is -- if you look at moderate to severe patients, there is about 40 million to 50 million patients in the 7 major market and only about 2 have been dosed with advanced systemic therapy. So clearly, there is a need of more therapies.

And as we mentioned and others have done so, we mentioned if you parallel AD to psoriasis, psoriasis market in the past 10 years has grown fivefold. Maybe it is somewhere around where psoriasis was 5, 10 years ago or so. So we expect this market to increase dramatically. And you can only do that by bringing in new therapies to the market. So first, I want to start by saying that this is obviously a non zero-sum game, right?

I think there is a need of new therapies and new therapies would benefit patients first, but also actually companies that develop all the other therapies. I mean, for 2 simple reasons. We need -- especially from our viewpoint, patients need convenient oral options that can increase the probability of patients with moderate to severe disease to access effective therapies.

And so I think that that will transform how these diseases are treated. With our mechanism with STAT6, I think the main difference that I could point to without going company by company, which will take us half a day, is that we are targeting an intracellular target of the most validated pathway in Th2 inflammation, which is IL-4 and 13.

So we're going after well-validated efficacy and safety. We're going after a well-defined patient population. And so I think we have a level of derisking that I would point to being, I think, superior to many other agents that are still interesting and exciting that are out there.

So I think we need more therapy. I think it's great that there are more drugs. And obviously, we need to move into late-stage development to really assess for our drug and many others, what is the risk benefit that we can bring to patients. Jared, do you want to take the IRF5?

Sure. Yes, Marc. Regarding IRF5, as you mentioned, the primary clinical objective is safety and then our primary translational objective is to show 90% or greater IRF5 knockdown in blood.

And showing that knockdown is going to be important, we think, from a derisking standpoint for the subsequent patient studies because of the strong genetic association between IRF5 and lupus and the strong preclinical activity in multiple lupus models that we've seen with that degree of IRF5 knockdown.

Now with that being said, yes, it's true that unlike STAT6, where we had circulating biomarkers like TARC and Eotaxin-3 that were useful for us to assess that sort of translation in healthies, with regard to IL-4/IL-13 pathway. Here for IRF5, while we don't have those circulating biomarkers, as we mentioned, we have these ex vivo stimulation assays, which I think will provide very important functional information around IRF5 degradation.

These assays are looking at stimulation of toll-like receptor 7, 8 and 9, which are the 3 toll-like receptors driving hyper interferon, pro-inflammatory cytokine and B cell autoantibody production. And to be able to show an impact across those 3 pathways on ex vivo stim, we believe, significantly derisk our probability of success in subsequent patient studies, including the lupus studies.

And maybe just to add a quick thing on top of Jared, like if I think a bit more from my point of view, maybe higher, more simple level, which hopefully still scientifically sound, we know that the strength of this program is the genetic association, right?

There is very few programs in the history of drug development that have the strength and the depth of genetics that we have with IRF5. And that's why it's one of the most interesting programs in immunology, I think, in the next 5 to 10 years.

So -- but when you have genetic association, you try to figure out, okay, biologically, what does that mean? So we've shown preclinically that actually IRF5 activation leads to, as Jared said, activation of this pro-inflammatory cytokines, Type 1 interferon and B cell activation, autoantibody activation.

So even in healthy volunteers, we can prove even ex vivo that we can block these 3 axes of inflammation. I think it's going to tell us that you combine that with the genetics that it should work into patients.

Your next question comes from the line of Geoff Meacham with Citi.

Can you hear me? Okay. Awesome. So I just had a couple. Thanks for the question, first of all. So on 621, the BROADEN2 and BREADTH studies are probably mature next year. We're used to seeing you guys have Phase I biomarker data and kind of maybe -- a lot of data points along the way.

For these Phase IIbs, is it going to be -- let's just wait until the full and final? Are you guys planning on having any kind of biomarker or interim analysis or anything like that for these 2 studies? And then for the IRF5, interesting program for sure. The indications you guys have talked about include some that are very much unmet need, lupus, Sjogren's in particular and definitely not as crowded. Curious how that informs like your priorities when you think about kind of development for this program?

Thanks, Geoff. So on the first one, obviously, we'd love to get data along the way and understand what's going on in the Phase IIb studies. But obviously, these are important studies that are placebo-controlled. And to protect the integrity of the study, we're going to wait until the end of the study to unblind and obviously share the data.

For IRF5, yes, so I think I go back to the reasons to believe, and as I said, human genetics, lupus, Sjogren's, myositis, RA, IBD, those are areas that we believe this target is extremely relevant. And so we're letting that combined with the preclinical data guide us. So those -- the reason why we've talked often about some of those indications is because they match so well both the genetics, the preclinical data, the unmet need.

I mean if you look at the ones you mentioned, lupus, Sjogren's, these are diseases that don't have effective therapies that are approved or at least some that don't have, maybe I should say, at least oral effective therapies that are approved, which will serve a much broader population than what's being evaluated now in clinical development that I believe are really probably going to be positioned for really late-stage patients.

I think another important axis of our development plan will be outside of, let's call it, this interferon-related pathways or pathologies, which could be, again, IBD could potentially be [indiscernible] down the road. And I think we plan to share more data on IBD, which is increasingly becoming an area of focus for this program, at least preclinically, and we hope for it to be clinically as well in the not-so-distant future.

Your next question comes from Charles Ndiaye with Stifel.

Congrats on the quarter. One question from our side. I guess, as you think about starting Phase IIs for 621 outside of asthma or AD, what are sort of some of the gating factors?

Yes. So as we've outlined in the past, I believe it's still on our corporate deck. There is a new one today on our website. Our strategy is to use the ongoing dose-ranging Phase IIb study, the one in AD to support late development in all of the other derm indications, the one in asthma to support late development in the other respiratory indications. So we actually do not plan to start any new Phase II studies.

The new studies that you see us starting will be, we believe, all registrational studies. Now obviously, some of this still has to be vetted with the right authorities, but that's our current strategy. And we believe this is a strategy that has been proven to be successful with other drugs in this pathway. So it wouldn't be the first time that this is adopted.

The next question comes from Brad Canino.

A question from me on the trigger to start the KT-621 Phase IIIs. So to initiate, how far into the Phase IIs do you need to reach and what needs to be collected from those studies? And will this be one study start or multiple at once?

Yes. Thanks, Brad. So unlike what we may be getting everybody used to that we start a study while the previous one was still ongoing as we've done for the healthy and Phase Ib. For starting a Phase III study, we need to complete Phase II. We need to have an FDA meeting post Phase II, and then we can start Phase III.

I assure you that we will do our best as we always have, to do that as quickly as possible. But obviously, there are some things that we must do in order to move into Phase III. With regards to how many, as you know, at least the paradigm that companies have adopted in the past 10 years for, let's say, atopic dermatitis registration has been 3 Phase III studies, 2, there are 2 placebo-controlled, mostly placebo-controlled studies and then one on top of topical corticosteroid.

So we -- if that will continue to be the paradigm, which is something, obviously, we will explore given the recent news from FDA. But let's say, that continues to be the paradigm, you should expect us to start all studies as much in parallel as possible.

Great. The next question comes from Eli Merle with Barclays.

Congrats on all the progress. In terms of 621, if you could talk about both the clinical and preclinical data that you've seen, where do you see the most potential room for efficacy improvements over dupilumab? And can you talk about some of the respiratory preclinical model data and compare that to what's been seen preclinically in atopic dermatitis?

Yes. Thanks, Eli. You often asked the tricky question. So we want to make sure like we maintain kind of our credibility when we compare a drug that is -- have been so successful in millions of patients with the drug that has been so far in about a couple of hundred patients or subjects and up to 28 days. So I'm always very thoughtful about how we make comparisons.

What I can say is that in our preclinical models, if you look at the asthma models that we both published, KT-621 has performed always at least as well and in many cases, better than dupilumab. We don't know whether that is the result of the model or it's actually real biological differences or drug distribution differences.

And that's why we're really excited that we're in a Phase II study, so we can assess the full clinical activity of our drug in a large study with hundreds of patients. With regards to AD, the preclinical AD models are not very robust. We like to talk about the asthma model because it's a highly translatable model.

The AD preclinical models, you have this local activation with a pathway activator that is not really, in many cases, a Type 2 discrete pathway activator. So we also show really robust activity. But to be honest, as a scientist myself, I don't like to talk about preclinical AD models that are mostly useless.

But if we look at the clinical data, obviously, you've seen the data from last December, we have shown really robust activity. I start from biomarkers. I look at what we've shown even with biomarkers that were either not shown to change much with dupilumab like IL-31 or the ones that we showed comparable if not superior Eotaxin, even FeNO.

And then we look at all the clinical endpoints that we measured, we've been consistently at least as good as the injectable biologics. So again, it's hard for me to say it will be equal, slightly inferior, slightly better. But I think we delivered that ballpark scenario that we talked about for last year.

And so for us to really know how it looks, we need to wait for the Phase II studies. And to be honest, the only other thing to keep in mind is you can never compare drugs unless you run a head-to-head study.

But our goal, again, is to deliver an oral drug with biologics like activity with great safety and the convenience of being an oral pill that one can take once a day, stop and start whenever they want. I think that will transform the treatment paradigm for Type 2 diseases well beyond whether the drug is exactly like dupilumab, slightly less or slightly better. I don't think that will matter if we can deliver the type of drug with the profile that we speak about.

Your next question comes from [ Anna Lee ] from Truist.

This is Anna on for Kripa. One quick question on 621. I was just wondering if you could give us kind of an overview on how you're thinking about compliance you're seeing in the Phase IIb trials right now and how the durability of 621 kind of ties into that?

Cool. So that's a great question. So when you -- compliance, you mean patients taking the drug. That's what you mean? Yes. So I think that's obviously -- it's a very important point because when you're in a clinical trial or an injectable biologics, you can actually ensure 100% adherence, right, because patients often, in most cases, actually go on site to receive the injection.

When you -- the beauty of oral drugs is actually you give patients freedom, right? That's the beauty of oral drugs. And that obviously plays a role into clinical studies. So we have measures that probably go even beyond what has been done generally to make sure that we understand patients' adherence well.

So we are confident that the adherence of patients will be the one that will allow us to have a great integrity of our study. I will also add that the beauty about protein degraders, unlike small molecule inhibitors, if you miss a small molecule inhibitor dose, you actually lose all your activity.

If you miss one dose of KT-621, this is not an advertisement to not take the dose every day. But I will say, if you miss a dose of KT-621, if you miss one dose, you will not lose any of pathway degradation. So we have that additional layer of, let's call it, protection against any challenges that might come with humans forgetting one dose during a study or during normal life.

The next question comes from Judah Frommer with Morgan Stanley.

Congrats on the progress. Just on IRF5, I think we're clear on how you think about STAT6 degradation versus inhibition. Kind of same question for IRF5. I think we'll get a little bit of preclinical data from an inhibitor next month. And then just on the targeted nature of your degrader, any risk of kind of pan-IRF inhibition? I think IRF8 has been a question in degrading IRF5 previously.

Yes. Maybe I'll start and then I'll pass it to Jared to speak even maybe it's an opportunity to talk about how we think about the safety of IRF5. But maybe I'll talk more about the chemistry of it, even that I'm technically still a chemist. So the beauty about this target and the challenges with this target is that it's extremely hard to find a molecule that binds to IRF5 only without binding to all the other IRFs.

You mentioned a few. I think there is 11 or 12, sometimes I lose count, but there's more than 10 IRFs. So we need to bind only two IRF5. And there are different -- I like to call them splicing variants, people call them differently. There are different IRF5 splicing variants. They all need to be targeted. So you need to be consistent across the IRF5 family, but do not bind to any other IRF.

So we've been able to do that. Our selectivity is pristine because we've been able to find this molecule that is actually not functional. So it does not inhibit anything. It only binds to IRF5, all the IRF5s splicing variants, but not other IRFs. And this allows us to give the utmost selectivity. So we're not worried about any of those things. But Jared, do you want to speak about why we think 5 only is potentially really interesting.

Yes. I think IRF5, because it is one of multiple different IRFs, there is a certain redundancy there when it comes to the role of IRF in innate immunity. So even getting rid of IRF5 really does not impact overall innate or adaptive immunity.

It's also true that IRF5, its expression is very restricted, especially to certain immune cell subtypes like B cells and dendritic cells and monocytes and macrophages. So it's not ubiquitously expressed, which is another reason why one can knock it down and do so safely. And its activation is also very context specific.

So here, in the context of pathologic inflammation, that's where you're going to see activation, where you're going to see activation in restricted cell types. And that's the reason why you can really degrade IRF5 strongly and chronically and not get broad immunosuppression and not have infectious adverse events. And in fact, if you look at mouse knockouts for IRF5, you don't see any susceptibility to infections or any phenotype.

And in our preclinical animal tox studies, including our 4-week GLP tox studies in nonhuman primates as well as in rats, we don't see any adverse events -- adverse findings. We don't see any susceptibility to infection. So for all those reasons, we believe that this is a safe target for us to degrade deeply and chronically.

The next question comes from Joe Catanzaro with Mizuho.

Hope you guys can hear me okay. Maybe one on 579 and something kind of maybe related to something you just said, Jared. But I was looking at another healthy volunteer study for another anti-inflammatory drug, and they actually utilize a skin immune challenge model where they injected volunteers with actually a TLR agonist and then looked at cytokines.

Wondering if you guys are aware of that model, whether you considered this? And if you did consider why you didn't decide to use it? And then I guess related, what informs the 50% to 80% target reductions in biomarkers? Is that all preclinical or is there some genetic basis for that target reduction?

So maybe I'll take the first one and Jared takes the second one. So yes, we're obviously well aware of there are many type of skin challenge model, sometimes even systemic models, systemic challenge model, people have done LPS, inhaled LPS, local LPS. So there are many models that one could run preclinically for healthy volunteer studies.

We philosophically feel like the right context to ask these pathway questions are in patients. And what you do by activating the skin is you artificially activate a pathway and then you look at downstream regulation. You can do that just the same way by taking the blood and ex vivo activating the pathway.

So yes, you could do those things. We just don't believe that it's the complexity of it derisks any more or less what we would do with an ex vivo blood stimulation. If you have questions about does your drug reach particular tissues and especially with small molecule inhibitors where you actually cannot measure target engagement, that is a way to do it.

But we can measure target engagement directly. So we don't need a surrogate downstream biomarker to make sure our drug gets to the tissue. So that's at least our view. Jared, do you want to speak to the?

Yes. I mean we know in terms of the amount of knockdown that we think we need or the amount of functional inhibition that we would need for those pathways. One has to keep in mind that here, we're talking about not just one pathway that's controlled by IRF5, but multiple pathways.

Here, we're looking at 3 different TLR pathways, for example, 7, 8 and 9. And so whereas you're talking about one pathway and all your activity is dependent on one pathway, you might have a threshold that could be 80%, 90% or more to really have clinical impact.

Here, we know that if you're impacting multiple different pathways in parallel at the same time, you don't need necessarily 90-plus percent inhibition, 50% to 80% inhibition from our preclinical data across multiple different pathways can have a synergy that can give you significant activity in preclinical models.

So that's the reason why we say that, that's sort of a range, which is really just a range, if you're seeing it across multiple different TLR pathways with these ex vivo stim models would be very encouraging, and we would expect to translate into activity in subsequent patient studies in diseases like lupus.

The next question is from Derek Archila with Wells Fargo.

This is [ Hal ]. I'm calling in for Derek. So I guess our question is about the potential oral autoantibody delivery program. Just kind of the timing and what data, what events we can hear more from these assets?

Sorry, I didn't quite get the question. Say that again?

The internal oral antibody.

So do you mean the next oral immunology program that we were going to disclose? Yes. So as we said in, I believe it's in the press release and in our remarks earlier, we plan to disclose at least a novel program, most likely an immunology program this year and likely would be in the second half of the year.

The next question comes from Brian Cheng with JPMorgan.

Just on IRF5, as you mentioned, 50% to 80% reduction across the TLR7, 8, 9 pathways. Just thinking about IRF5 regulates many of the levers in the pathways. Are there any specific downstream cytokines that you can point to today that will be the most impacted, most reliable and perhaps the easiest to monitor from an ex vivo stimulation test setting to best assess the PD of the drug?

Yes, that's a great question. Jared, do you want to take that one?

Yes. Through the stimulation of these pathways, there are key cytokines that we can look at. So for example, Type 1 interferon psych interferon beta, we can look at interferon beta protein production in these ex vivo stim assays. We can also look at gene transcripts that are part of the type 1 interferon pathways, looking beyond just the interferon itself. You can look at various genes that are part of the type 1 interferon pathways.

We can also look for pro-inflammatory cytokines like IL-12 and tumor necrosis factor and even IL-6, which are stimulated by macrophages and dendritic cells. So these are a number of different pro-inflammatory cytokines that are coming off of these TLR pathways that can all be measured either the protein level or the gene transcript level that will be very helpful biomarkers for us.

The next question is from Brian Abrahams with RBC.

Can you hear me? This is [ Kevin ] on for Brian. Maybe just on IRF5. How are you guys thinking about degradation in -- I know you mentioned whole blood, but just in PBMCs and maybe potentially skin as well. I think that's something you're looking at in the MAD portion.

And I know you talked about IRF5 not being as activated in healthy volunteers. So just maybe curious what our expectations should be there for degradation in those tissues. And just kind of how much do we really know about sort of IRF5 expression in healthy volunteers and how that impacts your expectations for the study?

Yes. I mean in blood, we know that we can measure IRF5 well. And in fact, when we say blood, we obviously then practically need PBMCs because we isolate PBMCs as we measure it using mass spec.

The expression of IRF5 in healthy volunteers in the skin is extremely low. And so for that reason, we believe it's going to be -- it would be really hard to measure IRF5 in healthy volunteers.

This is something that as we go into patients and especially if we go into lupus with cutaneous manifestation or even CLE, eventually, that's maybe a context where we can look at IRF5 expression. I think in [indiscernible] expectation is to be extremely low, lowest than any other program that we've looked at even preclinically. So hard to measure.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from Sudan Loganathan from Stephens.

I wanted to ask my question around 621's opportunity in asthma. Looking at the current FDA-approved treatment options for AD, not all of them have really panned out that well in asthma as maybe people have expected. STAT6 degradation is a new approach. So curious to hear what theoretical and preclinical data you may have that gives you some conviction here that it also has an opportunity in asthma.

Yes. I think IL-4 and 13, and just I remind everybody that there's only one drug that blocks IL-4 and 13, which is dupilumab. And so that has shown to have really, really robust activity in eosinophilic asthma and actually eosinophilic COPD, chronic rhinositis with nasal polyps.

So it's well established to really have huge impact on patients with Type 2 inflammation in respiratory tract. So STAT6 biology, again, we've shown it extensively preclinically and also in the early clinical development that we can mimic the same IL-4 and 13 blockade. And again, I refer you to the asthma studies that we've published preclinical study that we published, showing the robust activity we see both on biomarkers and efficacy endpoint.

The pheno reduction that we've seen in patients is actually even more robust than biologics in asthma patients. So we have all the ingredients to have reasons to believe that this drug actually is going to -- has the potential to be extremely effective in asthma.

Next question is from Jeet Mukherjee with BTIG.

As we just look ahead to the evolving competitive landscape in atopic dermatitis and specifically on the next-gen oral agents that might be coming around the corner, just your thoughts on ITK as a target and some of the recent data we've seen there and how that might compare and contrast to STAT6.

Yes, great question. As I said earlier, I think more mechanisms are great for patients first. I think, obviously, these are very different mechanisms. STAT6 is an IL-4 and 13 drug, as I said, the most validated pathway in the space, both in terms of safety and efficacy. We have shown preclinically that we can mimic biologics, both in terms of efficacy.

And I would actually argue in safety, we just shared today that we completed chronic tox, so 6- to 9-month tox in rodents and nonhuman primates, again, without any adverse event. Other targets, ITK is a target that we've looked extensively at Kymera.

We decided not to work on it because the human genetics show that because of challenges with clearing ETV, I think all patients end up developing some form of lymphoma. So this is the reason why we decided not to work on that target. That doesn't mean that it could not be a great target.

It's just something that we don't believe fulfills the risk-benefit profile of Kymera and how our target selection strategy has been evolved over the years. But again, I think more mechanisms, especially with complementary pathways, whether it's ITK or others, I think are going to be great for patients and expand in this market that we need to do so that more patients get access to more therapies.

Next question is from Faisal Khurshid with Jefferies.

I wanted to ask, as you guys get the sites up and running in the Phase IIb studies, do you expect to provide any kind of color or context around how enrollment is going in those studies?

No. I think what we -- obviously, if we feel we're not on track, obviously, we will share. But as long as we remain on track with the expectation, we don't plan to be providing ongoing updates on enrollment. I don't think it's necessary. But obviously, again, if we deviate from expectation, we will make sure to do so.

Next question is from Biren Amin with Piper Sandler.

Congrats on the quarter and all the progress. For the Phase IIb AD trial, what measures are you taking in the trial to mitigate against placebo response? For example, will you be requiring photographic evidence of AD at baseline to provide evidence of moderate to severe disease on screening? So I guess that's first question.

Second question on 579. I know you're enrolling healthy volunteers. However, there are healthy volunteers that may have positive antinuclear antibodies, but do not have autoimmune disease. Would you potentially screen for these types of healthy volunteers and that may potentially provide read-through into your Phase Ib lupus trial?

Great question, Biren. I'll take the second one quickly. Jared, do you mind taking the first one? Yes. So great idea. Sometimes simple is better than complicated. So we're going to actually enroll healthy volunteers that are healthy, move quickly through it, selected dose and go into patients. That doesn't mean your idea is not a good one. It's just not what we're planning to do. Jared, do you want to take that?

Yes. I think in the Phase IIb, I mean, your question about avoiding high placebo rates is an important one. And while I can't get into all the details at a high level, I can tell you that we're paying a lot of attention to this, both with regards to our eligibility criteria, how we're providing oversight with every patient that comes on and is screened in terms of looking to make sure that patients are truly meeting eligibility criteria, not just in terms of actually having AD, but also having moderate to severe disease.

And we've carefully trained the investigators and selected investigators who are more certified dermatologists to make sure that they're fully capable of doing all of the clinical endpoint measurements across the study and that they're doing it consistently from baseline all the way through to the end of the study. And we also have global site selection.

So we're not just in the U.S., we're also ex U.S. And in fact, the majority of our sites are ex U.S., whether that be in Europe or in Asia and Australia. And I think that's also important because access to drugs like dupilumab are diminished ex U.S.

And so those are patients who are more apt to come in maybe more on the severe end of the spectrum of disease, and that can also be very helpful in helping to mitigate placebo effect, which you tend to see in milder patients compared to more severe patients. So I think all of those steps are being taken, and we're really very actively staying on top of all of that to try to mitigate a high placebo rate on study.

I mean we're doing -- I'm sorry, we're way out of time. But we're doing lots of things, probably more things than anybody has done before to ensure that we do that. Obviously, we can't guarantee the lowest placebo rate, but we're trying our best.

Your final question comes from [ Paurav Desai ] with B. Riley.

I'm on for Mayank. On asthma trial, if you could kindly confirm the dose levels are the same as BROADEN2? And how might you be enriching for pheno in your target patient population? And is there a chance your 12-week FEV1 endpoint data could come around the same time as your 16-week BroADen Phase II study? And also it would be helpful to learn competitive trial enrollment dynamics in atopic dermatitis versus asthma.

Yes. Thank you. These are 4 questions in one. But let's see if you guys have to help me remembering. So the first one, the dose levels, yes, they are the same across AD and asthma. So the inclusion criteria for the asthma study is high [ EOS ] more than 300, high pheno more than 25.

So that's how we're going to select that patient population. In terms of timing, we said that we expect the Phase IIb AD study data by middle of next year, while the asthma data by the end of next year. So I guess that answers the question. Things would always change one way or the other.

And as I said earlier, if they change materially, we will share. And then competitive dynamics, all I can say that we have seen a ton of enthusiasm for our study in both actually, I would say, AD and asthma. And that's for 2 main -- actually, I would say 3 reasons. One, sites and hopefully also patients appreciate the really, really interesting and innovative science of our program.

They appreciate that this -- while this is a novel target within a well-established biology and clinical experimentation. It's an oral drug and has some compelling early data. When you put all of that together, we have seen a ton of enthusiasm. So we really hope that this enthusiasm will translate into good enrollment. And that's what we're seeing so far, but we're still a long way to the finish line.

There are no more questions at this time. Yes. There are no more questions at this time and I'd now like to turn the call over to Nello Mainolfi for closing remarks.

Yes. So first, let me apologize. This call has taken the longest that we've ever done. I'm not really sure why. But I want to thank everybody for attending the call. All great questions, so I don't blame our analysts. And you know where to find us. We're very excited about where we are. This is a pivotal time for the company. And so we're excited to engage beyond the call if there are questions, and enjoy the rest of the day.

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us for another session at the 44th JPMorgan Healthcare Conference. I'm Brian Cheng, one of the senior biotech analysts here at the firm. On stage, we have the CEO from Kymera Therapeutics, Nello Mainolfi. I'll now pass the mic to their CEO for a short presentation, followed by a live audience Q&A.

Nello, the stage is yours.

Thanks, Brian. Thanks, everybody, for joining us. Hopefully, the sound is good. Always great to be at JPMorgan in a new room this year. So in the next 20 to 30 minutes, I want to take the opportunity to tell you a little bit about Kymera, where we're going in 2026 and probably more importantly, where we're going in the next 3 to 5 years.

So if you look back -- so actually, this year, in May will be the tenth year anniversary since we founded Kymera and we spent the past 10 years building strategy capabilities and team to deliver a whole new generation of medicines. What we're trying to build is something that has actually never been done before: oral drugs with biologics-like activity. And what we've done in the past 10 years, and we'll take a quick look at last year is taking us a step and a step closer to our vision and our goal.

So if we just look for a minute on what we've accomplished, 2025 was really a pivotal year for the company. About 2 years ago, around this conference, we presented, for the first time, our STAT6 program. We showed with preclinical studies that if you degrade STAT6, you can deliver activity, the blockade of IL-4 and 13 in cells and in vivo models that can mimic if not being numerically superior to what has been seen with a mega blockbuster drug like dupilumab.

So last year, in -- actually in two portions in June and December, we have been able to complete the early clinical translation of KT-621 and demonstrate that actually if you degrade STAT6 in humans either in healthy volunteers and later in patients, you can actually deliver full pathway blockade of IL-4 and 13, and impact both biomarkers and clinical endpoints, at least as effectively as upstream biologics. So we'll talk about that, but there was a really exciting important part of our 2025. We've initiated a Phase 2b study. We'll talk about a new study that we started recently.

We also presented a new program, our IRF5 degrade or KT-579, another transcription factor in highly validated pathways where there are effective biologics, but not effective oral convenient drug. And that's where 579 was delivered. And last year, we've not only presented the program, but also completed our IND-enabling work to being able to go into the clinic soon this year.

We also had a lot of important corporate updates. We continue to collaborate with Sanofi on our IRAK4 degrader and decided to advance the second-generation degrader in the clinic this year. We entered the collaboration with Gilead on this novel first-in-class CDK2 molecular glue for oncology. And we were able to raise almost $1 billion last year, which gives us about now $1.6 billion that will fund the company through at least into 2029. And importantly, allows us to take several of our programs through proof-of-concept Phase II studies and for KT-621 in several Phase III studies.

So this is a snapshot of this 2025 is the foundational pivotal year for what Kymera trying to do. And we can only do this, thanks to both the team, the strategy and the capabilities that we built, as I mentioned, a few days -- a few minutes ago. And maybe it's worth highlighting just a few of the things that I think make Kymera really unique in biotech.

One, our target selection strategy. Our target selection strategy was defined about 10 years ago and actually has not changed. We go after untracked targets that have never been drugged before either fully or at all in pathways that have been validated by usually injectable biologics, where we know our oral intracellular degraders can deliver a completely differentiated profile. Again, the concept of oral drugs with biologics-like activity. We have decided about 5 years ago to focus almost solely in immunology, we believe this is the time to advance a whole new generation of oral therapies in immunology. Obviously, we're not the only ones, but we believe we're leading the transformation of how patients with immune inflammatory diseases will be treated in the next decade.

We can only do this thanks to the team and the capabilities that we've built. We understand the specificity of our degraders at the molecular level, at the atom level, we know how to make them behave like pharmaceutical agent, selective specific, safe and well tolerated. And importantly, we're rediscovering, redefining these new rules of discovery and development.

What does it mean to develop oral drugs that match the activity of biologics? They're whole new concept that we're pioneering at Kymera. And we can only do it thanks to the team in our translational development organization that have been able to build very creative early clinical studies that not only derisks but also validate our mechanisms and allows us to accelerate late development. And you'll see the work that we're doing with STAT6, how it speaks to this particular point.

So this is the problem statement. And this is the problem statement that we're very passionate about at Kymera. We're just going to talk about order of magnitude and not individual accurate numbers. But if you look at the 10 most common immuno-inflammatory diseases, they are written very small in the slide, but you can imagine, go from AD, asthma , RA, SLE, et cetera. There are about, let's say, more than 100 million patients in the 7 major markets. The patients that access advanced systemic therapy are about 5 million patients.

So we have lots of effective therapies, but we have two problems: how the system prescribes advanced systemic therapy, so treatment paradigms. And again, how patients can access advanced systemic therapy. And we believe strongly that if we develop drugs that have the activity, the safety, the efficacy of these advanced biologics but the convenience of oral drugs and the access that we can deliver for patients, we can transform how patients are treated. This is not about the convenience over a biologic. It's about where patients are going to be accessing our drugs. And our vision here is to be our drugs, the first option for all patients with immune inflammatory diseases.

So how can we accomplish that? So this is probably the only technical slide of today, so bear with me. But at least on the, let's say, chemistry discovery part. So we know, obviously, how biologics work. You inject the drug that generally a long half-life, and you can cover the target for an extended period of time. And this allows you to have an extended saturating effect on the target and obviously, an extended effect on the clinical manifestation of that disease.

Traditional small molecules, let's say, in the past 50, 30, 20 years have tried to get close or replicate that type of pathway blockade. The problem is that for every copy of protein, you can see on the left of the slide, you need one molecule. So you have a stoichiometric inhibition of your target that requires for targets that are expressed usually in the micro -- nanomoral to micromoral levels, you need a large amount of drug for a long period of time, usually for 24 hours. And that's generally extremely difficult to accomplish, if not impossible with a once-a-day oral drug. In fact, I don't remember of a small molecule inhibitor traditional small molecule inhibitor that covers the target more than 95% for 24 hours.

So what -- the reason why degraders can accomplish this is because one molecule of our degrader can degrade hundreds, if not thousands of cabrio protein. We can only fit 5 on this slide. But believe me, we can do more than that. And so this allows us to have a catalytic mechanism. So a small amount of drug for a short amount of time, can degrade the protein completely and fully.

So when we dose once a day, we can accomplish sustained complete pathway inhibition. I would say, in some cases, if you take a drug every day, you will probably accomplish more pathway inhibition than a saturating dose of an injectable biologic.

So just -- we are landing here on our pipeline, just to give you a quick sense of where we are and where we're going. So I think it's fair to say that KT-621 and STAT6 program is probably in the top 3, I would say, the first or the most compelling program in biopharma, but let's say, in the top 3. Given the breadth of opportunity, the validation that is behind it, and also the stage of development. So we've just started Phase 2b study, we started the AD Phase 2b study late last year, actually, we dosed our first patient in, I believe, late October. And then recently, we said we were going to start the asthma Phase 2b study in Q1, we actually ended up starting in week 1 of the year. And both of these studies will have data in 2027. So we'll have about 500 patients worth of data for KT-621 in 2027. We'll talk more about this study soon.

Exciting year for KT-579, we are shortly initiating our Phase 1 study, and we'll have Phase 1 data in the second half of the year. We're also planning to start the patient study, hopefully also this year after the healthy volunteer study.

We also have, as you know, two programs in collaboration, one with Sanofi, we're on track to initiate our Phase 1 study with the second-generation IRAK4 degrader KT-485. And then we have the exciting partnership with Gilead on this really unique CDK2 molecular glue, which I don't have any time to go into the details of, but hopefully, we'll be able to share more data this year and in the future.

So I thought it makes sense to use KT-621, our strategy, our discovery, our data and our development strategy to exemplify how we think about both the drug discovery and development principles at Kymera, our strategy, and more importantly, how we believe we're going to change how patients are treated with our drug.

So this -- the introduction slide has been used by myself multiple times. Nonetheless, I think for being comprehensive, it's worth highlighting two key pieces of information here. One, IL-4 and 13 is the most validated biology in Type 2 inflammation. Type 2 inflammation or one could say, allergic inflammation is the most common type of inflammation in the western world with more than 150 million patients suffering from a series of diseases, 8 diseases in which dupilumab has been approved, but there is actually more. There are food allergies and other diseases that have not yet been treated with a Type 2 drug.

So the drug that is most successful at blocking IL-4 and 13 biologists, dupilumab. This is a monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-4 receptor alpha and in doing so, blocks the signaling of IL-4 and 13. We have found that if you degrade STAT6, the selective and obligated transcription factor for IL-4 and 13 signaling, you're able to block the pathway as well as in upstream biologic like dupilumab and this is not only our work, but also if you look at human genetics data, it points to the fact that static is the key transcription factor for allergic diseases. There are many drugs in this pathway, but there is no oral drug that target this pathway intracellularly. And that's really what we're trying to transform.

So this slide contains a lot of information. I just want to guide you through like the two important ones. So you can see the diseases on the right, these are indications in which dupilumab has been approved. We're talking about more than 100 million patients the penetration of upstream biologics into this patient population is in the single-digit percentage.

So you would ask yourself how is this possible? Well, the challenge is, again, as I said earlier, some diseases are treated, not thinking about the underlying inflammation in the proper way. And actually, they're just treating the symptoms. And then lots of patients and prescribers think twice before prescribing an injectable biologics. So when we talk about the Type 2 drugs, dupilumab and others being $20 billion to, soon, $30 billion drug. While this is obviously an important statement, and it's actually a fact, what we're trying to do is not necessarily competing with these agents in that $20 billion market. We're trying to expand by multiple of that market, the number of patients that we can access. So that's the opportunity that is in front of us.

So maybe to spend a couple of minutes of what's stopping the penetration of many of these medicines to even just moderate to severe patients. So obviously, here, we're using asthma and AD. About 60% of patients do not have adequate control of their disease. We have topical drugs that -- or inhaled drug only target mild patients. Current oral therapy is either not active enough or have safety challenges. Biologics, again, they're associated with high treatment burden. So patients go through a needle fear fatigue often and you need to go through several injections before you reach steady state, a complex treatment initiation from some drugs, we need blood testing.

So we've done a market analysis. Many companies have done this market analysis. I think the data is absolutely consistent. What patients want is, first, rapid onset of relief of their symptoms, convenience of a neural pill, no treatment initiation requirements, so no blood tests and obviously, a good safety and tolerability profile. So the data that we've generated so far on KT-621 fulfills exactly what patients want. And so this is a drug for all patients. We believe if you have a Type 2 disease, moderate to severe disease initially, KT-621 should be the first option for these patients. And this is why we believe we can expand this $20 billion market to a multiple of that number.

So let's go through some exciting data. This is my favorite slide because it was my idea, but we'll see if it works out with the audience. So this was a way to try and summarize everything that we learned on KT-621 in a single slide.

So on the left, we have the preclinical data, obviously, highlights extremely potent degrader that blocks IL-4 and 13 in vitro and in vivo completely and at least as well as dupilumab, in many cases, even better. In terms of safety, all the studies that we've run, 4 weeks, 4 months, we're actually about to complete 6 to 9-month talks. We even have completed embryo-fetal development studies in all species, and we have seen no findings, no adverse events. So the most compelling safety profile that I've seen in my career. In humans, we've learned a lot, some of it summarized. Deep -- a complete degradation in blood and skin of STAT6, impact on lesions of AD patients and skin, impact on each of AD patients, impact on FeNO as well as relief of asthma symptoms in comorbid asthma impact on allergic rhinitis. So in -- with 200 humans between healthy volunteers and patients, we have basically derisked the biology of STAT6 and KT-621. And now I'm going to take you through some data.

So in this Phase 1b study that we reported last year in December, these were 22 patients with moderate to severe AD we looked at a series of biomarkers in blood, in skin and actually in lungs. And we saw a really robust reduction, all these Type 2 cytokines. TARC, about 74% in patients that had elevated target baseline at least as well as what has been seen with upstream biologics. Eotaxin which is the cytokine [ right ] downstream of IL-4 and 13, we've seen really robust reduction into the 70%, superior to even what has been seen with biologics in this pathway. Ig that requires much longer time to see an effect for biology reasons, we still saw a measurable effect even at 4 weeks. IL-31, which is the most important pruritogenic cytokine, Kymera was the first company to demonstrate you can actually see a reduction -- a robust reduction even after 28 days in the blood of AD patients. And then, again, another creative idea from the team, not for me, was actually looking at FeNO in -- so this is Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide, is a biomarker of lung inflammation. So we actually learned that even AD patients have a tone of inflammation in their lungs, we're able to reduce the Th2 tone in lungs of AD patients for the first time. So again, just looking at biomarkers effect of KT-621 shows that we have an extremely compelling profile to treat patients with Type 2 inflammation in blood and skin and in lungs.

So let's look at some of the efficacy data. So one thing maybe I'll start by saying, obviously, we don't have time today to go through all the data, but the important thing about KT-621 that these two doses that 100 mg and 200 mg that had the same degradation profile gave the same effect on both biomarker or similar effect on biomarkers and clinical endpoints. KT-621 had the same effect whether you had very severe disease or if you had less severe disease. So if you had high easy at baseline or low easy at baseline, a high target baseline, or low target baseline, we had exactly the same type of impact on disease end point. And this is why it goes back to the point I made earlier, a drug for everybody. This is why this drug is so compelling because of the fact that it works just as well regardless of your disease at baseline.

And also works just as well, whether you were previously on a pathway biologics like dupilumab or you were naive to a pathway biologics. So that's very important because we want to be able to offer for people that are on injectable biologics and oral auction.

So here, we're looking at changes of lesions, whether you measure by EASI or SCORAD, 60% and about 50%. This is, again, in line, if not numerically superior to what has been seen with injectable biologics at day 28. We also had robust effect on categorical endpoints like EASI 50, EASI 75, each, which is the critical effect that the critical symptoms that patients have to deal with every day. We had a really robust effect. Whether you measure it with peak pruritus, NRS or you measure through SCORAD itch, we're able to see between 40% and 45% reduction. You can see in both EASI and itch, very quick impact on symptoms already a date. And importantly, in both cases, I'm actually going back here. And fourth, we see no apparent plateauing of this response. So this leads us to believe that there is much more efficacy to be seen as we continue to dose this drug.

Another -- so what we're trying to treat, obviously, we're trying to treat the manifestation of the disease. But importantly, we're trying to make patients' lives better. And so this slide, together with each slide, is actually the most important slide. If you look at the left, this is the measure of sleeplessness, how many times do you wake up at night for scratching. And that is what changes people's lives. If you cannot sleep at night, you can't work, you cannot function. And this -- I believe there isn't a lot of data with other agents with this particular endpoint, but I believe we outperformed many other drugs from this point of view, even at day 8, we have really robust reduction of sleep business and at day 28 to 29, almost 80%. Also other quality of life like DLQI and POEM, really robust responders rates.

So this has enabled us to accelerate the development of KT-621 and we initiated this BROADEN2 study. So Phase 2b, this is moderate to severe patients, the criteria on the left, 200 patients, 16 weeks of dosing, 52 weeks of open-label extension, three doses of KT-621, one placebo, 1 to 1 to 1 to 1, primary endpoint and secondary endpoint that are traditionally used for AD. Importantly, we have recently started to also enroll adolescence on this study. Again, it goes back to the drug for everybody. This is a disease of children, so we want to try and bring children into our development and into our label as quickly as possible. So we expect data for this program by middle of next year.

So we weren't happy with, obviously, measuring AD in AD patients, we look beyond that. And we're able to validate the effect of KT-621 also in lower and upper respiratory inflammation. So we had 4 patients, small number. We have 4 patients that had comorbid asthma and we looked at FeNO, again, fractional exhaled nitric oxide. If you remember, when we look at all patients, we had about 33% reduction. Now we have uncontrolled mild asthma. So the baseline of FeNO was around 50%. So it was actually quite elevated. And we were able to reduce it between 50% and 60%, very rapidly, at day 8 already we're close to actually above 50%. So this is really telling you that our drug distributes to the lung effectively and has an effect that is as robust, if not superior, to upstream biologics.

Not only we measured FeNO, which is a biomarker, we actually measured, at 4 weeks again, also impact on a clinical measure of asthma, which is this ACQ-5 questionnaire. And here, we saw all patients have a reduction of ACQ-5, that was superior than a minimum clinically important difference, which led to 100% responder rate, meaning all patients had a response to our drug. So beyond Asthma so -- lungs, we also looked at allergic rhinitis. This is a very common comorbidity for patients with atopic dermatitis. Here, we had between 6 and 7 patients that were invaluable for this particular comorbidity and also here, we had high responder rate, again, in line with what has been seen with upstream biologics.

So this has, again, emboldened us and give us the confidence and the excitement to initiate our Phase 2b study today, actually, we're describing for the first time the design of the study. So -- and we've started the study, as I mentioned, about a week ago. So this is a moderate to severe eosinophilic asthma. So we're looking at patients with high eos, 300 and high FeNO, 25. This is because we know, based on the development of other drugs in this pathway like dupilumab. This is the patient population where we expect to see the biggest treatment effect. This is a dose-ranging study, about 264 patients for 12 weeks, again, 3 doses of KT-621, the same 3 doses that we're using for the AD study and one placebo and we're looking at FEV1 as the primary end point. This allows us to actually differentiate doses versus placebo in a short amount of time to allow us to move into a registrational Phase 3 study as quickly as possible. Also for this study, we expect to have data next year.

So this concludes , as I said earlier, really the early translation of clinical translation of KT-621 and STAT6 targeting in patients -- in humans, I should say. So we have so much data, starting with human genetics saying that if you target STAT6, you should block type 2 inflammation and potentially deliver this dupilumab in appeal kind of profile that we like to use for simplicity's sake. We've shown in preclinical data, our ability to robustly block the pathway again completely. In healthy volunteers, we were able to show that we can degrade the target exceptionally well and have impact on biomarkers and type 2 biomarkers even in healthy volunteer with an absolutely pristine safety profile. And then now in AD patients, again, we've shown that we can degrade the target in blood, in skin, in lungs, obviously, given the effect of this biomarker. We have impacts on these biomarkers broadly. We have impact on clinical endpoints in both AD asthma and allergic rhinitis. That we have pristine safety, no treatment-related adverse events in this study. And all the numbers that you've seen today really are in line, if not, in some cases, numerically superior to biologics in this pathway is just telling you that we can block IL-4 and 13 exceptionally well. And so we're excited about obviously these Phase 2b studies and what we can do for patients with these diseases.

So here's where we are today. And I think the important aspect that I want to kind of highlight is that from these Phase 2b studies, let's start with the one on top, our AD study. The goal is out of these three doses to select one that will go into Phase 3 campaigns. We expect to initiate multiple Phase 3 campaigns in parallel. And hopefully, we can use the same dose without repeating Phase 2b studies for multiple other skin indications using the Phase 3 dose that we select in the AD study. Similarly, for asthma, we hopefully will select the dose to go into Phase 3 with asthma and the same dose we can potentially use for asthma, CRS and other respiratory indications. So in order for us to being able to go into Phase 3 studies directly, in parallel, in multiple indications. And that's really our strategy that we obviously continue to bet and validate as we get closer to initiation of our first Phase 3 study, which is actually quite soon relatively quite soon.

So Kymera is obviously not just about KT-621 and STAT6. I like this slide because it gives us an opportunity to look at the programs and the impact. At the end of the day, that's what we're trying to do. And we divide it across, let's say, disease areas. So KT-621, I think, is the best type 2 drug so that treats all these indications you see in the left part of the slide. IRF5, which is a program, again, will generate data this year, is really in the rheumatology space. So IBD, RA, SLE, Sjogren's, et cetera. We have a partnership with Sanofi and IRAK4, this is more Th1, Th17. And here, we're just giving a preview of a couple of programs that are close to disclosure time, hopefully, at least one of them will be able to disclose.

So just to give you a sense of the areas that we're going to be looking into developing these drugs, I would say one is more focused on Type 1 inflammation and one is let's say, more focused, if you look on the right side of the slide on autoantibody-driven diseases. Again, these are all oral drugs against targets that have never been drugged with oral molecules.

So this is, I believe, my last slide. So 2026, a busy year. The goal is to complete enrollment of the AD study with KT-621, continue to enroll the asthma study to generate data by '27, initiate and complete and release the data for the Phase 1 study of KT-579. As I just mentioned earlier, we hopefully will be in the position to disclose a new program in immunology that will be going into IND-enabling studies later this year. And then, again, continue to advance our partner program to important inflection points.

So I wouldn't be able to do anything that I've shown you today without the amazing team that is in Watertown, Massachusetts. So I want to thank them for everything that they've done. The team here for inviting me and all of you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to listen to this presentation.

Thanks, Nello.

I took too long.

No, no, not all. Let's start the Q&A. [Operator Instructions] I'll just start off with more of a broader picture question. Can you put 621's data last -- from last month into a bit of context. I think as we think about your portfolio overall, is there -- do you see a read-through to your next work and so on? And overall, how does that derisk the underlying technology to roll out the next degrader?

Yes, a great question, Brian. I think this, I believe -- I should know this, I believe this is our sixth program that goes into the clinic. And in all the programs that we've advanced in the clinic, we've shown an absolute amazing fidelity of translation between the data we have generated preclinically and how we've seen safety, target engagement early clinical impact. And so I think, obviously, we've also learned a ton in the past 10 years. I always say that KT-621, KT-579, 485 and others that you'll see. These are -- I like to call them second generation degraders, meaning it's -- they're benefiting from years of learnings that we've had with the first programs that we discovered and then advance into a clinic. And I think the data, the 621 data, which I think for many ways that you look at it is as good as you could ever hope for just speaks to the fact that we have really absolute control on how we design these degraders and how they behave clinically.

So yes, the short enter is, I think it validates the work that we're doing for 579 with second-generation IRAK4 degrader and all the future programs that we're bringing forth because all programs are following this type of strategy of high specificity, high potency and good physical chemical properties and the right targets.

And we'll take a question from the audience.

I actually have two questions. The first one is you explained the logic of like choosing PROTAC compared to the inhibitor very well. But I want to ask like what is the clinical consequence of PROTAC? Is it leading to like stronger efficacy or is leading to a less frequent dosing? That's the first question.

And then second question is like we all know that DUPIXENT is doing very well with AD and asthma. So did we try to compare the maybe the efficacy on the animal test or whatever like compared to DUPIXENT?

So the first question is what can degraders offer? So many things. First, as I said, there are no small molecules that can block a target completely 24/7 because the PK and the PD relationship is one to one. And extremely difficult to have enough drug on board 24/7 to block the target. So it allows you to actually have maximal target inhibition, which should lead to blockade, which should lead to superior clinical benefits.

I would also say that in many cases, not in all cases, proteins have more than one function. So when you remove the protein, you can actually benefit from removing all functions of the protein and not the catalytic function that the small molecule is able to block.

And then your second question is about -- so we've done plenty of preclinical studies comparing KT-621 to dupilumab. I'm always very careful to claim superiority because dupilumab is such an exceptionally effective and successful drug. And I cannot use a few preclinical studies to claim that we're a better drug. All I can say is that in these preclinical studies, when we degrade the target 90% or more, we see an effect that is at least as good as what you see with the saturating dose of dupilumab in these models. But we're still close to generating robust placebo-controlled clinical data. And so I would love to use that data to delve more into these comparisons.

I like it. We have audience. I never get audience questions in this day and age. So thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. So I have two questions. The first one is we noticed that you have a QD but I also noticed that you're empathizing the lasting effect, especially for asthma [indiscernible] efficacy. So do you have a plan to do QW dosing?

So a great question. Actually, you also asked a similar question. I forgot to answer. So the question is, yes, the -- sorry, I'm not used to repeat questions. I apologize. You guys have all heard the question. So QD is what we believe to be the most commercially viable dosing paradigm that we believe, based on analysis, will allow for maximum compliance. We know if you look at our data in Phase 1, we know that actually one dose of KT-621 is able to retain maximal degradation for multiple days. So it is possible that you could dose less frequently. It's not something we're exploring clinically today, but it's something that could be explored at some point.

So second point is just my curiosity because degrader and the PROTAC and the molecular glue noticed that's the first one that's [indiscernible] as PROTAC and CDK2 is molecular glue. So what's your basic criteria some technology to which one you would choose for which target [indiscernible]?

Yes. Excellent question. very simple answer. It's really, really driven by the problem we're trying to solve. If we want to degrade a target that we can find a small molecule binder for selectively. There is no better technology that heterobifunctional integrators, you have complete control of specificity and of the mechanism. If we cannot find a specific binder to the protein X or, for example, for CDK2, we cannot find the specific binder that is specific for CDK2. As you know, there is high homology between CDK2 and CDK1 so we choose this protein-protein interaction enabling technology, which many call molecular groups. So that's how we separate the two.

Well, thank you so much for your time, and that's all the time we have. Thanks for coming.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us to review the KT-621 BroADen Phase Ib results in patients with atopic dermatitis. I'm Justine Koenigsberg, Head of Investor Relations. Joining me this morning with prepared remarks are Nello Mainolfi, our Founder, President and CEO; and Jared Gollob, our Chief Medical Officer. For today's discussion, Nello will start with an overview of our strategy, how we're advancing oral small molecule degraders in immunology and the exciting opportunity to see our first-in-class STAT6 degrader or KT-621. Then Jared will take you through the BroADen Phase Ib trial design and results. After our prepared remarks, we will open the call to questions, and we'll also be joined by Bruce Jacobs, our Chief Financial Officer. [Operator Instructions] We plan to wrap up the call by 9:30.

We will make the presentation slides available as soon as we complete our prepared remarks this morning in the Investors section of our website, and a replay of today's call will also be available shortly after in the same location. The team will also be available after the call for any follow-up questions. Please note that during today's presentation, you will see references to data from prior dupilumab studies. It is important to note that no head-to-head studies have been conducted comparing KT-621 to dupilumab. As a result, the KT-621 data presented may not be directly comparable to dupilumab clinical data due to differences in study designs, endpoints and patient populations, and these data are provided for reference only. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that today's discussion will include forward-looking statements about our future expectations, plans and prospects.

These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. A description of these risks can be found in the most recent 10-Q filed with the SEC. Any forward-looking statements speak only as of today's date, and we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements made on today's call.

With that, I'd now like to turn the call over to Nello.

Good morning, and thank you, everybody, for joining us today. This is a truly special moment for Kymera, for the immunology community and more importantly, we believe, for all the patients who one day may be treated with our innovative medicines. For the first time ever, we're sharing today the profound impact of a STAT6 degrader KT-621, on patients with type 2 inflammation. I believe this is a watershed moment and marks the beginning of a new class of transformative medicines, targeting STAT6 for more than 100 million patients around the world suffering from type 2 diseases that have no effective, safe and convenient oral options. 2025 has been an incredible year of accomplishments for Kymera, and we think of no better way to conclude this year than with these compelling results, which bring KT-621, another important step closer to the promise that is foundational to our drug development strategy to bring in safe and effective oral medicines with biologics-like activity to areas with significant unmet needs. I'm eager as you to get to the data. But before I turn the call to Jared, for a full review of the results, I wanted to take a few minutes to provide an overview of our strategy of how we're working to fulfill our mission to revolutionize the way in which inflammatory diseases are treated.

Kymera has established itself as a leader in targeted protein degradation, redefining what's possible in the treatment of immune inflammatory diseases. From the beginning, we focused our efforts on solving the industry's most difficult problems, challenging ourselves not with what could be done, but with what needed to be done. As a result, our target selection has been focused on going after previously undrugged targets or difficult-to-drug targets, which we believe we could leverage our best-in-industry capabilities in hit finding and optimization of oral degraders into innovative solutions to diseases with significant unmet need. As we've said often, no program is more emblematic of our strategy and capabilities than STAT6. But it's important to note that beyond STAT6, we're advancing a broad pipeline of additional targets. Through this work, we're building one of the most novel and impactful pipelines in immunology that we hope will lead to an entire portfolio of first and best-in-class immunology oral treatments. We're intentional in our focus in immunology, and we believe we can disrupt a category that needs new innovation by advancing this exciting new modality. We're just scratching the surface of the mass market opportunity.

Currently, global sales for advanced therapies are in excess of $100 billion annually; however, while there are approximately 160 million patients diagnosed with 10 of the most common immunological diseases across U.S., Europe and Japan, it is estimated that only about 3% are treated with advanced systemic therapies, which are largely made up of biologics. So we have a $100 billion market for only 3% of the patients, mostly dominated by biologics because traditional small molecules have failed to provide comparable efficacy and safety. So here is the real opportunity. Biologics have transformed the treatment of most immuno-inflammatory diseases, but they come with many challenges. These include inconvenience associated with injection or in some cases, injection site reactions or pain, stringent storage requirements, the potential risk of immunogenicity, often complex reimbursement or adoption may be hindered by administrative burden and high costs, which are often not adequately covered by insurance. Additionally, physicians have noted that the top patient concern with injectable drugs is that patients don't like needles and many patients are not comfortable with self-injecting.

As a result, in a recent patient survey, more than 90% of patients on injectable biologics confirmed that they will be willing to switch to a safe and equally effective oral treatment. Clearly, converting many of these patients is undoubtedly a great opportunity for Kymera. At the same time, even more exciting is that KT-621, an oral drug with potential for biologics like safety and efficacy, could, in fact, expand the market to the tens of millions of patients that are not on any advanced systemic therapy. The appeal of oral small molecule solutions is clear, but the path to developing compelling small molecule alternative to biologics has been a challenge, at least we believe until now. Historically, oral small molecule approaches have focused on inhibition. The key challenges of small molecule inhibitors is driven by their PK/PD profile, which does not allow for full and importantly, continuous pathway blockade. Degraders as opposed to small molecule inhibitors can provide continuous pathway suppression.

This is due to the catalytic mechanism of degraders that allows for repeated elimination of disease-causing proteins to enable deep, durable target knockdown with once-a-day oral dosing with low doses and low exposures. As a result, degraders have the potential to deliver biologics-like efficacy with oral treatment. We believe that this will unlock the opportunity to treat a broad range of immunological conditions. With that description of the power of targeted protein degradation and our strategy as background, let's turn to the focus of today's call, KT-621, the first drug targeting STAT6, a transcription factor in the IL-4 and IL-13 pathway. The pathway has been validated clinically by dupilumab across multiple allergic and atopic diseases from AD to asthma, COPD and many other where dupilumab is approved today. STAT6 is the obligate and specific transcription factor in the pathway and is therefore, the critical signaling node controlling type 2 inflammation. By blocking the function of STAT6, we expect to phenocopy IL-4 and 13 targeting. There is also compelling genetics and clinical validation, which supports why STAT6 degradation should lead to dupilumab-like efficacy in type 2 diseases with a favorable safety profile.

This includes human gain-of-function mutations, heterozygous partial loss of function and knockout mice, all of which support the clinical and genetic validation of STAT6. The opportunity for STAT6 degradation is enormous with more than 140 million potential patients across type 2 diseases like AD, asthma, COPD, EoE and others. Yet less than 2 million patients today receive systemic advanced therapies. As I said earlier, an oral option could unlock access for tens of millions of patients transforming the treatment of type 2 diseases. Today's data puts KT-621 one step closer to making this a reality. I wanted to remind everybody that we moved KT-621 into the clinic with confidence given the compelling preclinical package we have generated. Preclinically, KT-621 demonstrated an exceptional profile. As we've said in the past, dupilumab-like, in many cases, numerically better than dupilumab in many preclinical studies. Importantly, this profile has translated extremely well into humans. To step back briefly, in preclinical testing, KT-621 has demonstrated several key attributes. It's exquisitely selective and highly potent. In addition, we've shown complete IL-4 and IL-13 pathway inhibition that was comparable or superior to dupilumab. From a safety perspective, it was well tolerated even at concentrations up to 40x above the efficacious dose.

And finally, in efficacy models, we see a clear reversal of disease shown here in the goblet cell metaplasia model with effects that were comparable or superior to dupilumab arm, highlighting the broad therapeutic potential across type 2 diseases. Building on this compelling preclinical foundation, we've also generated a strong data set in healthy volunteers. KT-621 demonstrated robust degradation potency, a safety profile undifferentiated from placebo and impressive initial effect on type 2 related biomarkers that were in line or numerically exceeded published data for dupilumab in healthy volunteers at 2 weeks. This data validated our thesis and built even more confidence in KT-621's potential as a differentiated treatment option for type 2 diseases as we advance the program into patient studies. Our clinical plan for KT-621 is designed to be both broad and very efficient. We successfully completed our Phase I studies in healthy volunteers, showing robust PK/PD results and favorable safety profile. And today, we'll discuss the exciting results in atopic dermatitis patients. Before we get to those results, I wanted to remind everybody that we've already progressed the program into the first Phase IIb trial for moderate to severe AD.

We've initiated that trial in October and just recently announced that we dosed our first patient. Additionally, we're preparing to start our Phase IIb asthma study next quarter, which remains on track. I should mention briefly that our enthusiasm around asthma is further supported now by some really exciting data that you'll see today in comorbid asthma patients in the Phase Ib study. Taken together, we believe these dose-ranging studies, which we refer to as BROADEN2 and BREADTH will enable rapid progression into Phase III registrational trials across multiple type 2-driven indications, including dermatology, respiratory and GI. Jared will share with you the full trial results next, but I wanted to highlight why we're so excited about the data that we've generated as they demonstrate for the first time ever in patients a dupilumab-like profile that strongly supports continued development of KT-621. Across all study objectives, we have exceeded our expectations. We've shown strong fidelity of translations from healthy volunteers to patients with deep STAT6 degradation in blood and skin. We've observed significant reduction in type 2 biomarkers across blood and skin lesions as well as in lungs using FeNO, which was the primary goal of the study. And these results are comparable to, and in some cases, numerically exceed results reported in dupilumab studies at week 4.

We also achieved robust improvements on all key clinical endpoints, including EASI pruritus NRS, IGA in AD patients and clinically meaningful impact on patients with comorbid asthma and allergic rhinitis. For all of these endpoints, KT-621 data were in line or numerically exceeded published data for dupilumab at week 4, further highlighting the exciting potential patient impact. And importantly, KT-621 was well tolerated with a favorable safety profile that was similar to the exciting and encouraging healthy volunteer data that we have previously shared. Altogether, these data provide a powerful validation of the enormous opportunity that is in front of us with KT-621 as we advance the program in Phase II development in both AD and asthma.

With that preview, I'll turn it over to Jared to review these positive results in more details. Jared?

Thanks, Nello. It's a privilege to be able to present these exciting results from the BroADen Phase Ib trial in AD on behalf of the exceptional KT-621 team and Kymera. I'll begin with a brief overview of atopic dermatitis and the Phase Ib trial design and then dive into the results, starting with demographics and baseline disease characteristics and then covering STAT6 degradation, impact on type 2 inflammation biomarkers, clinical activity and safety. Atopic dermatitis is a highly prevalent chronic inflammatory skin disease that most often starts in childhood and then stays with patients throughout their adulthood. Skin lesions in AD are disfiguring, intensely pruritic and painful, impacting quality of life through incessant scratching, sleep loss, depression, missed work or school and disruption of social activities. Common type 2 comorbidities include asthma and allergic rhinitis. Many treatment options address symptoms, but not the underlying type 2 inflammation. Biologics like dupilumab represent a significant advance in the treatment of AD, but only a very small fraction of moderate to severe patients are on dupilumab, and there remains a high unmet need for effective therapies that can reach a much larger segment of the AD population.

BroADen is a single-arm open-label Phase Ib trial in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. The study allowed treatment with prior biologics after washout if the patient had responded, but concurrent medications for AD, including topical therapies were not permitted. Patients received an oral once-daily dose of KT-621 for 28 days with an additional 14 days of follow-up after completion of dosing. Doses of 100 and 200 milligrams were selected based on the results from the Phase I healthy volunteer trial and were enrolled sequentially as separate dose groups, 10 patients on to the 100 milligram and 12 patients onto the 200-milligram dose groups. Endpoints included safety, PK STAT6 degradation in blood and skin, type 2 inflammation biomarkers in blood, skin and lung and clinical activity using endpoints commonly assessed in AD trials. While the dose groups were enrolled sequentially and therefore, patients were not prospectively stratified by baseline demographics or characteristics, the 2 arms were generally well balanced for gender, age and race. Overall, 54.5% were black or African-American and 22.7% were Hispanic or Latino. The dose groups were also generally balanced for measures of disease severity, including vIGA-AD, EASI and peak pruritus NRS. In the 100-milligram dose groups, 60% were moderate and 40% were severe with mean baseline EASI and peak pruritus NRS scores of 23.5 and 7.4, respectively. In the 200-milligram dose group, 50% were moderate and 50% were severe with mean baseline EASI and peak pruritus NRS scores of 26.1 and 7.6.

Overall, 54.5% had moderate disease and 45.5% had severe disease with overall mean baseline EASI and peak pruritus NRS scores of 24.9 and 7.5. Approximately 46% of patients had comorbid asthma or allergic rhinitis and approximately 23% had prior biologics treatment, including 4 with prior dupilumab, one of whom also had tralokinumab and with prior tralokinumab only. The 200-milligram group had a higher proportion of patients with comorbid asthma or allergic rhinitis as well as more patients with prior biologics treatment. Turning now to the STAT6 degradation results. We measured changes in STAT6 protein levels in blood using flow cytometry. As shown here, deep degradation of 98% was achieved in both KT-621 dose groups by day 8, which was the first time point measured after the start of dosing and reflected steady-state degradation that was maintained through end of dosing with recovery apparent at the next time point 2 weeks later. The plasma PK profile at 100 and 200 milligrams was similar to what we observed in the Phase I healthy volunteer trial. These results demonstrate high fidelity of PD and PK translation from healthy volunteers to AD patients.

In AD skin lesions, STAT6 levels were approximately twofold higher compared to healthy volunteer skin. Using mass spectrometry to measure changes in STAT6 protein levels in skin, 94% degradation was achieved in both KT-621 dose groups after 4 weeks of treatment, with multiple patients showing reduction below the LLOQ. We also observed up to 95% to 98% reduction in STAT6 staining by immunohistochemistry in the epidermis and dermis. This confirmed the strong correlation between STAT6 degradation in blood and skin that was observed in healthy volunteers and was consistent with the systemic effect of KT-621 on STAT6 levels. As we will be reviewing the effects of STAT6 degradation across multiple biomarkers and clinical endpoints, it is important to note that degradation in blood and skin were essentially the same in the 100- and the 200-milligram dose groups. In order to demonstrate that the STAT6 degradation observed in blood and skin lesions was associated with systemic inhibition of the IL-4/13 pathway, we measured the effect of KT-621 on 5 different disease-relevant biomarkers of type 2 inflammation. You are all familiar with the blood biomarkers, TARC, eotaxin-3 and IgE, which we studied in our Phase I healthy volunteer trial. In healthy volunteers, baseline levels of all 3 were low, but we were still able to show a dupilumab-like effect on TARC following 14 days of KT-621 dosing as well as an even more robust effect on eotaxin-3.

As with dupilumab, we saw a little effect on IgE in healthy volunteers, consistent with the requirement for higher baseline levels and longer treatment duration to see an impact on that biomarker. Our expectation going into BroADen was that these biomarkers would be significantly elevated in moderate to severe AD patients at baseline, thereby facilitating our ability to show a greater effect with KT-621 dosing in patients compared to healthy volunteers. With today's data set, we are sharing 2 additional and important biomarkers that were not measured in our healthy volunteer trial. IL-31 is a key cytokine driving itch that is elevated in the blood of AD patients. Notably, a small study of dupilumab in AD patients did not show any impact on blood IL-31 levels. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide known as FeNO is produced by airway epithelial cells in response to type 2 inflammation. In asthma, FeNO is a point-of-care biomarker used to detect type 2 airway inflammation that has utility in diagnosis and in monitoring response to therapy with biologics like dupilumab targeting the IL-4/13 pathway. Higher levels have been associated with lower lung function and increased risk for future asthma exacerbations.

While FeNO has not been studied in AD patients, we included it in BroADen so we could assess the baseline levels and response to KT-621 in all AD patients and also assess KT-621's effect on any AD patients enrolled who had comorbid asthma. Starting with TARC, I thought I would provide some important context before I share the KT-621 results. As shown here, the published data with dupilumab in AD, eosinophilic esophagitis, asthma and CRS with NP clearly show that the magnitude of TARC reduction is a function of baseline levels with higher baselines leading to greater percent reduction in response to dupilumab. In earlier AD trials, where median baseline levels were in the 2,000 to 4,000 picogram per ml range, median TARC reductions at 4 to 52 weeks were in excess of 70%. It's important to note that the CHRONOS study was a combination of dupilumab plus topical corticosteroids. In contrast, median baseline TARC levels were only approximately 300 picograms per ml in the EoE, asthma and CRS with NP trials and median TARC reduction at 12 to 52 weeks was only 25% to 39%. In BroADen, median baseline TARC in the KT-621 dose groups was 868 picogram per ml at 100 milligrams and 800 picograms per ml at 200 milligrams, with median TARC reductions at 4 weeks of 48% and 55%, respectively, consistent with the relationship between baseline TARC and percent TARC reduction established with dupilumab in type 2 diseases, including AD.

In those BroADen patients with baseline TARC in line with earlier dupilumab AD studies, defined as greater than or equal to 1,600 picograms per ml, which is the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the median TARC baselines from the dupilumab SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 AD studies, the median TARC reduction at 4 weeks was 74%, comparable to the dupilumab effect of 4 weeks in the single-agent Phase III studies. Similarly, in the subset of KT-621 patients with lower baseline TARC, defined as less than 1,600, we also observed TARC reduction. In this case, 38% that was comparable to the dupilumab results in studies with similar lower baseline TARC levels. Here, we summarize our results with KT-621 by showing the time course for TARC reduction stratified by KT-621 dose cohorts on the left, where KT-621 achieves similar levels of TARC reduction across both doses by day 29. As shown in the previous slide, when we stratified for dupilumab AD studies like baseline levels, including TARC greater than or equal to 1,600 versus less than 1,600, KT-621 achieved dupilumab-like inhibition of 74% in the high TARC cohort. We also show the results stratified by median TARC baseline from BroADen, where the median reduction of 71% in patients with baseline TARC greater than or equal to 800 is comparable to the effect of dupilumab. For Eotaxin-3, KT-621 achieved strong reduction by day 8 with median reductions of 62% and 73% at day 29 in the 100 and 200-milligram dose groups, respectively, followed by recovery towards baseline 2 weeks after the end of dosing. These results at 4 weeks exceeded the effect of dupilumab on Eotaxin-3 at 52 weeks in patients with asthma and CRS with NP.

While we did not expect to see much of a response in IgE with a relatively short 4-week treatment duration in light of the modest effect reported with dupilumab at 4 weeks, we did observe a 5% to 14% reduction across the 2 dose groups at day 29 that was in line with the dupilumab results at week 4. Strong IL-31 median reduction of 54% to 56% was observed across both dose groups at day 29 with recovery to baseline occurring 2 weeks later. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of IL-31 reduction in the blood by a drug targeting the IL-4/13 pathway. This is an important data point as IL-31 is believed to be the most important biomarker of its response and is known to be downstream of the IL-4/13 pathway. FeNO, which was noted earlier as an important biomarker of type 2 airway inflammation was elevated at baseline in AD patients, including those without comorbid asthma with median levels of 13 to 20 ppb across both dose groups. Reduction in FeNO was observed as early as day 8 with median reductions at day 29 of 25% and 33% at 100 and 200 milligrams, respectively, followed by recovery back to baseline 2 weeks after end of dosing. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of FeNO reduction in AD patients and provides initial proof of concept for IL-4/13 pathway inhibition in the lungs resulting from systemic STAT6 targeting with KT-621.

Dupilumab has been shown to down-regulate type 2 inflammation and other AD disease-relevant genes in the skin lesions of AD patients as early as 4 weeks into treatment. We used paired skin punch biopsies from the same lesion obtained from patients at baseline and on day 29. Given the similar levels of STAT6 degradation and pathway impact across the 2 doses, we pooled the available samples from all patients to generate a more robust data set. Using a core type 2 inflammation gene set, KT-621 showed significant reduction at day 29. Specifically, downregulated genes included Eotaxin-3, TARC, PARC and MCP-4. Results were comparable to dupilumab data at 4 weeks. Using an AD disease-relevant gene set that includes not just type 2 cytokines, but also Keratin 16, Periostin, TSLP and genes involved in Th17 and Th2 response, among others, KT-621 also achieved significant dupilumab-like reduction at day 29. Taken together, these results demonstrate how deep degradation of STAT6 in AD skin lesions leads to disease-relevant transcriptomic changes reflective of IL-4/13 pathway inhibition.

Moving on to clinical endpoints. We saw strong and generally comparable results across both dose groups and in patients with or without prior biologics treatment. As shown here, KT-621 achieved 62% and 63% mean reductions in EASI by day 29 in the 100 and 200-milligram dose groups, respectively, and overall 63% mean reduction with robust impact as early as day 8. The time course shows continuous improvement through day 29 without reaching an apparent plateau, suggesting the potential for further improvement with dosing beyond 4 weeks. The improvements on EASI as well as on all the other upcoming additional endpoints were in line with or numerically exceeded published data for dupilumab at week 4 in AD trials. An analysis of EASI in patients stratified by baseline TARC or EASI showed that the effect of KT-621 on EASI was comparable in patients with low and high baseline TARC or EASI. This demonstrated that KT-621 benefited patients with moderate to severe AD to the same extent regardless of disease severity. The substantial improvement in EASI at 4 weeks translated to EASI-50 scores of 67% and 83% in the 100 and 200-milligram cohorts, respectively, and 76% overall. EASI-75 scores were 33% and 25% in the 100- and 200-milligram cohorts, respectively, and 29% overall. And vIGA-AD 0/1 was 22% and 17% in the 100- and 200-milligram cohorts, respectively, and 19% overall.

While categorical endpoints are highly sensitive to and impacted by small ends, we were encouraged to see robust activity in these measurements. SCORAD is a validated composite measure of AD severity, integrating extent, intensity and patient-reported impact. KT-621 achieved 52% and 46% mean reductions in SCORAD by day 29 in the 100 and 200-milligram dose groups, respectively, and overall 48% mean reduction with robust impact as early as day 8. Pruritus or itch is a major clinical manifestation of AD severely impacting quality of life. KT-621 achieved a rapid and strong impact on 2 independent measures of itch, including peak pruritus NRS and SCORAD itch, a component of SCORAD. As shown here, KT-621 achieved 47% and 35% mean reductions in peak pruritus NRS by day 29 in the 100 and 200-milligram dose groups, respectively, and overall 40% reduction. KT-621 also demonstrated 40% and 47% mean reductions in SCORAD itch in the 100 and 200-milligram dose groups, respectively, and overall 44% reduction with impact as early as day 8.

The time courses show continuous improvement through day 29 without reaching an apparent plateau, suggesting the potential for further improvement with dosing beyond 4 weeks. This impact of KT-621 on patient-reported measures of itch is consistent with our observed effect of KT-621 on blood levels of the pruritogenic cytokine, IL-31. Just as was demonstrated for EASI reductions, an analysis of peak pruritus NRS in patients stratified by baseline TARC or EASI showed that the effect of KT-621 on pruritus was comparable in patients with low and high baseline TARC or EASI. This again demonstrated that KT-621 benefited patients with moderate to severe AD to the same extent regardless of disease severity. The next 3 measures were used to capture the effect of KT-621 on various dimensions of patient quality of life in order to further assess the clinical meaningfulness of reducing disease burden and symptoms. SCORAD sleeplessness is a validated measure of AD severity, capturing quality of life impact. KT-621 achieved 72% and 78% mean reduction in SCORAD sleeplessness by day 29 in the 100- and 200-milligram dose groups, respectively, an overall 76% mean reduction with mean 45% reduction as early as day 8.

This is a compelling outcome measure as impact on sleep is one of the most burdensome sequelae of moderate to severe AD. The patient-oriented eczema measure, or POEM, is a measure evaluating patient experience and impact on quality of life. KT-621 achieved 7-point and 11-point mean reductions in POEM by day 29 in the 100- and 200-milligram dose groups, respectively, and overall 9-point mean reduction, which is greater than the minimum clinically important difference of 4 points. This translated to an overall 73% POEM responder rate. The Dermatology Life Quality Index, or DLQI, is a quality of life measure validated in AD. KT-621 achieved 6-point and 9-point mean reductions in DLQI by day 29 in the 100- and 200-milligram dose groups, respectively, and overall 8-point mean reduction, which is greater than the minimum clinically important difference of 4 points. This translated to an overall 61% DLQI responder rate. Here, we show an example of response to KT-621. This patient has severe AD with baseline EASI of approximately 37. She had a history of prior response to dupilumab but came off treatment in 2017 due to lack of insurance. She was treated with KT-621 100 milligrams once daily on BroADen and demonstrated a rapid response on EASI and itch with 84% EASI reduction and 56% and 63% reductions in peak pruritus NRS and SCORAD itch, respectively, by day 29.

This clinical response was associated with 95% STAT6 degradation in blood and 94% degradation in a biopsied skin lesion, which showed deep reduction of STAT6 nuclear and cytoplasmic staining in epidermis and dermis. The patient also had robust biomarker reductions at day 29, including 78% decrease in TARC, 92% to 96% decreases in skin and blood Eotaxin-3 and 93% decrease in skin keratin 16. This exemplifies the internal consistency between STAT6 degradation, biomarker response and clinical activity in patients treated with KT-621 on BroADen. The reported frequency of asthma and allergic rhinitis comorbidities in AD patients is approximately 25% and 40%, respectively. The enrollment on to BroADen of 4 patients with comorbid asthma and 9 patients with comorbid allergic rhinitis provided us with an opportunity to look beyond AD and perform a focused assessment of biomarker and/or clinical activity relevant to these other 2 type 2 allergic diseases. The 4 patients with asthma had higher baseline levels of FeNO compared to other AD patients with a mean baseline of 49 ppb compared to 17 ppb in those without asthma. KT-621 achieved a median FeNO reduction of 56% at day 29 in patients with comorbid asthma compared to 25% in those without asthma.

This substantial reduction in FeNO, which exceeded the 31% reduction observed with dupilumab at 4 weeks in asthma was associated with a mean 1.2 point reduction in asthma control questionnaire 5 or ACQ-5 and 100% ACQ-5 responder rate that represents a clinically meaningful improvement in asthma control. This represents a first demonstration of the potential impact of KT-621 in asthma and is a meaningful result as we approach the initiation of our Phase IIb asthma study next quarter. In those patients with allergic rhinitis who were evaluable for symptoms and quality of life, KT-621 achieved a mean 0.9 point reduction in total nasal symptom score, or TNSS and a mean 0.8 point reduction in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire or RQLQ, at day 29. These clinically meaningful reductions in TNSS and RQLQ were associated with responder rates of 57% and 33%, respectively. Overall, these results in AD patients with asthma and allergic rhinitis comorbidities highlight the potential for KT-621 in these type 2 respiratory diseases in addition to AD.

This table summarizes the results for AD clinical endpoints by dose group and for all patients. Remarkably, KT-621 treatment led to improvement in all endpoints covering disease burden, symptoms and quality of life. The robust treatment effect with KT-621 across these endpoints exceeded the upper end of the 95% confidence intervals for historic placebo rates in moderate to severe AD. Importantly, none of the patients on BroADen required rescue therapy during the 4 weeks of KT-621 treatment, underscoring the clinical benefit of treatment. This clinical activity was internally consistent with the deep degradation of STAT6 in blood and skin lesions and the strong effect on disease-relevant biomarkers in blood and skin by KT-621. It is also notable that the clinical improvements on disease endpoints with KT-621 were either in line with or numerically exceeded published data for dupilumab at week 4 derived from the SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 AD trials added here as reference.

KT-621 was well tolerated with a favorable safety profile across the 100 and 200-milligram dose groups, consistent with the Phase Ia healthy volunteer trial results. There were no SAEs, no severe AEs, no dose-dependent pattern in the TEAEs, no related TEAEs or TEAEs leading to discontinuation, no AEs of conjunctivitis, herpes infections or arthralgias and no clinically relevant changes in vital signs, laboratory tests or electrocardiograms. In summary, BroADen Phase Ib achieved all of its objectives, demonstrating deep degradation in blood and skin with strong translation from the Phase Ia healthy volunteer study, profound effect on disease-relevant type 2 inflammation biomarkers in blood, skin and lungs, reflecting systemic IL-4/13 pathway inhibition. Robust clinical activity in AD with dupilumab-like effect on all measured endpoints as well as early evidence of activity in comorbid asthma and allergic rhinitis based on improvements in biomarkers and/or patient-reported outcomes and excellent tolerability with safety profile similar to what was observed in the Phase Ia trial. These results underscore the significant potential of KT-621 in AD and other type 2 allergic diseases and support advancement of the program into Phase IIb trials in AD and asthma.

I'll now turn the presentation back over to Nello for his concluding remarks.

Thank you, Jared. What a presentation. Like we did earlier this year for the healthy volunteer data, I think we have again demonstrated a compelling clinical translation of STAT6 degradation with KT-621. And again, I think we've exceeded our best expectations. As you just heard, we believe these results collectively reinforce the potential for KT-621 to deliver biologics-like profile in patients. And as you've heard me say before, the next few years will be very exciting with what I believe is once-in-a-generation drug development opportunity. As you all know, we take a lot of pride into careful assessment of human genetics and preclinical biology. We built comprehensive data set to inform our investment thesis and increase the POS of positive clinical translation for our programs. We started the STAT6 program several years ago with the idea that once-a-day oral STAT6 degrader had the potential to be the first biologics-like oral agent in immunology. And I believe this data set in AD patients complete successfully our initial clinical translation.

We started with strong genetics data, compelling preclinical data, a healthy volunteer translation that demonstrated well-tolerated deep degradation that led to dupilumab-like biomarker impact and finally, the true translation, the one in patients. And here, we have again demonstrated the impeccable translation of the human genetics, the preclinical data that point us to an oral STAT6 degrader to have the potential to transform the treatment of inflammatory diseases with a dupilumab in appeal profile. And I'm sure you'd agree with me that the data we've shared today show that we're well on our way to delivering on this important goal and more. It is worth taking a moment to reflect on what has been an exceptionally encouraging safety profile as we progress KT-621 through preclinical and early clinical testing. Throughout all of our preclinical testing up to and including 4-month tox studies, we have not observed any safety findings at any dose. And in testing in what has now been over 200 combined healthy volunteers and patients, there have been no reported safety issues of any significance. While this is a small Phase Ib study, it seems clear that KT-621 is blocking this pathway as well as an upstream biologic. It's reducing several disease-relevant type 2 cytokines in blood, skin and lung and in many -- as well and in many cases, numerically exceeding published dupilumab data.

These have resulted in improvements in objective and patient-reported clinical endpoints in AD, comorbid asthma and comorbid allergic rhinitis. The coherence of all data is, I believe, compelling. And in my view, strongly suggests that we have a potentially transformative drug. Now it's on us to focus on the execution of these critical Phase IIb studies in AD and asthma and then build our late-stage capabilities to build a global commercial stage company that will deliver life-changing oral medicines. I want to thank, first of all, the Kymera team for the exceptional work and dedication in driving the KT-621 program forward. And everyone at Kymera should be so proud of what we've delivered today. I also want to extend our sincere gratitude to the investigators, study site teams, our collaborators and CROs and most importantly, the patients who participated in the BroADen study. Their partnership and trust has made this progress possible.

With that, we look forward to the Q&A discussion.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question will come from Judah Frommer with Morgan Stanley.

Congrats on the update here. I guess, first, one of the questions we've been getting over time is just can you help us with dose selection in the Phase Ib, which dose came first? I guess, given the STAT6 degradation you were seeing in TARC reductions, why they need to add the second dose? What do you think you learned from it? And then second, I would just say on itch reduction, that seems to be a real differentiator here. I guess, how does that make you feel about market opportunity in itch prevalent conditions outside of AD and also that rapidity of itch reduction. What does that do in terms of the potential in AD specifically?

Well, thanks, Judah, for both questions. So let's take it one at a time. So the first one, so I don't think at this point, it's important that we figure out what dose came first. I think what's important is we wanted to understand really well the translation from healthy volunteer to patients to enable a refinement of our Phase IIb doses. So we decided to pick doses that were actually quite similar, I would say, almost equal in healthy volunteers and see whether we would see the same profile in patients. Obviously, if you do that, you should probably pick in the higher range of the dose because you want to translate a robust degradation profile into patients. So that's where the 100 and 200 came from. Obviously, you've seen that what we saw in healthy volunteers we saw in patients, almost equal degradation in blood and skin, and I would say almost equal or comparable downstream effect across the 2 doses. So much so that will allow -- it actually allowed us to look at the overall patient profile of the 2 doses, as we've shown at the end in the summary, one can look at the overall patient to kind of get a more powered number of patients in the study.

With regards to the second question, which is a great one, as we know, I'll let Jared actually answer more specifically. My first reaction is the most -- I think one of the most impactful deliverables of this study has been the impact on patient-reported outcome. Not that is superior to others, but because that's what we're treating, right? We're treating patients that have itch, that have trouble sleeping at night, and the fact that we can deliver a drug that has a robust impact on all of these just shows you that this is the type of drug that patients we hope will be looking for. But maybe, Jared, more technically on the other diseases.

Yes. I mean I think we're very gratified to see impact on itch across 2 different measures, the peak pruritus NRS as well as the SCORAD itch. So that concordance, I think, was really important as well as seeing the relationship between that and the effect we saw on IL-31, which is one of those key pruritogenic cytokines. So fascinating to us and very encouraging to see the impact on that cytokine. And I think all that together, I think, does potentially lend itself to thinking about treatment of diseases even outside of AD. Obviously, very important to treat itch and to see rapid kinetics of improvement in itch, which is what we saw. But to be able to treat other diseases like CSU and prurigo nodularis, right? These are other Th2 allergic diseases where itch is a big component. I think it gives us encouragement that we should have activity there as well.

Your next question will come from Derek Archila with Wells Fargo.

Congrats on the data here. So just first question for me. I'm not sure if I missed this, but I just wanted to understand maybe the level of efficacy you might be seeing in the Dupi and trial experienced patients. That would be interesting. And just as a follow-up, I guess these FeNO changes that you guys highlight today, they not only look competitive relative to Dupi, but some of the other biologics in development or on the market. So I guess, how do you think oral STAT6 could kind of reshape the kind of emerging treatment landscape in asthma?

Thanks, Derek. Great questions, both of them. So the first one on -- so Jared mentioned in his conclusion slides that the activity we saw in biologics-naive patients and biologics-experienced patients was similar, if not the same. I can say that in the 4 Dupi patients, we had 100% EASI-50. Now I don't want to make a big deal out of it. I think it just tells you that our drug works well and obviously should work well in patients that respond to this pathway drugs. On the second part, again, I'll let Jared maybe comment more on the specifics, but we've been telling everybody for the past 2.5 years that STAT6 degradation is going to transform treatment paradigm along -- across all the type 2 diseases. And I have to thank the team. I take no credit for it for actually thinking about FeNO even in AD and obviously, in comorbid asthma. And it just shows you the drug distributes well to all tissues, including lungs, degrades the target well. And it tells you if you have a small molecule drug that is very potent, I think we're going to outshine a lot of drugs that are out there. But maybe, Jared, taking us back to Earth with...

Yes. No, I think you addressed it very well. I mean I think we were, again, very excited to see this effect on FeNO, both in patients without asthma, which tells us that even in patients with AD without over asthma, there is some TH2 inflammation probably in the lung, leading to upregulation of FeNO and then to see an impact on there, I think, was very gratifying in addition to this profound impact on FeNO in asthma patients. And so I think the fact that the STAT6 degrader is able to clearly reach the lung, impact Th2 inflammation there, impact lung biomarkers of Th2 inflammation does have important implications for asthma for our ability to use a once-daily oral drug in asthma and really be as effective as we could be across other Th2 allergic diseases like AD. So I think it just speaks to the enormity of the opportunity for this drug across multiple Th2 allergic diseases where Dupi has shown an impact.

Your next question will come from Tazeen Ahmad with BofA Securities.

Congrats on the positive update. I have a couple of quick questions. You didn't see any instances of conjunctivitis. It's a small line of patients, but I think that could be a positive indicator of further differentiation from Dupi. Can you talk about what your expectations might be for Phase IIb on side effects specific to conjunctivitis? And then does this data, albeit early, indicate that there could be other indications beyond which you've already discussed wanting to go into as potentially available to explore?

Thanks, Tazeen. Great question. So just -- we've been saying this for months. So it looks just empirically that if you target IL-4 and 13 in patients with atopic dermatitis, you will see rates of conjunctivitis. In -- if you look at all drugs in this pathway, you've seen usually rates that are in the 10%, 12%, 15% at week 16. If you look at the data across all those studies, at week 4, you see about 5% rates of conjunctivitis. So in a study like ours, we're talking about one patient roughly. So I think the data tell us that at least we don't have worse rates of conjunctivitis than there are other drugs in this pathway. Whether we'll have similar or less, I would ask to wait for the Phase IIb studies that are ongoing, at least the AD studies ongoing. Jared, do you want to maybe address the second one?

Yes. In terms of indications outside, say, AD and asthma, I mean, I think, again, we feel that all Th2 allergic indications where Dupi is approved and/or shown activity are really fair game, I think, for KT-621. Again, the key here is, are we showing systemic inhibition of IL-4, IL-13 pathway signaling and functional effect. And I think the data, the biomarker data as well as the clinical data coming out of Ib tells us clearly, yes. And so I think that then allows us to think about multiple indications that go beyond AD and asthma, whether that's also COPD on the respiratory side, CRS with NP, some of the various other pruritic disorders that we talked about earlier, CSU, PN, et cetera. I think those are all open.

Maybe I just want to add a quick thing. I know we have many more questions. But I think that what we love about our data is the consistency across all the measurements. So while obviously, it's a very small data set, so we should be careful with over interpreting them. The fact that we have impact on skin, we have impact on lower airways, we have impact on upper airways. Obviously, we haven't talked much yet about allergic rhinitis. It just bodes well for all these indications that dupilumab has shown activity when it's chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, asthma, COPD, AD, pruritus and all the other indications. So again, small data set, but it speaks so broadly to the potential of this drug, and that's really what we're excited about.

Your next question will come from Alex Thompson with Stifel.

Congrats on the data again. It was interesting to see the data split out by TARC, but I was wondering if you could talk about whether there was any correlation on a patient level between STAT6 degradation and either biomarker or clinical efficacy. I guess, for instance, did patients that got to a lower limit of quantification on STAT6 degradation do better generally? Anything you could say there would be helpful.

Yes. Great question, Alex. I think that the data set is too small. I mean we also have very, very tight data across degradation. So it's really difficult to try and tease out these correlations. I'm sure as we build larger data sets, for example, in this Phase IIb study, we'll attempt to look into that, but this was too small for that kind of analysis.

And then maybe as a follow-up, will you include both 100 and 200? Are those both doses in the Phase IIb?

As promised, we're not going to disclose our Phase IIb doses. So we'll know that in 2027, but thanks for asking.

Your next question will come from Brian Cheng with JPMorgan.

Just to touch on the trend in improvement across multiple measures over time. Can you speak to the response out to day 43 once patients are off drug at day 28? How does that line up with your understanding of the PK/PD and also target engagement? And then for the second question, as we think through the BroADen 2 setup for atopic derm, that will look into efficacy out to 16 weeks. How should we think about the step-up in efficacy over time?

Great question. So let's start with the first. Maybe just high level, just if you look at our -- the degradation in blood, you see that at day 43, obviously, the target recovers, and that's expected to be after 2 weeks that you stop dosing. Obviously, we know that the target doesn't recover one day when we stop dosing. It actually takes a few days, if you remember in the healthy volunteer studies. And so I think what's important is that when we stop dosing in the following 2 weeks, there is a recovery of target. There is a recovery of biomarkers. In the clinical endpoint, I think it's more obvious once you affect this disease morphology in the skin or you affect sensory, things like itch, we expect and see that the recovery is lower, right, because it just takes a while for the disease to come back. So I don't think it's surprising what we see.

And I'll let Jared comment maybe just quickly on the second, and Jared, maybe you can comment on both. On the second question, I think the most compelling data that we're seeing, and Jared highlighted it, if you look at, for example, if you go to a slide where we have the EASI, we see really robust reduction of EASI right already at day 8. And that kind of slope of curve continues to be steep through day 29. So in a way, this tells us that -- I believe we don't know, but I believe that tells us that we're nowhere near the maximal efficacy of our drug. And the exciting part of this ongoing study is to actually figure out where we plateau.

Yes. And just to follow up on what Nello was saying, I think we do expect to see a step-up in efficacy with continued dosing. If you look at dupilumab, what they saw with EASI, for example, they saw 50% -- roughly 50% reduction at 4 weeks and then 70% reduction out of 16 weeks. And for pruritus, they saw a 30% reduction approximately at 4 weeks and then 50% reduction out of 16 weeks. And so our results at 4 weeks, as we show, numerically exceeded what Dupi showed at 4 weeks. And I think we're excited at the possibility and expectation that we would see further step up with 16 weeks of dosing.

Our next question will come from Kripa Devarakonda with Truist.

Apologies. My Internet is a little bit slow in the hotel here, but congrats on the data, fantastic data. So a couple of questions. One on TARC reduction. Just can you remind me, I might have missed the data, but if the data that you showed was from all patients or if you took a cut of the patients? And also, if you can comment on the dose effect, I know small numbers, but dose effect on EASI-75, what could be the reason that you saw dose dependence in EASI-50, but not in EASI-75?

Yes. So on the TARC, we show all data. So if you look at -- I don't think we have to pull up the slide, but I just suggest you look at Slide 29 of our deck, you see all patients data stratified by dose by TARC at 1,600 by TARC at 800 baseline. So you'll see that. With regards to a dose response, so I want to take kind of a step back. So 100 milligrams, 200 milligrams, as we expected, showed exactly the same degradation profile in blood and skin. As expected, this degradation profile leads to impact on biomarkers and clinical endpoints that are comparable. So I'm not sure we should look into any numerical differences between the 100 mg and the 200 mg look, it's possible that if you run this study longer, you might see differences. I think at 4-week, it's a bit hard to say there are differences. Then we go to the next step of -- we've said for many months not to focus on these categorical endpoints.

They're impacted by one -- a fraction of a patient, right, we're talking about. What you're seeing the difference between the 2 is the fact that the 200 milligrams at 12 patients, the 100 milligrams is at 10 patients. So we really can use the category endpoints to even compare. And if you look at the continuous variable endpoints, you look at EASI especially, they're basically the same. So I think the take-home message for us, the 2 doses behaved similarly, and that was what we expected. And in a way, that's what we wanted to see, especially with regards to degradation for us to make the right Phase IIb dose selection.

Your next question will come from Brad Canino with Guggenheim.

Okay. Perfect. Well, let me add my congratulations as well. And I guess I have a follow-up on one of the previous questions around the deepening of effect. And the question is really, why might you expect EASI change from baseline to deepen further when you've already hit a range of what antibodies deliver at week 16. And I'm also thinking about this in the context of JAK inhibitors, where you really see that effect within the first 4 weeks play out and then plateau from there.

Yes. I think, Brad, the answer is we don't know, obviously. Our expectation is that generally, atopic dermatitis is a disease, especially with regards to skin impact, takes a while to see maximal effect because you're waiting, obviously, for skin cells to regenerate, et cetera. We also believe that unlike JAK inhibitors, our biology is very much an IL-4 and 13 biology, as you know well. And we know that we expect our biology to be coherent with the general kinetics of what has been seen with other drugs in this pathway. So whether we're slightly faster and better than Dupi, I'm not going to say that. I promise I wouldn't say that. I would say we're in the ballpark. We talk about numerically, maybe slightly better. Let me not get into this diatribe. But what I would say is this is a different modality, right? It's a small molecule. It is possible that you're able to engage the pathway a bit faster, but that doesn't mean that you plateau faster. I agree with what Jared said earlier. I don't have data for it, but I agree with this instinct that I think our effect will deepen with more dosing.

Your next question will come from Brian Abrahams with RBC.

Congratulations on the data. Should we expect the BroADen patients to be representative of the types of patients that you're planning to and expecting to enroll in the Phase IIb? And how might any differences -- or how much might any of the differences there impact either the rapidity of response or efficacy over longer dosing?

Yes. Thanks for the question. The eligibility criteria for the Phase IIb are going to be very similar to the Phase Ib criteria for defining what is moderate to severe. So we expect there to be a very similar population. If you look at our population and our baseline characteristics, we have about close to 45%, 50% of patients on Phase Ib had severe disease. the baseline NRS pruritus scores, baseline SCORAD, et cetera, were very similar to what we're seeing with Dupi. So we are -- we did manage to enroll a broad range of moderate to severe patients on Phase Ib with those eligibility criteria, and we expect to do the same in Phase IIb.

Maybe just to add a small comment. If you look at the early dupilumab studies, our baseline EASI was in the, let's say, low 30, 31, 32. The AD trials in the past 5 years, the mean baseline EASI was around 25. Obviously, we have taken a different approach with the IIb in a way that we're very, very focused on obviously delivering on these large studies. So this is a global study. We've said that a majority of our sites would be outside of the U.S. We're very focused on quality of patients, quality of sites. And keeping the expected placebo rates in the smaller range possible. So again, I think patients are what they are at this day and age, but we are being very proactive on making sure that the patient population delivers -- allows us to deliver impeccable data for this drug that has obviously huge potential.

Your next question will come from Andrea Newkirk with Goldman Sachs.

Congratulations on the data this morning. Jared, just thinking ahead, I know we're a little ways off from this. But as you think about a potential Phase III trial, would you expect to need a head-to-head trial versus Dupi, either in order to support approval or physician adoption? And then just one for Nello, Bruce. You've referenced now the potential utility for 621 or STAT6 degradation across a range of type 2 diseases. But how are you thinking strategically about internal versus external development for those programs and prioritization of resources?

Okay. Yes. Thanks for the question, Andrea. So I'll start with your first one, which is do we need to do a head-to-head Phase III with Dupi. I think the short answer is no. If you look at the precedents for registration and approval, whether it's in the U.S. or Europe, in these diseases like AD and asthma, it's not going up against an active comparator. It's going up against placebo. So our anticipation is that we will have a placebo-controlled study for Phase III for initial approval. Now whether there might be opportunities down the road for doing a head-to-head comparison in order just to see what our activity is like relative to Dupi or to support reimbursement in some of the European markets, that's always a possibility. But I think our base case is a placebo-controlled Phase III for registration and approval.

Thanks, Jared. On the second question, just high level, we are building the company to take 621 all the way. In our current plans, obviously, we have these Phase IIb studies. Bruce can tell you more about our runway and cash we have today. But -- and we believe that as we continue to derisk the program and as our cost of capital decreases, we should be able to continue to fund the program. Now if we go after 7 indications in Phase III in parallel, we're talking about 28, 29 Phase III studies. I don't think any company in the world can actually do that, not just afford but execute. So for us, it's really the priority indications. We have 4 or 5 that are the majority of the patients in type 2 inflammation that we're getting ready to support as a stand-alone independent and wholly owned company and program. Obviously, post Phase II study, we always are going to be open to discuss potential different win-win opportunities. in terms of partnerships, but that's not our base case right now. Maybe, Bruce, you want to.

Yes. I wouldn't add too much, Andrea, other than, as Nello said, we're acutely focused on executing on the Phase IIbs right now. We're capitalized to take the company into the second half of 2028, which is at least a year beyond the first readout of those Phase IIb studies. So that's where our internal focus is.

Your next question will come from Tom Smith with Leerink.

Congrats on the data. Just in the patients who had prior biologic exposure, I appreciate the color on the one patient who responded after prior response to Dupi. I was just wondering if you could expand on the background and maybe the narrative for the other 4 biologic experienced patients. Were there any nonresponders or suboptimal responders that subsequently responded to 621? Or were these patients all prior responders? And then maybe as a follow-up, you talked about the slope of the EASI pruritus curves here suggesting we could see some greater benefit of longer dosing. Also appears to be some durability and response on some of these measures out to that 2-week follow-up period. Just curious how you're thinking about the potential durability of effect. And for patients that seem to have more of an extended response, are there any common features among those patients?

Jared, do you want to take the first one?

Yes. In terms of prior biologic, in order to come on to the study, if patients had prior biologics, they had to have responded to those biologics. If they came off of them, it had to be not because of nonresponse, but because of maybe they didn't tolerate it or their insurance didn't covered or they didn't want to take injections anymore. So all of the patients with prior biologics, whether it was Dupi or Tralo had an actual good response prior -- in the past. And then they had an adequate washout period prior to coming on to the study.

And obviously, we saw that they responded well to 621. On your second question, it's hard for us. We don't really have enough [indiscernible] to dissect patients that respond slightly longer than not longer. So those are things we'll continue to keep an eye on. I would say that if you look at the clinical benefits and the clinical effect of drugs in this pathway, obviously, we expect that as you stop dosing, you will eventually have less response. I think what's important that maybe it's underappreciated that if you're able to dose drugs from this pathway, dupilumab, hopefully 621 one day in the early life of patients with type 2 inflammation, you can actually change their life forever, right? If you're able to stop the atopic march, you actually are able to provide even cures to some of these patients. So that's why for us, pediatric development, it's not maybe a topic for today. It's an area that we're very focused on as we continue to advance this program.

Your next question will come from Geoff Meacham with Citi.

Okay. Good. Awesome. Congrats on the data, guys. I wanted to ask you about the speed of onset. The release mentions a pretty rapid onset by day 8 in EASI and pruritus. Just curious if you could tie clinical responses to the mechanism and biomarkers more specifically. That's the first question. And the second one is just another one on FeNO, really impressive data there, obviously, just a few patients, but maybe does the baseline in this study in comorbid patients with asthma look like what you want to explore in Phase Ib and future studies. Just wanted to put maybe that in context.

Yes. That's great question, Geoff, actually, I like it. So the first one is if you look at degradation of STAT6 at day 8, you see, obviously, we crash it already. If you look at biomarkers at day 8 in most of them, the ones that we were measuring, we see a really robust effect at day 8. So it's not surprising that we're starting to see this initial impact on disease already at day 8. I mean we're probably impacting all of these biomarkers as well as STAT6 already on day 1. So again, we reached steady state at 4 hours in our study. So I think what we have seen is not surprising that this pharmacology happens quickly. On the second question, which I thought was really cool, maybe, Jared, you can speak to the baseline of FeNO.

Yes. I think those baseline FeNOs that we saw that were sort of in the 50 range in those patients with comorbid asthma, that's very similar to the levels you're going to see in moderate to severe asthma. Now these patients on our study didn't have moderate to severe asthma. They were having control issues with their asthma, and that's why their ACQ-5s were actually elevated, indicating that they had poor control. So the fact that we were able to see in these patients who had FeNO levels that were at least as high as what you'll see in your standard moderate to severe asthma and see such a profound impact on FeNO and also a real impact on improving asthma control by that 100% ACQ-5 responder rate, does give us encouragement, even though this is a small end, clearly, it does give us encouragement that in a Phase IIb asthma study that we should be active and potentially as active as Dupi, but that remains to be shown in that study.

Your next question will come from Joe Catanzaro with Mizuho.

Actually, I think, a good follow-up, maybe just to the last question in terms of asthma in those 4 patients, given their comorbid with AD, is it fair to assume that they had high baseline levels of eosinophils, so eosinophilic asthma and then I guess, relatedly, thinking about 621 and its mechanism and utility in asthma, how should we think about it relative to phenotype eosinophilic versus non-eosinophilic, whether it will behave like Dupi or not?

Yes. I mean, based on our data, we -- based on what we understand about this pathway, this is a type 2 drug. So we expect that -- and in fact, our patient population will be eosinophilic asthma. Many of our patients had elevated EOS. That's both a feature of AD, especially given that it's the more Th2 skewed of the type 2 diseases. And obviously, the ones that had -- I don't remember exactly, but the ones that had high FeNO likely had also elevated [ EOS ] at baseline. So again, in terms of placing this drug, we expect it to be an eosinophilic drug. And I think the important thing about 621 in asthma is that I think the opportunity we will have after obviously, Phase III and being approved is to really work with the community here to change how patients are treated with asthma. Right now, patients are treated with steroids for too long without addressing the actual inflammation. I think this drug can change that paradigm. And that's why we're very passionate about asthma, AD and the pediatric population for both.

Your next question will come from Mayank Mamtani with B. Riley.

Congrats on the fantastic results. If I could ask one more asthma question. If you could clarify the treatment duration that you might be looking to explore in the Phase IIb. Dupi had a bunch of different trial designs initially that were conducted. So if you're able to give any information what you've learned by FeNO and the eosinophil comment you had earlier. And then on the sort of the safety AE table, I'm sure we'll get at a future medical conference, combining exposure across healthy volunteer. Now I think of 150 subjects. Could you just confirm if you've established the safe minimally effective dose threshold? Or is that going to be a key Phase IIb objective? I was just curious about the details there.

Yes. So on the duration, we're not going to disclose the design of the study yet. So I think it will be early next year when we start the study for custom. On the safety of our drug, I mean, we have placebo-like safety in the healthy volunteers. We didn't have placebo here, but you could say that it was very similar to that the safety we saw there. There, we pushed the dose all the way up to 800. So we actually haven't seen any dose-limiting toxicity or any actually toxicity that are relevant of any type. So this is as good of a safety profile as one could hope.

Any AEs that were dose dependent you can comment on, Nello?

Jared?

No. There were no dose-dependent AEs, either in patients or in the healthy volunteers.

Your next question will come from Andy Chen with Wolfe Research.

You broke up Andy.

It appears we have lost Andy.

Okay. Maybe we'll try back -- the next one.

Sure. We'll take our next question from Jeet Mukherjee with BTIG.

Great. Pretty momentous day for you folks as a company. So I wanted to extend my congratulations as well. One thing I'm just still quite fascinated by is some of these differences that you're seeing versus DUPIXENT, such as on IL-31 and on FeNO. So just from a biologic and perhaps pharmacologic basis, is there anything you could point to that perhaps might be driving this difference?

Well, it's a great question. I would be kind of careful at this stage to claim that we are superior to DUPIXENT. I don't think the message that we want to send today is that. I think the message that we want to send is all the data we've accumulated to date in the past multiple years has shown us that we've embarked the pathway as well as an IL-4 and 13 biologics. I think we can safely say that with this data. We will require larger studies and more analysis to actually get to the specifics of differences. Again, one thing I would say that as we've seen also in preclinical studies, the small molecule is extremely fast at degrading and it's extremely good at getting into tissues, so it's obviously telling us that we have robust effects in the right tissues. And that might be something that with more studies, we'll be able to show more and more data that might share and give rise to some level of differentiation. But again, I would be unscientific to say that we have robust data right now to say we're different. I think we're at least as good as what has been shown with upstream biologics. So let's put it at that...

Fair enough.

Your question is very good. I'm not dismissing it. You know what I'm trying to do.

Absolutely. Maybe just as a quick follow-up, obviously, focusing -- or focus now turning to your Phase II studies. Can you just remind us what steps you're taking to mitigate that placebo response?

Yes. So Jared, maybe you can speak to this.

Yes. I think for the Phase IIb AD study, for example, I think it's very important that we have eligibility criteria and train seasoned physicians to make sure that, number one, they're putting on AD patients because sometimes patients who don't have AD are put on to these studies. And number two, to make sure that the patients, if we have an EASI cutoff of 16, for example, from moderate to severe, that they're not putting on patients with lower EASIs actually really have mild disease, not moderate. This does happen.

And so it's very important for us as we've selected sites, selected investigators and we ourselves as a sponsor will be providing a lot of close oversight in terms of the screening of patients to make sure the right patients with the right eligibility criteria are enrolled on to the study. That's going to be critical, also making sure that we have dermatologists doing the clinical measures and the same person doing the measure at baseline. And then afterwards, that's going to be really important. And again, making sure that we as a sponsor are providing close oversight. It's also very important to have an array of sites in these global studies. We have both North American sites in U.S. and Canada as well as sites ex U.S. in Europe and in Asia. In fact, our AD study will have a majority of sites outside of North America, although there will still be a substantial number of North American sites.

For our next question, we'll return to Andy Chen with Wolfe Research.

Just one question from my side. Curious if your Phase Ib here has generated additional confirmatory evidence that degraders are better than inhibitors. And I'm hoping that you can help us quantify how much better a degrader is compared to an inhibitor. Or in other words, if a STAT6 inhibitor were to produce TARC or IgE data, where do you think they will land?

Yes. No, it's a great question. And we've said it for a very long time that for this particular pathway in order to achieve biologics-like activity, you have to get really robust blockade. We've said in the past, 90% plus. Some would argue maybe even more than that. And obviously, I think we've shown that in both healthy volunteers and now in patients. We believe, given how much target is expressed, we believe it's almost impossible with an inhibitor to cover the target 24/7 at this level of inhibition, again, given the PK/PD reliance of traditional small molecules. With regards to your question, look, IgE is extremely noisy in the first few weeks.

So it's really hard to put a number on IgE that one could actually make a comparison with. And on TARC, again, you've seen that it's very dependent on baseline. But assuming you have comparable levels of baseline, I actually don't think that blood biomarkers are the story of differentiation. Even if you look at preclinical models, you can actually change biomarkers even with suboptimal target engagement. When I say suboptimal, I say even 80%, 85% you've seen our preclinical data. But it's the clinical endpoints and the efficacy endpoints preclinically is where you need the robust deep pathway blockade.

Our next question will come from Sudan Loganathan with Stephens.

Kymera team, I really appreciate the update here, and I want to convey my congrats again also on the data that you presented for 621. So my question, given that BroADen enrolled a substantially higher proportion of African-American patients than dupilumab's earlier AD studies, I think it was about 50% in your study versus Dupi was closer to 70%, 80% of actually white Caucasian patients. And considering the known challenges in scoring erythema or skin redness in darker skin, how are you thinking about interpreting the observed EASI-50 or 75 responses in that context? And then did you incorporate any scoring standardization or digital tools to mitigate skin tone-related variability? And will there be any focus on that in the Phase IIb in this population or going forward?

I want to just high-level answer, Jared, you can be ready to answer the more technical part. I don't believe that this is going to be trend that you've seen in all the other studies. Just to remember, this was a U.S.-only study, 28 days, 2 required biopsy, the third option of biopsies. So this was really a difficult study to enroll, which also the site selection was based on, we believe, patients that we would have access to that would have less access to systemic biologics. Again, I can't predict what the Phase IIb study will look like, but I would be surprised if the percentages will continue to stay the same. But Jared, what do you want to add to the technical...

Yes. I think from a technical standpoint, I think all the clinicians and dermatologists that were used in our Phase Ib study were all well trained to be able to assess lesions in both dark skin individuals as well as lighter skin individuals. Also important to note that in our African-American patients, we saw concordance across all endpoints. So it wasn't just EASI, it was also pruritus, SCORAD, biomarkers, sleeplessness, all these other endpoints all sort of came together.

So in addition to the investigators being well trained to assess extent and severity of skin lesions in a measure like EASI, the fact that all the other measures also came together, just as you saw in that one example that we gave in the presentation, which was a dark skin patient, that really isn't an issue. And I think if we have those patients in our Phase IIb study, again, we'll be using sites with experienced dermatologists who will be well versed on how to do these measurements across the board.

I think this was the last question here. So I wanted to thank everybody for tuning in. This is a momentous day for the company, and we're happy to spend more time with any of you today in the next few days. And again, I wanted to thank the team here at Kymera for doing an amazing job in the past few years and especially in the past few months. And thanks again, everybody, for joining us today.

All right. So welcome to the second day of the Citi Global Healthcare Conference. So I'm Geoff Meacham, I'm the senior biopharma analyst, and my team is here in front, too. So we're thrilled today to have Kymera Therapeutics. We have Bruce Jacobs, the CFO. We have Jared Gollob. So welcome, guys. Good to have you.

We got some questions here, but maybe you want to give sort of just a real quick like kind of a couple of minute overview, and then we can get into some of the detail.

Sure, Geoff. Thanks so much for having us. It's always great to be at your conferences. So it's been a busy and active year for Kymera. As I think most of you hopefully know by this point, we're one of the leaders in the targeted protein degradation field. We're actually coming up upon the 10-year anniversary of Kymera's founding, which will be next May. And I think it's amazing from where I sit to look at how the company has evolved in terms of our capabilities and then obviously, in terms of how that's manifested itself in our pipeline.

But we've taken that focus on protein degradation. We've, over time, narrowed our focus to the immunology space, where we think there's a tremendous opportunity to develop drugs that using this really powerful modality have, we think, the ability to deliver, as you've heard us say many times, biologic-like efficacy with a similar safety profile of some of these biologic drugs, which are incredibly powerful in their efficacy, but have some drawbacks, which we think make oral options a compelling alternative.

So at this point, we've developed a pipeline that we think is quite exciting. I'm sure we'll talk about our 2 wholly owned programs, our STAT6 program, which is on the cusp of some data, as you all know, and I'm sure we'll talk about that as well. And our IRF5 program, which we introduced earlier this year and is poised to enter the clinic next year as well as share some -- we'll have some data next year on that program also.

And we've got a couple of partnered programs as well if we have time to talk about them. We partnered with Sanofi on our IRAK4 program. They've focused on our next-generation IRAK4 degrader and we'll be entering the clinic next year in 2026. And also just recently, actually, it was June now, but feels recent, we announced a collaboration with Gilead around a CDK2 molecular glue, and we'll hopefully have news on that molecule's progression next year. So it's been an exciting time for Kymera, and we've got a lot to discuss, I'm sure.

So I'll turn it back to you for some specific questions.

Awesome. Yes. Thanks, Bruce. Yes. So let's talk about pipeline first, so we can get into strategy and kind of the longer-term outlook. So the 621 data, atopic derm coming up, there's obviously a category where there's a lot of innovation. There's a lot of competition, but you guys have a really unique platform technology and the potential to have really a very exquisite potency. So talk a little bit about the what maybe a win looks like there in terms of differentiation, how you're thinking about this data set as you look to mid- to late-stage trials?

Great. Thank you. Maybe I'll start. Essentially, the 621 program has been through Phase Ia healthy volunteers, right? We showed we think, impressive data there in terms of safety, knockdown and biomarker effect. And now we have this readout coming this month for Phase Ib. I think we've been very clear upfront from the very beginning of the study that for us, a win was to meet multiple objectives with that particular Phase Ib study in AD patients.

One of the main objectives was to show translation of safety, PK and PD from healthy volunteers to patients. Another important objective for us was to show or to allow us actually to confirm the doses that we had already really selected for Phase IIb based on our Phase Ia healthy volunteer data, but with translation, hopefully, between healthy volunteers and patients to be able to confirm those doses for Phase IIb.

We've talked about biomarkers being an important objective. We wanted to show a dupi-like effect on various Th2 biomarkers, probably TARC in blood being one of the main biomarkers that many focus on in AD because it's so elevated, but other biomarkers as well in blood and in skin and to be able to show a dupi-like effect at 28 days. And then finally, being able to look at a variety of different AD clinical endpoints.

Again, if you look at 28 days and what dupi showed across their Phase III studies at 28 days on various endpoints, that provides you with a ballpark for where we'd like to be with 6:1 with regard to those endpoints in our Phase Ib study. So for us, that would be a success being able to sort of hit those various objectives. And for us, I think we see ourselves right now as being obviously sort of furthest along in the space with regard to certainly degraders.

And even with inhibitors, even though Pfizer recently announced that they are moving into a Phase IIb, they haven't shown any Phase I data. We feel as though we're quite ahead of the pack with regard to either any degraders that might be out there of STAT6 or any inhibitors by at least a year or 2, now having very quickly over the last year or so moved through healthy volunteers patients in Ib and even just recently initiated our Phase IIb AD study dosing our first patient just over the past couple of weeks and plans to start our Phase IIb asthma study in the first quarter of next year.

That's super helpful, Jared. Yes, when you think about the 28 days for dupi, I guess, the comps, how would you think about further differentiation? Is it sort of depth of response? Is it speed of response? Or what are the opportunities, I think, to really separate from this study for 621?

I mean I think we've said it all along that based on our mechanism of action, blocking the IL-4/-13 pathway through a different mechanism, but to the same extent as what dupi can do and what we've seen in our preclinical models is that we expect in the best case scenario to be similar to dupi with regard to both efficacy and safety. So when we look at 28-day results, for example, we've been a little more granular around TARC in the blood just because this is not a placebo-controlled study, but biomarkers don't tend to change much in placebo. So if you look at the dupi data at 28 days and you see a 70% to 80% reduction in TARC, that's sort of the ballpark we'd like to be in, if you want to say that we're dupi-like on biomarkers at 28 days.

We've been a bit more reluctant to sort of land on a specific number for clinical endpoints in the absence of a placebo control. But I think, again, if you look at those like the SOLO 1, SOLO 2 Phase III data and you draw a line at 28 days and you look at what they saw for EASI, pruritus and other endpoints, you'll get a sense for that's the ballpark that we'd like to be in with regard to 621.

From a kinetic standpoint, I think we're going to sort of learn about our kinetics for the first time in Phase Ib. Again, remembering that this is a 4-week study. So we're not looking over the entire 16 weeks where the Phase II and registration Phase III studies are usually run that also usually include even a longer extension period of 1 year beyond that. So I think we'll get our first sense of kinetics with this 4-week study, but it won't be the final word.

Okay. And then looking broader at biomarkers, you mentioned the TARC Jared, but also the eotataxin. Maybe talk about predictive biomarkers that maybe aren't as FDA or regulatory validated, but are a very good indicator of your mechanism and deployment. What are the potential learnings from that as you look to Phase IIb?

I mean I think from the Phase Ia healthy volunteer study, we looked at TARC, but we also looked at eotaxin, which had not been looked at by dupi in healthy volunteers and sort of a very robust effect on both. So I think in Phase Ib in patients, we expect these biomarkers to be elevated to a greater extent, obviously, compared to healthy volunteers. And actually, with regard to TARC, it's known if you look at the published data with dupi that the sort of percent change that you see in TARC is a function of the baseline level of TARC.

So if you look at some dupi studies outside of AD where TARC levels are lower to begin with, you see less of a percent reduction, even though it's hitting the pathway hard. And then if you look at the -- some of the AD studies where 10 years ago, TARC levels were very high, you see much greater percent reduction in TARC. So TARC changes are a function of where you start.

But in addition to TARC, which we're obviously looking at is important, you mentioned eotataxin in the blood. There are other Th2 biomarkers there, but also in the skin. So we have the opportunity here to biopsy skin lesions in AD patients and look at the Th2 transcriptome and other AD sort of disease-relevant genes. These have been published on by Sanofi previously. So we know what the benchmarks are for seeing effects at even 4 weeks on the skin transcriptome. So I think the totality of those biomarker data, I think, hopefully will give us a sense of whether we're in that sort of dupi ballpark even after 4 weeks.

Yes. And I guess the one question is if you look at the -- you have a lot of dupi prior data that can kind of give you a sense for the transcriptomics, the profile. But when you look to larger studies, are there -- is there less evidence when dupi -- refractory dupi patients are nonresponsive? Or how do these biomarkers trend? And would you guys be looking to study that in the larger studies, more mature clinical trials like some of the more special populations in atopic derm.

It's an interesting question. I'll answer first and if you has more information, he can answer as well. I think there hasn't been a lot of work done on understanding mechanisms in patients who don't respond as well to dupi. It turns out that many patients do have a good response to dupi. So there aren't really many dupi refractory patients in either AD or asthma. But it's a very important question around are there certain features, biomarker features in either blood or skin that might predict for better or worse responses to a drug like dupi and therefore, could those by extension also potentially predict responses to our drug targeting STAT6.

Those sorts of things might be out there, and that might be something that we look at in the future. I think right now, it's important that we're really focusing on looking at activity of our drug, not in dupi refractory patients. That's not where we're going with the drug.

We want to go to patients who are dupi naive because only a very small percentage of AD and asthma patients are even getting dupi. So that's where we intend to go with our drug. Even on our Phase Ib study, we do allow prior dupi, but only in patients who have responded previously to dupi and then had a washout, and that will also be the case in our Phase IIb.

I don't know, Bruce, if you want to add to that?

No, I would just add, and Jared alluded to this, if you look at the AD population today in the developed markets, it's over 40 million-some-odd patients diagnosed and the number of patients treated with dupi are on the order of 1 million or less. And so I guess the way we have looked at this opportunity set is that there's clearly various reasons why that penetration isn't higher despite the fact that it's a $20-ish billion run rate drug. There are some drawbacks from biologics. There are some people who have issues accessing them, paying for them.

So I think when you think about the opportunity set for 621 or you think about even the long-acting agents, I think there's a big pie here, if you will, that is, frankly, just underserved. I mean dupi is a fantastic drug, but it doesn't reach nearly as broad of a population as as we think it's possible that an effective and comparably effective and safe oral drug could reach. And that's really the opportunity set.

So as Jared mentioned, we will -- if we have any dupi experienced patients, we'll be able to share that when we have data. But clearly, you would expect there will probably be some on the Phase IIb for sure, where we'll have larger numbers overall to really do some of that analysis by different patient types.

Yes. I guess, Bruce, as a follow-up to that or Jared as well, but when you look at the investments you're making in 621 in just atopic derm, how are you thinking about maximizing the commercial opportunity? Is it really to have more of a commercial partner, perhaps like in Europe? Is it to grow eventually the indication base that you're studying from atopic derm to respiratory IBD? How do you see this playing out from a maybe a mechanism, but also from a commercial.

Yes, that's a great question, Geoff. I'll maybe start and Jared can add in. one of the aspects that I think makes this opportunity so unique for Kymera, for STAT6 targeting agents is the playbook is out there, right? We know where dupi is approved and where it's been effective, safe and effective. And so we have in front of us, if you will, a menu of potential indications that we could pursue that if our thesis is right, that a STAT6 agent will act on the pathway similarly to dupilumab, we ought to be able to show similar results in a multitude of indications.

So the question then becomes from a company standpoint, how does that drive our regulatory strategy and ultimately, our commercial strategy. The approach we've taken to this point is to initially focus for our Phase IIb studies on the 2 largest markets, AD and asthma. Those are, as I said, obviously, they represent the lion's share of dupi sales, I think, somewhere upwards of maybe as much as 80% of revenue. But they also can become what we think of almost as like sentinel type Phase IIb studies for us, one in dermatology with AD and one in respiratory with asthma.

So the AD trial Phase IIb is underway. We've initiated the sites, and we've dosed the first patient. Asthma will be off and running in the first quarter. And I think over time, as we develop this data, we'll be able to refine and share more about our development strategy and frankly, our partnering strategy for the drug as well.

To this point, anyway, we've made the very clear strategic decision that we're not interested in partnering the program despite, as you might imagine, some pretty strong interest that has come our way. We have the team and we have also the capital to fully execute on these Phase IIb studies. We don't see any scenario where any partnership could improve upon how effective we are in operating these studies and also the timeliness of how quickly we run them.

So I think the question about our development strategy becomes obviously much more pressing and real when we get to the Phase IIb data, which we expect the first of that would be by the middle of 2027. And at that point, I think we can start to really contemplate whether there's a scenario where working together with a partner could expedite our the trajectory of this path to multiple indications and how we would prioritize them.

The scale and scope of pursuing everything where dupi is today is -- would be almost unprecedented in biotech. There would be on the order of 20 Phase III studies just to target the 8 or 9 indications that are the first group of dupi indications. So I think even with a partner, there would have to be some level of prioritization. But I think those are some of the discussions that we'll have when we get to that point, if it makes sense.

I should say we're building this company to take this through ourselves, and that's our anticipation and expectation. The bar to partnering for this program for us is exceptionally high because we would have to -- it would have to be proven to us that we could develop this faster, more effectively and most importantly, more broadly with a partner than we could on our own. And right now, we have a very clear pathway to some very, very large markets.

We have 2 Phase II studies that will be incredibly informative, I think, in our opportunity set there. And we're building right now. We've frankly already built the development capabilities. We're already now focusing on the Phase III studies and the commercial side of the organization, which we need to build as well.

So -- but I think talk to us maybe 1 year, 1.5 years, we'll have more to report. But right now, it's all systems go and getting through the -- getting these Phase IIb studies rolling.

And just a follow-up to that, Bruce. So I think one of the capital with respect to growing the indications that are in development is probably pretty reasonable that you guys have access to that. But when you think about the down the road commercial investments on a global basis, geographic basis, don't get the impression that's a big priority now, but maybe we'll have to see based on data, right? Is that right?

No, I think that's fair. I mean I think clearly, the size and scale of this opportunity is commensurate with the investment that will be required on our part to capitalize on that. Right now, the company is very fortunate to have had a very committed, engaged, strategically aligned group of investors who have supported us along the way. We have $980 million of cash. We have a runway into the second half of 2028. That runway pays for both of the Phase IIb studies. It gets us started on at least the first Phase III study for STAT6 and then also pays for IRA5 and everything else we have in our pipeline.

I think we have multiple inflection points along the way to look to how we might capitalize the company to, again, further advance the program. I think the question of commercialization is a very good one, irrespective of what we do from a development standpoint. There will also be a time at which we ask the question, are we the right company solely to take this into the market? Or are the dynamics? And you know as much as well as anyone about the competitive dynamics, rebate environment, et cetera, what's the right model for that? And that's something that we're already thinking about today, but we've got a little time before we have to make some of the most important decisions there.

Yes. And Jared, you're right. We said that -- I mean, the penetration rate of dupi in the atopic derm is very, very low. But from a mechanism standpoint, when you guys run the analysis of all the biomarkers and maybe outside of atopic derm, is there an indication that maybe stands out that you feel like you could really separate versus dupi on some of the more like a respiratory biomarker or a biomarker that's more prevalent in IBD? I'm just trying to think of like maybe a nonintuitive kind of next step in terms of indication?

Yes, that's a good question. I mean I think at this point, we still view sort of all the places where dupi has gone and been approved or sort of be active really is the landscape where we should also be able to go with 621. In terms of how we prioritize, if there's a reason to prioritize above and beyond what Bruce was referring to in terms of market size, so yes, prioritizing AD and asthma because that's 80% of the dupi market. Eventually, COPD is also going to become more and more a market. Eosinophilic esophagitis is going to be important in others. I think those are all places that we think it will be important for us to go.

I should also mention that diseases like AD, asthma and EoE, there are substantial pediatric populations there as well, and those represent a sizable part of not just the market opportunity, but also the urgency of really providing drugs for these young patients, right, who are not accessing them now. You can imagine that giving injections to young children as young as 6 months of age is very difficult, both for parents and for children.

So to be able to have oral drugs that can now access pediatric patients within these big indications. I think that's also going to be an important imperative for the company in terms of if we see this, which we do as a transformative medication now for Th2 allergic diseases and now it can be given orally, you can imagine being able to access and provide unmet need for these pediatric patient populations as well as for adults and adolescents.

I mean I'm sure there's -- everybody's got their own market studies and there's many of them out there, but most that we have seen clearly indicate that there's a strong preference when given a choice between an effective and safe oral medication and an injection. And particularly, as Jared mentioned, when you get to the pediatric population, some of these injections can be very painful.

There's a large volume of drug. Oftentimes, there's induction regimens. I think particularly for parents who have to inject their own children, you can imagine that this would be a very compelling alternative. So we think about the opportunity set, not just across different indications, but also these different populations, it becomes a very interesting value proposition.

Yes. No, that makes sense. So looking to the Phase IIb study, you guys have talked about a super pharmacologic dose based on all your PK/PD analysis. Just give us the background and the context for that and why that gives you kind of confidence.

Sure. Yes. So I think for a Phase IIb dose range finding study, what FDA is going to want to see, right, is that you're looking across a range of doses that are giving you different degrees of pharmacology, potentially different degrees of efficacy. and also allows you to look at safety across these different doses where you can now sort of connect safety to what you're seeing with regard to pharmacodynamics. So I think a classic dose range finding study, you want to be able to look across a range of doses that's going to accomplish that.

And I think fortunately, for us, because from a degradation standpoint, our target is STAT6 and we can measure the impact of the drug on STAT6 and have done that, for example, in our Phase I healthy volunteer study, we know sort of what range of doses are going to give us sort of super maximal degradation versus sort of maybe clinically optimal maximal degradation versus submaximal degradation, and that's the dose range that we want to be at in a Phase IIb study in order to do that properly. We're probably not going to end up revealing what those doses are for the Phase IIb study, just given the competitive landscape.

We will obviously reveal the doses for Phase Ib when we present those data this month. But I think for Phase IIb, I think we're going to be keeping it at a high level and thinking of it in those 3 different sort of buckets, but not actually providing what the doses are other than to say that the doses selected for Phase IIb are among the doses that we did look at in our Phase Ia healthy volunteer study.

That's helpful. Yes. So we had -- yesterday, we had a chat with Marty Makary who was talking about novel technologies, novel approaches and the opportunity for certain diseases to be fast tracked or certain drugs.

Did you get us a voucher?

I was working it. So talk about the -- your accelerated development plan. Is there an opportunity in your view to maybe help speed up even more? I know you move pretty quickly, right, from Phase Ia to Phase IIb, but there's a further opportunity to kind of put this on a bit of a faster.

Yes. No, that's a great point. And I think aspirationally, that is what we want to do. It's important for us. And one of the reasons we want to maintain control of development is to be able to do just that, to accelerate development so we can get this drug to patients as quickly as possible.

Our strategy right now is to have only 2 Phase IIb studies. I think Bruce mentioned this earlier, 2 sentinel Phase IIbs that would then allow us to drive the Phase III doses for multiple Phase III indications. So you could go from 2 sentinel Phase IIbs in AD and asthma right into multiple Phase IIIs across multiple cutaneous GI and respiratory indications. So I think that's one way that we'd like to accelerate. Of course, that's going to require a discussion with FDA, for example, and European regulators once we have Phase IIb data to get buy-in, but we think there's a good chance that, that could happen.

Likewise, we talked earlier about getting into pediatric patients. If there are innovative ways of getting the drug to pediatric patients faster, given our novel mechanism of action and given what's already been derisked in terms of dupi across IL-4, IL-13 in both pediatric patients, adolescents and adults, that's something that we're also going to want to be able to explore, again, in the spirit of if we have a transformative drug that hopefully is not just convenient, but also potentially as safe and effective as dupi, we want to make sure we're getting that drug to the right patients as quickly as possible.

I was just going to add a couple of small points. I mean, those who know Kymera know that we move very quickly, and we've only gotten faster in how we develop drugs and move through the clinic. And that's always our aspiration, always will be. The one point I wanted to make is with respect to at least the IIb studies, patient quality is absolutely critical. And obviously, there's been plenty of examples, unfortunately, of trials that have not achieved objectives because of the patients that were admitted to those trials.

And so we're going to be moving as quickly as possible, but I will also say that for these IIb trials, we will certainly be over-indexing to getting the right patients on the study, and that's going to be our central focus. We believe we can do both. We can move quickly and get the right patients, but that will be a key focus of us for these IIb studies.

And maybe also, Geoff, just to add one last thing is we don't want there to be much white space, right, between finishing Phase I and going to Phase II, finishing Phase II going into Phase III. So we're constantly looking at the next phase of development, making sure we're building out our development group and capabilities and being prepared to start that next phase of development as soon as we complete the prior phase. And that's another part of the, I think, overall philosophy of being efficient here and accelerating our development program.

That's one thing that Marty kept on bringing up is idle time, right, trying to minimize that from a review perspective. But when you look at the body of data from a pure safety tolerability to do the 2 Phase IIbs, is there is there an end or an exposure or maybe even preclinically, is there something that the FDA wanted to have a sort of a foundational safety -- sorry, safety, tolerability kind of like database that before you can pursue multiple Phase IIbs?

Yes. I think that's also an important question. It may not be so much the size of the safety database just as much as a conviction that whatever doses you've chosen for, say, AD and asthma can be applicable across other indications that might be related, but not the same. So that's probably more of the issue. I think hopefully, we will have a robust safety data set coming out of these Phase IIb studies with 200-plus patients in each of these studies that will support moving on to Phase III.

And then, of course, the sort of safety database that one needs to get initial approvals in these indications, I'm not sure there's a whole lot of flexibility there. the need for multiple Phase IIIs. But again, it's about being able to execute on those Phase IIIs, not to have a lot of white space between your Phase IIs and your Phase IIIs and to be prepared to execute on those Phase IIIs by building up your development group and having the right sites working with us. I think that's going to be what's most important.

And I think you know this, but for the Phase IIbs in addition to the 4 months of treatment, patients will be eligible to move on to a 12-month OLE. So that's both an important attraction to those entering the study, but also is a big part of helping us build that safety database as we move forward towards registration.

Yes. To what degree are you guys using AI or using any sort of language model to maybe help with the -- accelerate the database or maybe translate your biomarkers to checking the box more profoundly on the safety tolerability...

Yes. No, I think it's an important question. I'll let Bruce answer as well. I think we're starting to think about AI with regard to clinical operations, right? And with regard to trying to maximize efficiency within our clinical trials, right, to make sure we're getting the right patients on to our trials to make sure that sites are performing the way they need to perform as we closely monitor and supervise those sites. So I think AI does have a role there, and we've been exploring sort of how we can incorporate it there. I'm sure there are other places where we can also use AI to increase efficiency.

I think as a company, we're still looking into that. We're already using AI and have been using AI on the research side, on the chemistry side. And so I think that continues to help us with our hit finding and all the evolution of our platform that's really allowed us to go after targets like STAT6 and other -- IRF5 and other high-priority targets. But Bruce, do you want to add?

No, I think you covered most of it. I think certainly, another part of AI will be in the data analysis side of the world. So obviously, for a 20-ish patient study, that's less relevant than a 200-patient Phase II study, but you can envision there is an area where we have some investments as well as we start to generate more data to help us understand that.

And I think down the road, there are some arguments that the way pharmaceuticals are sold could well be impacted by these AI agents, if you will. And so that's -- those are all areas where we're focused right now.

No, it was just such a big part of the conversation yesterday, right, with Marty about using more technology and early in development.

No. And I think it's really important that we're aware of what's out there and that we're looking into how we would use it as a company. And I think you're right. I mean the future is there, and we're starting to use it in select areas within the company, but I think it's going to be important to continue to maximize so that we are as efficient as we can be in our clinical development and how we go about that.

Yes. Yes. So let's switch gears to the IRAK4 IRF5 program. So this could be maybe even broader beyond just I&I into maybe more autoimmune. Give us kind of the framing of the -- how you guys position this. And obviously, it's a high priority. But what would you say is the kind of first bit of kind of derisking that we'll see that gives you confidence to to grow this indication base pretty broadly.

This is for IRF5. Yes, this is for the IRF5 program. So this is another program that we're really very excited about, another one of our solely owned immunology programs in our pipeline. This has been a target that's been in the sights of many different pharma companies for years. Nobody has been able to drug it. There are many different IRFs. There are many different isoforms of IRF5. So being able to only hit IRF5 and hit all the isoforms of IRF5 has been very challenging. We're fortunate to now have a degrader that is very selective for IRF5, gets all the isoforms of IRF5. We have a very potent selective oral drug that can be used at relatively low doses. So we're very excited.

IRF5, the reason why it's so interesting is because it sits at the crossroads of essentially signaling from all the toll-like receptors as well as other innate immune receptors. And it's really critical for activation of B cells, B-cell autoantibody production, activation of myeloid cells like plasmocytic dendritic cells that are producing pro-inflammatory cytokines and also for the type 1 interferon response. So by hitting one target, you can hit all those different pathways that are important across diseases like lupus and other interferonopathies, across IBD, rheumatoid arthritis. So there's a plethora of diseases that can be treated that you can really hit all those pathways with one target.

And I think it's also important that IRF5 is not ubiquitously expressed. Its expression is restricted to B cells, certain myeloid cell types, and it's only activated really predominantly in the disease context. So you can hit IRF5 hard as we've shown in knockout models, for example, and not have infectious complications. So very attractive from that standpoint. And we presented very strong preclinical data at AACR just last month in multiple models of lupus where our IRF5 degrader is more active than any of the other drugs out there, either approved or active in lupus. We've shown very profound activity in RA. We're currently doing models in IBD and other interferonopathies.

So I think this drug really has the potential to be transformative in these types of diseases where there are very limited therapeutic options. And so our plan, we've completed IND-enabling studies now for IRF5. We're planning on moving into Phase I early next year. So there will be a Phase I readout from healthy volunteers next year. And then the plan would then be to right on the heels of that, move into patients.

And on the patient side, we're thinking about different possibilities, but certainly lupus is high up on the list because I forgot to mention that IRF5, there's a very strong genetic association with IRF5 polymorphisms in lupus. In particular, that's number one, also RA and IBD, but that's another reason in addition to our preclinical data, why lupus has been sort of rising to the top for us.

Are there lessons from 621 sort of early development and kind of derisking going into an IND that you could deploy for IRF5? Or is it -- you just look at them as separate platforms within the TBD kind of...

I mean they are separate platforms. I think all the learnings that went into developing 621, all the chemistry learnings certainly went into IRF5 and certainly helped us be successful in developing an amazing drug for IRF5.

I think from -- in terms of IND-enabling studies and moving into Phase I, I think we always have learnings from our prior programs that hopefully help us be even more efficient and better with our next program. I think our 621 development so far, and this is kudos to our Kymera-621 team has been amazingly efficient in terms of how we've gone through Phase I healthy volunteers, Phase Ib AD patients and now into Phase IIb already. So if we can be as efficient as that with IRF5, and hopefully, we will be, that would be great.

Yes. I think when you look at the, say, atopic derm, the probability in the known mechanism, probability of success and the market is there, there's not really a track record. There's a pretty successful track record of assets that have moved from Phase I to II to III. But in lupus, obviously, it's been a bit of a scour earth kind of approach. So how do you consider, I guess, risk in terms of the indications that you could pick for IRF?

Yes, that's a really great point. again, lupus, whether it's scorch or third rail or something like whatever your metaphor is going to be. I think what's important in deciding where to go with the drug, look, for 621 and STAT6, there's much more of a linear relationship, right? You can look at derisking of IL-4, IL-13 by dupilumab and that provides amazing clinical derisking in addition to genetic derisking for that program.

We don't have that degree of sort of clinical derisking for IRF5. There's the genetic derisking that I just mentioned. The clinical derisking is more indirect. You have to look at drugs that are targeting the type 1 interferon pathway like Saphnelo, drugs that are targeting B cells like the BAFF inhibitors or other drugs that are targeting pro-inflammatory cytokines like IL-12, 23. Those provide, I guess, indirect clinical validation for IRF5, which is important in all of those pathways. But because there's not a drug that blocks IRF5 right now, specifically, there's probably a little more biologic risk there.

So I think what's important for us is to think very carefully about the genetics, about our preclinical data and to be very strategic in how we go about what indications we're going to prosecute first. And what we're going to learn from those initial studies in patients about the pathways we're affecting in addition to the clinical activity that will then help to inform exactly where we go with the drug.

I mean it's not terribly surprising that STAT6 gets the lion's share of the attention right now, particularly given upcoming data and the status of the program. But IRF5 is a very exciting program. And if you talk to your pharma coverage, you'll probably find that, that target is on their top 10, if not top 5 list in immunology across many of the companies. So we're really excited about it.

Next year will be a big year for that program entering the clinic and then sharing data as well, and we'll be able to also give you more details around the development strategy for IRF5. And we didn't get to it yet, maybe it was on your list, but we have a goal of one program introduction per year. So we've got a couple of few that are vying to take center stage in 2026. So hopefully, we'll be able to talk about a new program next year as well, which is the plan.

Yes. And that begs the broader question, Bruce. I mean when you look at the TPD as a mechanism, pharma has always talked about it, and they're very interested in it, but it doesn't seem like they want to build it from the ground up. So are you -- as there's more interest in TPD and E3 ligases, et cetera, how do you view your competitive moats? Are they sort of widening? Do you look at your body of knowledge is probably deeper than anybody's. But there is many more companies that are going after this as a mechanism.

Look, I think every pharma, I would imagine, has a protein degradation effort. The inherent problem is you can have efforts in lots of different areas. If you don't have the commensurate level of focus that's required to be a leader, it's hard to really execute. And there's plenty of companies, and I won't name names, who have multitude of -- multiples of the number of people we have focused on this that have generated very little in terms of development candidates, whereas Kymera has taken 5 programs into the clinic and hopefully, we'll have another 5 over the next however many years.

So I think we've tried to build a company that is obviously dedicated to harnessing the power of this modality, which we think has huge potential. And we've gotten very good at it. I think we've built lead discovery efforts and a group that is best-in-class that is finding these novel ligands to historically undrugged targets. We've got an incredibly deep chemistry team, most all of which has been with us from the beginning that has been able to translate those hits into potent and selective molecules, which is the name of the game. And I think what we've showed so far is just the beginning of what we think is potential for this platform and what we've built.

Okay. Awesome. Okay, guys. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Geoff.

Thanks, Geoff. Thanks, everyone.

All right. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining us in our fireside chat with Kymera Therapeutics. Yes, I'm told that if you have questions, you want to ask in the audience, please scan the QR code and then you're able to ask a question, and then I will be able to pick it up here on the iPad and ask you questions. So please feel free to scan the QR code and then put your questions in there.

All right. With that out of the way, it's our great pleasure to welcome Jared Gollob, Chief Medical Officer of Kymera. Jared, thank you for joining us.

Yes. Thanks, David. Thanks for having me.

That's great.

Well, for those probably new to the Kymera story, can you just give a quick overview of the company, your degrader platform and then any key assets that investors should pay attention to?

Sure, happy to. Yes. Next year, we'll be celebrating -- Kymera will be celebrating our 10th anniversary since we were founded by Nello Mainolfi and Bruce Booth. We were founded with protein degradation really as our platform, and really with the aim being to turn protein degradation into transformative drugs for diseases with high unmet need.

There's been a real evolution over the past 10 years. Our platform itself has evolved considerably to the point now where we can really address very difficult-to-drug targets, transcription factors, multifunctional proteins almost at will based on our chemistry technologies. We've moved 5 programs into the clinic over the past 5 years, showing very nice translation from preclinical to clinical. And we're -- we've learned to really marry our technology to the sorts of targets and pathways where we think we can be most impactful several years ago, really pivoting more toward an immunology focus. And we feel like at this point, we have -- we're on route to having the, hopefully, best in industry sort of oral immunology platform.

Right now, our solely owned program is of greatest interest to us and others include our STAT6 program in immunology as well as our IRF5 program. And we've really made a lot of progress on those programs with STAT6. Just over this past year, we've moved it through a Phase Ia healthy volunteer study, presented data last June. We've moved it through Phase Ib and are presenting data in December on that. We've initiated our first Phase IIb study in atopic dermatitis and plan on starting an asthma study, Phase IIb early next year. So a lot going on with that program. And for IRF5, our KT-579 program, very excited about that as well, planning on moving that into Phase I healthy volunteer study next year.

And then lastly, we're fortunate to be well capitalized. We have a cash runway that takes us into the second half of 2028, which is -- which will enable us to get through key readouts for both of our Phase IIb 621 studies in AD and asthma, also key readouts for the 579 program and our plan to bring at least one additional immunology program into the pipeline each year.

Excellent. That's a great overview. Thank you so much. So let's start with the lead program, KT-621, which is the STAT6 degrader. Maybe just start things off, can you review why a STAT6 degrader should be more effective than inhibitor?

That's a really important question. STAT6 has been in everybody's sort of target over the last 10 years because it really controls signaling through the IL-4, IL-13 receptors. Those pathways having been well validated by drugs like DUPIXENT. So there's been a real desire to try to develop an oral drug that can block STAT6 and phenocopy what DUPIXENT can do. You can imagine how transformational that can be for the field where DUPIXENT right now only really penetrates a very small percentage of all the moderate-to-severe patients with, say, asthma and AD, an oral drug could really open up that segment.

The reason for degrader is, degraders have a catalytic mechanism. Degraders are heterobifunctional small molecules that co-opt an E3 ligase, and binds ab E3 ligase into a protein of interest, brings them into proximity, leads to ubiquitination and degradation. It's catalytic because one molecule of a degrader can degrade thousands of copies of its protein. So there's a connect between PK and PD. So even when the drug is cleared, tiny amounts of drug in the cell are still mediating profound deep degradation, which is the reason why you can dose once daily with a degrader like KT-621, STAT6, and fully suppress that protein round the clock, 24/7. And that's the only way you can match both the efficacy and safety of antibody biologic.

Small molecule inhibitors really are very exposure based, right? So as the exposure waxes and wanes after a dose, so does the activity against the target. So it's very difficult, if not impossible, to get 24/7 full suppression of a target like STAT6 usually using an inhibitor. So we feel that the only way to match the activity of a biologic by targeting STAT6 is to use a degrader.

Got it. And then just on that front, I mean, you recently just provided some healthy volunteer data. Could you maybe just provide a quick overview of the data? And what were the most important key takeaways from the initial clinical data?

Yes. So the SAD/MAD data in healthy volunteers from the Phase Ia, we presented those this past June. We actually moved through that study very quickly even though we had over 150 subjects on that study. And what we learned from that study is that we can fully, completely degrade STAT6 in blood and skin in relatively low doses, doses as low as 50 to 200 milligrams a day, complete degradation. That degradation was associated with full pathway blockade of the IL-413 pathway, which we showed through impact on circulating biomarkers like TARC and eotaxin. And importantly, it was very safe and well tolerated. The MAD consisted of 14 daily doses of drug and the safety profile was essentially indistinguishable from placebo.

Got it. And then, of course, you're going to be moving 2 doses for the Phase Ib trial right now. Could you maybe just -- just help us understand what are the expectations for the data readout in atopic dermatitis for -- in December and set some expectation around what should we be looking for in the data set?

Yes. So maybe starting with like what are our objectives -- what are our objectives for Phase Ib. So the main objectives for doing a relatively small uncontrolled study was, number one, to show translation of safety and PD from healthy volunteers to patients. That was very important for us for the study. Number two was through that translation of PK and PD to confirm the doses that we were going to be selecting for the Phase IIb dose range finding study. And third, to really show hopefully a dupi-like impact on TH2 biomarkers, both in the blood and in skin with 28 days of dosing, which was the duration of the Phase Ib. And then finally, to also be able to show potential impact on a variety of different clinical endpoints in AD even in the absence of a placebo control, we think this was an opportunity for us to be able to show initial activity.

To your point around the doses, we initially started off with 1 dose that was selected based on our Phase Ia data. You may recall that at doses of 50 to 200 milligrams in Phase Ia, we saw complete degradation in blood and skin. So we bought one of those doses into the Phase Ib. And after enrolling 10 patients and doing that briskly, we felt we saw enough data to allow us to actually bring a second dose into Phase Ib. So we could show translation across 2 different dose levels.

The aim was not for us in Phase Ib to show dose response or to make up with the second dose, any deficits we were seeing on safety or efficacy with the first dose. It was really just to further strengthen the translational database from healthy patients and then further confirm and give us even that much more confidence in the doses that we were bringing into the Phase IIb dose range finding study.

Got it. And on those 2 doses, what sort of STAT6 target degradation should we be expecting on those 2 doses. What we should be looking for?

Well, I think our aim was to bring in doses that would be active, obviously, highly active. For the first dose, as I mentioned, that dose was chosen from the 50 to 200-milligram range. We haven't really given guidance yet into what the second dose was, and we'll make that information available when we actually present the data in December. But again, I think the aim was to be able to sort of translation across 2 different dose levels. If we move to the Phase IIb dose range finding study, where we've already initiated that one in AD. This quarter, we just announced initiation of that Phase IIb study. We have 3 different dose groups and placebo.

And what we've said about those 3 different dose groups is that it sort of will give us a sort of pharmacologically active and clinically active dose, a higher dose that would be super pharmacologic and then a lower dose that would be sort of maybe submaximal. And that's the sort of dose range finding that we want to do within a Phase IIb.

What we have said about those doses, even though we don't plan on revealing what those doses are for the Phase IIb, we have said that those will be -- those were chosen based on the doses that we looked at in the Phase Ia healthy volunteer study.

Got it. And then just going to the specifics around the endpoints. I know we should be looking at biomarker data like TARC reduction. So could you help us understand what level of TARC reduction would be considered meaningful in your opinion?

Yes. I think TARC is a helpful biomarker to look at in AD. Prior studies with dupilumab have shown greatly elevated TARC levels in AD patients. And in that context, dupilumab have shown anywhere from 70% to 80% reduction of TARC as early as 28 days, again, keeping in mind that our Phase Ib study is 28 days duration. Interestingly, if you look at some of the other dupi studies and other diseases like asthma and EoE, where the baseline levels are not as high as they are in AD, you see less of a reduction, reductions that are more in the 35%, 40%, 45% range, which is what has been seen in healthy volunteers as well.

So I think the expectation is that if baseline levels are high as they were in the prior dupi studies, then one should be able to see 70%, 80% reduction of a TARC biomarker even at 28 days. So we've set that as the ballpark that we'd like to be able to see for KT-621 in our Phase Ib.

Got it. And besides TARC, of course, you're going to be potentially showing some clinical endpoints like EASI also in pruritus. Maybe just help us understand some of the expectations for what kind of data readout should we expect in terms of what we consider clinically meaningful?

Yes. I think if one hearkens again back to the DUPIXENT data and going back to, say, the Phase III SOLO1, SOLO2 studies, you can take a look at what they saw at 28 days for changes in EASI and changes in NRS pruritus and get a sense for that's sort of the ballpark that we'd like to be in Phase Ib. When we think about aspirationally where we'd like to be with regard to activity for 621, we believe that the biology and the preclinical data in the Phase Ia healthy volunteer data point to the potential for this drug to be dupi like, and so that's the reason why we'd like to see impact on endpoints such as EASI and NRS pruritus, and even in Phase Ib in the absence of a placebo control that are within the ballpark of what dupi saw at 28 days in their studies.

Got it. Okay. And so then for that Phase IIb trial, you're planning to start in the fourth quarter in AD, you just show us over a quick overview of the clinical trial design?

Sure. So that particular study, which has already been initiated, it's a 200-patient study in moderate to severe AD, typical 16-week duration, primary endpoint, percent change in EASI over 16 weeks. The study also has a 52-week open-label extension period after completion of the 6-week placebo-controlled period. As I mentioned, 3 dose levels, along with placebo. And again, in addition to EASI looking at, not just EASI as a continuous variable, but also looking at EASI-50, EASI-75, looking at pruritus NRS, the IgA, all the typical end points that you would see in an AD study.

Got it. Got it. And how should we think about translation from the AD study into other derm or [indiscernible] indications such as PN, EoE, [indiscernible] ?

I think it's a great question. Our -- currently, our development plan is an accelerated plan where we -- the centerpiece are really 2 Phase IIb studies. We call them sentinel Phase IIb studies, right, one in AD, which has already begun and the second in moderate to severe in asthma, that will be starting in Q1 of next year. Both of those Phase IIb studies actually will be testing the same 3 dose levels of KT-621. Ideally, what we'd like to have happen is for the AD study, the Phase III dose that comes out of that Phase IIb study could be used not just in the Phase III study in AD, but also in other skin indications where dupi has been active and approved as well as in GI indications like EoE.

So rather than having to do additional Phase IIb studies, we would go directly to Phase III studies across those other indications. This, of course, still requires regulatory buy-in, but we think that's a reasonable approach. And likewise, for the Phase IIb asthma study, the Phase III dose that comes out of there could be used not just for moving ahead with the Phase III study in asthma, but then also going into COPD, for example, or CRS with nasal polyps, other respiratory diseases where dupi is gone. And also going in and potentially parallel tracking or staggering additional Phase III programs there, again, without having to do any additional Phase IIb studies.

Got it. Can you just remind us how big is the AD market overall?

Well, the AD market is quite large. I mean there are literally tens of millions of patients, and in the U.S. and in Europe and elsewhere in Asia. It's important to remember also that this is a disease that affects children, very young children, adolescents as well as adults. So it really is a very sizable population. If you look at the moderate to severe segment of patients with AD, what's really striking is that only about 1% to 2% of those patients are actually getting access right now to dupilumab, which is a highly successful active, well-tolerated drug. So that means is that there are the other 97%, 98% of patients with moderate to severe disease, and we're talking tens of millions of patients, right, who if we have an oral drug that were potentially as safe and active as dupi, you can imagine that, that could then be accessed by that many more patients, it can really be a drug that now transforms the lives of many more patients, both young children, adolescents as well as adults.

Got it. Got it. Great. Now let's switch gears and talk about the -- your second program, which is the IRF5, the KT-579 program. We saw some encouraging preclinical data at ARC recently. Can you just maybe share a quick overview of the mechanism and biology of IRF5 and how do you think you could complement the STAT6 program?

Yes, the IRF5 program is another very exciting program for us. KT-579 is the name of that program. And again, like STAT6, it exemplifies, we believe, marrying our platform technology to ideal targets and pathways where we think we can really have a transformational drug that can reach millions of patients with high unmet need. IRF5 has been of great interest for years for both big pharma and biotech because it mediates signaling through B cells. It's involved in B cell activation and autoantibody production. It's involved in controlling type 1 interferon production. And it's involved in controlling the production of multiple different pro-inflammatory cytokines. So it affects B cells, monocytes, plasmacytoid dendritic cells, and even neutrophils. And it's essentially activated through all the different toll-like receptors and other innate immune receptors.

IRF5 is unique in that, its expression is restricted just to those types of immune cells that I just described. And it's also usually just activated in the setting of sort of pathologic inflammation. So it's a target that's been of great interest because it can affect all these pathways that have been validated indirectly by other drugs that are targeting type 1 interferon receptors, targeting pro-inflammatory cytokines, targeting B cells, but you could have it all in one drug targeting IRF5. But it's been very difficult to drug. It's a transcription factor. There are multiple IRFs. And even IRF5 has multiple isoforms.

So finding a drug that is highly selective for IRF5 and completely block its activity has been very difficult. But now we have a degrader that can do just that. We have a degrader that's highly selective for IRF5, highly potent, can be dosed once orally daily. And we have these preclinical data that you referred to, David, that we presented at ACR recently, where in 2 different mouse models of lupus, we see very strong activity that's equivalent to or usually better than other approved drugs or active drugs as well as data in rheumatoid arthritis.

And what's attractive about this target is that there's very strong genetic association between IRF5 polymorphisms and susceptibility to lupus, to inflammatory bowel disease, to RA and to other type 1 interferons like Sjögren's and systemic sclerosis. So now having these powerful data in animal models of SLE and RA just give us further confidence in the potential of this drug across those various indications. And so our plan right now is we've completed IND-enabling studies for this program, and we plan on initiating Phase I in healthy volunteers early next year and to have data readout sometime next year as well. And then following that, we will then be moving into our first patient studies.

Yes. This seems like this is [indiscernible] very wide in terms of applicability. So I'm curious in terms of your thoughts around what will be some of the leading indications you were thinking of?

I think lupus is certainly at the top of the list for us, given the very -- it probably has the strongest genetic association with IRF5. Obviously, a huge unmet need, very little in the way of oral active drugs in lupus, and the strength of our animal model data, I think lupus is definitely sort of high in our list. But I think at the same time, there are also these very interesting genetic associations with IBD and RA. We already have this animal model data in RA, which is also looking very positive. So I think lupus certainly probably at the top of our list, but multiple other indications that I think we're still working on how we might prioritize those, whether there are other type 1 interferonopathies or whether it's IBD or RA, I think that's still a work in progress that we'll sort of share more on that as we get further along in our thinking.

Yes. So then maybe help us understand some of the expectations then from healthy volunteer data, what are you looking for to actually to determine that you're -- that you want to move into certain indications?

Well, I think certainly, in terms of Phase I healthy volunteer study, I think as we get closer to starting that study, we can provide more information on it. It will be certainly sort of a SAD/MAD standard, and you've seen sort of our SAD/MAD healthy volunteer studies now across multiple programs. For us, it's going to be important to be able to show that we can strongly degrade IRF5 in blood and then at least another sort of tissue, such as skin, for example, which we can look at in healthy volunteers, showing safety, showing we can do this and get deep degradation 90%, 95% or greater at reasonable doses. So those are among the probably most important sort of biomarkers that we'll be looking at in that Phase I study.

Got it. That's helpful. Great. And then moving on to your IRAK4 degrader, KT-485. So when you look at -- [indiscernible] of the program is being partnered with Sanofi, and Sanofi has prioritized next-generation IRAK4 degrader, the 485 over the first-generation degrader 474 due to some subclinical QTc issues. So I'm just curious, could you share some detail around what have you seen that caused the QTc polongation?

Yes, it's a good question. With KT-474, we did see this subclinical QTc prolongation, and we investigated that very thoroughly. What we can say is that, that was really very compound specific. It was not at all any sort of degrader class effect. It had nothing to do with actual on-target IRAK4 degradation. It was very specific to that particular compound. And we've learned a lot from that. We've learned preclinically how we can avoid having any hERG impact, having any QT effect. We now use nonhuman primates cardiovascular studies in order to make sure that any compounds that we're bringing into the clinic will be fully derisked around having any QTc prolongation. And so I think all those learnings from 474 have been applied not just to 485 obviously, which, as you mentioned, is why Sanofi is now so interested in moving that forward in place of 474, but also applies to all of our other programs, including STAT6, IRF5 and all the other programs to come.

Yes. And just to kind of follow up on that. What kind of learning have you -- were you able to gather out of that 485 or 474 that you can apply to other degraders, not only for your existing programs, but also down the road?

Yes. I think it's really learning. It's all about chemistry and learning what is it about chemistry of any compound that might contribute to having an effect on hERG channels in your earliest preclinical work. And even when you're done avoiding having compounds that have any impact on hERG, you wanted them be even more reassured by putting those compounds into cardiovascular studies in monkey. It turns out that monkey is really more predictive than dog in whether you're going to have any QT prolongation with the compound. So knowing that we can now not just used in vitro hERG as a way to avoid compounds that can cause QT prolongation, but now this added step of now putting those compounds into nonhuman primates, and showing definitively there that there's no QT effect with multi-dosing, I think that really strongly derisks seeing this sort of an issue with any future compounds.

Got it. Great. Okay. I think we're almost out of time. So maybe just one last question, Jared, what's like the next catalysts over the next 12 to 18 months that we should watch for?

So I think, obviously, for December, our plan is to present Phase Ib data. That's obviously a very important catalyst. We just recently announced initiation of our Phase IIb AD study. In Q1 of next year, we'll be announcing initiation of our -- of our Phase IIb asthma study. I think further catalyst next year will include Phase I data for KT-579. I think our expectation, although this is beyond our control, this is in Sanofi's control, but the expectation is that Sanofi will be moving 485 into Phase I healthy volunteer trial next year. And our plan is to move at least 1 or 2 new programs into the clinic into our pipeline each year. And I think those will really be the main catalysts.

And as I mentioned earlier, with our cash runway that goes through the end of -- the second half of 2028, I think we're also looking at important catalysts in 2027. We've guided that the Phase IIb AD study will complete by the middle of 2027. So that will be another important catalyst. And that cash runway, I think, gets us through these Phase IIb studies, the startup of potential Phase III studies for AD and asthma as well as key Phase I and Phase II readouts for the IRF5/KT-579 program.

Great. Okay. Well, I think with that, I think we can conclude here. Thank you, everyone, for joining, and thanks for -- Jared for your time coming to UBS conference.

Yes. Thanks for having us here, David, and thanks for the question.

Good day, everyone. My name is Sophie, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome you to the Kymera Therapeutics Third Quarter 2025 Results Call. [Operator Instructions] At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Justine Koenigsberg, Vice President of Investor Relations.

Good morning, and welcome to Kymera's quarterly update. Joining me this morning are Nello Mainolfi, Founder, President and CEO; Jared Gollob, our Chief Medical Officer; and Bruce Jacobs, our Chief Financial Officer.

Following our prepared remarks, we will open the call to questions from our publishing analysts. [Operator Instructions]

Before we begin, I would like to remind you that today's discussion will include forward-looking statements about our future expectations, plans and prospects. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. A description of these risks can be found in our most recent 10-Q filed with the SEC. Any forward-looking statements speak only as of today's date, and we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements made on today's call.

With that, I would like to turn the call over to Nello.

Thank you, Justine, and thanks, everybody, for joining us this morning. Now in the final quarter of the year, as we reflect on 2025, I'm happy to say that our team has executed exceptionally well across all parts of our business, and we're very proud of all that we have accomplished this year.

We're committed to building a global biopharmaceutical company and have established a strong foundation that will serve us well as we scale an organization and continue to advance our industry-leading oral immunology pipeline.

As shown on this slide, I'd like to highlight a few of the key achievements this year that positions us well for important future milestones. In less than 2 years since unveiling our STAT6 program, we have demonstrated exceptional progress in advancing our first-in-class STAT6 degrader, KT-621. To recap, we completed our healthy volunteer study ahead of schedule with impressive results. We enrolled and completed dosing in the Phase Ib trial in AD patients with data coming in December.

We initiated our first of 2 Phase IIb trial, BROADEN2 in AD, and we're on track to start the BREADTH Phase IIb asthma trial in the first quarter of 2026.

We were also featuring 2 recent late-breaking presentations, which have helped us maintain high level of visibility with the medical and scientific communities where there continues to be strong interest in oral medicines with potential for biologics-like activity.

Beyond STAT6, we unveiled our IRF5 program this spring and presented the robust preclinical data at the American College of Rheumatology Annual Meeting just recently.

We've also completed the KT-579 IND-enabling studies and remain on track to initiate the first clinical trial in healthy volunteers early in 2026. In addition to IRF5, we continue to advance our earlier-stage undisclosed immunology pipeline, and our goal remains to address many of the major immunology indications with oral medicines.

Importantly, we believe the synergies across our pipeline provide multiple development opportunities for broad patient populations.

We also entered into a new partnership with Gilead outside of immunology. Gilead is an ideal partner to drive forward our CDK2 oncology molecular glue program, which we believe has broad potential in breast cancer and other solid tumors.

In summary, it's been a very busy year and a successful one, and we look forward to finishing this year strong as we advance our pipeline towards more and more important milestones.

More broadly, we built what I believe is one of the strongest oral immunology pipeline in the industry, where we're well positioned to deliver novel oral treatment options for patients with highly prevalent immune-inflammatory diseases. Several years ago, we made a deliberate strategic shift to focus our R&D efforts toward the significant opportunities in immunology. And the reason is quite simple. Within immunology, many pathways have been validated with upstream biologics. Traditional small molecule inhibitors are not able to block the signaling pathways as effective as biologics, given the direct correlation between PK and PD and the need of high drug exposures.

As a result, the power -- of the power of protein degradation, we can now selectively remove disease-causing proteins through a catalytic mechanism and can block pathways completely, which we've consistently demonstrated across all of our programs. This allows us for potential of oral drugs with biologics-like activity for the first time in our industry, and our first-in-class pipeline is a testament to this strategy.

If we look specifically at our STAT6 program, KT-621 exemplifies this approach. There is a tremendous opportunity for a convenient, safe and effective oral pill in highly prevalent Type 2 diseases like atopic dermatitis, asthma, COPD, EoE and others.

Despite the large size of the patient population, the penetration of other systemic advanced therapies like injectable biologics is actually quite low. This creates a significant opportunity for safe and effective oral medicines, which we believe would have potential to change the quality of life for many patients and family around the world. We have moved our STAT6 program at a rapid pace from preclinical to IND to initial clinical proof of concept and we're now embarked on our first global Phase IIb trials. In fact, we filed our IND in September 2024 and by the fourth quarter of 2025, we've already launched our first Phase IIb study. This progress is a strong testament to the speed, focus and executional excellence of our team in driving this program forward.

Looking back at KT-621 Phase I healthy volunteer study, we demonstrated at very low doses, we can degrade STAT6 fully and block Th2 disease-relevant cytokines in healthy volunteers as effectively as upstream biologics and in a well-tolerated manner.

We're moving quickly towards completion of the BroADen Phase Ib trial, which we initiated in the spring. To remind you, the trial was designed to achieve 3 important goals: To confirm robust degradation in blood and skin and understand the translation from healthy volunteers to AD patients. To allow us to refine the Phase IIb doses based on that translation, and to demonstrate that robust STAT6 degradation in AD patients can impact biomarkers and clinical endpoints similar to upstream biologics, specifically dupilumab.

Given that the trial is fully enrolled and we plan to share the data next month, I wanted to use this call one last time to reiterate expectations we're setting into the study across the 4 dimensions we're evaluating KT-621 on, degradation, safety, biomarker and clinical activity.

With respect to STAT6 degradation, the goal is to translate in AD patients, the robust degradation of STAT6 in blood and skin that we have seen in the Phase I healthy volunteer study. The safety profile is paramount, and we hope to continue to see a safety profile in line with what we've seen in both healthy volunteers as well as our preclinical studies.

With respect to biomarkers, we plan to look in both blood and skin. In blood, we have highlighted TARC as the most relevant biomarker at the 4-week time point. After achieving up to a median reduction of 37% of TARC in healthy volunteers and given that in atopic dermatitis patients generally have higher baseline TARC levels, our expectation is to show a meaningfully more robust TARC reduction. As a point of reference, in published dupilumab studies where baseline TARC levels were much higher than healthy volunteers, the reduction was in the range of 70% to 80% at 4 weeks, which is the bar we set for KT-621, assuming generally comparable baseline levels.

In skin, we also plan to assess KT-621's impact on skin transcriptomics, which we have not assessed in the healthy volunteer studies. There, we anticipate changes in downstream genes that aligns with the expected biological effect of this pathway modulation.

And finally, in terms of clinical endpoints, we went into the study with a robust body of evidence in all of our experiments demonstrating KT-621 blocks IL-4 and 13 as well as dupilumab, and this has resulted in comparable downstream pathway effects in both in vitro and in vivo studies.

As a result, we entered the BroADen study expecting clinical activity of KT-621 to be in the range of what dupi delivered at 4 weeks in its published studies, including on both EASI score and itch with all the caveats of small ends and the lack of a placebo arm. I hope that this is helpful as we approach the data readout next month.

Given that we have quite a bit of investor activities planned this month, please understand we will refer back to these key objectives and reserve any additional commentary for the final data presentation in December.

So before I hand the call back to Jared, I wanted to take a moment to welcome Brian Adams, our new Chief Legal Officer, to Kymera. He's a seasoned life science executive with deep industry experience, bringing more than 2 decades of experience across legal and compliance, corporate development, strategic planning and governance. We're thrilled to have him join our team as we enter this next phase of growth and look forward to his contributions as we continue our efforts to building a fully integrated commercial stage company.

So to wrap up, as I said on the onset of the call, this has been a year of exceptionally strong execution, and we're well positioned to continue advancing all aspects of our pipeline as we head into 2026. I'm confident that through our expertise, scientific rigor, focused execution, we're building one of the most exciting immunology portfolios in this industry.

Let me pause here and turn the discussion over to Jared, who will provide us an update on the pipeline, including additional color on our newly initiated atopic dermatitis study. Jared?

Thanks, Nello. We have made significant progress with KT-621, our STAT6 degrader, and I'm happy to share the advancements we are making in the clinic with you this morning.

As Nello described, we see this as a transformative opportunity to develop an oral therapy that delivers biologics-like efficacy without the limitations of injectables. KT-621 is the first and, we believe, only STAT6-directed oral medicine in the clinic. It has the potential to positively impact the more than 130 million people around the world living with Type 2 diseases, considering all the indications where dupilumab is approved today.

Our first development indication is atopic dermatitis, or AD, a common but complex dermatologic condition with a significant unmet medical need. This is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder, more commonly referred to as eczema that manifests as inflamed, itchy and often painful patches on the skin. These lesions can appear anywhere on the body and range widely in severity from mild irritation to debilitating full body inflammation.

One of the most burdensome aspects of this disease is the persistent itch. It's not just a nuisance, it's a hallmark symptom that can severely impact quality of life by disrupting sleep, daily activities and overall well-being. While there are several treatments available today, they have limitations, forcing patients to make trade-offs.

Antibody-based injected therapies like dupilumab have made a real difference for many patients, providing a well-tolerated and safe therapeutic option, but it's not a solution for everyone. For starters, access can be very limited and is a challenge for many patients. For those who are prescribed these drugs, it can be inconvenient or a painful route of administration with compliance impacted by lack of tolerance of injection site reactions or phobia of needles. And there are also issues with cold storage requirements and immunogenicity risk.

In fact, in an industry survey, 75% of patients taking biologics said that they would switch to orals with an equivalent profile. There are some oral options such as JAK inhibitors that offer an effective oral alternative. However, they come with significant safety concerns, including box warnings that limit their use, especially in long-term disease management.

Given this important unmet need, coupled with the strong preclinical and clinical profile of KT-621 in healthy volunteers, we have developed an accelerated clinical development strategy, including conducting a small Phase Ib biomarker-focused trial in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis patients that we initiated earlier this year. The key aim of the 28-day BroADen study is to show that robust STAT6 degradation in blood and skin lesions by KT-621 has a dupilumab-like effect on multiple Th2 biomarkers in the blood and skin.

We will also assess KT-621's effect on clinical endpoints such as EASI and Pruritus NRS. The team has worked very hard to advance this program. And in line with expectations, we completed enrollment in the study last month and dosing is now complete. The final patients are completing follow-up, and we will collect and evaluate the rest of the data and report results in December.

As we have said, this Phase Ib study was not gating to the start of the parallel Phase IIb dose range finding trials in AD and asthma, which in turn are designed to enable subsequent Phase III registrational studies across multiple indications. This quarter, we initiated BROADEN2, our Phase IIb AD study, a global randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate KT-621 in approximately 200 patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

This study is designed to evaluate 3 different doses of KT-621 over a 16-week treatment period compared to placebo. Patients from the study have the opportunity to participate in a 52-week open label extension period after completion of the trial, which will contribute to building the long-term safety database we'll need to support eventual regulatory filings and is also an additional incentive for patient recruitment to the trial.

Eligibility criteria to ensure we're recruiting patients with moderate to severe AD include an EASI score of at least 16, at least 10% of body surface area affected and an average weekly Pruritus NRS score of at least 4. While prior use of biologics is permitted if treatment was not discontinued for lack of response and following a study-defined washout period, we expect to enroll a substantial number of systemic treatment-naive patients given the attractiveness of the ease and convenience of a once-daily oral treatment option.

The primary endpoint is the percent change from baseline in EASI score at week 16. Secondary endpoints will evaluate a range of additional safety and efficacy measures, including but not limited to, the proportion of patients achieving EASI-50, EASI-75, a validated Investigator Global Assessment score of 0 to 1 and at least a 4-point improvement in Peak Pruritus NRS. We expect top line results from the Phase IIb study will be available by mid-2027.

In addition to atopic dermatitis, we plan to initiate the BREADTH Phase IIb study in asthma in the first quarter of 2026. We'll share more information on the trial design next year when we get closer to initiation.

Beyond the STAT6 program, we have completed IND-enabling studies with KT-579, our IRF5 degrader, which we plan to advance into a Phase I healthy volunteer study early next year with data expected in 2026 as well.

Last month, we shared incremental updates in 2 posters at the ACR meeting in Chicago. In several preclinical efficacy models of lupus and RA, KT-579 was generally more efficacious than clinically active or marketed small molecule inhibitors and injectable biologics, phenocopying IRF5 knockout studies.

The compelling preclinical data we have generated showcase that targeting IRF5 can lead to correction of immune dysregulation across multiple disease pathologies while generally sparing normal cells. We continue to be excited about this opportunity and look forward to moving it into the clinic soon.

I'll pause here and turn the discussion to Bruce to review our third quarter financial results. Bruce?

Thanks, Jared. As I walk through the third quarter results, please reference the tables found in today's press release and 10-Q, which was filed this morning.

Revenue in the third quarter of 2025 was $2.8 million, all of which was attributable to our collaboration with Gilead.

With respect to operating expenses, R&D for the quarter was $74.1 million. Of that, approximately $8.4 million represented noncash stock-based compensation. The adjusted cash R&D spend of $65.7 million, which excludes that stock-based comp, reflects a 7% decrease from the comparable amount in the second quarter of 2025.

On the G&A side, our spending for the quarter was $17.3 million, of which $7.4 million was noncash stock-based comp. The adjusted cash G&A spend of $9.9 million, again, excluding that stock-based comp, reflects a 3% decrease from the comparable amount in the second quarter. And overall, adjusted operating expenses were down slightly from the prior sequential quarter.

We ended September with a cash balance of $978.7 million, providing a cash runway into the second half of 2028. This runway allows us to complete both KT-621 Phase IIb trials in AD and asthma, cover start-up costs in the initial Phase III activities for the STAT6 program, advance KT-579 through initial POC testing and advance our research pipeline as we scale and grow Kymera.

Just a quick reminder, our runway collaborations, calculations, I should say, exclude any unearned milestones from our collaborations with Sanofi and Gilead. Regarding Sanofi, we expect that they will advance KT-485 into Phase I testing in 2026, which would trigger a development milestone payable to Kymera. As for the Gilead collaboration, upon exercising its option for a CDK2 glue, we are entitled to a milestone payment. As previously announced at the time of signing the Gilead collaboration agreement, we are eligible to receive a total of $85 million in upfront and option payments, with approximately half of this already received as the upfront payment in the last quarter. We look forward to the continued progress of both the IRAK4 and CDK2 partnered programs.

With that, we'll pause here so we can convene in our main conference room and open the call for your questions. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Geoffrey Meacham, Citi.

I just had a couple of questions. So the first one is, when you look at the upcoming data for KT-621, maybe just highlight, Nello, what are the key characteristics that could enable it to potentially show differential efficacy versus dupilumab at relatively early time points, I think that's probably one of the bigger points of uncertainty with investors.

And then the second question is, when you look at the 2 doses of the BroADen study, is the -- the 3 doses, is the expectation that the lower one maybe has a lower impact on degradation and therefore, is subtherapeutic? Or is it to test the upper end of where you'd like to be from a safety tolerability? I'm just trying to get a sense for the selection of the doses and kind of how you would frame that out for what would be the ideal kind of result.

Great. Thanks, Geoff, for the question. So on the first one, let me just take a step back. So in all the work that we've done with our STAT6 program for multiple years now, we've been working on this program for a very long time, we were able to demonstrate, I think, convincingly in all the preclinical studies that when you degrade STAT6, you're able to block IL-4 and 13 signaling as well as an upstream biologics, whether it's an IL-4 receptor blocking drug like DUPIXENT or even an IL-13 drug.

So generally, we're actually the only oral drug that is able to block IL-4 and 13 as well as upstream biologics. In all the studies that we've run, again, preclinically, as I said a few minutes ago, both in vitro and in vivo, we've seen comparable activity. And I think this speaks to the biology of the pathway. Whether you block the receptor or you block the specific transcription factor for the receptor, you see the same biology.

So the reason why we say the opportunity here is to have dupilumab in a pill-like profile is not because it's actually what we hope to see. Obviously, we hope to see that. But it's because it's the activity, the biology that we've seen so far. So as a data-driven company as we are, we're reporting the observation of so far, we've seen dupi-like activity.

In our Phase I healthy volunteer study, where we measured, as you remember, biomarkers in blood in healthy volunteers, we were able to show also in those biomarkers that we were generally comparable, some would say even numerically superior to dupilumab. So for me, it's really hard to say KT-621 is going to be better than dupilumab or worse than dupilumab. All we've seen so far that we're generally blocking the pathway the same way. Hence, that's where the expectations are set.

Now as a data-driven drug development company with, I think, astute people in the company, we're very keen to see how the 2 profiles will evolve and where they would differentiate. We're talking about obviously an injectable biologic versus a small molecule degrader. So you will see probably small differences or larger difference here and there. But our priority is very difficult for us to like set the expectation one way or the other. I would be probably the happiest CEO in the world if we're able to deliver a dupi-like profile.

Going to your second question, I think I understand what you're saying, what you were asking, but maybe not. So you can correct me if I got it wrong. So maybe the way that I'm going to answer your question is, so we selected 2 doses for the Phase Ib study because we wanted to really understand well what was the translation of healthy volunteer degradation profile into patients to then have a high level of confidence in selecting the 3 doses for the Phase IIb.

The only thing I'm going to say right now is that the 2 doses of the Phase Ib as well as the 3 doses for the Phase IIb are all within the doses that we studied in the healthy volunteer study. And generally, our approach for the Phase IIb is to evaluate a range in which we see maximal pharmacology and at the top dose or some would call it super pharmacology and then in the bottom dose, a dose that reaches less than the optimal pharmacology and then obviously, a dose in between. So that's the general philosophy without going into details.

Your next question comes from the line of Marc Frahm, TD Cowen.

Maybe just on the Phase Ib. Nello, in your comments, you mentioned the kind of target of 70% to 80% TARC reduction, but with that caveat of assuming similar baseline characteristics.

Now that you've enrolled the patients with a group of 10 per dose level, there's always some chance that you end up with a little bit of a skewed population relative to the comparators. Just anything you'd highlight there based on the patients that have actually enrolled that might be a little bit different than the historical DUPIXENT comparators? And then I'll probably have a follow-up.

Yes. No, Marc, thanks for that. That's a great question. So let me clarify. So there is 2 aspects of this trial. One is the baseline, let's say, the baseline EASI of patients. And then I think what I was referring to back a few minutes ago was the baseline TARC levels.

So I think if you study dupilumab TARC reduction over both the AD study, but actually if you study over all the other studies that were run in other indications, whether it's chronic rhinositis (sic) [ rhinitis ], asthma, EoE, et cetera, you see that there is a clear relationship between baseline level of TARC in patients and reduction of TARC.

And so that's what I was referring to when I'm talking about baseline level of TARC, baseline levels, I was referring to the TARC baseline levels. And obviously, I'm not going to comment about what the baselines of the study -- of our study are, but obviously, we'll share the data when the time is right.

Then there is another element, which I want to clarify, then there is the EASI baseline levels. And I think what we've said in the past, as we've seen generally when dupilumab was developed, it was the first systemic drug for atopic dermatitis. And so if you look at those studies, the baseline EASI were in the high-20s, low-30s. If you look at studies from all companies in the past 5 years or so, you see that the baseline EASI has shifted down in the, let's call it, mid-20s. And that's mostly because the patient population that we're accessing to these trials in the sites that most companies go to, obviously has changed given that these sites in these countries and these regions have access to dupilumab.

So generally, the most severe patients are on systemic biologics. Some are not. But generally, the mean number has come down a bit, and that's what we're observing. And so that's kind of another element to the whole study and the outcome of the study. But I just want to separate the point that I was making before where on TARC baseline levels, not necessarily on the EASI baseline level.

Okay. And should we expect that same trend kind of to lower EASI scores, it should apply here. But does that have an impact on TARC level -- likely TARC levels as well, do you think?

I think that's something that we'll discuss when we release the data. I think we understand really well, obviously, the level of TARC at baseline in healthy volunteers, right, where we've seen reduction in the mid to high 30s in many patients on our studies in the healthy volunteers. And we show that also dupilumab when baseline levels were in the range of healthy volunteer at similar reduction.

I think, again, as I've said, if you look at other studies, dupilumab level, you see a correlation between baseline level and percent reduction of TARC. And so I think that's the observation that we're sharing looking at those studies. I don't want to preview our study because -- as I mentioned a few minutes ago, I don't think it would be productive to preview some data here versus December.

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Abrahams, RBC.

Congratulations on all the progress. I'm wondering how are you guys thinking now that it's been initiated about the powering overall for the Phase IIb AD study, just considering the population you expect to enroll, the mix of biologics and experienced and naive patients and your expectations for effect size?

And then just as a follow-up, it sounds like you're thinking about maybe different doses for asthma and respiratory diseases versus dermatologic diseases. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more about what you think are the important considerations around that.

Jared, do you want to take that?

Sure. Yes. I mean we can't give specifics around powering for the Phase IIb. What we can say is -- and we have stated that the end for that study is going to be approximately 200 with there being 4 arms, 3 drug, 1 placebo. So we look very carefully at what the expectations are, what the patterns have been in the past with regard to EASI responses, NRS Pruritus responses, et cetera. And that's all gone into calculating what sort of ends we need to make sure that the study is adequately powered.

So we've been very careful in the design of the study to make sure that we are powered to show the desired effect relative to placebo. Another important aim of the study, obviously, is to be able to look across the 3 different doses and to see if we can discern any sort of a dose response. So the study is powered to enable us to do all of those things.

And the doses between AD.

The doses between AD. So right now, so I think what we've guided is that our plan is to -- in the Phase IIb to use the same doses for both AD and asthma across both Phase IIb studies.

And then maybe just to add, then the Phase III doses or dose that will be used for AD Phase III and asthma Phase II might be different based on the dose ranging. To be honest, our expectation is that it will not be different, and we will use one dose for all studies. But that's why we're running different dose ranging in different diseases with different target tissues so that we actually understand what the right dose will be.

Your next question comes from Brian Cheng, JPMorgan.

Some of the color you're providing here for the December readout is pretty much in line with what you already messaged. But I'm just curious, just given the gap between the time you selected your 3 doses for the Phase IIb and when Phase Ib finished enrollment around early October, what could be additive to what you already know in the December readout? Or do you think the data is most likely going to be in line with the data that you had already seen when you picked the 3 doses? And I have a follow-up.

Well, so I'd like to maybe clarify. I think what we said before is the same thing that we've been saying for 9 or 10 months. But that's maybe just my small additional color.

So I just want to clarify, when we selected the doses for the Phase IIb was actually a few months before October, right? We started the study recently in the Phase IIb study. But in order to submit the protocol and do start-up activities, you had to actually have chosen the doses much earlier. And I think I've said this many times, I believe, publicly that when we selected the doses, we had visibility into partial data for both doses for both the first dose in the Ib and less but still some data from the second dose in the Phase Ib.

And again, we did not have access to the totality of the data, but we -- because we're focused mostly on the translation of degradation and obviously, safety, which is understood, we had enough information to make the right selection for the Phase IIb doses.

In the prepared remarks, in the BROADEN2 trial design, I think you mentioned that you expect a substantial number of patients to be naive to advanced therapy. So I'm just curious what's the driver behind that? And how should we take that into account as investors think about comparing the BROADEN2 future data against other benchmarks?

Yes. So I'll start, Jared, please jump in. So the reason why we believe that will be the case is multifold. But I will start with -- we believe KT-621 and our STAT6 program is -- the whole value proposition is to expand patient access to advanced systemic therapy. The penetration of these advanced biologics in moderate to severe patients is less than 10%. Some companies claim it to be more than 10%. Maybe we align on, let's say, 10%. So we don't have to argue with other companies. So the majority of the patients do not have access to advanced systemic therapy. That's where we are coming from.

Then another part, which we've discussed as well is patients that have gone on to systemic therapies that have failed systemic -- pathway systemic therapy, IL-4, IL-13, JAKs will not come on to our study. So they will have to have responded to those therapy, then decided not to continue and then jump on our 621 study.

So for those 2 main reasons, and also, I would say, for the experience that we had in the Phase Ib, we believe the majority of patients will be naive. And I would also add, hopefully, I will not be proven wrong, that we don't believe there will be issue out there finding naive patients because those patients are in dire need of an active systemic oral safe therapy.

The only thing I would add would be just as a reminder that this is a global study. And so we're running the study in North America, Europe, Australia and Japan, with the majority of sites actually being ex U.S. So ex U.S., in particular, there are going to be a number of patients who don't have access to IIb. And so that's another reason why we expect a substantial proportion of patients on IIb to be dupi-naive.

Your next question comes from the line of Mayank Mamtani, B. Riley.

Congrats on the progress. Could you give us a little bit more detail on the asthma BREADTH? I think you're calling it trial considerations. And in terms of if you're looking at a 12- or 24-week FEV1 endpoint or a longer duration exacerbation, you could be looking at both, but just wonder in terms of which is your primary endpoint?

And then also curious about the kind of patients you're thinking to enroll there and the allowance of background therapies. And obviously, the question is around time lines for data readout for the asthma and atopic derm. Will they be stacked together in 2027? And then I have a quick follow-up.

Yes. No, thank you for the question. Unfortunately, as we've said, we're going to talk more about the Phase IIb BREADTH study when we're in the start-up mode, when we're close to dosing our first patient. So give us a few more weeks, and then we'll provide all the color that you're asking for. So why don't you ask the follow-up so that at least we have a question.

And maybe just to talk a little bit beyond 621 and about your pipeline beyond that. Just on the 579, could you maybe give us some color on what the initial targeted indications would be just given the broader inflammation cascade that you're targeting there?

Yes. Maybe just high level. So thanks for asking about IRF5. This is a program that I think has mostly been unparalleled in the industry where you have highly validated genetically validated transcription factor that has been, I think, the object of many drug development efforts in the biopharma industry for a decade or so, but has maintained -- has remained elusive where Kymera has that solution using targeted protein degradation.

So if you look at human genetics, the top 4 places where one would go directly are generally lupus, SLE and other subcategories of this disease, some other interferon-related pathologies, RA, IBD. So those are where human genetics point to our preclinical data point to. I think when we're closer to the Phase I study, we'll be able to share more about our development plans. Jared, anything you want to add?

No.

Your next question comes from the line of Sudan Loganathan from Stephens.

Looking back at the healthy volunteer data for KT-621, I noticed that the median percent change in the serum TARC and the IgE were similar to that of dupilumab healthy volunteer outcomes for those same levels when on treatment. There was a noticeable rebound higher, obviously, whenever these -- on these levels when the patients were off of KT-621, as you showed.

My question is how important is the durability for the AD and asthma patients' quality of life outcomes? And will KT-621's daily oral dose -- dosing regimen make up for any deficiencies and maybe durability outcomes that it could have compared to dupi? And does dupilumab mode of administration and systemic effects just inherently lend to a more durable outcome?

It's a great question. So I mean, I will answer part of it, and then I'll let Jared also speak to part of all of it.

So the beauty about our drug is that it's a once-a-day oral that allows you to block IL-4 and 13 continuously at steady state. The beauty of our drug is that you can stop and start when you want, if needed without long washout period.

The beauty about a once-a-day oral drug is that as long as you continue to take the drug once a day orally, you will see profound effects or at least the effect that the biology -- the underlying biology will have. I don't believe that if these drugs are taken as prescribed, obviously, we're still very early to compare to dupilumab, that you have more or less duration of the effect.

The only main difference that I will say between an injectable biologic and a once-a-day oral degrader, not small molecule inhibitor, is that the once-a-day oral degraders allow you to have steady-state complete pathway blockade. I believe with dupilumab, a couple of days before your next dose, you're not maximizing the pharmacology as much. So you might actually have less pathway blockade, continuous pathway blockade than a once-a-day oral degrader. Now what would that mean from a therapeutic perspective, obviously, well, time will tell and studies will tell.

Yes. And maybe coming back to your comment around the Phase Ia, just to clarify, patients who were on the MAD portion were getting 14 daily doses. And so when we look at the effect on TARC and Eotaxin-3 in particular, that suppression or inhibition was seen throughout the entire 14-day dosing period.

In fact, if you looked at day 7 versus day 14, levels were actually continuing to go down TARC and Eotaxin-3 between day 7 and 14, which suggested that if we had continued dosing beyond day 14, we might have seen more suppression.

So there was no recovery of TARC and Eotaxin-3 until dosing was stopped after day 14 and then you see a gradual recovery. So that just speaks to what Nello was referring to in terms of the durability of the effect as evidenced by even in healthy volunteers, a durable effect on those biomarkers.

Your next question will come from Andy Chen, Wolfe Research.

This is Brandon on for Andy. Within BROADEN2, are you doing anything to control the rising trend of placebo that we're seeing in atopic dermatitis where recent trials have seen a higher placebo response?

Thanks for the question. So I just want to answer the first part, and then Jared will address it. So I think that's an important point. I think as I was speaking earlier, I think with a drifting of patients with EASI, shifting from, let's say, early 30s to mid-20s, I think it's almost physiological to have seen an increase of the placebo rates. I think though, there are ways in which one can minimize the effect. And maybe, Jared, you can speak to it.

Sure. Yes. I think as far as we see it, I think this is based on the general learnings from prior studies. There are really 3 main things that one can do to try to limit that placebo rate.

One is making sure that you have the right protocol design and site selection so that you're making sure you actually have patients with atopic dermatitis, not other skin diagnoses and that you make sure you have moderate to severe patients that you're not somehow also getting mild patients. The milder patients, the more mild patients you have who should not really be enrolled in these studies, but they are enrolled, are going to have a contribution to placebo rate.

The second important thing is to select very experienced sites because you want the raters, the people who are assessing the endpoints to have the right expertise, the right derm expertise here for AD. And you also want to have the proper training of those raters to make sure they're able to assess EASI, for example, consistently and accurately.

And then finally, it's really important that there'll be close sponsor oversight of the sites involved and also the CRO that's helping to execute on the study. That oversight is really our study conduct and the sponsor has to really be all over study conduct.

So I think all of those elements combined, I think, are important in helping to mitigate placebo rate, and those are all things that we're addressing in our study.

Your next question comes from Kripa Devarakonda, Truist.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

I was actually wondering how you think about the evolution of the competitive landscape for 621. I know you guys are significantly advanced in terms of the clinical development. There are competitors, whether you talk about degraders or some inhibitors. But based on what you've seen, how important is the fact that you're ahead in development versus any potential areas of differentiation? And where does the next-gen STAT6 degrader fit into this context?

Thanks, Kripa. So obviously, yes, we're aware of other companies that -- I think we've enabled with our amazing data, right, over the past couple of years, which is obviously always great to see, at least from an industry perspective.

So first, let me start with -- this is not just about being first. I think this is about being first and best because that's what is going to almost guarantee commercial success, right? You're ahead of the competition, which is important. But more importantly, you have a drug that is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do better than. And that's what KT-621 is. It's a drug that is exceptionally potent as we've seen, exceptionally well-tolerated with a profile that we believe would allow us to go in any potential indications of patients with Th2 diseases.

I think others will have to talk about their differentiation versus KT-621. I'm not familiar with many of the other programs because there haven't been any publications or presentations with actual data. What I will say going on record here is I believe a small molecule inhibitor STAT6 is impossible to reach the level of pharmacological effect that our degrader will have, mostly because we'll not be able to block this pathway 24/7 almost completely or completely as we do. And we believe that, that's required to have biologics-like activity.

On the other, obviously, degrader programs, again, I don't know enough. But the important thing here is that we have confidence in our drug. We're years ahead of competitors. And so our team mandate here, including us around the table, is to execute flawlessly in the next few years so that we can accomplish the commercial success that will make KT-621 a double-digit billion-dollar drug in the Th2 space.

Your next question comes from Jeff Jones, Oppenheimer.

We've been talking about TARC, Eotaxin and some of the other critical biomarkers for the STAT6 program. Can you comment on key biomarkers we should be focusing on for the IRF5 program when we see that data? And should we be expecting healthy volunteer data in 2026?

Yes. Jeff, you always ask very orthogonal question. I love it. So yes, we expect to have Phase I data from 579 in 2026, next year. It's a bit early to speak to the biomarkers. But as you know us, as you do know us well, we tend to run Phase I healthy volunteer study that are quite rich in terms of information. So as we get closer to the start of the study, we'll share more about our biomarker strategy.

Your next question comes from the line of Jeet Mukherjee, BTIG.

You folks have spoken at length about the niche and the opportunity for KT-621 in the atopic derm space. But could you just elaborate a bit further on how you see it fitting within the asthma landscape?

Yes. I mean I'll start with -- actually, there's a more fundamental issue, I think, in the asthma space, and I'll let Jared speak to the medical part of it. I just want to talk strategically.

So Th2 asthma, eosinophilic asthma, which obviously we expect this drug to address, right, just to level set, is a disease that starts very early in life. And actually, it turns out that if you're not able to impact the disease until or before your lung fully develops, you're actually going to have reduced lung function for the rest of your life. And children, young adults are on non -- on therapies that do not address the underlying Th2 inflammation for many years before they are graduated to systemic biologics.

I think there is a paradigm that needs to change because we're actually putting kids' lives at risk or we're not carrying as much as we should or do for the best quality of life possible of children and young adults with Th2 inflammation. So that's where an oral drug with, hopefully, the safety and the efficacy that we expect should fit in, in the treatment paradigm, that help patients earlier in their trajectory. I'm not saying that this is a patient for mild asthma, a drug for mild asthma, but this is an opportunity to change the treatment landscape in respiratory diseases, given that this is a disease of young people, and we need to change how this disease is treated. Maybe, Jared, you can bring us back to earth and maybe talk more medically.

Yes. No, I think in addition to the, I think, important opportunity in pediatric patients, I think also in the adolescent and adult patients with asthma, I think being able to access a much greater proportion of those patients with moderate to severe disease, right, who have a significant unmet need, but just are not going on injectable biologics for all the reasons around market access or concerns about being on an injectable or a biologic to be able to really penetrate the adult and adolescent space as well with our drug for those patients with moderate to severe because now we have an oral drug, which hopefully, if it says if it's comparable to dupi in its efficacy and safety, it could really transform how these adult and adolescent patients are also treated with asthma.

Your next question comes from Clara Dong with Jefferies.

I think you're on mute.

Clara, we can't hear you.

Now?

No.

Yes. Maybe, operator, do you want to put her back in queue and we go to the next one and she can try to sort that out.

Your next question will come from Alex Thompson. Please bear with us as we invite him to be panelist.

I guess on the Phase IIb AD study again, you mentioned obviously, patients that had experience with biologics. And I think, Nello, you also mentioned JAK inhibitors. Is there going to be a cap for how many of those advanced therapy experienced patients you might have in the study? And then on rescue therapy, how are you dealing with that as well?

Yes, there would be no cap. Again, as long as you have not failed advanced systemic therapies that block this path to IL-4, IL-13 and even JAKs, there will be no cut for those. And I don't think we're discussing rescue therapy. Obviously, there is a system on how we're going to deal with it, but I don't believe we're going to disclose it at this point.

Our next question comes from Faisal Khurshid, Leerink.

So I know you've put kind of a benchmark out there of 70% to 80% on TARC reduction from baseline. Could you talk to us about what you would -- what efficacy endpoint you think people should focus on, given that people are focused on this, given that you already showed nice TARC in healthy volunteers?

And then if you're not willing to put out a numerical benchmark, can you just clarify for investors why that's the case?

No. So thanks. That's a very good question, actually. So we're just basically stating the facts. And we've said that this is a biomarker-focused study mostly because we -- I think we can gather from the data that there is very little, if almost no, let's call it, placebo effect on biomarkers. So the absence of placebo should not impact the interpretation of biomarkers, right?

So we're honestly a bit more comfortable saying for TARC, assuming the baseline levels are in the range of what we've seen with the dupilumab study, we expect to see the 70% plus, 70% to 80%. That's a fact, right? That's what dupilumab has seen.

Now you would say it's also a fact that the EASI reduction on day 28, there is a number to it. The reason, again, why we've been shy about putting a number on that is because, as you know, clinical endpoints are much more noisy and much more impacted by the potential placebo effect.

And so I think we like to be data-driven and science-first company, as you know as well. And I think we'll put out things when we can confidently say that those numbers are something that we can scientifically then follow and adhere to.

What we said, again, we're not going to hide behind it. The numbers are out there for dupi, right? I don't have to say what the numbers are. The numbers are out there. The treatment arm numbers are out there. We expect in this study at day 28 to be in that ballpark because we know that, say, KT-621 blocks the pathway as well as dupilumab. So here is how we've always characterized it, and we're not going to change it now a month from the data disclosure.

Appreciate it. We look forward to the data next month.

Our next question comes from Judah Frommer, Morgan Stanley.

Maybe just one, if there's anything you can share on early recruitment trends, even anecdotally for BROADEN2. Obviously, the Phase Ib was tougher to recruit just given the 28 days dosing here, you can get patients on drug for a year plus. And curious about just awareness of the healthy data and how all that might be helping in recruiting patients and what investigator feedback is.

Yes. I mean high level, again, we just started the study. We just activated a few sites. So we're very, very early into that process. I think what we believe right now is even on the healthy people -- on the Phase Ib, there was a lot of excitement by sites and investigators and eventually patients, we believe, in accessing an oral option.

Obviously, the 28-day study was not set up to get patients excited because it's a short study without an OLE. So the Phase IIb, it's a whole different value proposition. And I believe between that and hopefully, the data that we'll disclose in December, I think it will be -- we are confident that this will be a study that we can recruit in a timely manner.

Now recruiting the study as fast as possible is not our goal. Our goal is to recruit the study as fast as possible with the right patient. Going back to what Jared was saying earlier, we have a paranoid oversight of this whole study because we want to try and control the placebo rates as much as possible, even if that has to be at the expense of a week or 2 or 4. So that's where we're coming from. But hopefully, we'll be able to share more about your question as we get deeper into the study.

We would like to invite Clara Dong to try one more time.

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you. We see somebody else, we can hear you. Go ahead.

Thank you for letting me try again. So my question is on the Phase Ib trial. So this trial has a relatively short follow-up for weeks of patients. So among all the key endpoints like biomarkers, clinical efficacy and safety, which ones are -- in your view, are relatively less affected by the treatment duration and which endpoint do you think is more complex to interpret because of the trial design?

Yes. So I think very quickly because we're almost running out of time. If you look at the dupilumab study, I don't believe -- and hopefully, I'm not wrong, Jared, correct me. I don't believe there was any endpoint that reached maximal effect at week 4. So I think it's hard for me to say which one is going to be less or more impacted by this 28-day duration. I think we'll look at all the data together in December and answer the question better.

Our next question comes from Brad Canino, Guggenheim.

Maybe just to close out on a capital allocation question for Nello because you're in the most comfortable cash position you've ever been in with the company, but also have the highest capital demands ever faced by the company. So how do you think about deployment of each incremental investor dollar across KT-621, the name pipeline and the platform to really maximize value for Kymera at this juncture?

Yes, great question. So I probably need half an hour for this. But in 30 seconds is, I think there has never been a biotech company that has developed a program like KT-621 on their own fully. So we appreciate this is a unique both opportunity and responsibility to do capital allocation in the right way.

I would also say that if we became a STAT6-only company, we will not be fulfilling the mission that we have of a global company that develops drugs that impact patients across the world with different diseases.

Obviously, there is a medium -- and happy medium between going all in on 621 and spending a lot of money on the other programs. And I always believe that we need to earn the right to invest more. So our ability to invest more in 621 will be driven by the success of 621. Our ability to invest more also in other programs will depend on also our ability to have success with our clinical pipeline. So we don't do resource allocation because we have money. We allocate capital because we earn the right to do more. And that's the strategy since day 1.

Our final question of today comes from Joe Catanzaro, Mizuho.

Maybe a follow-up sort of along the lines of duration of effect. Wondering if you could say anything about the level of compliance that you observed in the Phase Ib, but maybe more importantly, looking towards the Phase IIb and 16 weeks of dosing, what you guys can do to ensure a high level of compliance there?

Yes. No, it's a great question. So obviously, with an oral drug, industry data will tell you that getting 100% compliance is difficult just because we all forget to take one pill one day. And with biologics, you can ensure compliance asking patients to be injected in the site.

So obviously, we're aware of it. We're actually using novel technologies to increase as much as we can adherence to the study protocol with regarding to taking the drug. And we're confident that, that will deliver what we need.

I will add one last thing. I know we're way out of time. The beauty about a degrader drug is that you can actually skip a dose and maintain maximal pharmacology, assuming you have the right dose that reaches complete degradation that you will never see with a traditional occupancy-based small molecule inhibitor. So we have a bit of a cushion on the adherence question. But obviously, we're not sitting on it. We need to ensure as much as we can, 100% adherence because we want to maximize the benefit to patients.

Thank you. I'd now like to turn the call over to Nello Mainolfi for closing remarks.

Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry, we ran beyond the 9:30 goal that we had. I want to thank everybody. Obviously, lots of questions. We are always available to continue to engage.

This has been the most exciting year of Kymera, and we have 1.5 more months or so to go. So stay close. I think it's going to be an exciting time in the next few years developing this really once-in-a-generation drug and the broader pipeline. So thank you again today, and we'll talk more soon.

All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this session of the Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference. I'm Judah Frommer, one of the SMID biotech analysts here. Let me just get through a quick disclosure before welcoming Kymera. For important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. With that, welcome, Nello and Jared. And we appreciate you guys being here.

Thanks for having us, Judah.

So maybe for those newer or less familiar with the story, can you spend a couple of minutes on a high-level overview of your protein degrader platform and the technology that your products have been built on?

Yes. For the very few that are not familiar with Kymera, so the -- really the story behind the company is to use targeted protein degradation to develop a whole new generation of medicines. And where is the opportunity? The opportunity is the technology allows us to go after targets that have never been drugged before or drug or have been drugged poorly because we use a small molecule modality so we can get into the cell where 80% of targets remain undrugged or poorly drugged.

And unlike small molecule inhibitors, we don't need to have a function with these molecules. We only need to elicit a binding event. A binding event through the heterobifunctional nature allows us to present a disease-causing protein to the proteasome that is the natural cellular machinery for protein recycling. So we present a disease-causing protein for degradation. And in doing so, we elicit a very strong pharmacological effect.

So now what we've focused on for the past 9 years is to marry, as I like to say, the technology with the right problem. And so we focus really on undrugged targets, fully drug targets in pathways that have high degree of validation, targets that have strong human genetics and targets that lead to broad potential impact. We're talking about millions of patients instead of thousands of patients. We have started and this technology is disease agnostic.

So our initial efforts were almost evenly split between oncology and immunology. As we continue to advance our pipeline, we actually saw a unique opportunity in the overall landscape. The opportunities to develop oral drugs with biologic-like activity. And this is exceptionally unique in immunology. We have several mega blockbuster drugs, amazing mechanisms. You can think about the TNF, the IL-17, the IL-23, the IL-4/13. These have validated biological pathways.

And in doing so, they've helped millions of patients. But the challenge is there's still -- these drugs have generally low penetration, and there are millions of patients that are not accessing these highly effective advanced therapies. So with oral drugs that can mimic the pathway blockade of these biologics, we can change treatment landscape. So we've focused our wholly owned pipeline on pathways that, again, as I mentioned, are validated, but there are key drugs, especially key targets, especially transcription factors that have not been drugged before. So STAT6, for example, is the key transcription factor for IL-4 and 13.

And so our KT-621 is the first-in-class oral STAT6 degrader for 100 million patients potential impact or more. IRF5 is another transcription factor in the type 1 interferon inflammatory cytokine, IgG pathways that also has been pursued for many years unsuccessfully so far, and we have the first-in-class oral molecule. And we have many others that we haven't disclosed. So that's the high-level view, orals with biologics like activity through protein degradation.

Okay. Great. That's a great setup for the conversation. And we'll spend most of our time on STAT6 as will not be a surprise to anybody. But starting with KT-621, we have initial data here, staying very high level before we get into it. I guess I'll ask you a question that I would typically ask later in the conversation. Key feedback you've received from KOLs and investors following that data, kind of how did level of excitement change once people saw initial data in humans?

Yes. I mean I think this is one of the very rare cases that I personally experienced where the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. I think that we had entered the Phase I healthy volunteer study with expectations of degrading the target 90% plus safely and with an impact on Th2 biomarkers. What we were able to see went above expectations. We saw not only 90% plus degradation, we saw complete degradation in blood and skin at very low doses.

We saw placebo-like safety, and we saw an impact on Th2 biomarkers like TARC or eotaxin that was similar, if not numerically superior than dupilumab. So it really told us that the premise for the program, the investment thesis so far was -- continues to be confirmed and also derisks the ongoing studies and future studies.

How would you characterize unmet need given the existence of dupilumab in the space? And maybe has that framework for unmet need changed since people have seen the data?

Yes. Look, as I mentioned, so there is -- if you look at the 7 major markets and you look at people that are diagnosed with moderate-to-severe AD, asthma, COPD, CNR, chronic rhinositis, EoE, et cetera. There are 7 or 8 indications which dupilumab has been approved in. There is slightly above 100 million patients. Dupilumab has treated about 1 million patients. So we clearly have 90% plus of patients that do not have access to advanced systemic therapies. And why not? The main reason is that these are expensive and difficult to challenging to reimburse inconvenient injectable biologics. There are no oral drugs in most of these diseases that are well tolerated and have the activity that these biologics have.

So what I think needs to be appreciated is not only we can potentially compete with DUPIXENT for the existing patients. But more importantly, we can expand to the millions of patients that don't have access. So the unmet need is really to allow all patients that have these diseases to have a convenient, safe and effective oral drug. That, I think, will be a treatment shift.

I know we're very focused in AD, but if we think about asthma, there is millions of children, young adults that are required to take treatments like inhaled steroids, et cetera, that do not address the underlying cause of inflammation and then actually being exposed to secondary effects, and unwanted effect that should not -- they should not be exposed to. So we feel very, very committed to changing how these diseases are treated, and that's the opportunity we have with the KT-621.

Okay. And maybe just one more on the healthy data. I guess safety versus efficacy profile that's been demonstrated thus far. Did one surprise you more than the other? Or the molecule behave kind of as designed?

I mean I think from a safety standpoint, we are expecting to see a clean safety profile based on what we knew about preclinical models of STAT6 knockouts in mice or what we have seen in our preclinical tox where at all doses, even high doses giving us complete degradation in higher species and rodents, we weren't seeing any tox. And so I think we were expecting also given the fact that STAT6 is so specific and selective for IL-4 and IL-13, and we have such a selective drug that we could use at low doses that we would have a clean safety profile. So I think it was -- we weren't surprised, but it was nice to see that confirmation.

I think on the activity side, again, I think we knew this was a very potent degrader that we should see very potent effects on STAT6. I think we tend to underestimate just how potent our degraders are going to be in vivo based on our preclinical animal data. And so humans always end up sort of outperforming, so to speak, nonhuman primates and rodents. So we were very happy to see just how low we had to go in our dose to even get less than 90% degradation in blood, and we were very pleased to see that the level of degradation that we saw at relatively low doses, 50 to 200 milligrams in blood and skin were essentially the same. We could completely degrade the target in both of those compartments.

Okay. Great. And then moving into the Phase Ib in AD patients. You did recently announced you'll be adding a second dose. Could you walk us through study design there, the rationale behind that decision and particularly in the context of, I believe, already having selected your Phase IIb doses? What's it helping you do?

Yes. Let me just -- I'll let Jared talk maybe more specifically about the study design and they create the inclusion and exclusion criteria, et cetera. Just a high level about the goal of the study and the reason for the study. So just reminding everybody, what's on critical path for registration is to do a dose-ranging study and then a Phase III registrational studies. So dose-ranging studies in our development plans are the Phase IIb study.

So for us, initiating timely Phase IIb study in AD and asthma are the priority of the company. Based on literally the required data to be generated ahead of the Phase IIb study, we could at the earliest time possible, start our Phase IIb studies in 4Q of this year. So we had an opportunity between the healthy volunteer study and the IIb study to evaluate our drug in patients.

And so we have 3 goals from this Phase Ib study, confirming degradation in patients in blood and skin, understanding the translation from healthy volunteers to patients to then select the right doses for the IIb study and then demonstrating that STAT6 degradation in patients with AD can have a pathway blockade and clinical endpoints that are comparable to upstream biologics based on the mechanism of STAT6.

So obviously, the third goal is kind of independent of the doses to a large extent. What we wanted to do was really use an opportunity given that the study was moving at a relatively rapid pace to translate instead of only 1 dose for my volunteer to patients, but 2 doses so that we will see the translation more robustly across multiple doses and our -- and derisk our Phase IIb dose selection. So it was an opportunity not to have questions as we're making $100 million-plus investment into these large Phase IIb studies.

Maybe, Jared, you can speak to the study design and the other kind of more clinical goals.

Sure. So I think the aim of this Ib study was to quickly and efficiently show initial proof-of-concept in AD patients. So we designed the study that was going to be approximately 20 patients. Initially, one dose, then we added on the second dose to look at it as well. No placebo control because, again, for us, the primary objectives were being able to demonstrate, as Nello said just a moment ago, degradation in skin and blood safety as well as impact, hopefully seeing a direct impact on biomarkers in blood and in skin where our placebo control really isn't necessary, while also including clinical endpoints even without a placebo control, it still gives us the possibility of being able to detect a clinical signal.

This was a 28-day study. So 28 days, if you look at the dupi 16-week study, even 28 days is sufficient to see an impact on TARC, one of the key circulating Th2 biomarkers to see an impact on Th2 skin transcriptome and to see impact on key clinical endpoints like EASI and pruritus. We were -- the aim was to enroll moderate-to-severe AD patients. So all the usual criteria, for example, EASI at 16 or greater or vIGA at 3 or greater, et cetera.

It was really designed to allow us to get that population of patients and to really show the impact again on degradation, on biomarkers as well as on clinical endpoints and to look for connections between those 3 different buckets of activity in addition, of course, to showing safety and as Nello said, being able to sort of confirm our dose selection for Phase IIb.

Okay. Great. And we feel the question, and I'm sure you've got it as well, kind of the idea of splitting 20 patients into 2 cohorts and effectively testing 2 doses in half the number of patients. But I think the study protocol does allow you to dose more than 20 patients. So how are you thinking about I guess, kind of final end within those 2?

Yes. Look, I think it's important to recognize this is not a powered study for a clinical endpoint. I believe we have enough power to look at changes in biomarkers because those are really -- they don't carry, let's say, a placebo effect. I think it's important not to get too hung up on the number of patients per cohort, given that the questions for us are quite clear. Do we degrade the target? Does the degradation lead to a biomarker changes and do the biomarker have an initial impact on clinical endpoint.

We're never going to be powered to scientifically compare to other studies. So whether you have 10 patients or 15 patients per arm, I'm not sure it's worth the effort of protracting a study instead of focusing on the IIb. It is true we have the protocol that allows for more than 20, and we'll probably have more than 20. But I'm not sure there is a meaningful difference between 10, 12 and 15. If you look at the early dupi study, if I'm not wrong, the 3 doses they had 8 patients per dose, and they were able to show what they wanted to show, which for them was really the early translation of this new mechanism into patients. So I believe we have what it takes with the existing protocol to accomplish our goal.

Okay. Maybe for both the Phase Ib and the IIb, can you give us a sense of enrollment conversations, how those go with investigators and patients, I guess, sort of supporting the demand for -- an oral safe product?

Yes. So maybe there is 2 aspects of the enrollment. I mean the Phase Ib is a 28-day study with 2 required biopsies. So this is in every type of disease setting, this is a hard study to enroll. Patients will have limited benefit given the short duration. We have no extension of study. So it's a tough value proposition for any patient. Having said that, we've had quite a bit of interest. I think there are patients out there that are still naive that are excited about. And obviously, I'm not speaking for patients, but from what we're gathering that there is interest in an oral option.

I think what we've -- obviously, we're aware and continue to learn, and we've said it already publicly, and it's not even based on the experience, but on recent studies in atopic dermatitis, the population is evolving. When DUPIXENT was developed, if you look at mean entry EASI level. We're talking about 30, 32, 31, 29, 33. Now if you look at the past 5 studies in AD, we're looking at, what, 24, 25, 26. So -- and that's only natural as there are treatment options, which they weren't back then. And so we always have to keep in mind that the patients are different.

We have all the tools to appreciate the treatment effect of a drug even with different population. We just have to be really smart at data analyzing, which hopefully, is the case for the whole industry, but I can say that it will be always.

Okay. And just following up on the Phase IIb doses. Have you said whether you'll communicate those with the Phase Ib readout? And should investors be assuming that the Phase Ib doses are encompassed within the Phase IIb doses?

So let's start with when we disclose what. So we haven't disclosed the Phase Ib doses, but we will do so when we disclose the data. We assume that we will do the same for the IIb. We will not disclose doses when we begin or run the study, but we will do so when we release the data. We don't see a reason why we should share the doses ahead of time. I don't think there is any benefit for anybody to know, and we just will be disclosing a competitive piece of information for no reason. I think maybe what I can say that the doses are within the range that has been explored in healthy volunteers.

Okay. Helpful. And then how are you or how should we be thinking about dose effects, whether that's in the Ib or the IIb? How important is that aspect of the data generation here?

What do you mean by doses?

It whether we'll see more of the benefit in higher dose...

Got it. Yes. So obviously, the IIb has been designed as a dose-ranging study. And the doses that we select we expect to see difference between the lowest dose and the highest dose. I do not want to comment on the Ib.

Yes. That makes sense. And then just in terms of the sequencing of that data communication that you pointed to in reporting out the Ib data versus starting the IIb.

So great question. So reminding everybody that when we enroll the last patient on the Ib, that patient would be on the study for 28 days. There would be a 2-week follow-up. And then there'll be a 6 weeks or so time needed to collect all the data. So from last patient, last visit to our ability to have all the data is a couple of months. So it is -- because of all of this, it is possible that we will begin the Phase IIb study before we disclose the Phase Ib data. But we remain committed to do both of those things in Q4.

Okay. And have you said kind of the where and how you'll communicate the Ib, would it just be?

Yes. I think most likely, given the nature of the study and our desire to release the data quickly after we've collected the data, the availability of conferences, et cetera. So most likely, it will be a company-sponsored event, very much like the healthy volunteer data.

Okay. Helpful. And then maybe just backing up sort of high-level question on the space. I guess, how would you characterize Big Pharma's current interest in STAT6 degradation? How do you think about potentially partnering opportunities if there's the right time for that? Or are you committed to doing this on your own?

I think STAT6 is -- there is, in my mind, 3 targets in the biopharma industry today that have like the potential of a mega blockbuster drug. STAT6 is one of those 3. I won't comment about the other 2. And so it's not surprising, given that there is a lot of smart people everywhere in big and large companies that from what we understand, STAT6 is one of the hottest targets in the industry now where you either are trying to develop your own asset or you're trying to partner with the existing companies.

And actually, this is one of the very few targets that as far as I'm aware, at least most assets out there have been partnered already in preclinical stage. If we were a different company, our assets would have been partnered already. So there will be no biotech with the STAT6 asset given, again, the potential impact of this drug. Going back to the second part of your question, we've made it very clear to our colleagues in other companies that we have no intention of partnering this program for the foreseeable future, for sure, through the Phase IIb data.

I think at that time, once -- I think after Phase IIb, we'll have a very clear understanding about the efficacy of this drug, where it stands in the -- where it will stand in the treatment paradigm. And at that time, depending on our cost of capital, we will make those determination of going all in alone or partnering some aspect of this program. If you ask me, I would prefer no partnership ever, but we'll do what's right for the value creation of the company.

Okay. Maybe another way to ask the competition question. Is there a competing asset you see out there that makes you nervous? Or is the competition more in-house with your next-gen asset?

Yes, yes. I was going to reply that, but you told my joke. Yes, I think -- so we have a second-generation asset that we've decided to, for now, let's call it, parked in IND ready. And I think this speaks first and foremost, to the level of investment we've made into STAT6 franchise, the opportunity of the franchise, the gap that we have with our -- I don't know that competitor is the right way to say. Maybe with the suitors. And we have it because -- and we continue to do chemistry. I'll just put it out there so that we don't get trapped in another roundabout conversation on this next-generation molecule.

We believe in 3 things. Until you have a drug approved, you continue to invest. Companies like Alnylam, Vertex have shown you how much value you can create by continuing to work on the existing program. Until we know what the payer landscape looks like, we want to have the option to use different molecules for either different indications, different severity of diseases.

And to be honest, we want to have an insurance policy at any given time. So it's extremely difficult. Even for us, that are the best in STAT6, not only the first to find something better than KT-621. And to be honest, the next molecule is not better. But we will continue to invest to make sure we'll remain first and best.

Okay. Great. And I did promise we touched the other programs. So maybe if we just touch on IRF5, could you help us with an update on that program, kind of key elements of the therapeutic potential for that program and any development time lines you'd highlight?

Jared, do you want to take that?

Sure. Yes. I mean IRF5, in terms of -- starting off in terms of where we are with the program, we're in the midst of IND-enabling studies. The plan is for that program to enter Phase I in healthy volunteers in the early part of next year with data readout next year as well. The value proposition for that program, IRF5 is a target that's been very attractive to big pharma and biotech because of where it sits as a cross-section of multiple different toll-like receptor pathways leading to control of type 1 interferon response, control of autoantibody production by B cells and B-cell activation and the production of multiple different pro-inflammatory cytokines.

So a lot of intense interest in IRF5. The problem has been trying to drug it because there are many different IRFs within that family and many different isoforms even of IRF5. And so I think the other compelling aspect about IRF5 is the strong genetic association with a variety of different diseases, including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, IBD and other interferonopathies. So I think all of that makes it very attractive.

Our data with our very potent, very selective IRF5 degrader has shown in our preclinical models of lupus, very strong activity, looking better than most of the other approved or active drugs in the space. We have ongoing studies in RA as well as in IBD. So we see this as potentially first-in-class, best-in-class for IRF5 and a drug that can really change the treatment landscape for diseases like lupus, RA and other interferonopathies.

Okay. Great. And then just touching on IRAK4, there was an update there with your partner moving to a new molecule, KT-485. Do you see any implications for the overall probability of success or time lines for that program and that mechanism?

Well, I would say that the team at Kymera did an amazing job with the learnings of the platform over the years to deliver a superior molecule. So I would say the probability of success is increased by having a molecule that is void of any potential subclinical finding that we saw in Phase I in terms of QT that is more potent and better distributed. Obviously, in time line, there will be an impact, but we've learned a lot from KT-474 and all the learnings will be applied to the -- hopefully, by Sanofi, obviously, with us, definitely would be applied.

We hope Sanofi will do the same to the development of 485 and both the pace and how -- which type of patients and type of trials that we will advance. So I hope that overall, also the time lines of these assets development will be faster than what it was for 474.

Okay. That makes sense. And then maybe you could just help us with cash runway and which activities are contemplated within that runway that we have.

Yes. So we have, as of July, just about $1 billion of cash. This will allow us to get into the second half of '28 and really cost everything that you see on our pipeline, both Phase IIb studies, all the work that we're doing on IRF5, including a proof-of-concept study in patients for IRF5, other work on other programs that we haven't unveiled yet. And importantly, will help us set up and initiate Phase III studies with 621.

So obviously, we thank all the investors that have contributed over the years and also recently to allow us to set the company up for maximal optionality going forward.

Okay. That's great. Before I move into kind of our mini survey questions, if there are any questions in the room, feel free to raise your hand. We do have some mics that are available to folks. Before I go into the mini survey, I guess, anything within the story that we didn't highlight that you'd want to point out to folks that maybe people are missing?

No, I think we've covered everything. Maybe the only one asset we haven't touched on is our CDK2 collaboration with Gilead. It's for us, as an immunology-focused company, not on strategy to advance on our own, but it's a beautiful asset, a beautiful molecule, if I can say so, that is moving into, hopefully, soon enough into Gilead's pipeline, and it's a testament to also our molecular glue efforts that we haven't discussed at length.

Okay. Great. So the next little portion here is, like I said, a survey we're asking all of our biotech teams to try to get a sense of some thematic issues across the space. Biotech seems to be more exposed to external and macro factors of late. So we're asking, like I said, all management teams, these 3 questions. The first topic is China and the rise in biotech innovation there. How are you thinking about your competitive position here? Will the rise in China biotech influence R&D or business development strategy in any way?

Well, I could go on for hours on this one because I'm actually quite passionate about this particular topic. So not to go all the way back. When I moved to the U.S. 21 years ago, the simple reason was this is the country where meritocracy, hard work allows you to do incredible things. I think the moment in which we stopped focusing on hard work, innovation, and we rely on others to do that for us. We're giving up a huge competitive advantage. And I know we talk about -- a lot about the importance of the impact on national security.

This is a national security issue. If we lose the position we have in innovation in any field, including and foremost in healthcare, this is a big problem we have. And we should just go back to investing into basic science and making the concept of working really hard to be successful a sexy thing again.

Great.

With regards -- sorry, I know you have more. I told you I can go on for hour. With regards to competitive -- with regards to Kymera, we do really, really forefront biology and chemistry. It will -- there will be programs where there is more competition, but I don't believe it's going to be something we have to deal with closely, at least in the foreseeable future.

Okay. Next topic is AI. How are you at Kymera leveraging AI or thinking about AI's future disruption potential, both on the positive and negative side of what's going on in the company?

Yes. I mean we use all aspects of how machines can help us be more efficient. What we don't do is talk a lot about the cool things that AI can do without data, right? So I think it is a train that we cannot afford not to jump on, but also we need to be practical and solution-oriented. So I know some companies, they use tools, they call themselves AI-powered companies. So we are AI-powered company as well. But we use it in a practical solution-oriented manner.

Makes sense. Last one is a little bit broader, but from the regulatory side of things, some of the topics that have been listed that are impacting businesses in the space, changes at FDA, pricing debates, tariffs, I think for you guys, the toll penalty has come up as an area of focus. Anything on the regulatory side you'd highlight that is.

All of the above. I mean, first, every time there is change, we need clarity. I think we, as humans can adapt to almost everything. Think about the COVID days, what we adapted to. We can adapt to almost anything. We just need clarity. And more importantly, we need a level playing field. I think right now, that's what we're lacking. We're lacking a level playing field between small molecule and biologics. It's completely unfair, and it's probably one of the most uninspired policy that I've ever seen.

And then another piece is leveling the playing field in the reimbursement space. I think we need to support innovation, and we need to allow biotech companies to compete with large companies. They use tools to avoid competition. I think those are the 2 most important things, and they are critical for the innovation that biotech companies can bring to the table and more importantly, to the success of these companies and to the ability of small companies to grow into established companies.

Great. There are no questions in the room. I think we'll stop there. Thank you for the thought for being here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Here we go. So welcome to the second day of the Citi Biopharma, the Back to School Conference. I'm Geoff Meacham. My team is here with me as well. I'm the senior biopharma analyst.

So our next session is Kymera Therapeutics. We're thrilled to have CEO, Nello Mainolfi, President and CEO, sorry; and then Jared Gollob, CMO; Justine from the IR team. Bruce may or may not be here. So maybe, Nello, thanks for joining us, by the way.

Thanks for the invite.

So a little closer than Napa, but maybe not as...

Well, finally, in Boston. Thank you for doing this.

We did it just for you.

Thank you.

So let's, I guess, talk about the platform. So for TPD has been a hot area for quite a while. There have been some companies that have had some success, more differentiation than others. You guys have had a lot of success with respect to a couple of assets moving forward, good partnerships. Maybe talk a little bit about how the platform, your platform has kind of evolved since you started Kymera and maybe what types of attributes you're looking for, for assets to come out versus when you -- again, when you first started?

Yes. No, this is a great question. Again, thanks for the invite. So we started the company 9 years ago, so next year it will be 10, with the goal of building a whole new category of medicines using targeted protein degradation. And the idea has always been marrying the best of what the technology can do with an unmet need, an undrugged protein, a problem. So it's really solving a problem with protein degradation. And so that's been always front and center for our target selection. So we usually like to focus on these key pillars of we like to work in pathways that have been validated already, targets that have never been drugged before, having an ability to kind of prove the concept early in clinical development and accessing ideally millions of patients and not thousands of patients.

And what we've decided in the past really 5 years was to focus almost completely in immunology. And the reason is quite simple. Immunology has validated many pathways with upstream biologics, but has very, very few highly effective, safe oral drugs. And the reason -- the more simple reason is that traditional small molecule inhibitors have a really hard time blocking the pathway as effectively as biologics. So thanks to the platform, thanks to the power of protein degradation, we can catalytically remove disease-causing protein and block this pathway completely. And this allows us to have oral drugs with biologics-like activity. And that's, I think, a very new concept in drug development, a concept that we believe we're at the forefront with. And if you look at our pipeline with STAT6 and IRAK5 and even programs that we partner like IRAK4, I think are a testament to this strategy.

The only one other thing I want to add to this is our platform has evolved over the years. Our capabilities have evolved over the years. What we're able to do today, honestly, we were not able to do 9 years ago, 8 years ago or even 7 years ago. And the capabilities we built are about finding small molecules that combine to undrugged proteins in a highly specific manner, designing highly active equimolar, orally available degraders and translating this into the clinic with high level of fidelity. Our -- I call our new program, our second-generation degraders like 621 and 579, our STAT6 and IRAK5 programs are very different than early program than 474 with IRAK4 or some of the early oncology programs because we have evolved and learned on how to do this better and better. And that's, I think, will make us a very unique company in this space.

I guess last platform question before we get into the pipeline. Has the body of knowledge on the degradation pathways afforded you meaningfully more opportunities? Have you guys deployed things like AI, machine learning to kind of open up new avenues of the pathways? Essentially, it's about the universe of druggable targets, right? So...

Yes. No, that's another great question. So I like to think about kind of we have different problems and different opportunities. Maybe the most foundational one is what are the target types or the actual target that the technology can be deployed against, which, as we've always said, we like to go after targets that have not been drugged or drugged fully in pathways that have been validated. So there are nowadays very, very high-end natural language models that allow you to identify targets with specific features. And so using high -- using large data set to identify these targets.

Then the kind of the next problem is how do we find these small molecules. So in the hit finding and the hit evolution, there is obviously opportunity for machine learning algorithms to identify both the type of scaffolds that would interact the best with the protein class and then understanding specificity and drug ability. As we think about translation, what are the biomarkers that we should follow. So we look at, again, large data set to understand what's been discovered already versus what we can innovate with. So again, I think the point is you need to continue to innovate to be at the front edge of drug development. And I think in this day and age, if you don't innovate, even if you're starting the company with a new modality, you will soon become reproducible. And that's not from others, and that's not what we want to be.

Okay. Makes sense. Well, so for 621, you're transitioning from Phase I to Phase II in atopic derm. Give us some maybe context for what are the considerations as you move? Like is there a biomarker kind of threshold of efficacy you're looking for? Give us some perspective on maybe the potential for higher doses, higher efficacy? How are you thinking about that in the context of maybe maximizing your Phase IIb effect size?

Yes. So 621 is a first-in-class STAT6 degrader, just a quick review of the target. STAT6 is the specific transcription factor of IL-4 and 13, and blocking STAT6 with our technology is really the only way to phenocopy the blockade of both IL-4 and IL-13. Why is it important to block IL-4 and 13? Because only by blocking both cytokines, we're able to block all type of Th2 inflammation. Unlike if you block IL-13 only, you will only be efficacious in a subset of Th2 diseases. So with an oral once-a-day drug, we can block IL-4 and 13 as well as an upstream biologics like dupilumab. We've shown in preclinical studies that, again, by degrading STAT6 90% or more, we can phenocopy dupilumab in a plethora of preclinical studies.

In the Phase I, we've shown that degrading STAT6 at very low doses, we can degrade it fully. And this is not only well tolerated, but it blocks Th2 cytokines in healthy volunteers as effectively as upstream biologics. Now we're in a Phase Ib study in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis patients, where actually our goal is not only to demonstrate that we can translate this amazing degradation profile from healthy volunteers to patients, that type of profile results into biologics like biomarker as well as clinical endpoint effects.

So now going back to your question, Geoff, sorry for the long answer here. So I can't wait until we initiate our Phase II studies because it is the, I think, one of the most exciting studies, if not the most exciting study we've run at Kymera. We'll have 2 parallel studies, one in AD that we're starting in the fourth quarter and one in asthma that we're starting in the first quarter of 2026. These are 4 arms, so 3 doses plus 1 placebo, double-blind placebo-controlled study. And the goal is really being able to demonstrate in a dose-ranging manner, what is the level of degradation correlating to in terms of effect size.

And so our goal in the dose ranging is to have a range that will allow us to ask important biological clinical question. For example, what is the effect of maximal degradation of STAT6 in AD and in asthma? What is the effect of less than maximal degradation of STAT6 in AD and asthma? And what is the effect of less than less, I don't want to say percentages, degradation of STAT6 in AD and asthma. And I believe being able for the first time in drug development demonstrate what is the exposure and degradation profile that is required to have maximal benefit in patients. And that's, I think, a very exciting place to be.

And you feel pretty comfortable on the healthy volunteer study that you can get to precise points in terms of STAT6 degradation. You feel like you can get to almost 100% like...

Yes, that's a great question. So I think what we demonstrated in the healthy volunteer study is that any doses above 1.5 milligrams once a day, think about that 1.5 -- above 1.5 milligrams once a day, we're able to degrade the target at 90% or more. So the way I think about it, I think about buckets of doses, there is the doses that went from 50 milligrams to 200 milligrams that completely removed STAT6 in blood and skin. There are doses that go from 6.25 milligrams to 25 milligrams that degrade the STAT6 between 90% and 95% and then doses below 6.25 milligrams that degrade less than 90%. So that's how we think about it. It's not really one discrete dose that gives us exactly that 90%, but we have small ranges of doses that capture a degradation profile. And so those are the principles that we're thinking about using as we move into Phase IIb studies.

Yes. And then your upcoming Phase Ib data is going to be later this year. The STAT6 degradation levels in AD patients, they differ versus healthy volunteers. So -- how does those levels kind of impact the efficacy levels and considering the baseline levels are higher in AD patients, how do you think those could impact the efficacy data that could come in Phase Ib?

Yes. I'll let Jared take this one.

Yes. I mean what we know about STAT6 levels in healthies versus AD patients, we know in the blood, the levels are actually similar. In the skin, it looks as though there might be a two to threefold higher level of expression in active AD skin lesions compared to healthy volunteers. So overall, that delta is very little, especially for a very potent degrader like 621. So we're not expecting that we have to overcome higher levels or that we have any problems matching degradation. Of course, that's the whole -- one of the main points of the Phase Ib is to show, hopefully, that we have high fidelity of translation from the healthies to these patients, both in blood. Our hope is that we'll see comparable levels of degradation in blood, comparable levels of degradation even in active skin lesions. That will be a very important part of the translation and then showing, of course, comparable safety.

And then as Nello was saying earlier, the next level is to show that we can have a dupi-like effect on Th2 biomarkers, and we have an array of biomarkers that we can have a look at in patients, whereas in healthies, you're talking about looking at biomarkers like TARC and eotaxin-3, which are expressed at low levels. Now in patients, especially biomarkers like TARC and AD patients, we know in 80 patients on dupi studies, they're expressed at very high levels. And so we have more of an opportunity now to show hopefully a dupi-like effect even with 28 days of dosing, which is the duration of dosing in the Phase Ib and also an opportunity to look at skin biopsies in the 80 patients and to look at skin Th2 transcriptomics and to hopefully also show a dupi-like effect on those Th2 genes and their expression in skin where we can sort of look at a high level at whether we're in that same sort of ballpark of what we would expect to see from our drug based on what dupi is seen both in the skin and in the blood.

And then let me just to add one quick thing. If you look at the healthy volunteer data, let's say, in the skin, which is -- I always think it's a higher bar than blood. We have seen interpatients that -- or inter subject that you've seen levels of STAT6 levels at baseline that could be even in healthy volunteer two to threefold versus one versus the other. And even with those differences, we've seen consistent degradation. So that's why we're going into the studying patients with that confidence that this drug is very potent and very catalytic and the starting point of STAT6 should not have an effect.

And then at the recent call, you also mentioned that you added an extra dose -- extra arm in the Phase Ib study. Do you think for that -- I mean, I know you like particular dose levels, but do you think it's more appropriate to add like a lower dose considering you have seen a really broad efficacy in the healthy volunteer data? And if you see like an effect with the lower side that could help you like with selecting dose levels in the Phase IIb?

Yes. I mean without getting into the lower or higher, which I don't think it makes sense at this point to get into it. But what I can say is these Phase IIb studies are, as I said earlier, the most exciting, but also the most consequential studies that we run at Kymera to date. And we were very fortunate that our Phase I healthy volunteer study was so robust, as I think was agreed by everybody that we were able to make an initial decision on the Phase IIb doses. So what we wanted to use the Phase Ib study for, again, not only, as Jared pointed out, understanding the degradation, the cytokine and efficacy profile, but also to see how do we translate into patients and importantly, how do we derisk the Phase IIb dose selection? How do we confirm and how do we refine it?

And so obviously, we started with one dose. The idea was if we're able to actually get another dose in within the same time line, we'll be able to have much more confidence into that Phase IIb dose selection. So it was purely based on making sure we have enough data point to be absolutely certain about the Phase IIb dose selection. And we were fortunate enough that we were able to do that so quickly that we didn't even have to wait for the end of the study to make the final Phase IIb dose selection, which I will say has been consistent from the early days to today. So nothing that we've seen in this study has informed that we were expecting anything different than what we had initially thought.

And maybe just to quickly add that, sometimes we get the question, well, did you add another dose because you saw a safety issue, and we did not. So essentially that did not factor into our thinking. It was more around what Nello was saying and wanting to have a richer data set to confirm Phase IIb dose selection.

Just a quick follow-up. I guess, is there a correlation between when you intervene in STAT -- or any degrader for that matter and when you see a clinical effect? I guess I'm trying to figure out -- like you have the potential for a pretty rapid onset of action. Is that something to expect? Or is there sort of a delayed just given the pathway and the mechanism is there likely to be a cumulative delayed effect and then you see clinical factor.

Yes. So I think what is fair to expect is that we'll have a very rapid onset of degradation. We know that for the right dose at 4 hours already, which probably means that at 2 hours, most likely, we already have maximum degradation. So we can ensure that we have very rapid degradation. Then the question to onset of clinical effect this really comes down to either onset of pharmacological intervention or onset of kind of how the biology plays out. And that's actually an interesting question for our Phase Ib study, which will be very focused on the first 4 weeks is the onset of effect of dupilumab.

Just remember, dupilumab gives a loading dose at day 0, right? So these patients get full blockade of the pathway right away. And then obviously, they get another dose after 2 weeks. So is the rate of effect of dupilumab driven by the biology? And if it's a biological question, then you'd expect that STAT6 rate of response will be similar. If it's an onset of pharmacological intervention, meaning degrader moves faster than an antibody to reach all the receptors, then you might see a difference. I think that's an important question for our Phase Ib study and more importantly, for the Phase IIb.

And then for Phase Ib, of course, there is -- you're running both the arms as drug and there is no placebo arm. So in terms of data, like what sort of data like you'll provide EASI pruritus and then biomarker that could help investors frame the data and compared to biologics...

Yes. I think some of you have followed us for many, many years. We tend to over share and under share. So you will get the totality of the relevant data, the degradation profile in blood and skin, the biomarkers in blood and skin and the efficacy endpoints that are the ones that are obviously measured in any AD study. So yes, I don't -- we will share all of that as we've done consistently in the past few years.

And then moving to the Phase IIb kind of patient selection and certification. So in terms of patient selection for moderate-to-severe disease, like are you -- will you be using like some biomarker certification to select patients, like some EASI levels or any of those kind of metrics to select your patients for the Phase IIb study, considering there has been some data that EASI16 level and higher patients are kind of more responsive to this kind of treatments.

Yes. I mean it's a good question. I mean our approach to Phase IIb eligibility will be similar to Phase Ib to try to select for moderate to severe. So as you mentioned, the standard metrics that you use for inclusion and exclusion are usually things like EASI, the IGA, BSA, for example, all of those things at baseline pruritus because you want to really make sure, number one, that you have bonafide AD patients and you want to really make sure that you truly have moderate-to-severe AD patients. So all of those are -- we're planning to use all those. We're not planning on using sort of unorthodox plasma biomarkers to somehow establish cutoffs for eligibility. But I think for the standard sorts of eligibility criteria that you've seen for other studies, whether it be with dupi or lebri or others, whether it be Phase II, Phase III, those will be similar to ensure that we get the moderate-to-severe patients.

And along those lines, is there a way to -- I know in clinical development, you can add novel biomarkers, but are there any that you'd want to elevate to maybe being more like clinically meaningful in the eyes of the FDA? In other words, can you, in these studies, also engineer an atopic derm or whatever the indication, a newer biomarker that's maybe Kymera specific that could help you commercially?

Well, I mean, I will start with kind of the purpose of inclusion and then the purpose of monitoring effect. So for the inclusion, we want to make sure that we are using criteria that have been used successfully to treat moderate-to-severe patients by successful drugs. And so our bar is going to be very high as it's been for successful drugs, so EASI16 and above, et cetera. I think one other thing I would add is while we won't use them as criteria, we are watching other biomarkers of Th2 inflammation at baseline.

You can think about eosinophils, we look at IgE. We look at other biomarkers just to make sure that we're really interrogating AD patients with Th2 inflammation. With regards to biomarkers that we will generate, we are continuing to advance the science of STAT6. So let's not forget, STAT6 is a novel target. 621 is the first agent ever to target STAT6 in humans. We are doing work in the Phase Ib study to understand the profile in blood and skin of a STAT6 agent. And we will continue to explore clinically these areas should new opportunities arise from that, obviously, we'll take advantage of it.

Yes. And for Phase IIb, at least the injectables, the data that AD have been seen recently that you have a lot of placebo responses are variable across those trials and such variability. So in terms of your site selection and other strategies, what are you employing in Phase IIb? And whether you think as an oral drug, you probably won't see as much variability? Or are there any like kind of information you can provide along that considering yours in oral and those are injectables?

Yes. I think your question around what would we or any company do in the AD space to try to minimize placebo effect because that's obviously important. And there are a number of different things we can do. It all begins, I think, with the protocol itself, right, to make sure the protocol has the correct eligibility criteria and the correct MD oversight of screening and determination of eligibility from the different sites. So we, at Kymera, play a very active role, not just in Ib, but in IIb and making sure that the patients who are being selected and screened are the right patients who truly meet the letter of what's in their protocol with regard to eligibility.

Along those same lines, it's really important that we choose sites that have a very good track record, right, in the AD space, sites that have investigators, preferably investigators who have done this sort of rating before for AD and are experienced at it. So we know that the sites are going to comply with the protocol and do the rating as we wanted to. So we're very careful with regard to site selection. And again, very rigorous when it comes to oversight of these sites, not just relying on a CRO for oversight, but Kymera oversight of what's going on.

So I think those are among the most important things that we can do to try to minimize placebo effect, also making sure that patients are not taking other medications that they're not supposed to take according to the protocol and after being compliant, taking the drug on protocol. All of those things, we're all over to really make sure we can do all we can to minimize placebo effect.

I want to put the cart before the horse and ask you about commercial strategy. But when you look at atopic derm, are there patients today that are maybe underserved or unmet with some of the many therapies that you can correlate maybe STAT6 to or breakthrough or something like that. I wasn't sure if there's a lot of science behind nonresponsive patients, refractory patients...

Yes. I mean the beauty and actually also the sad part of it is that we don't even have to do that. The reality is that there are 100 million patients with Th2 diseases. There are tens of millions of patients in the U.S., which is the country in the world that has the highest biologics penetration. And even with the highest biologics penetration, just in AD, dupilumab has less than 15%, I believe. And this is in the so-called biologics eligible patients. If you look at all the moderate-to-severe patients, the penetration is in our calculations, less than 5%.

So actually, we don't have an issue with having effective drugs that work for a lot of patients. We have an issue with access, reimbursement and eligibility. So if you have an oral drug that is well tolerated and is quite active, we believe it should be the first in-line drug for all Th2 patients. We're talking about millions of patients. So -- and I would say, actually, the worst part of the current system is that there are many adolescents as well as young children that, unfortunately, either for access or more importantly, for inconvenience are not treated with very severe Th2 diseases. So we believe this is going to be a game changer for adults and children.

Okay. Makes sense. And one on your STAT6 kind of differentiation. Of course, you are the one who has actually shown data with -- in healthy volunteers, and there are a lot of other companies which are kind of behind you. So in terms of differentiation, like do you think the timing is only the differentiation? Or you think your platform or just your molecule is much better in terms of structure and everything versus...

So I think you had the answer in your question. You said we're the only company that has shared data. So I don't have to differentiate if I've shown the data. I think it's the other companies that need to come up with a reason why they should develop a STAT6 agent. Now it will be too easy of an answer for me if I just stop there and probably not nice to you guys. So I will give you also the other part of the answer, which is -- so yes, I think KT-621 is, in my experience, one of the best behaved molecule I've ever seen in my career. It's extremely potent. It's actually intrinsically more potent than dupilumab by blocking IL-4 and 13. It's highly bioavailable in humans. It degrades the target at 90% plus at doses of 6 milligrams once a day and above. in preclinical species, in efficacy models looks equal, if not superior than dupilumab in the Phase I study, even in biomarkers is at least numerically similar, if not superior.

So the question that you have to ask yourself, what are these competitors trying to do? Obviously, until 621 is approved, there is always an opportunity for others to compete with us. We are -- we have a multiyear gap right now in terms of being in front. Our goal is to increase on that. Again, we have a second-generation degrader that we've now, let's say, parked in IND-ready, which is more advanced than any other competitor in the space. So it just tells you the level of investment in the chemistry and the advances that we've made. So we're not obviously sitting on this and basking in our success. We're focused on getting to registration ASAP with the best drug possible. And I would, I guess, ask others, how are they going to try and differentiate and if they can catch up.

With that same, I guess, related question on IRAK4. So there is a broader body of work on that. Not to get too much in the weeds of the competitors, but where do you see the most points of potential clinical differentiation for your asset? I know Sofie is obviously running the...

So thanks, Geoff, for asking these questions. Obviously, you've followed us for many years, so you know us well. This is a point of pride that whenever Kymera started the program, there have been multiple companies following. That happened with IRAK4. We've had companies like Gilead and Nurix, we've had BeOne. We've had others following our footsteps. With STAT6, obviously, exactly the same has happened, similar sets of companies. So it just tells you that when we select a target and we deploy our technology, we can create some very compelling profiles. So with IRAK4, as you all know, KT-474 is kind of concluding the existing Phase II studies. We're kind of wrapping up where patients were being dosed and then Sanofi decided to focus on the second-generation degrader, which is KT-485.

The reason for that decision was that KT-485 has a superior -- materially superior profile than 474 and potentially best-in-class profile. And Sanofi is going to start the Phase I study in '26 from what we understand. We haven't seen data from other companies. Again, so it's difficult to compare. What we have done with 485 is to develop a drug that is more prudent as much deeper skin distribution and degradation and is completely void of that subclinical QT finding that we saw with 474. So it's set up to potentially be best in this category, but I think we'll have to wait for clinical data to be the judge of that, given that now we and other competitors are roughly around the same kind of stage of development.

From a mechanism standpoint, do you think IRAK4 versus STAT6 has the applicability across different disease areas similar or...

Yes, great question. I think if you are smart at developing these 2 assets, you would use STAT6 for all Th2 diseases as we are, and you will develop IRAK4 for IL-1 TLR, Th1, 17-driven diseases like HS, asthma, COPD, you can even think lupus, IBD. I think there is very little overlap between these 2 drugs, if you're pretty clever about how you develop them.

And then when you think about the -- as you scale up from -- in both programs from Phase II to Phase III down the road, is there any nuance with respect to manufacturing capability or unique attributes that you'd have to invest in today?

Another great question. So these are small molecule chemistry. We -- while they're slightly bigger, they do not require any different strategies or even cost. Cost is not materially different than traditional small molecule. It might be slightly elevated, but not materially. And so we -- I mean, obviously, we have a great CMC team that is focused on making sure we have the lower -- the highest quality and the lowest cost of goods for increasing margins on our drug, and we're well on path for the drugs that were in full control like 6:1, we're already planning our Phase III manufacturing and commercial at this stage just because we believe that we want to move to market ASAP.

And I know you guys are obviously squarely in the oral development stage. Is there any -- do you guys have an active dialogue with the administration on this spill penalty? I kind of hear back and forth, but it feels like beginning of the year, it was very likely to be removed. It just depends on the day, it seems like in terms of its priority.

Well, a great question. I think -- so we've been -- we, as a biotech, let's call it, biotech ecosystem through trade, organizations, we've been in touch with the administration. But in general, I would say, Congress to figure out a way to solve something that I think was not well thought out, which is changing -- having different treatment for small molecule 9 years versus biologic, 13 years, which obviously makes no sense. Small molecules are just as innovative as biologics, if not more, if you look at what we're doing and should be protected to continue to invest in innovation.

I think this is one of those things that it's highly technical, requires somebody or a group of people that are willing to go and solve a highly technical, but at the same time, very simple issue. And I think we're continue to advocate for it. I'm highly confident that we will be able to solve this because it's a very simple correction, but changing preexisting regulation, as you know well, there is such a high energy barrier to it that requires a lot of work.

Yes, for sure. And last question on IRAK5, the next-gen sort of degrader. Maybe just put that mechanism that in context with IRAK4 and STAT6?

Yes. So obviously, STAT6 is the best -- I'll call it the best Th2 target. And IRAK4, it's more traditional IL-1, IL-17 biology, TLR, IL-1 family. So with IRAK5, we have one of the few cases of highly credentialed genetically validated target that has been associated with lupus, IBD, RA. And there is very few cases, if you look at drug development of this strong of a genetic association very few cases and all those cases have been successful mechanisms. So that's why the whole industry is very keen on IRAK5 as a mechanism. It's extremely technically difficult drug to target to drug. And so we've done -- the team has done an amazing job identifying a highly potent and selective molecule. The opportunity here is to block inflammation only where it matters. So some subset of cells, B cells, NK cells, macrophages only in the disease state. And that's very few mechanism that can afford that, and IRAK5 is one of them.

Perfect. Well, thanks a lot for the time. Yes, Nello, Jared. Yes, I appreciate it. Thank you. Great conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good day, everyone. My name is Olivia, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome you to the Kymera Therapeutics Second Quarter 2025 Results Call. [Operator Instructions]

At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Bruce Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer.

Good morning. I'm Bruce Jacobs, and I'm kicking off this in place of Justine Koenigsberg, our Head of IR, who is out today. Joining me this morning are Nello Mainolfi, Founder, President and CEO; and Jared Gollob, our Chief Medical Officer.

Following our prepared remarks, we'll open the call to questions from our publishing analysts. If you'd like to ask a question, please use the raise hand icon, which can be found at the bottom of your meeting window. And to help us move efficiently through the Q&A session, we ask that you're ready to unmute your line when called upon. In addition, we ask that you please limit your question to one and a relevant follow-on to be sure we have enough time to address everyone's questions this morning.

Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that today's discussion will include forward-looking statements about our future expectations, plans and prospects. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. The description of these risks can be found in our most recent 10-Q filed with the SEC. Any forward-looking statements speak only as of today's date, and we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements made on today's call.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Nello.

Thanks, Bruce, and thank you for joining us this morning. As I mentioned at the beginning of the year, we set our sets up for a very productive and exciting 2025, and we're delivering on that promise. The updates we've shared in the first half of the year represent a powerful validation of Kymera's innovative and disciplined approach to drug development within the biopharma industry, while paving the way for our future progress across our high-impact immunology pipeline. We're committed to leveraging the unique capabilities we have developed to unlock disease biology and deliver groundbreaking oral degrader medicines for areas not served well by existing technologies.

Today's immunology treatment landscape still leaves millions of patients without adequate options, forcing difficult trade-offs between efficacy, safety, cost and convenience. Millions of patients with life-altering immune-inflammatory diseases don't have access to advanced systemic therapies, mostly injectable biologics. This is true if we look across countries with extremely diverse systems on how they prescribe, reimburse and deliver these highly effective medicines.

The issue is really more fundamental than the inefficiencies of the health care ecosystems around the world. Simply put, well-tolerated oral drugs that can be as effective as this difficult to access injectable biologics have the potential to transform the treatment landscape and in doing so, impact lives of millions of patients.

This is what we're set to do at Kymera. It's an exciting time for the company, and I want to take a moment to briefly recap some of the key accomplishments of the first half of 2025. Starting with our first-in-class STAT6 program. We completed the first KT-621 trial in healthy volunteers and reported positive results that exceeded even our high expectations, surpassing our target product profile. Importantly, the data further derisks our path forward and highlights the possibility of KT-621's/dupilomab in appeal profile.

As potential first-in-class treatment, we believe KT-621 has the ability to be a broadly accessible oral auction for many dermatological and respiratory diseases like AD and asthma. In addition, for Japanese regulatory purposes, we recently completed a second small healthy volunteer study in Japanese subjects with results that were consistent with the U.S. study. You can expect that we'll present these findings at a future medical meeting.

We also wanted to share a few updates regarding KT-621 Phase Ib broaden study in moderate-to-severe AD patients. As noted in the release, the patient's data we plan to share will include data from 2 different dose groups. While we initially set out to explore a single dose, the speed at which the trial enrolled allow us to evaluate the translation from healthy volunteers into patients more broadly which we believe gives us an even richer data set to inform our Phase IIb those choices, which was an important goal of this study.

The Phase Ib was designed with a flexible protocol, they contemplated this scenario, allowing us to make this choice without impacting time lines. And as a result, we're well positioned to report results in the fourth quarter as planned. I'm also happy to share that we have selected and finalized the 3 doses that will be included in the 2 Phase IIb studies as well as completed long-term toxicity studies. These were really the final important pieces of our planning to start these studies beginning later this year.

Given we're moving into data collection and analysis mode soon, we're going to limit our comments around the study to what we have said previously, until we're able to share the full results in the fourth quarter. But we can certainly say that we're pleased with the speed at which the trial has enrolled, very excited about the trajectory of the program, and we look forward to sharing the full data set when it's available. The addition of PRISM News to share is that we have selected a follow-on STAT6 degrader to KT-621 with strong potency, selectivity and safety profile and have advanced it through all required IND-enabling studies. The degrader is IND ready should we decide to further advance it into the clinic in the future.

More broadly, we're building what we believe is the best in industry oral immunology pipeline. And beyond STAT6, we're also very excited about what's next. Early this year, we've unveiled our oral IRF 5 program, which is moving through IND-enabling studies. The compelling preclinical data we've generated showcases that targeting IR can lead to correcting immune disregulation across multiple disease pathologies, while generally sparing normal sales. And it remains our goal to progress our early discovery pipeline of novel immunology programs unveiling on new program per year to expand access to oral systemic advanced therapies for broad patient populations in the space. We hope to share more about this next year.

Additionally, we announced 2 important partnerships update in June. First, we're very excited to announce our first oral molecular glue degrader program targeting CDK2 will be developed under our collaboration agreement with Gilead. We have a highly innovative research engine and the CDK2 program is a great example of this, given the challenges of existing technologies to address this highly valued target. With our focus on immunology, this program was an ideal candidate for partnering. We and Gilead believe that a highly specific, safe and effective CDK2 degrader has exciting potential to meaningfully improve treatment for patients living with breast cancer and other solid tumors that are inadequately treated today.

Secondly, Sanofi announced that they officially opted into the IRAK4 program, and will assume full responsibility for development activities of KT-485, our second-generation oral IRK4 degrader which we expect to advance into Phase I testing next year. Based on our preclinical results, KT-485 has greater potency, broader distribution and a generally improved overall profile than KT-474, our first-generation degrader. As a result, Sanofi made the decision not to advance 474 into further development as KT-485 has the greatest potential benefit for patients. Both these collaborations have the potential to realize significant milestones for Kymera, which Bruce will cover later in the call, and we're happy to collaborate with 2 industry leaders on these novel programs.

Finally, to support all we have ahead of us, we've extended our cash runway into the second half of 2028. We raised approximately $288 million in the follow-on offering that we launched at the end of June and received the upfront payment from Gilead, increasing our cash position to $1 billion as of the end of July. Our well-capitalized balance sheet should allow us not only to take KT-621 through the planned Phase IIb studies in AD and asthma, but also to prepare for and initiate several Phase III studies across multiple indications, while also progressing our earlier-stage pipeline.

As you've heard me say before, our strategy centers on combining the unique power of targeted protein degradation, with carefully selected targets and pathways to create transformative new class of medicines. By focusing on immunology, we're not only addressing large patient populations but also meeting a significant unmet need to create effective saver of therapies. We believe our approach has the potential to deliver for the first time in our industry, biologics like efficacy with the ease and convenience of an oral pill. Again, I couldn't be more excited about the foundation we've built and where we're going.

I'm looking forward to the Q&A discussion, but let me pause here for Jared to discuss KT-621 and our pipeline. Jared?

Thanks, Nello. Looking back on the last quarter, we were excited to share the first KT-621 clinical data, which we believe greatly derisks the next stage of development. We identified clear goals for the Phase I healthy volunteer study, and the data not only hit the mark but in many instances, exceeded our expectations with compelling translation from preclinical studies to humans.

The primary objective in the healthy volunteer study was to show that we can robustly degrade stat 6 in blood and skin which we define as a reduction of 90% or more at doses that are safe and well tolerated. As shown here, the results exceeded our expectations across every measure. We showed more than 95% degradation in both skin and blood at very low doses. The safety profile was undifferentiated from placebo, and we are encouraged by the biomarker profile, which we believe is at least comparable to what dupilumab showed in healthy volunteers or patients and, in some cases, is superior.

That said, I'd like to take a few minutes this morning to recap the results and next steps with KT-621 which we believe has the potential to profoundly alter how Th2 diseases are treated by delivering an oral drug with a biologics-like profile. For the full data set, please reference the slides presented in early June, which are available on our website.

As a reminder, we enrolled 118 volunteers in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess single and multiple ascending doses of KT-621 across a range of doses from 6.25 to 800 milligrams in SAD and from 1.5 to 200 milligrams in MAD. In all SAD cohorts, including the lowest dose of 6.25 milligrams KT-621 degraded STAT6 by 90% or more and a dose of 75 milligrams or greater achieved complete degradation with greater than 95% mean STAT6 reduction and STAT6 levels below the lower limit of quantitation in multiple subjects after just a single dose.

In MAD, where volunteers were dosed daily over 2 weeks, we were able to completely degrade STAT6 in both blood and skin at doses of 50 milligrams and above. In fact, to establish the lower end of the dose response curve, we have to go back after these initial cohorts and add the 1.5-milligram MAD cohort, given none of the initially planned doses had less than 90% degradation. The robust degradation of STAT6 led to functional inhibition of the IL-4/13 pathway as demonstrated by median reductions of up to 37% for TARC and up to 63% for eotaxin 3 at day 14, a result that was comparable or superior to what has been observed for dupilumab either in healthy volunteers or in patients with Th2 diseases.

Importantly, whether treated at the lowest or highest dose or anywhere in between, the safety profile was undifferentiated from placebo. There were no serious adverse events, very few treatment-related adverse events that were mild, no treatment-related discontinuations and no clinically relevant changes in vital signs, laboratory tests or ECGs with daily dosing up to 200 milligrams, which is 16 fold above the lowest MAD dose with greater than 90% degradation.

As many of you have asked, we are also happy to share that we recently completed our 4-month GLP toxicology study and consistent with our earlier non-GLP and GLP tox studies, we do not see any adverse events of any type at all of the doses tested. This study completes the necessary preclinical work to allow us to initiate the Phase IIb trials planned to start later this year and early next. Prior to reporting the healthy volunteer data, we initiated a 28-day Phase Ib trial named Broaden, which was designed to enroll approximately 20 moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis patients.

We've had a high level of engagement from sites on the trial and are pleased to report that we are on track to share data in the fourth quarter. As a reminder, the key study aim is to show that robust STAT6 degradation in blood and skin lesions by KT-621 has a dupilimab-like effect on multiple Th2 biomarkers in the blood, TARC being the most relevant in AD patients as well as on the Th2 transcriptome of active AD skin lesions. We will also assess KT-621's effect on clinical endpoints such as easy and pruritus NRS.

Beyond the Phase Ib broaden study, which again is designed as a streamlined biomarker-focused study, we are in parallel Phase IIb dose range finding trials to enable subsequent registrational Phase III studies across multiple indications. As Nello mentioned, we have selected the 3 doses for the studies, and our STAT6 team has done a remarkable job keeping this program moving at a rapid pace including all the necessary work to initiate 2 global Phase IIb trials. The AD Phase IIb trial will be good in the fourth quarter this year, and the asthma study is expected to initiate in the first quarter of 2026.

And quickly on the IRF 5 program. Historically, an on-drug transcription factor and genetically validated target, IRF is a master regulator of innate and adaptive immune response pathways involving coinflammatory cytokines, B-cell activation and autoantibody production and type-1 interferons. We believe IRF degradation has the potential to be the first broad anti-inflammatory mechanism that effectively addresses immune disregulation while sparing normal cell function.

KT-579, our potent selective and oral degrader has the potential to be the first IRF targeted therapy to deliver a completely novel and potentially transformative treatment option in many cases, superior to pathway biologics in a range of autoimmune and rheumatic indications such as lupus, RA, Sjogren's and others. This program is progressing in IND-enabling studies, and we expect to advance KT-579 into Phase I testing in early 2026 with what we believe will be the first oral IRF degrader to enter the clinic.

Across our portfolio, we see strong potential to advance multiple first-in-class oral degraders that address major market opportunities in immunology. Our STAT6 and IRF programs represent significant advancements not only for our pipeline, but for the industry and patients as we look to deliver the first oral therapies with biologics like profiles and immunology. We're excited about their continued progress and remain focused on our goal of expanding access to transformative treatments for millions of patients.

So let me pause here and Bruce will review our second quarter financial results and provide a collaboration overview. Bruce?

Thanks, Jared. I will quickly run through our results for the quarter. Also because this past quarter has been busy with collaboration and financing activity I wanted to provide a brief summary of our recent news as well. As I walk through the second quarter results, please reference the tables found in today's press release and 10-Q, which was filed this morning.

Revenue in the second quarter of 2025 was $11.5 million, all of which was attributable to the Sanofi collaboration. With respect to operating expenses, R&D for the quarter was $78.4 million. Of that, approximately $8 million represented noncash stock-based compensation. The adjusted cash R&D spend of $70.4 million, which excludes that stock-based comp reflects a 3% decrease from the comparable amount in the first quarter of 2025.

On the G&A side, our spending for the quarter was $17.6 million, of which $7.4 million was noncash stock-based comp. The adjusted cash G&A spend of $10.2 million, again, excluding that stock-based compensation reflects a 6% increase from the comparable amount in the prior quarter. And overall, adjusted operating expenses in total were down slightly from the prior sequential quarter. We ended June with a cash balance of $963 million. Our quarter end cash balance included the base proceeds from our $250 million follow-on offering that closed at the end of June.

The June total does not include either the additional proceeds from the underwriters' overallotment option, which was fully exercised in July or the first payment that we received from Gilead as part of our recently signed CDK2 partnership, both of which were received in July. As a result, we ended the month of July with a cash balance of approximately $1 billion, providing a cash runway into the second half of 2028. Just a quick reminder that our runway calculations exclude any unearned milestones. And with that in mind, I'd like to take you briefly through the key financial terms of our 2 collaboration agreements.

Starting with Gilead. Under the collaboration, we're eligible to receive up to $750 million in total payments, in addition to tiered royalties on net product sales that range from the high single digits to the mid-teens. This $750 million includes $85 million related to the upfront payment, which was received in July, and you can see on our balance sheet, shown as deferred revenue and the potential option exercise. If Gilead chooses to exercise its option for an exclusive license they will assume global rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize all products arising from the collaboration.

Turning to Sanofi and the development of KT-485, under the existing collaboration, we could earn up to $975 million in clinical, regulatory and commercial milestones for KT-485. We retained the right to opt into a 50-50 cost and profit share in the U.S. prior to the first Phase III trial in addition to international royalties. If we decide not to opt in, we would instead be entitled to worldwide royalties ranging from the low double digits up to the high teens.

To conclude, as you've heard today, there is a great deal of momentum across our programs. And importantly, we have the resources in place to continue executing on our development strategy and the progression of our earlier stage pipeline.

With that, we'll pause here so we can convene in our main conference room at which point, we'll open the call to questions. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] First question is from Michael Schmidt from Guggenheim.

It's Paul on for Michael. I had one on the dose levels that you're exploring for 621. Maybe first, could you provide some color on that decision to add the second dose in the Phase Ib study, I think it's probably safe to assume that both the doses fall within the broad range that achieved complete STAT6 degradation but just wondering how you're thinking about exploring both the high and the low dose, which is perhaps 2 doses in he higher range?

Yes. Thanks, Michael. I want to make sure where you can hear us. So as we said today, so the doses -- both doses are within the range that we that we explored in the Phase I anti volunteer study. And as we've also said, as you're aware, we had initially decided to explore 1 dose, thinking that roughly 20 patients will be enough to give us the data to speak to what is the profile of that 1 does. And then obviously, as we were moving along with the enrollment and given how quickly it was going and given that we were able to assess the performance in the 1 dose, we decided to explore an additional dose so that we'll get even robust translation from anti-volunteer to patients of STAT6 degradation.

I think it's important to keep in mind that in the healthy volunteer data, we had multiple doses. I would say, almost all those besides one met our target product profile. And so we wanted to confirm that the really, really robust profile could be translated into patients with the same level of finality. And so I think we're happy that we did that.

Obviously, I'm not going to speak to high low, medium, et cetera. Rest assured that the main goal was really to refine the Phase IIb dose selection. And so all that happened so quickly that now between the healthy volunteer data and whatever data we have access from this study, we're able to firm up and select the Phase III -- the Phase IIb doses even in the absence of completing the Phase Ib study.

Great. And if I kind of a quick follow-up on that point. And mostly on just what back into the dose selection for the Phase II studies? Was it predominantly the healthy volunteer data you presented. Was there anything emerging from the Japanese studies or GLP talks, can you say if there's a different range of doses being explored between the AD and the asthma studies.

Yes. So great question actually. So as you saw, it was a very, very busy Q2. I don't think we've had a busier Q2 in the history of the company, given everything that we've accomplished. So I will say that if you look back at the healthy volunteer data, there was a dose selection based on this data. Everything else that we've done confirm was able to confirm our initial instinct.

We didn't learn to be honest, anything new that made us change the initial instinct, let's say, on those selection, but it was highly encouraging that everything that we've seen in Altivolunteer was supported by, obviously, the 4-month out, which we said was completely clean the jeopardy study, which was very much in line with the U.S. study and the early -- let's call it, early data for the Phase Ib.

The next question is from Derek Archila at Wells Fargo.

Congrats on the progress here. So just 1 and a follow-up. So basically, I just want to understand maybe following up on this line of questioning just in terms of what you would expect to see at these additional doses that you're looking at in the Phase IIb, ultimately, like we saw very good degradation and pretty quick. So I guess how do you think some of the doses will differentiate.

And then just a follow-up to that, what do you actually expect to see with the follow-on STAT6 that you're developing? And what sort of optionality are you really looking for with that molecule.

Great question, Derek. So the first one, I just want to confirm we're talking about the dose for the Phase IIb. So I think the important thing for a drive, obviously, is to find a dose that has the best risk-reward profile. And so I think what we want to ask in a 16, let's say, for AD, a 16-week study, is what is the maximal or we believe close to maximal at that point, level of clinical activity that we will see and what is the safety profile at different levels of degradation.

Obviously, we will explore maximum degradation, which we call complete, which, again, is where really we see in most subjects STAT6 level be below the lower limit of quantitation. So we want to ask that question, what is the clinical profile of maximal degradation? And then obviously, we want to ask the question at a couple of lower doses just, to, again, at the end of the study, being sure that we're taking into Phase III, the profile that we believe has the best risk reward.

So it's obviously a necessary step that we need to take as a company to fulfill regulatory requirements to do dose ranging studies before selecting a Phase III dose. I think we have bets in the company where the Phase III dose will be already, but we got to run the studies and make sure that we do all the right steps to derisk the program.

With regard to the follow-on molecules. So that's something many of you that has followed us for years know that every program, we always have a next-generation molecule as you saw for IRAK-4, Sanofi decided to focus the efforts on the follow-on, and we call it the next-generation molecule KT-485. For STAT6, to be honest, we didn't really have a particular goal with the next-generation compound given how well KT-621 has performed. And this is the reason why we've advanced a very good molecule that, in many ways, looks at least in terms of profile very much like KT-621. It's potent, extremely well tolerated, very active in below.

And the principle is to support the franchise for one is for the eventual a likely scenario that we need another molecule or for a strategic choice of eventually advancing another molecule should we choose to do for different severities or different indications. I think given how well KT-621 is doing, we have decided for now to keep this follow-on molecule IND ready, meaning that we have everything we need to file an IND, but we're not planning to file an IND in the short term.

I think another important point in this highly competitive space that STAT6 is becoming, having a molecule line be ready, probably ahead of any other let's call it, a competitor that is behind us. So we have 2 molecules ahead of every other competitor. I think he also sends a message how committed the company is to this franchise and to the potential of this franchise.

Question is from Andrew Newkirk at Goldman.

Two for me as well. Maybe the first, recognizing the primary objective of the Phase Ib data, is to show a dupi-like profile here on biomarkers, but I was hoping you might be willing to frame your expectations on what you'd like to see on the clinical efficacy measures, particularly EC75 as well as NRS.

And then secondly, just noting the completion of the GLP tox studies that you mentioned. And obviously, your Phase I healthy volunteer also looked really clean, but if you could just speak to the potential safety risk of degrading STAT6 completely, what type of signals are you most looking for in the Phase Ib to really feel comfortable here with the safety profile as you move forward?

Thanks. Great question. Jared, I thought maybe you could take at least the first one, if not both.

Yes. In terms of on the clinical expectations, I think we emphasize always that the primary objective here is to show a robust STAT6 degradation in the blood and an active AD skin lesions and to show that, that results in a dupi-like biomarker, in fact, both in blood and skin were in skier looking at the Th2 transcriptome and we don't want to see a dupi-like effect there.

We sort of have set of expectations around biomarkers, I think TARC is the most important blood biomarker probably in AD, where dupi studies have shown even at 28 days, about a 70-plus percent reduction in dupilumab. So that's a general [ war plug ] that we would expect to see in patients who like in those dupi-AD studies had greatly elevated target levels at baseline. We'll be looking at other fire markers in the blood as well as these various transcriptional biomarkers in the skin.

In terms of clinical endpoints, again, we've always emphasized that in the absence of a placebo control, these are more exploratory. However, we think we do have an opportunity to look at end points like easy and pruritus, NRS and IgA because we know from Dupi that you can see impact on those biomarkers as early as 28 days. And we're not really giving specific numbers where that bar would be said. I think the published data are out there with Dupi and one can look at those published data at 28 days and get a sense for what we mean by sort of being in the ballpark with regard to those clinical endpoints.

In terms of your second question around safety risk, as you noted, we've been very pleased with what we've seen in our GLP tox studies. We've now completed our 4-month tox studies as now indicated, and we've seen no safety signals whatsoever. That's very in line with our 4 weeks GLP tox in our prior non-GLP tox studies. We are very encouraged by the fact that our safety profile was undifferentiated from placebo in healthy volunteers with 2 weeks of dosing. So that's very encouraging. And now we'll be looking at safety with 4 weeks of dosing, of course, in the Phase Ib.

I think overall, this is in line with our expectations based on our mechanism of action and based on the fact that it appears that STAT6 is highly selective for the IL-4, IL-13 pathways and human genetics. -- have pointed not just to the phenotype of abnormalities STAT6, but also to the safety of knocking down STAT6 have mouse knockout studies. And so this is all in line with what we expected for a transcription factor that is very specific for IL-4 and IL-13, and for a drug like ours, and it's highly selective just for STAT6.

I would only -- thanks, Jared. I wouldn't say anything differently. I will only add one thing, just to be clear, again, as Jared said, on the clinical endpoints, it's difficult to compare -- it's also difficult to compare placebo-control randomized study, like the industries followed these arguments over comparing placebo-controlled studies. So it's even more difficult to compare noncontrolled study. But I just want to say our expectations are that we will have a very active drug. I don't want to hide behind the impossibility to compare we expect that this mechanism is going to be on par with what dupilumab has shown and that's the bar for us without talking about numbers.

The next question is from Faisal Khurshid with Leerink.

Just want to ask on the doses for the Phase Ib and the Phase IIb. Are you able to confirm if the dose that you added to the Phase Ib is higher or lower than the dose that you originally went in with. And could you also confirm if like either or both of these doses are part of like the 3 that you've selected for Phase IIb?

So I don't want to get into the higher or lower, because I think whatever I say, it's going to be viewed one way or the other. What I can say is that both doses have been tested in the healthy volunteer studies. I don't want to talk about what our doses are for the IIb because I think we might choose to keep that, as I've said in other venues, to keep that close to the vest for as long as we can, only for competitive reasons. All I can say that we have several doses in the healthy volunteers that performed really well.

And so really, the main driver here are these doses going to perform as well in patients given that -- I actually don't remember the number, Bruce will know better, but we're spending tens, if not 100 plus millions of dollars in these 2 studies. And we're not going to optimize over -- for these studies on making or thinking that we selected the right doses. These are consequential decisions. And so given that we had the time to do it, we said, let's make sure. So that's really what's behind these. And I think once we'll share the data we can add a bit more color to work in first.

Got it. Makes sense. And then could you confirm if it's still 20 patients for the Phase Ib? And then also like between the 2 doses, would you like to? Or do you have to see a dose response between those 2 doses?

Great question. So I think what we said that the goal of the Ib was approximately 20 patients, and that's still the case. I don't want to get into the dose response. I think we will talk about it once we share the data.

The next question is from Alex Thomson at Stifel.

I guess another question on the NextGen STAT6. How different is the scaffold binding to STAT6 than 621? Is that a key part of this decision making? And when might you consider potentially splitting indications here? Is that a near-term decision? Or are you going to wait quite a while before that comes down?

Yes. So what I can say -- that's a great question, Alex. So we have several scaffolds, let's call it, across actually all [indiscernible], whether it's E3 ligase or it's STAT6. We have plenty of chemistry, some patterns are published from us as many have seen, there is plenty they haven't yet. So we have a plethora of chemistry in this program that covers everything that you can imagine. So maybe I'll leave at that.

On the indication splitting, it's a bit obviously challenging to think about that particular end game given kind of the evolving landscape right now in terms of pricing and reimbursement and global versus U.S. So I think we want to keep maximum optionality and that kind of the goal behind everything that we're doing. But it's difficult for us right now to at least disclose what's the latest thinking on that. But as we get closer to Phase III, which actually with the recent raise, hopefully was clear from our remarks earlier now with the money we have in hand, we can actually initiate multiple Phase III studies.

So I think as we get closer to those, we'll be able to disclose more about what our indication sequence and strategy will be.

The next question is from Tazeen Ahmad at Bank of America.

Going back to the data that you're going to have by year-end, I just wanted to ask, you talked about your expectations for what data you're going to show. Should we assume that you're also going to be able to show some level of itch data? I ask because some doctors have indicated that in addition to, let's say, EC scores, that is something that they feel is important when they're going to make a decision in a real-world setting about what potential options they might choose.

Yes. Tazeen, it's a great question. And as Jared said, yes, we will show easy prorates NRS. And so he is going to be an important factor. As you know, itch is -- probably has the biggest impact on quality of life of these patients and so it's something that we're watching very closely. So we will share that data as well.

And will that be for all the patients that you're going to show or it'll be a subset?

Well, I mean if we have collected the data, yes, so we'll share it. So yes, it should be all patients.

Next question is from Kelly Shi at Jefferies.

Congrats on the quarter. So one question on STAT6. Conjunctivitis is believed to be an on-target A year for DUPIXENT. So do you expect to see a similar level of conjunctivitis in KT-621 Phase Ib trial like in 1 or 2 patients, and also could a daily [indiscernible] differentiator in safety profile vessels versus injectables due to a potential [indiscernible] curve?

Maybe I'll start, and then I'll pass it to Jerry that can speak more to the medical part. I mean our view with Kymera is that STAT6 and hopefully, it's not just the here metastasis the selected transcription factor of IL-4 and IL-13, and we've shown pre clinically, early clinically and hopefully, will show in Q4 that if you block STAT6, you can [indiscernible] dupilumab.

So if conjunctivitis, which is actually mostly not only seen in atopic dermatitis patients, so it's really feature of the disease and these IL-4 and IL-13 biologics. So again, if congentivadis is an on-mechanism event -- adverse event for IL-4 and IL-13 biology, then we expect to see if it's to do with the receptor or the cytokines, then we wouldn't see it. So it's hard for us to know.

Maybe, Jared, you can speak to Also, is it seen after only 4 weeks. I don't know...

Yes. I mean, mechanistically, it's not really know why some patients, especially AD patients to develop conjunctivitis. If you look at the dupilumab studies, when you do see conjunctivitis, oftentimes, you'll see it within the first, say, 4 to 8 weeks or so of treatment. And then over time, it actually tends to diminish. It is an adverse event that one does see with dupi, it's not a dose-limiting adverse event and most of the case of dupi are sort of in the mild to moderate range.

I think importantly, we haven't seen it preclinically in our tox studies, we haven't seen in healthy volunteers, and we really wouldn't expect to see it there in healthy volunteers since this appears to be something unique to AD patients. But as Nello said, we don't have any reason to believe that we'd see either less or more 80 patients compared to what dupilumab has seen.

Yes, we're watching it because it's an interesting obviously, the feature of many of these drugs, right? It's not only dupilumab, all the IL-13 drugs have it. So we're watching that very closely and see if we see it in our 4-week studies. And we'll -- obviously, we'll share all the data in 4Q.

And then you talked about the safety difference between an oral daily and biologics. I mean from what we have both understood and what we've empirically derived in our preclinical studies, dupilumab is a very, very robust pathway blockade. I would compare the dupilumab [indiscernible] with blockade pretty much in line with the level of pack we blockade, we see from our 500-mig the complete degradation type of pathway blockade. I would put it on that kind of level of fact we blockade. So if that's the case, then I don't see why pathway blockade coming from STAT6 degradation should look different from [indiscernible] from an IL-4 receptor of blockade.

So anyway, I think that's another feature and another part of the analysis that we will do again. I'll repeat in our preclinical study in our adding the 4 month tox K-621 has been exceptionally well tolerated. So we'll continue to, again, watch everything that happens in the clinic.

Question is from Judah Frommer at Morgan Stanley.

Just one for us. I guess can you comment a little bit further on enrollment progress and the success you're having there and maybe what feedback is from investigators. Is the oral administration of the drug resonating. I'm curious if you think you'd have similar success if there were a placebo arm in a trial?

Yes, it's a great question. So the challenge of a 28-day study, remember, is that the patients are not going to be on the drug beyond day 28. We don't have an extension arm to the study. So it's -- I would say before we started the study, we were nervous because there are a huge amount of incentives for patients to come on to the study besides knowing there will be an active drug. And that's part of the reason why we decided not to have placebo, but we thought it would have had an impact on our enrollment rate.

As we expect part of us or our expectation was that patients do want an oral drug. And so I think we are seeing that. in our study and this has allowed us to meet our enrollment goal, I would say, even exceed our enrollment role for sure. And maybe that's where I'm going to leave it. I think once we start seeing more differentiation, it's probably going to be in the Phase IIb study where now you're offering 60 weeks, potentially [indiscernible], so that would be interesting to see our enrollment versus biologics and whether it's telling us also something about what patients are also looking for in the market.

The next question is from [indiscernible]

Congrats on the progress through the quarter. So I'll ask one non-STAT6 question. So congrats on your CDK partnership with Gilead I know this diversifies your pipeline into oncology, where you've been focused a little bit more on I&I in the recent past. But given the data we've seen so far with CDK2 inhibitors, can you talk a little bit about how you think the degrader could be differentiated based on the data that you have? And what the strategy of development is? And then I have a follow-up.

Yes. Thank you. So just to be clear, our discovery engine has been also very focused on immunology. We have programs that we were working on from the earlier days and one of our program wasn't CDK2. And so with our strategy shift to focus on developing immunology drug, we decided that it was best to place a very exciting CDK2 program from a development set standpoint in the hands of a partner that was committed to their space. So that's a bit to the strategy.

The reason why we have that program because we firmly believe that small molecule inhibitors of CDK2 are really not able to selectively target CDK2. They all inhibit to a large extent, CDK1 that pharmacologically active doses to different degrees. And that it leads to clinical doses that are probably not optimally blocking CDK2 again for the risk of beating CDK1.

Another important aspect for us to develop this drug was to have a brain-penetrant asset so that we would also address potential brain secondary tumor metastasis from breast cancer. And so our degraded program, [indiscernible] program is highly specific CDK2 also reaches the CNS. And we believe it's going to -- has the potential to be best in class. If I look at the small molecules out there, it's by far superior. Obviously, I'm not aware of the programs that are in early discovery, early development. So I can say obviously, for sure. But with regards to the development, that's a question you have to ask Gilead. We can't speak for them on that particular front.