Viridian Therapeutics at Leerink’s Conference: Progress in TED Treatments

On Wednesday, 12 March 2025, Viridian Therapeutics (NASDAQ: VRDN) presented at Leerink’s Global Healthcare Conference 2025. The company highlighted substantial progress in its efforts to treat thyroid eye disease (TED) and FcRn-mediated diseases. While showcasing promising developments, Viridian also acknowledged challenges in a competitive market landscape.

Key Takeaways

• Viridian’s IV therapy, Valigretug, demonstrated positive Phase III results, with a BLA filing expected in the second half of 2024.
• The SubQ program aims for market dominance with convenient dosing; top-line data is expected in 2026.
• The company is preparing to launch in Japan and Europe, expanding its global footprint.
• Viridian’s management emphasized strong execution capabilities, with clinical trial enrollments ahead of schedule.

Financial Results

• Viridian targets a BLA filing for its IV therapy in late 2024.
• The SubQ program is expected to capture over 70% of the TED market.
• Tepezza, a competing product, has sales of $1.5 to $2 billion but limited market penetration.
• First-in-human data for the FcRn program is anticipated in Q3 2024.

Operational Updates

• The IV program, Valigretug, showed rapid action and high diplopia resolution in Phase III trials.
• SubQ Phase III studies (REVEAL and REVEAL-2) are underway, with innovative dosing regimens planned.
• Viridian’s FcRn program is in the clinic, with data expected later in 2024.
• Over 400 patients were enrolled in clinical trials last year, surpassing expectations.

Future Outlook

• Viridian foresees a competitive market, with plans to expand TED treatment beyond current levels.
• The company is focusing on new patient starts rather than switching existing users from Tepezza.
• A SubQ launch with an auto-injector pen is planned, promising enhanced convenience for patients.
• Viridian is actively engaging with payers and preparing for international launches.

Q&A Highlights

• Viridian expects Valigretug’s durability to align with Tepezza, with recurrence driven by disease biology.
• The company anticipates having chronic data in its label, unlike Tepezza.
• SubQ dosing strategies are designed to optimize treatment exposure levels.
• The FcRn program aims to match Vivguard’s profile, with a half-life extended version in development.

For a detailed understanding, readers are encouraged to refer to the full transcript below.

Full transcript - Leerink’s Global Healthcare Conference 2025:

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us here at the Leerink Partners Global Healthcare Conference. My name is Tom Smith. I’m one of the senior biotech analysts here at Leerink.

And, it’s my pleasure to welcome our next company to the stage Viridian Therapeutics. Really happy to be joined up here by the President and CEO Steve Mahoney and Chief Business Officer Sean Wu. Thank you both for joining us.

Sean Wu, Chief Business Officer, Viridian Therapeutics: Thanks for having us. Yeah. Thanks, Tom.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: And, Steve, it’s, 2024 was a huge year for the company. You guys had multiple positive phase three readouts for your lead program, and now 2025, I think, is a big year of execution for you guys, progressing towards your potential first BLA filing. Why don’t you just kick us off maybe with some introductory comments for those in the audience who might be less familiar with the Veridian story and tell us what you’ve been up to at at Veridian?

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Okay. Yes. So as Tom referenced, we had well, first, thank you for inviting us. We will probably be making forward looking statements that carry risks and uncertainties, and we refer you to our SEC filings going forward. So with that said, we did have our two Phase III readouts in the roughly fourth quarter of last year for our active Thrive study and the chronic Thrive two study, those results were better than expected, I think, with respect to our across all the endpoints and all the timepoints are very consistent, very robust.

These were the two largest Phase III studies in TED ever conducted. And so the results were fantastic and a really positive step forward for patients due to some of the differentiation that we were able to show versus the currently available product that’s available for patients today. And by that, I mean, we showed very rapid onset of action. So the main to back up, the main endpoints here are proptosis responder rate, which is essentially the bulging of the eyes and reduction of the bulging of the eyes, Diplopia, which is double vision, we’re looking to have responders, but we’re also looking for complete resolution in the trial and then clinical activity score, which is essentially a proxy for pain, redness, inflammation in the eye. And across all those endpoints, as I mentioned, we had very consistent, very robust results, positive results across all the time points.

So very nice clean curves across all the time points. So it was very encouraging to see that. In terms of some of the differentiation that we saw, the key points were we saw a diplopia resolution that was very encouraging because this is what patients are mostly concerned about is double vision, their ability to work, drive, read, etcetera. This is primarily women in their 40s and 50s. So you want to see that type of resolution that we saw in our study and again differentiated profile.

We also saw rapid onset of action. We are seeing statistically significant proptosis response after one infusion. So as you can imagine from a patient perspective, the faster you can get relief, the better. And then the other areas we saw, we were very much in line with the current available therapy. So that was all super encouraging.

We saw that those differentiations on the efficacy side, both in the active and the chronic study. And then on the safety side, we had a very generally well tolerated profile, which we expected given that this is IGF1R inhibition and it’s a known validated clinically validated and commercially validated target. And the one key area of interest on the AEs has always been hearing impairment, which is a composite term. And in our studies and in general with IGF-1R, we’ve noted we’ve seen that it is generally mild in nature. A lot of times it’s tinnitus or autophony, which is an echoing in the ear, which resolves on its own and is mild in nature.

In our studies, we had very, very low dropout rates, which speaks to the overall safety profile. So that was also super encouraging because that risk benefit squarely in place. So that was the Phase III studies. Those turned out to be great. And now we’re moving towards BLA for that study.

We are on track as guided and as planned for a second half BLA filing this year. So that’s very encouraging. We also started, as you referenced, we also started two other Phase III studies in our subcutaneous program. So that was all the IV program, but we have a subcutaneous program Phase III. We call those studies REVEAL and REVEAL2 in the active and the chronic population.

So we’re advancing those. We’re enrolling those studies now. Everything’s on track. As said, we’ll have our top line data from those studies in the first half of twenty twenty six, so coming up relatively soon as it’s already March. But so the subcu program is essentially based on the IV program.

It’s the same antibody with the same binding domain and CDRs, the only difference being a half life extension technology that we’ve shown in our healthy volunteer study to increase the half life of the antibody by four to five times, which is a great result because that could result in more convenient dosing for patients while still preserving the efficacy and the safety or actually maybe even potentially improving on the safety. But we do look to preserve the efficacy of the IV based on the antibody itself. So that’s the thyroid eye disease franchise. And then we also have a FcRn franchise, which we have now, we are in the clinic and we will have our first data set in Q3 of this year in healthy volunteers. We want to see what you would ordinarily expect to see out of SERN, IgG suppression, albumin sparing, and we’ll get a sense of dosing.

So that’s kind of where we are in the portfolio. There’s a lot going on So that’s kind of where we are in the portfolio. There’s a lot going on. But to your point, we’ve executed extremely well over the past year, and we continue to do so.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: That’s great. Okay. Let’s start with the lead IV IGF1, the leaguer2. We have the top line data, you kind of walk through the highlights of it. We’re rapid onset of action, lower rates of hearing impairment, more convenient dosing administration, shorter dosing interval.

I guess like of those attributes in the market research that you’ve done to date, like what do you think is going to be the main driver of uptake for Veli relative to you alluded to the one available therapy today, Topeza? What’s the one kind of major driving differentiating factor for you that’s going to drive that commercial uptake?

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Yes. I mean, these are cross trial comparisons, so you have to draw your own conclusions here. But yes, we saw rapid onset of action. So in terms of priorities, I think it has to start with efficacy. These are moderate to severe patients.

They have severe bulging of the eyes, as I mentioned, double vision, they’re in pain. And as I also mentioned, these are women in their 40s and 50s, and so they have got families and jobs and lives that they have to tend to every day. And so the quality of life impact of this disease is pretty bad. And so we’re looking to alleviate that and we are looking to do that quickly. And we did show a differentiated rapid onset of action, statistically significant in the chronic population after just one infusion, fantastic to see.

And then the DIPOPIA, as I mentioned, is such a significant impact on their lives and having the not only the response, but the complete resolution that we saw in our data for both studies was a huge differentiator. They just simply don’t have that data from the currently available one. And that’s really impressive to the physicians that we speak with. And then obviously safety is there because that risk benefit profile, when you make a decision with the patient and the physician have that conversation, that is a really important component. The key to this from a commercial standpoint that is really important for everyone to understand is that when we bring this profile, this IV profile, we can talk about subcu separately, but when we bring the IV profile to the market, this is a new start market.

And we try to emphasize this to everyone so people understand. We are not asking we will not need to ask anybody to switch off any existing therapy. The currently available product is a fixed course. So even if you’ve been treated in the past and your symptoms come back, you’re essentially a new patient. And every newly diagnosed patient is a new patient.

Every chronic patient that has a flare because this is autoimmune disease, so you will see flares as with any other autoimmune disease. And so when they come into the physician’s office, they when it’s our IV and their IV, there’ll be a choice to make. We have a differentiated clinical profile based on the things that I mentioned, but we also do it with fewer infusions, faster infusion time and 70% less drug. And so we think that might be the contributing factor to our better our safety profile that we think looks better. And so when that patient makes that decision at that moment in time, commercially, we expect that that’s a potential revenue shift right there.

And so that new start market dynamic is really important for our commercial prospects. Yeah.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: That makes sense to me. Sticking with ThriveOne, so your primary endpoint here was at fifteen weeks. Data looked really good versus Tipasa at twenty four weeks. I know you continue to collect follow-up data. I guess how important is the durability data?

And maybe can you comment on what level of visibility you have into it and what you’ve seen to date with some of the longer term, Thrive one data?

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: I’ll have Vishal, I’ll answer that one.

Sean Wu, Chief Business Officer, Viridian Therapeutics: Yeah. It’s a great question. Thanks, Tom. So with regards to durability, we are following patients in Thrive and Thrive two out to a total of fifty two weeks. So thirty seven weeks past that fifteen week top line data readout.

We when you look at Tepesa, based on the Tepesa experience, majority of these patients maintain their response after they stop treatment with Typezza. There can be a recurrence of the autoimmune symptoms of thyroid eye disease because it is an autoimmune disease. When we talk to physicians and we ask them, when does that occur? When do patients, if they recur, when would that typically come back? And it can vary, but it’s generally months, if not years, after they’ve come off of treatment.

So what that tells us is the drug, first of all, is long gone out of the body of the patients. And so the recurrence is probably more driven by the biology of this disease, being an autoimmune disease. And so for coming back to valigretag, we would expect the durability of valigretag to be similar to TAPESZA in the follow-up period and beyond. Because again, this is not something that’s based on the drug still being in the body. The drug is long gone.

So yes, durability is something that we think will be a consideration for patients and physicians. But we’re not expecting things to be different here for Valegro tug. In terms of visibility, the studies are still ongoing. We’re not taking a look at the data in in terms of every visit that is in the follow-up period. Because every time you do that, there’s a stats hit to, the integrity of the study.

So we’re maintaining the blindness of the study. This might be data that we put straight into the BLA. It might be something more appropriate for medical congress. And so, let us get to the end of the follow-up periods, and we’ll figure out abstract timing submissions for medical congresses and in conjunction with that BLA submission as well. So, more to come on that.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: Got it. Okay. We’ll stay tuned on that. I want to talk about the THRIVE two study. And, this is your chronic TED study.

A little bit different design than, what Horizon did with TAPESA. You guys enrolled a much broader patient population, much more inclusive, I think, and probably representative of real world chronic or low disease activity, TED. But I think very important that you actually have these data to be submitted with the first BLA. Maybe you just talk through, I guess, your expectations with respect to labeling and how you think that may or may not be differentiated versus, how Tempesta is labeled and therefore kind of reimbursed today?

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Yes, sure. So I’ll start but Sean can jump in. Yes, I think that’s a critical difference is that we will have we expect to have our chronic data in our label and Tempeza does not have their chronic data in their label. And that’s a function of the fact that they ran two active population studies for their registrational studies. They did not have the chronic data and they got pushback from payers, presumably, which is why they ran a their chronic study was they did not start that until eighteen months after they got approval for thyroid eye disease in general in their indication.

So but to your question, they also ran their chronic study in a low clinical activity score population. So on the scale of zero to seven, their patient population that they studied was on the zero or one, which by definition means that these are patients who are not complaining about their pain, they’re not experiencing the redness, on because they’re in the lower end of that scale. Now we looked at that differently and said we should run a more representative study because we know for a fact and in our study demonstrated this that chronic patients do have higher levels of pain than zero or one. And we saw quite a few of that in our chronic study as well. So we wanted to have a more fulsome data set to bring to payers and have those conversations.

And obviously, we do all that. We’re doing payer work well in advance of launch. So we’re testing these profiles with payers and we have been. So we feel really good about how that’s positioned. And then I think if you think about practical the practical implications of that commercially, they because they don’t have it in their label, they can’t their reps cannot be talking to physicians about chronic data and their MSLs have to come in with published papers about a post approval study.

And so we just I think we have an advantage there in terms of the ability of having those being able to put all the data out in front of physicians. So that’s really encouraging. And then I think, also our data is more representative, so we can actually talk about the entire chronic population. So that’ll help us with patients, that’ll help us with physicians and it’ll certainly help us with payers.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: Yeah. That makes sense. I want to talk about the BLA filing, and you’re targeting the second half of the year. I know you also have an ongoing Phase III STRIVE study that is more of like a safety exposure study. I think you’ve said fully enrolled in December.

I guess, first, can we expect to see any data from Strive potentially presented this year? I know part of the purpose of running that study is to generate the exposures needed for the BLA, but you’ve said that’s also not gating. So So then could you also talk about kind of what the gating factors are to filing the BLA?

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Yes. The timing of the BLA is driven, almost exclusively by the Thrive to the chronic study follow-up period. So we present the top line data in December, but we have the follow-up period that needs to play out and that we just simply need to get to that point, collect that data, clean it, lock that database and then that data will be dropped into the BLA filing. Obviously, we’re doing all the work on the BLA filing now so that we’re ready to drop that data in when ready. But that’s really what drives the time line.

With what was the other

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: With respect to STRIVE.

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Oh, STRIVE. Yes, STRIVE, we actually completed in early January, just to clarify. We completed that study in early January. And so that’s never really been on the critical path for us. And it’s and the function of STRIVE is simply to fill out that safety database.

Just we need a certain number of patients to have been exposed to the drug for a certain amount of time. And STRIVE allows us to supplement the treatment studies to complete the safety database. So the primary purpose of that, the endpoints are all safety driven. So what we really just need to do is take that safety data and put it in the BLA as well.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: Got it. Is, do you think we may get some visibility? I understand it’s certainly the safety study, but just in terms of also, it’s another data set that can help us kind of confirm the hearing impairment rates that we saw from Thrive Thrive two.

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Yes. I mean, I think primarily that’s, again, to add to the BLA. But, yes, we have multiple opportunities to look at how we can get that data out there, but we haven’t landed that plane just yet.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: Understood. Okay. Let’s talk about the, I guess, the commercial environment. And we get a lot of questions from investors. And it feels like, sentiment, I guess, around the overall commercial dynamics of, has come down quite a bit.

I think the Tepeza sales trajectory, has kind of stalled out here between $1,500,000,000 to $2,000,000,000 Can you just talk about, I guess, your impression of some of those market dynamics you know, what could be, I guess, preventing broader uptake of Tepezzo or that lack of, like, reacceleration of growth? How you guys plan to address that?

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Yeah. Again, I’ll start and Sean jump in. But first and foremost, you’re talking about roughly a $2,000,000,000 market, right? And the I think there was concern last year that the competitive landscape was crowded and that you had a if it stayed at a $2,000,000,000 market, you were going to divide it amongst a number of players. It’s important to note that, that competitive landscape has gotten a lot clearer in the past several months with respect to some of the other mechanisms that have or there’s some of the other approaches that quite frankly don’t look as competitive as initially thought to be or expected to be.

So that’s all really good. I think that clears out the competitive landscape. But more importantly, we think this, what Tepeze’s penetration of the market has still has a long way to go. We enrolled over 400 patients in our clinical trials last year. Now not all in The U.

S, so not all off the top line of Tepesa revenues. But other studies were being conducted too, which also impacted their revenues. So I don’t know if their revenues are reflective of even the market that they’re reaching. We think there’s again, we think there’s further penetration. They’ve acknowledged on their earnings calls that they have a single digit penetration of the market.

We believe that. We I mean, it’s It’s six months of people’s lives. It’s eight infusions. You have to go every three weeks to get an infusion. Not everybody lives near an infusion center, so that can add up and can be dissuasive for people to try to take that approach.

So again, we think we can make that easier for folks, particularly in the IV and then obviously sub Q would be entirely different. So we think we can grow the market, not only in The U. S, but they just got approved in Japan so that they’re blazing that path for us, which is great. They got a really good price in Japan, which is encouraging. And then we’re waiting to see how they do in Europe.

They filed last year. So there’s actually less growth to be had as well. Anything that I

Sean Wu, Chief Business Officer, Viridian Therapeutics: On the chronic side, they have talked about still making their way through getting reimbursement with payers for chronic patients. So I do think that is a barrier that they have had, even after having generated that chronic data. So that’s something that we’ll start to see, hopefully more penetration into. But it doesn’t seem like they have enough penetration into that broader, larger chronic population just yet.

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Yes. And in the last earnings call or maybe it’s an earnings call before that, they said that they were north of 50% commercial insurance coverage in The U. S. So as you can tell, that’s a handicap that they have to overcome. But I think they’re doing that.

I think they’re putting in that work, which is only to our benefit. The more they clear the way, the better for us.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: Right. Let’s talk about the sub Q program. Yes. And maybe you could build on some of those commercial comments, but how do you expect low volume sub Q to potentially open up the market? And maybe you could talk about the dosing that you’re exploring convenient relatively infrequent low volume sub Q in the REVEAL programs and how you think that will change the market dynamics?

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Yes. So we intend to launch SubQ in an auto injector. It’s already a commercially available auto injector. It’s the same one that Dupixent uses. It’s an Ipsimet auto injector pen.

We’ve already formulated the drug into two ml’s, which no one else has been able to do. Tempeza has a twenty mg per kg volume. That is a really hard volume to concentrate down to two mls, but we’ve already done ours. And so we’re going to start with a huge advantage of coming out with an auto injector pen at launch is our plan. We just very intuitively, if you’re if you don’t live near an infusion center and we now you have the option of having an auto injector pen delivered to your door, at and you mentioned the dosing regimens, we want to see how that data plays out.

But we have we’re exploring Q4 weekly and Q8 weekly. And I’ll have Sean explain the how that matches back to the IV. But at a very basic level, we can through specialty pharmacy distribution, we’ll deliver the pen to your door. And so we do think that over time when the market matures, that subcu, it should take seventy plus percent of this market. And from a competitive standpoint, we’re really kind of stand alone in terms of the profile that we have.

Infrastructure. IV is going to stick around. IV will have a role in this even when the market matures. But the IV launch that we’re that we will do next year is that will help build the infrastructure and then just we can plug sub Q into that machinery and we expect that to accelerate the sub Q launch even better than what we’re going to see with IV, which we also expect to be an accelerated launch. Do you want to talk about dosing regimens?

Sean Wu, Chief Business Officer, Viridian Therapeutics: Yes. On the study design, we are looking at two active doses every four weeks or every eight weeks for patients. And both of these will be fantastic regimens. We think potential best in class. Again, this is a low volume auto injector as Steve said.

And we believe both of these dosing regimens to be derisked as well, based on what we’ve seen with Frohliger Tug IV, which has the same binding domain, same CDRs as three. So when we confirm the PK and PD profile of three back when we ran the healthy volunteer study, when we did PK modeling based off of that, we were really pleasantly surprised that Q4 weekly exposure levels works approximately that of ten mgs per kg IV. And then Q8 weekly, even more pleasantly surprised that those exposure levels were approximately that of three mgs per kg IV. And, three mgs per kg IV being something that we had tested in a phase two study in TED patients showed just as robust of clinical responses across proptosis, CAS, and diplopia. And so the three REVEAL one and two study designs gives us a unique opportunity to to test really convenient dosing regimens for patients that they can self administer at home.

And then that QA weekly arm, because of the lower overall exposures, can we actually preserve the efficacy of IGF-one arm, which we believe we can, while lowering overall exposures for potentially even better safety profile.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: That makes sense. With respect to REVEAL timing, you guys enrolled the Thrive studies. The execution was stellar there. You really didn’t seem that you ran into any enrollment issues as we’ve seen with some of the competitors in the space. And I know you’re leveraging a lot of that infrastructure to enroll REVEAL.

So I guess, first, you just comment on how enrollment is going in REVEAL. Is it a similar cadences Thrive? And second, when we think about expectations for top line data in the first half of ’twenty six, how should we think about sort of that efficacy bar for success there? Is it you know, we’re looking at a twenty four week endpoint here, but how are we stacking up versus Vale at 15, Tepeza at 24? Do we have to be equivalent or is there some margin for error there because we do have a low volume subcu more convenient offering?

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Well, first, thank you for asking about execution because I love execution more than anything. I mean, I love my family, but I love execution. And we do deliver. We are intensely focused on execution. So thank you for acknowledging that.

We did enroll those studies ahead of time. We over enrolled. None of the competitors, all of the competitors had delays in their enrollment. And as I said, we enrolled over 400 patients last year. So yes, we have a great system.

We have a great team. We are applying all of that to REVEAL, the REVEAL studies. We have the same infrastructure, largely the same. You have to there’s some variability, but it’s largely the same. We have the same CRO.

We have the same ClinOps team internally. So the machine is the machine was built last year and now it’s humming. And so we do expect everything’s on track with reveal. We have aggressive timelines, but we’re on track. And we in terms of setting expectations for those readouts and reveal, as Sean mentioned, we’re because it’s essentially the same antibody with the same binding domain and CDRs, we expect it to behave in a very similar fashion.

And we are trying to approximate those exposure levels to create the same levels of results that we saw from Thrive and Thrive two. So it’s relatively straightforward. It’s at least as much as you could say that in clinical trials. But the execution is there, the rationale for the biology is there and the dosing regimen is there. So we feel like we are derisked it substantially with Thrive and Thrive2 results.

The antibody, again, does what it’s supposed to do, and we saw great results. So we’d like to replicate those if we can.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: Great. Just in the last minute, I do want to touch on the FCRN. Yes.

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Since you’re

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: going to have the first in human data in Q3.

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Right.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: Yes. Help us think about, how you’re framing expectations, for the first in human data, sort of what the product profile looks like, what you’re expecting relative to, say, Avgar Tejivan.

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Yeah. I mean, the nice thing about, so VivGuard is clearly the gold standard. Everything is referenced against it. Everything gets compared against it from an efficacy and safety profile. There seems to be something special about the fragment approach.

We recognize that, which is why we are taking a similar approach. We believe we are the only other Fc fragment in clinical development. All the full length antibodies, I think we’re still trying to sort out exactly where those are going to land and clearly the hypothesis of deeper suppression of IGG translating into better clinical outcomes. Again, I think we just need to see that play out. But that being said, our six program, which will have the healthy volunteer data in this year, Q3, that will answer a lot of questions and the translatability from primates to healthy volunteers to disease patients has been pretty clean.

And so there’s a clear path for us to follow. If we can be, in a similar type of profile to Vivcart in terms of ranges of all those things, those parameters that we talked about, that would be a great place to land because again, we’re the only other FCE fragment in clinical development that we know of. So it’s a great start. And then we have our half life extended version, which we’re still in our primate studies, but that’s a really exciting possibility and that would be a game changer in FCRN just due to the frequency in which FCRNs have to be dosed currently and the inconvenience that that can cause for patients. We’d really love to be able to improve that.

We’re in the primate studies. We’ll see how that goes. We’ll have more to say on that later this year.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: Yeah. We’ll stay tuned for the non human primate on eight and the first in human for six.

Sean Wu, Chief Business Officer, Viridian Therapeutics: And also an IND for eight by the end of this year as well.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: Right. Great. All right. Well, stay tuned for those clinical updates. Thank you, Steve and Sean for joining us and for the insights.

We’ll stay tuned.

Steve Mahoney, President and CEO, Viridian Therapeutics: Yes. Appreciate it.

Sean Wu, Chief Business Officer, Viridian Therapeutics: Thank you, Tom.

Tom Smith, Senior Biotech Analyst, Leerink Partners: Thank you.

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