Earnings call transcript: Zymeworks Q1 2025 sees revenue surge, minor stock dip

Zymeworks Inc. (ZYME) reported a significant increase in revenue for Q1 2025, rising to $27.1 million from $10 million in Q1 2024, primarily due to milestone payments from partners like GSK and Daiichi Sankyo. Despite the revenue growth, the company posted a net loss of $22.6 million, though this was an improvement from the $31.7 million loss in the previous year. The stock saw a minor dip of 0.18% in aftermarket trading, closing at $11.32. According to InvestingPro analysis, the company appears slightly undervalued at current levels, with a strong financial health score of 2.61 out of 5.

Key Takeaways

• Revenue increased significantly year-over-year due to milestone payments.
• Net loss narrowed from the previous year, showing improved financial management.
• Stock price remained relatively stable, indicating neutral investor sentiment.
• Strong cash position with a projected runway into the second half of 2027.
• Continued focus on oncology and immunology with promising pipeline developments.

Company Performance

Zymeworks showed robust revenue growth in Q1 2025, driven by milestone payments from strategic partnerships. The company’s focus on oncology and immunology, especially in targeting difficult-to-treat cancers, remains a key performance driver. Despite the net loss, the improvement from the previous year indicates better cost management and operational efficiency.

Financial Highlights

• Revenue: $27.1 million, up from $10 million in Q1 2024
• Net loss: $22.6 million, improved from $31.7 million in Q1 2024
• Cash resources: $321.6 million as of March 31, 2025

Outlook & Guidance

Zymeworks projects its cash resources will sustain operations into the second half of 2027. The company plans to submit an IND for ZW251 by mid-2025 and anticipates potential EMA approval for zanadatumab in biliary tract cancer. Future earnings are expected to be impacted by ongoing investments in clinical and preclinical programs.

Executive Commentary

CEO Ken Galbraith emphasized the importance of delivering real clinical progress, stating, "In today’s environment, where the biotech industry is undergoing a healthy reset, we believe that companies will create long-term value for shareholders are those that deliver real clinical progress on meaningfully new medicines." He also highlighted the company’s focus on execution and efficiency.

Risks and Challenges

• Continued net losses could impact investor confidence.
• Potential market saturation in the biotech sector.
• Dependence on milestone payments and partnerships for revenue growth.
• Regulatory hurdles for product approvals.
• Macroeconomic factors affecting biotech funding and investment.

Q&A

During the earnings call, analysts inquired about potential milestone revenues from partner programs and the company’s clinical development capacity. Zymeworks clarified its strategy for collaboration and highlighted preclinical data for its DLL3 and PTK7 programs, which are seen as promising areas for future growth.

Full transcript - Zymeworks Inc (ZYME) Q1 2025:

Conference Operator: Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to XyremWorks First Quarter twenty twenty five Results Conference Call and Webcast. As a reminder, all participants are in listen only mode and the conference is being recorded. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions.

I would now like to turn the conference over to Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Shonal, please go ahead.

Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations, Zymeworks: Thank you, operator, and good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining our first quarter twenty twenty five results conference call. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that we’ll be making a number of forward looking statements during this call, including without limitation, those forward looking statements identified in our slides and the accompanying oral commentary. Forward looking statements are based upon our current expectations and various assumptions and are subject to the usual risks and uncertainties associated with companies in our industry and at our stage of development. For a discussion of these risks and uncertainties, we refer you to our latest SEC filings that’s found on our website and as filed with the SEC.

In a moment, I’ll be handing over to Leon Patterson, our executive vice president and chief and business officer, who will be discussing recent business updates along with the financial results for our first quarter twenty twenty five. Following this, doctor Paul Moore, our chief scientific Officer, will give an overview of our recent R and D developments, including highlights from our poster presentations at the American Association for Cancer Research. At the end of the call, Leone, Paul and Ken Galbraith, our Chair and CEO, will be available for Q and A along with Doctor. Sabine McCann, our recently appointed Senior Vice President of Clinical Development. As a reminder, the audio and slides from this call will also be available on the Highmark website later today.

I will now turn the call over to Leone.

Leone Patterson, Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer, Zymeworks: Thank you, Shonal, and thank you all for joining us today. I’m pleased to walk you through our corporate and operational highlights for the first quarter of twenty twenty five. I’d like to begin by emphasizing that our performance this quarter reflects the discipline, focus and resilience of our business model. In the dynamic environment for innovative biotech companies, we continue to execute against our long term strategy and deliver meaningful progress across our portfolio. Our programs are moving towards clear, measurable clinical milestones with near term opportunities to validate our technology platforms and meaningful patient populations globally.

Throughout this period of continued progress, we have demonstrated our ability to operate at a high standard and provide value to shareholders while prudently managing our cash burn. We are also able to manage our cash burn going forward through active review and evaluation of our portfolio and development priorities. With this in mind and as previously highlighted by our management team, we are committed to an evidence based approach to pipeline management where decisions on investment and clinical development are tied to clear clinical and scientific validation. On the research and development front, we are honored to have our wholly owned pipeline represented at AACR annual meeting with six posters on preclinical data presented across our antibody drug conjugate and T cell engager pipeline. Paul will be taking us through key highlights from these posters later on today’s call.

We are also looking forward to presenting more preclinical data on our wholly owned pipeline at several upcoming medical conferences in the second quarter, including the American Thoracic Society Annual Meeting, where an abstract has been accepted for ZW1528, our novel IL4IL33 bispecific molecule. We will also be attending ASCO and ESMO gynecological cancer annual meetings where we will be presenting trial and progress posters on z w one seventy one and z w one ninety one, respectively. Similarly, our partner Jazz is also planning to present on these accepted abstracts on three sorry, accepted abstracts at ASCO on zanodatumab, including a four year follow-up of the five phase two of zanadatumab and metastatic DEA, which will provide further understanding of the long term outcomes and overall survival for zanadatumab plus chemotherapy in HER two positive advanced patients with metastatic DEA. This progress is further reflected in the announcement from Jazz in April 2025 that the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use or CHMP has adopted a positive opinion recommending the approval of zanadatumab for treatment of advanced HER two plus biliary tract cancer patients. A final decision is expected in the coming months.

Importantly, if approved, this could also represent an opportunity for an increase in royalty revenue for Xymeworks in the near future. We are also looking forward to the upcoming presentation by J and J at ASCO highlighting their Phase I data for a bispecific T cell engager engineered utilizing our asymmetric platform targeting a novel target KLK2 in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Some of you may have seen the preliminary data at AACR last week, and we’re encouraged by the early clinical activity and safety profile observed to date. It’s rewarding to see this program move forward, especially with such a difficult to treat patient population in need of novel targets. As a reminder, under the terms of the agreement in place with J and J for this product, the company remains eligible to receive development milestones of up to $86,000,000 commercial milestone payments of up to $373,000,000 and mid single digit royalties on commercial sales.

Turning to our financial position this afternoon, Zionworks reported financial results for the first quarter of twenty twenty five. Boneworks’ net loss for the three months ended 03/31/2025, was $22,600,000 compared to a net loss of $31,700,000 for the same period in 2024. The decrease in net loss was primarily due to an increase in revenue, which was partially offset by an increase in operating expenses, an increase in income tax expense and a decrease in interest income. As reported, our revenue for the three months ended 03/31/2025 was $27,100,000 compared to $10,000,000 for the same period in 2024. Revenue for the three months ended 03/31/2025, included $14,000,000 of milestone revenue from GSK in relation to a clinical milestone under our 2016 platform technology transfer and license agreement $3,100,000 of milestone revenue from Daiichi Sankyo following the first patient dose in the clinical trial related to our 2018 license agreement $9,600,000 for the development support and drug supply revenue in addition to the $200,000 of royalty income from Jazz and zero point two million dollars of drug supply revenue from Beijing.

These achievements underscore the strength of our foundational partnerships and the relevance of our platform across multiple products moving into clinical development by our partners. We are also hopeful that continued development by our collaboration partners will provide a future source of revenues for us. These revenues also reflect growing momentum for Zahera and demonstrate the value of our partnership strategy in expanding patient reach while helping us improve our financial efficiency. Overall, operating expenses were $52,700,000 for the three months ended 03/31/2025, compared to $47,300,000 for the same period in 2024, representing an increase of 10%. Research and development expense was $35,700,000 for the three months ended 03/31/2025, compared to thirty two million dollars for the same period in 2024, primarily driven by an increase in ZW251 and other preclinical research expenses, partially offset by reductions in costs on zanidatumab, zanidatumab vivototin, and GW one ninety one and GW two twenty.

General and administrative expenses was $17,000,000 for the three months ended 03/31/2025, compared to $15,800,000 for the same period in 2024, primarily due to an increase in stock based compensation expense. As of 03/31/2025, we had $321,600,000 of cash resources consisting of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities as compared to $324,200,000 as of 12/31/2024. We remain well capitalized. Based on our current operating plans, we expect our existing cash resources as of 03/31/2025, when combined with the assumed receipt of certain anticipated regulatory milestones, will enable us to fund planned operations as of the second half of twenty twenty seven, which should take us through multiple catalysts in our pipeline. For additional details on our quarterly results, I encourage you to review our earnings release and other SEC filings as available on our website at www.dimeworks.com.

With that, I’d like to hand over to our chief scientific officer, doctor Paul Moore.

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: Thanks, Leone, and good afternoon, everyone. As previously mentioned, we are pleased to have attended yet another productive AACR for Zymeworks this year with six posters presented by our team. The breadth of preclinical data presented across both our innovative multi specific antibodies and ADC programs highlights not just scientific progress, but the thoughtful diversification of our R and D strategy. Among the highlights, we’re especially encouraged by the preclinical data presented on ZW two zero nine, our most recent IND nominated oncology candidate with a planned IND submission in the first half of twenty twenty six. ZW two zero nine is a trispecific T cell engager targeting DLL3, a protein expressed in the cell surface of small cell lung cancer and other aggressive neuroendocrine tumors.

This trispecific T cell engager incorporates CD twenty eight co stimulation and has shown potent antitumor activity in preclinical models, including small cell lung cancer. These cancers are notoriously hard to treat, and while there’s been some success with the approval of tirlatumab in small cell lung cancer, ensuring the benefit of a bispecific approach for solid tumors, there is a clear need for next generation molecules that can approve the standard of care with broader and more durable responses. That’s where we believe ZW two zero nine stands out. We’ve designed two zero nine using our TriTCE CoSTIM platform, combined with our proprietary isometric and effect technologies to activate T cells in a more controlled and effective way. A key feature of our design is the obligate nature of CD28 engagement.

CD28 binding by two zero nine occurs only in the presence of simultaneous CD3 binding. This is shown clearly in the top left panel for control molecules with either CD three or CD 28 binding knocked out, demonstrate that CD 20 eight’s contribution is conditional on CD three engagement. This obligate co stimulation limits potential for unwanted T cell cross linking or fratricide, an important safety and specificity advantage of our TriTCE platform. Furthermore, the obligate nature of tumor engagement via DLL3 ensures that two zero nine’s activity is precisely focused where it’s needed. Additional data in our poster further supports this specificity.

What’s particularly encouraging is the strength and durability of the response we’re seeing in preclinical models. As shown in the middle top panel, the addition of CD28 enhances T cell fitness and robustness in the presence of DLL3 positive tumor cells. Compared to control molecules lacking CD twenty eight engagement and versus the clinical benchmark AMG seven fifty seven or talatamab, two zero nine provides more sustained tumor cytotoxicity across repeated rounds of stimulation, which is accompanied by expansion of T cells with memory phenotype. Under the more stringent condition of low effector to target ratios, the biological impact of two zero nine’s mediated T cell activation and co stimulation is reflected in the enhanced tumor site of toxicity across a range of DLL3 expressing model cell lines as shown in the bottom left hand panel. Here, two zero nine outperformed benchmark controls, including trilatumab, BIs T cell bispecific, Roche Juguis, DLL three CD three CD one thirty seven, trispecific.

Efficacy studies in xenograft models of DLL3 positive tumors engrafted either with human PBMCs or admixed with naive human T cells. Two zero nine exhibits antitumor activity with evidence of enhanced antitumor activity relative to terlatamab. Beyond the data shown here, our AACR poster further characterized the safety profile of two zero nine incorporating results from a dedicated mouse model of cytokine release syndrome, complementary in vitro cytokine release assays, and studies conducted in nonhuman primates. In the nonhuman primate studies, repeat dosing at ten mgs per kg was well tolerated, and two zero nine demonstrated an antibody like pharmacokinetic profile, a characteristic that can be associated with more predictable behavior in clinical settings. Taken together, these data reinforce the significance of the CD28 arm in driving deeper and more durable T cell responses while maintaining stringent control and safety through obligate engagement of both T cells DLL3 expressing tumor cells.

We’re excited about the trajectory of two zero nine as we work towards IND submission in the first half of twenty twenty six. In our earlier IND programs, we continue to focus on novel targets and customized modalities that we believe offer meaningful opportunities for therapeutic innovation. Two of these ADC programs revealed at AACR focus on ly6e and PTK7, both tumor associated antigens with limited expression and normal tissues and broad relevance across difficult to treat solid tumors. While we haven’t provided guidance on IND timelines for these programs, we continue to explore opportunities on how and when to advance these programs either internally or through thoughtful collaborations. For those of you less familiar, LISAC C is overexpressed in multiple indications of high unmet need, including non small cell lung cancer, triple negative breast cancer, head and neck cancer, and GI cancers.

Notably, LISAC c is expressed in the majority of patient samples across these indications, suggesting a potential for broad applicability while maintaining target specificity. Clinical validation of LISAC c as an ABC target has been recorded by clinical stage benchmark, DLYE5953A and MMAEEDAR4 based ADC from Genentech in breast cancer and non small cell lung cancer. Three twenty seven, which targets ly6e, utilizes Zymeworks’ novel 6,519 payload with a drug antibody ratio of eight, which enables strong cytotoxicity across a range of solid tumor indications. Consistent with our general approach to ADC design and care also in selection of antibody targeting arm, three twenty seven utilizes a novel humanized IgG1 antibody, which exhibits markedly superior LISC C binding, internalization, and steroid penetration relative to the LISC six antibody incorporated in the prior clinical stage program. As shown on the right, three twenty seven has demonstrated consistent in vitro target specific cytotoxicity across multiple cancer types.

This activity is observed in these broad range of indications and is consistently superior to the benchmark with a likewise improvement also observed in xenograft models in vivo. These findings underscore the potential of three twenty seven to deliver more consistent and deeper response in LysEx expressing cancers regardless of baseline expression levels, an important consideration given the heterogeneity often seen in tumors. On the safety side, three twenty seven was well tolerated in a non GLP tox study in nonhuman primates. Exposure levels exceeded those projected to be efficacious, and the maximum tolerated dose was established at or above sixty mgs per kg. Observed clinical effects were limited to transient reductions in body weight and food intake post dosing for no serious adverse events.

Altogether, these data built a compelling case for 03/27 as a differentiated therapeutic candidate targeting lysoxceed and a first in class opportunity for Zymeworks. Moving on to slide 12, PTK7 is a transmembrane protein that is overexpressed in a range of solid tumors, including non small cell lung, triple negative breast, ovarian, esophageal, colorectal, head and neck and cervical cancers. Previous clinical data with PTK7 targeting ADCs have demonstrated evidence of antitumor activity, albeit limited in several of these indications, reinforcing PTK7 as a validated ADC target. Structurally, PTK7 offers a large multi domain extracellular region that enables the development of antibodies against distinct non overlapping epitopes and the opportunity to develop bipyretopic ADCs as a solution to enhance payload delivery. Depending on the target antigen, monoparatopic ADCs may not deliver as much payload into cancer cells as biparatopic ADCs, and this may have contributed to the modest activity seen with previous PTK7 targeting ADCs, thus opening the door to biparatopic formats and other modular based approaches including next generation ADCs targeting PTK7.

Biparatopic antibodies offer several advantages over traditional monoparatopic designs. By binding two distinct sites in the same antigen, they can enhance receptor clustering, increase cell surface retention, improve internalization, factors that are particularly important in EDC design. These properties can translate to more efficient payload delivery, increased cytotoxicity, and increased cytotoxicity in tumor cells. Importantly, we bring deep experience in designing, developing and advancing biparatopic antibodies through our work with zanadatumab. Zanadatumab, a biparatopic HER2 target antibody, has demonstrated meaningful clinical activity and validated the potential of biparatopic approaches, as well as providing clinical validation for our proprietary esometric platform, not just from a biological standpoint, but also in the terms of manufacturability.

This gives us confidence that our biparatopic PTK7 ADC program can benefit from both proven mechanistic advantages and our deep experience in utilizing our established scalable platform. In preclinical studies, we’ve observed improved antibody binding and higher internalization in PTK seven expressing cell lines compared to conventional formats. This enhanced uptake has resulted in greater payload delivery and corresponding cytotoxicity activity supporting the value of bioparatopic targeting in this context. From a pharmacokinetic and tolerability standpoint, the data are also compelling. In nonhuman primates, our PTK seven biparatopic ADC was well tolerated at doses up to sixty mgs per kg.

No mortality or adverse clinical signs were observed, and any change in hepatology or chemistry were minor and transient. Pandemic effects were consistent with expected class effects and not considered dose limiting. These findings suggest that our bipolar topic ADC may offer a differentiated profile, particularly in tumors where PTK7 is broadly expressed or where internalization has historically been a limiting factor. We look forward to continued optimization work in evaluating this approach across relevant clinical model preclinical models. Lastly, moving on to our poster presentation on ZW171, a mesothelin targeting T cell engager demonstrating enhanced safety anti tumor activity in a range of mesothelin expressing cancers.

As you know, we have reported the first patient dosed in October 2024 for our first in human phase one trial, which is continuing to recruit across sites in The US, UK and South Korea. I’ll touch on the ongoing trial in a couple of slides. 171 is engineered with a lower affinity CD3 binding arm, which is designed to reduce the likelihood of indiscriminate T cell activation and cytokine release, especially in the absence of high mesothelin expression. Many T cell engagers with high CD three affinity like earlier generation one plus one formats have triggered systemic CRS because they activate T cells even when target engagement is weak or off tumor. In head to head preclinical comparisons, one hundred seventy one has demonstrated superior cytotoxicity versus other next generation mesothelin targeting bispecifics.

Importantly, this enhanced tumor cell killing comes with improved selectivity. We’ve observed reduced non specific T cell binding relative to other programs in this space, a feature that may contribute to a more favorable safety profile. In the middle column, can see that one hundred seventy one exhibits selective and high affinity binding to tumor cells expressing high levels of mesothelin while showing minimal binding to cells with low mesothelin expression. Importantly, one hundred seventy one maintains low affinity for CD3, which is a deliberate design choice to reduce off target T cell activation and improve safety. This profile underscores its ability to preferentially target tumors while sparing normal tissues with minimal mesothelin expression.

Moving to the cytotoxicity data on the right, one hundred seventy one continues to demonstrate potent and selective tumor cell killing in high, mesothelin high settings but not in low mesothelin expressing cells compared to benchmark molecules including AMG three zero five, CT 95 and the GNJ bispecific comparator. ZW171171 consistently shows equal or superior cytotoxicity across a panel of tumor cell lines with varying levels of mesothelin expression, particularly at low effector to target ratios which more closely reflects conditions in the tumor microenvironment. As you can see on the left hand side of this slide, in a large panel of tumor cell lines, including those that shed soluble mesothelin, one hundred seventy one maintained strong antitumor potency. Notably, no correlation was observed between the amount of shed mesothelin and one hundred seventy one’s efficacy, underscoring the robustness of its mechanism of action. These findings support our hypothesis that our two plus one design sustains activity in the presence of shed mesothelin through avidity dependent mesothelin binding on high MID expressing tumor cells.

What also stands out as depicted in the graphs on the right hand side of the slide is that one hundred seventy one also demonstrated cytotoxicity, T cell activation and cytokine release in more complex translationally relevant patient derived xenograft models containing endogenous tumor infiltrating lymphocytes as well as in vivo xenograft models. These data support further the potential of one hundred seventy one to drive meaningful responses in mesothelin expressing tumors, particularly in challenging tumor microenvironments. Together, these data reinforce our confidence in one hundred seventy one’s potential to deliver meaningful therapeutic benefit while demonstrating a favorable tolerability profile. With our phase one clinical trials in mind, both studies for 171 and 191 remain on track and are recruiting well across sites. This slide highlights the breakdown of currently activated clinical sites by geographic region.

Our global clinical trial footprint is a key component of our strategy to move efficiently through early development. By engaging sites across multiple geographies within and outside The United States, we’re able to maintain momentum in enrollment while optimizing the use of clinical supply and supporting streamlined operational execution. Looking ahead, we do plan to present trial and progress posters for both one hundred seventy one and one hundred ninety one at upcoming peer reviewed medical conferences in the second quarter, as Leonie mentioned earlier. And with that, I will hand over to Ken to conclude today’s call and open up the call for Q and A.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Thank you, Paul, and good afternoon, everyone. We hope that from the remarks made on today’s call, it’s very clear that our R and D organization continues to deliver on its core mandate, advancing a pipeline rooted in translational science and focused on meaningful clinical outcomes while providing multiple near term catalysts for potential shareholder value creation. The six poster presentations at AACR this year reflect the depth of that work, spanning early and mid stage candidates across multiple modalities. This includes our multi specific NADC platforms, which are enabling us to target a diverse set of tumor antigens with increasingly refined approaches. We remain on track to submit our IND for ZW251 by mid-twenty twenty five, an important milestone for that program and for our broader strategy of building a portfolio with the potential to address unmet needs across oncology and immunology.

Our focus on execution also extends to leadership. In April, we welcomed Doctor. Sabine McCann as our senior vice president of clinical development. Her experience across hematology and oncology in both academic and industry settings with Gilead, Daiichi Tsankyo, and Bristol Myers Squibb will support our clinical stage candidates and help shape our global development and regulatory strategy. Doctor.

Jeff Smith, who joined Zymers in 2023, will continue to serve as executive VP and CMO, where he leads our emerging R and D portfolio in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases as well as our global clinical development operations. In addition, Barbara Schaeffler, who joined Zymerx in 2024, has been promoted to senior vice president of clinical development operations. Together, they will play a pivotal role in shaping the clinical development strategy for our portfolio to support our advancing pipeline. Financially, we remain well capitalized with $321,600,000 in cash and equivalents at the end of the first quarter and projected runway into the second half of twenty twenty seven when our existing cash resources are combined with assumed receipt of certain anticipated regulatory milestones. Our lower cash operating burn for the first quarter was aided by clinical progress made by our partners.

These platform partnerships are a core part of our strategy to broaden patient impact while maintaining capital efficiency, and we’re encouraged by the momentum our partners are generating. Overall, we’ve executed steadily on our long term strategy, advancing a diverse pipeline of ADCs and CECL engagers, staying disciplined financially and positioning the organization for meaningful progress in the years ahead. On this slide, we piloted multiple near term catalyst events in 2025, most notably with the Phase III top line data readout for zanadatumab in the Horizon GEA-one study. As you know, an eventual approval of this indication would trigger a significant cash milestone payment for TimeWorks as well as contribution to an increase in ongoing royalty revenue, which has tiered up to 20% of net sales from JETS. Before we conclude, I want to leave you with a few final thoughts.

In today’s environment, where the biotech industry is undergoing a healthy reset, we believe that companies will create long term value for shareholders are those that deliver real clinical progress on meaningfully new medicines, make disciplined capital decisions, and maintain a focus on operational execution. That is the approach we’ve taken since 2022 when I took over as chair and CEO and implemented fundamental strategic changes at Zionworks. During the remainder of 2025 and into 2026, we look forward to seeing the results of our chosen strategic direction and updating you on our progress along the way. We are advancing multiple differentiated programs based on strong biology and meaningful patient needs, and we have clear near term milestones that we believe will continue to validate both our scientific platform and our operating strategy. Based on our current operating plans, we remain funded through key catalysts on our wholly owned pipeline as well as partnerships with leading pharmaceutical organizations, and we are prioritizing investments towards programs that have the highest potential to drive value creation and impact patients’ lives.

Governance and operational discipline remain central to everything we do. Our board brings diverse independent perspectives with deep expertise in drug development and biotech value creation. Together, we hold ourselves accountable to delivering against clear, data driven goals and to making difficult decisions when necessary. As we move forward, our focus is on execution, efficiency and clinical validation, and we look forward to sharing continued progress in the quarters ahead. Thank you.

And I’d now like to turn the call over to the operator to begin the question and answer session. Operator?

Conference Operator: We’ll now begin the question and answer session. To join the queue, you will now may press star then one one on your telephone keypad. You will hear a tone acknowledging your request. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing any keys. And our first question comes from the line of Charles Zhou of LifeSci Capital.

Your line is now open.

Charles Zhou, Analyst, LifeSci Capital: Hello, everyone. Thanks for the call, the updates and for the questions. Great to hear the emphasis, the continued emphasis on cash burn discipline. Maybe my first question here, as you look towards prioritizing assets and indications for development across your broad preclinical and early clinical pipe pipeline. Perhaps what are some of your base case assumptions with respect to back end milestone royalty revenues that you may receive from, you know, assets with, let’s call it, a possible wide range of outcomes like ZANEZ, ZANE, DAT, DATEMAP across some of these indications at over at your partners?

And and how do they factor into your into your prioritizations in terms of, like, scenario analysis? Thank you.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Yeah. Thanks for the the question, Charles. And I guess, you know, as I said in my closing remarks, you know, I think capital allocation is an important biotech skill to have going along with with clinical execution and great science. And and we will practice appropriate capital allocation with our board as we put ourselves in position to receive additional capital in, whether it’s milestones or from from any other source. Obviously, we’re we’re quite excited about the progress being made by Jazz and Beijing.

We’re we’re as anxious and excited to see the Horizon g a o one data results later this year as well as continuing to see the progress on the additional clinical studies that Jazz and Beijing have underway. And, certainly, there’ll be a financial important an important financial piece for us in that progress, and I think we’ll have to act with capital allocation properly along the way with our board, as I said. In addition to that, you know, we’re now seeing some of the the technology partnerships that we started many years ago starting to push forward really interesting clinical stage assets. Obviously, we’re really looking forward to the ASCO presentation by Johnson and Johnson of their k l k two c d three T cell engager in prostate cancer, which which again was made with in collaboration with us with our asymmetric platform. And so therefore, have a financial interest in in the ultimate success of that of that product as well as hoping it makes a a big leap forward for patients.

And so I think as we do think about that funding that may come in at a later stage, we’ll we’ll make the appropriate decisions to to allocate capital to continue to to build our R and D portfolio where where it deserves it, when clinical data usually sorts that out, as well as make the right decisions as we did last year about returning capital to shareholders where we found ourselves in a position to do that and believe that that would boost total shareholder return. So I think we’re well suited situated right now with the board that I have and the internal discipline inside the company to make those appropriate capital allocation decisions as they’re necessary. I think we’ve already shown the ability to to do that with our capital allocation last year back to shareholders as well as some of the changes we’ve made in in r and d priorities even even last quarter. So I I feel very comfortable we’ll make those appropriate decisions for shareholders as they’re necessary.

Charles Zhou, Analyst, LifeSci Capital: Got it. Great. Great to hear. And my second question on much, much narrower in scope. But Paul, thank you very much for walking us through each of those preclinical assets.

Maybe very quickly on z w two zero nine, the d l l three T cell engager that you guys have. You know, especially as apps like tartarlimab continue to move into earlier and earlier lines of small cell lung cancer, and, we all know the profile of tarpolotamab. Could you also remind us about some of the cytokine induction data that you’ve, I guess, produced, with your DLL three, and what are some of the implications there with things like size and kind release syndrome? Thank you.

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: Yeah. I know. Thanks, Charles. Yeah. So what’s what what we’ve done just, you know, as as a reminder is we’ve designed a molecule that can engage c d three and c d 28 and DLL three, and the engagement of c d 28 only happens when you’ve engaged c d three.

So we think that profile is a very favorable profile compared to other approaches where you would combine a CD 28 bispecific say with a CD three bispecific where there you may have to be more broad in your CD 28 activation, hit more T cells which can actually then trigger more broad cytokine profile across a broader number of T cells. What we’re doing is really only engaging the CD 28 when you’ve engaged CD three. So a more limited T cell will be activated when you’ve engaged DLL3. And we think that, well, that generates a cytokine response that will incorporate co stimulation which will be addition to what you get with just simply CD3 activation. That will be a more localized activation of T cells.

And we think the benefit of the therapeutic benefit will actually really play out well in increasing the therapeutic index that we see with the balanced limited localized impact on T cells. And that’s gonna reflect it then in our nonhuman primate studies where we’ve done various studies and we’ve also done studies in fully humanized mice that are used as models for CD 20 activation and we really see a limited, you know, off target profile there. So that’s kind of an important thing to bear in mind when you think about our molecule. It’s quite different than, say, other approaches others have used. And we definitely are thinking about limiting that cytokine release to, you know, where it’s needed.

And yeah.

Charles Zhou, Analyst, LifeSci Capital: Great. Thanks for taking the questions, and congrats again on all the progress.

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: Thanks.

Conference Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Brian Chang of JPM. Your line is now open.

Brian Chang, Analyst, JPM: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking our questions this afternoon. Maybe first, just on quickly on sanisdatumab. As we glean from the subset analysis of KEYNOTE-eight 11 that focused on Asian versus non Asian efficacy, We’re just curious what your thoughts are on how ex US patients in the phase three Horizon GEA could impact the powering and the outcome on PFS and OS. Do you think the the trial is derisk on both endpoints?

And I have a quick follow-up. Thank you.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Yeah. Thanks, Brenna. I I think one of our KOLs addressed this even at our R and D Day in in December, and and we continue to explore this with with KOLs from the time that we started that study. And I and I think in general, what they’ve seen across multiple studies is in the main, not not really a significant difference in efficacy across ethnicities of patients overall. I know as we’re starting to see additional sub analysis from the QN-eight 11 study now that they do have to produce some of that data for for various pricing and reimbursement purposes, There is a slight there is a slight difference in that in that study between Asian and non Asian subjects.

If you look at it, I think on the Asian subject components of the ITP, which is about 200 patients, We saw Asian subjects on that study do better on both arms of the study than non Asian subjects. I’m not sure we know what to make of that, whether that’s the smaller size of that subpopulation at 200 or other anomalies. I’m not I’m not sure, but it is a little unusual to to see that. I think if you look at all the other studies and look at them on a combined basis, RKL is accepted. There’s not there shouldn’t really be much difference in the end in efficacy across a wide set of patients.

Obviously, ROSIN G1 has, you know, well more than 300 clinical trial sites, very diverse globally, very diverse from an ethnicity standpoint, although prevalence of GA, as you know, is much higher in Asian markets, so we will have inclusion in those markets as well. But I’m not sure what to make of the subpopulation we could have. We didn’t we didn’t execute that study, and we don’t have enough details to really understand why Asian subjects did better on both arms of that study compared to nonpatient subjects. So we’ll we’ll have to let the KOL to publish that study, explain to you some of

Robert Burns, Analyst, H.C. Wainwright: that data in light of the day.

Brian Chang, Analyst, JPM: Got it. And, maybe just one quick follow-up. Just going back to the J and J assets, the KLK2 bispecific with CD3, what’s the expectation on the prostate update at ASCO? And I recall that there is a plan to move forward into a later stage study. Can you maybe remind us how, you know, the partnership works from, you know, from a dollar perspective?

Thank you.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Yeah. I mean, our our technology partnership with J and J, I think, is outlined publicly. Again, it wasn’t our target, but they brought that to our asymmetric platform because they didn’t have a way to build a bispecific against k l k two. So we did that using asymmetric, which is obviously the the same platform we use designed with data map and some our other T cell engagers. And and that, from what I saw as a teaser at AACR, it looks quite interesting, and we’re looking forward to that data.

Our further financial assist in this program is we we are entitled to other milestones based on progression of development stage. So we’re we’re interested to see what happens beyond the phase one data they’ll publish at at ASCO and what their intentions are, and and we’ll listen to that. In addition, we have a a mid single digit royalty on sales of KLK two c three. And I think with positive data, I think they they seem very encouraged from the public comments I’ve seen from J and J that this could be a very significant product for them and a significant improvement in standard of care for patients. And so we’ll follow that very closely.

Obviously, the value of the remaining royalties and milestones would be very interesting for us as this program progresses beyond the phase one study.

Brian Chang, Analyst, JPM: Great. Thank you, Ken.

Conference Operator: Yes. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Steven Wiley of Stifel. Your line is now open.

Steven Wiley, Analyst, Stifel: Yeah. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. I know you’ve been a little bit hesitant to give guidance around when we might see 171 and 191 data. I know it’s not included in the list of catalyst that you guys have itemized in the slide, and I understand that you guys have kind of pointed to a desire to present more fulsome data at at peer reviewed settings.

But just curious if you’re intending to provide some level of communication with respect to reaching certain dose escalation or dose expansion milestones. And I guess I asked the question because there’s a lot of interest around the progress being made on one nine one just giving the the same novel linker payload is is is being leveraged across a variety of different wholly owned programs.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Yeah. Thank you. It’s not that we’re hesitant to provide guidance. We just don’t think it’s it’s appropriate at this stage. Obviously, we these programs are still early.

You know, we’re very encouraged so far by the speed of our phase one study. We we had this idea of building a larger, globally diversified footprint of clinical sites so that we could find quality patients quickly in the dose escalation stage. And so far, that that’s working as well as we could have ever hoped to do. I think we’re encouraged by the, you know, the early data we’ve seen. It’s early.

So so far, we’ve had no surprises in, you know, translation from our preclinical hypothesis in clinical studies. That being said, it’s still early in that process. I think we do want to make sure that when as we prepare for some peer reviewed some data, we do present a peer reviewed forum, that it’s the appropriate time when we can make some conclusions that are important to to share. And I think the guidance we had before is still what hold. I think as soon as we think that’s appropriate, we’ll we’ll file for an abstract to be presented at a meeting.

And once that abstract held is made public, that will be the the guidance. And I’m sorry we won’t give more than that, but I I think that’s just the appropriate appropriate thing to do. We we don’t want to to, you know, do that at an IR event or a corporate event. We think the peer review section is the way to do that. But, again, don’t don’t let that think that we’re not really encouraged by our progress to date.

Excited that it’s going apace. Again, as there’s changes to be made on ClinicalTrials.gov and those progress, you’ll you’ll be able to see those as they’re made in ClinicalTrials. And the guidance we’d give is just to look forward to an abstract title if the appropriate time frame was accepted, and and then we’re happy to talk about it at that point. But until then, I just we just don’t inside the company think it’s it’s appropriate to get too far ahead of yourself in an early early phase one studies, and so you’ll just have to wait for any time of guidance or or timing for that.

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: Okay. That’s fair.

Steven Wiley, Analyst, Stifel: And then just I know you’ve talked about having a finite amount of clinical development capacity in house for the wholly owned programs, and that kind of forces you to, you know, make, certain capital allocation and strategic decisions with respect to each of these programs. But is the clinical development infrastructure or capacity, is that something that you’re willing to flex outwards depending upon the the, success of of Xanny and the triggering of specific milestones from Jazz? Is there a situation where, you know, you’re enamored with your wholly owned portfolio beyond the capacity that you have and, some of those additional funds can trigger an expansion of of of that infrastructure to accommodate the growing pipeline? Thanks.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Yeah. No. Good question. You know, I mean, right now, we’re, you know, really happy with what we rebuilt at the networks to to execute these phase one programs. And and so far, they’re they’re going as quickly as they want.

Really encouraged with the way that we decided to do this. We built out a new slide deck, a pretty large number of clinical sites in a significant number of countries before I go with escalation, but that that’s just to allow us then to move quickly and follow data to the next to the next step. And I think for 01/1991, those programs are moving very quickly, and we wanna make sure that we have resources available to move quickly to follow data where it tells us to go. I think we’re well situated to do that. We’re obviously putting two fifty one into the clinic coming up here pretty shortly, and I feel comfortable with our ability to execute that program in the same fast way with good quality investigators in a large footprint the way we have with +1 71 and one nine one.

So so far, that that’s not that’s not an issue. I think our execution has been really good operationally, and that clinical excuse is an important skill of biotech. I think we we have that right now. I don’t wanna mess too much with that in terms of diluting talent or changing the way that we’re doing that. But I think as we have other agents which are able to move in the clinic, I don’t I don’t think it’ll be a limiting factor right now the way that we’ve designed it.

So I feel really comfortable with the capital we’re putting against it, the resources we have against it, the speed we have, the clarity, and our ability to move quickly to the next the next stage in clinical development for those programs when it’s when the data suggests to us that it’s time to to do that. So so far, I don’t need more capital to do that. If if we needed that, then we’ll make the appropriate capital allocation decision around the investment criteria we have inside the company about about where to allocate that. So so far, feel really happy about where we are in our execution, and and we’ll continue to be able to do that without putting additional capital at risk to build a bigger bigger infrastructure. Got it.

Steven Wiley, Analyst, Stifel: Thanks for taking the questions.

Charles Zhou, Analyst, LifeSci Capital: Yeah. Thanks.

Conference Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Jonathan Miller of Evercore ISI. Your line is now open.

Jonathan Miller, Analyst, Evercore ISI: Great. Thanks so much for taking the question guys and congrats on the progress. Maybe just building on that previous question a little bit. Obviously, you’ve got a large internal pipeline and as we’ve heard more about at AACR and again today, a lot of potential programs that you could add to either development collaborations or your internal pipeline if and when the time comes. How many, I know we’ve discussed this obliquely in the past, but how many programs can you support early development for internally?

And what is the gating factor on external collaborations? I know those take work for XymeWorks as well. How many molecules could you have across the portfolio whether they’re internal and external? Trying to get a sense for when those things we heard about at AACR could become more relevant to the to the story.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Yeah. No. Great great question, John. You know, I think in building out our clinical infrastructure, you know, we’ve built it in a way that we, you know, we believe we could we could handle with the existing build out we have now probably around five internal programs ourselves through phase one. So that you know, we’re we’re kind of within that bandwidth now with the currently declared candidates.

I think on a preclinical basis, if you look at us translating molecules to the clinic, we we could probably handle about about 10 at any one time, including the the clinical candidates. So we’ve got a pretty reasonable bandwidth to handle the portfolio. We we obviously have a a substantial amount of substrate in our preclinical programs of really interesting molecules that we think are all different, and and we just you know, we make the choices which we hope improves the quality of the the clinical portfolio that we have. To date, we’ve been doing this all on our own and keeping all of those assets unencumbered. We do evaluate partnerships on a regular basis and look at where collaborations might allow us to to go more quickly, provide some funding, provide some clinical resources, which means we don’t have to utilize our internal resources.

And we’ll we’ll keep making those decisions. So I think for some of those newer disclosures you could make, you know, we’re evaluating whether we could do that internally. We’re evaluating whether a collaborative approach might allow us to to do that. So far, we’ve not had attrition in our in our portfolio that we caused, you know, the two twenty at IND just to make sure we weren’t taking on too much. So I think right now, feel comfortable with the pace of our of our, you know, clinical development nominations to be something that we can execute on in a in a proper way, and we’re doing that now for 01/2019.

We’re gonna expect two five one to go as quickly when it transitions to the clinic, and we’ll evaluate some collaborative opportunities that might put us in a position to be able to advance some of those other programs without requiring capital investment for ourselves and without acquiring taking up some of the time regarding for resources to move things forward either to IND or or in early clinical studies. That’s the thing we evaluate on a on a regular a regular basis. And as we make decisions about collaborations that become public, then I think we’ll be able to discuss more about that. Hope that answered your your question.

Jonathan Miller, Analyst, Evercore ISI: Yes, sure. Absolutely. Thanks so much.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Yes. No, thank you.

Conference Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Andrew Berens of Leerink Partners. Your line is now open.

Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations, Zymeworks0: Hi, everyone. This is Amanda on for Andrew Berens. Thanks for taking our question. Maybe just one from us. At AACR, had a poster on a relatively new ADC target, the LY6E.

And it looks like at least one other ADC with this target has had initial Phase I data publicly disclosed. I just wanted to get a little bit more color on what gives you confidence in this target and in your asset over the others out there. Thanks.

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: Yeah. No. That thanks for asking that question. Yeah. You’re absolutely right.

There there had been a prior program against that target, and that clinical data had been reported against LIS succeed. There, you know, the payload was different, and the antibody was very different. So one of the things that we realized or our team realized with that target was the opportunity to really optimize both antibody and the payload. And so what we’re deploying on the payload side is a different payload. It’s a propyl payload, you know, in the field that has kind of gained a lot of momentum, and and and we think that that is a for this target and the expression profile of that target, we think there’s room there for for a total payload module.

And, of course, we have our our payload that we’ve got that’s been selected for optimal, you know, properties that we believe are needed. And then equally important for this target, the antibody selectivity and and getting an antibody. We spent a lot of time with our team, you know, was focused on getting an antibody that’s really, you know, a lot significantly better at payload delivery and internalization. And that was kind of described in the poster, and that’s benchmarked against that prior molecule. So we think that will give us, you know, an advantage on its performance.

And what was encouraging though from the original preclinical data was there was evidence of clinical responses. You know, they weren’t optimal, but also the target seemed to be relatively, you know, safe target for an ADC. And with our enhanced antibody and with our, you know, preferred payload, when we’ve modeled that in synovial monkeys, we also see a very favorable tolerability profile. So that kind of together with the efficacy that’s, you know, significantly better and the tolerability, we just think is, you know, a nice recipe for a a real game changer, best in class molecule against this target.

Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations, Zymeworks1: Got it. Thanks so much.

Conference Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Akash Dobari of Jefferies. Your line is now open.

Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations, Zymeworks1: Hi. This is Phoebe on for Akash. In your preclinical models with your total ADCs, you’re able to get to max doses, which are meaningfully higher than what you’ve seen with Inhercu. Is there any concern that your toxins could potentially not be potent enough? And, additionally, if you could provide any color on what your go forward doses are for z w one nine one and two five one, that’d be great.

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: No. Sure. Yeah. No. Good question.

And we’ve we’ve actually done a lot of benchmarking of our payload with the HER two payload or doroxetine. We see actually in preclinical models very comparable efficacy profile, both along a lot of in vitro data and then also in vivo data graph models. So I think we’re we’re very confident, you know, based on the the preclinical models that we have, the necessary efficacy that’s that’s in the same range as the ruxepiCAM based payloads. What was the second question then?

Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations, Zymeworks1: Any color on go forward doses for one nine one and two five? Yeah.

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No.

I we can’t at least specify those. But as you as you, you know, alluded to the fact that we have this very high tolerability dose in nonhuman primates that enables us to to guide or or start with a higher starting dose in patients. And, you know, that’s you know, that would be the typical approach anyone developing ADC would do, and we’re, you know, can assume that we would be consistent with that.

Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations, Zymeworks1: Got it. Thank you.

Conference Operator: Thanks. Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Igal Nochomovitz of Citigroup. Your line is now open.

Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations, Zymeworks2: Yeah. Hi. Thank you. Paul, I I see you did the the comp analysis versus the Amgen molecule for the for your DLL three. Did you also look at how how two zero nine performs against some of the the DLL three ADCs out there, of which there are a few?

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: Mhmm. Yeah. We haven’t we haven’t done that. I mean, the models are a little bit different for that. So in this case, for for that, we tend to compare against similar modalities.

We certainly are aware of the attraction of ADC approaches also for, you know, for tumors. So that’s why we’re doing ADCs. And, you know, there, we, you know, we are aware of what the competitive space is there. In this case, for small cell lung cancer, we felt, you know, on the backs of, you know, the the encourage you know, the data from Amgen and the the ability to get these more durable responses, that really was an attraction here for us focusing on the T cell engager approach. But but we certainly keep our keep ourselves aware of the ADC approaches there too.

And that you know? But, you know, doing the head to head comparisons, it’s not not so easy to do those in the same models. It’s different kind of models.

Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations, Zymeworks2: Okay. What’s your sort of more general view, though, in terms of the strategy of the T cell engager versus the ADC for this particular target?

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: Yeah. I think here in this particular target, we really like this as a target to to to evaluate with our costim platform. And so, you know, we have the terlatumab sort of proof of concept for T cell engager. So that was partly why we we went there with a T cell approach. We certainly have we could have done ADC, but in this case, we felt this type of tumor type and this target, you know, the weighted data was more made more sense to go with a T cell approach.

And then, of course, we we tried you know, we did our preclinical studies, and the data that we’ve seen with the preclinical data study just really encourages us to continue on that path towards the clinic. So that was that was a driver there. Certainly when we think about a therapeutic indication, we will evaluate both an ADC and a T cell engager, and and we will you know, we do see benefit perhaps sometimes of having both approaches available, but we think in this case for DLL three, this was this is a very obvious target to do with the T cell engager with the CD twenty eight co stimulation.

Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations, Zymeworks2: Okay. Thank you.

Conference Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Derek Archila of Wells Fargo. Your line is now open.

Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations, Zymeworks1: Hi. This is Yvonne on for Derek. Thanks for taking our question. A quick one from us. So are there any learnings from one seven one or one nine one development that could be applied to optimize or expedite the development of your other ADC or T cell engager candidates?

Thanks.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Yeah. Go go ahead, Paul.

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: Yeah. No. Definitely for sure. I mean, I think we put a lot of learnings, like, into the clinical design. You know, we are able to leverage learnings from other ADCs and other T cell engagers.

And, certainly, as we, you know, move forward, other ADCs and T cell engagers will learn from what we’ve done ourselves. So so we’re always layering in that kind of knowledge base there. We’ll sort of reveal more in the trials and progress posters this year that are that are, you know, already scheduled to to be presented. And you’ll see there, we we can give you a little more color on that, and you can then maybe see from that how we may also, you know, continue that types these types of strategies in in other programs. But can’t really say much more than that just now.

Shonal Anabdar, Senior Director of Investor Relations, Zymeworks1: Alright. Thanks.

Conference Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. And our next question comes from the line of Robert Burns of H. C. Wainwright.

Congrats

Robert Burns, Analyst, H.C. Wainwright: on the data that you presented at AACR. Just two for me, if I may. So given the repeat challenge assay data for for 02/2009 as well as the in vivo data and then and factoring in I’m Delta’s move into the frontline indicate frontline setting for SCLC in combination with AstraZeneca’s Imfinzi. I was curious to get your thoughts as to how you see the impact of earlier utilization of Imdultra on the efficacy of two zero nine in the later phase scenario.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Yeah. Go ahead.

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: Yeah. Yeah. No. I think definitely when we’ve been thinking about the design of our molecules, obviously obviously, we need to stage our clinical testing, but we do see the ability of a T cell engager strategy to really move the needle in small cell lung cancer. And we think that Amgen data, the tarlatumab data, you know, bodes well.

But I think then in the design of your molecule, you can enhance the efficacy, enhance the durability of response, potentially broaden the response rate, that’s what you’re trying to do with this next generation molecule that we’ve developed. And I think that, you know, as well as the efficacy, we are very careful on tolerability. You’ve seen that in our ADC approach. I think you’ve seen that in our one seven one approach, and that’s also reflected in 02/2009 where we really think about tolerability so that we can ultimately combine it with, you know, potentially standard of care once you’ve established monotherapy data. So heading towards that, getting the best benefit for patients is, you know, is kind of wired into into our thinking on the design of our our our molecules.

Okay.

Robert Burns, Analyst, H.C. Wainwright: Awesome. Thank you for that. And one more question. So the p t k seven targeted agent, obviously, you know, we saw the comparator in vivo data that that you presented. Was one of those compound one of the the comparative preclinical compounds, one of the ones that White Hawk Therapeutics is advancing?

And if not, how do you view that competitive agent, that competitor agent relative to your PTK seven targeted ADC? Thank you.

Dr. Paul Moore, Chief Scientific Officer, Zymeworks: Yeah. We we use cocatuzumab as the comparator. You know, that was the prior clinical benchmark, and, you know, we there, what we were really trying to demonstrate was the improvement you can get with a biparatopic. We also had our own lead monoclonal antibody or monopyretopic antibody we also benchmarked. But whatever we’ve seen in this for this particular target, we really think bipyretopic can push things.

For other targets, it’s not always the case. But in this case, whatever mono paratopic antibody we’ve looked at either we’ve developed or the sort of benchmark clinical that we had available, we outperformed. So that to us, you know, bodes well. We think we’re really doing something different with the biopower topic that can’t be achieved. But, you know, we will continue to monitor that as other competitor molecules come across.

But our real drive here was really to see what we could do with the bipartalpic. We we can leverage that capability. Obviously, we did it for XANI and it really, you know, moved the needle there. In this case, we’re, you know, applying it to see what we can do on PTK seven, a target that seems applicable for this type of approach. And, you know, we’ll continue to monitor that as we’re doing our preclinical work and consider benchmarks as appropriate.

Robert Burns, Analyst, H.C. Wainwright: Awesome. Thank you, guys.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Thank you, Robert.

Conference Operator: Thank you. I’m showing no further questions at this time. I’ll now turn it back to Ken Galbraith for closing remarks.

Ken Galbraith, Chair and CEO, Zymeworks: Yeah. Thank you, operator. Thank you, everyone, for your time listening to it. We’re always available for questions afterwards if you didn’t get a chance to ask additional questions or or or something else. And in the meantime, please stay tuned for further developments, and we thank our shareholders for their continued support.

Thank you.

Conference Operator: Thank you for your participation in today’s conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.