DBV Technologies (NASDAQ:DBVT) reported third-quarter financial results on Wednesday. The transcript from the company’s third-quarter earnings call has been provided below.
This transcript is brought to you by Benzinga APIs. For real-time access to our entire catalog, please visit https://www.benzinga.com/apis/ for a consultation.
View the webcast at https://event.summitcast.com/view/44hp2DVKg4qChWJ2ijomvj/guest_book?session_id=nFjWwthWPv5SeXqM69BCwc
Summary
DBV Technologies filed a Biologics License Application (BLA) for its Viaskin Peanut patch for children ages 4 to 7, marking significant progress towards commercialization.
The company is actively addressing a warning letter received by its contract manufacturer, Fareva Amboise, with a structured remediation plan involving third-party consultants.
Financially, DBV ended Q3 2026 with $165.7 million in cash, sustaining operations into Q3 2027, and reported increased expenses related to BLA filing and commercialization preparations.
DBV plans to submit a BLA for toddlers aged 1 to 3 in 2027, following FDA discussions to ensure an efficient review process.
Management is optimistic about a priority review for the 4 to 7 age group due to the Breakthrough Therapy designation, setting the stage for a potential product launch.
Full Transcript
OPERATOR
Welcome to the DBV Technologies third quarter 2026 results and business update conference call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today’s presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press star then two.
Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Kevin Gardner from LifeSci Advisors. Please go ahead, sir.
Kevin Gardner
Thank you. This afternoon, DBV Technologies reported financial results for the third quarter of 2026. This update is available in the press releases section of the DBV Technologies website. Before we begin, please note that today’s call may include a number of forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, comments regarding our forecast of estimated cash runway, clinical and regulatory development plans, the design and conduct of our clinical trials, our expectations with respect to the timing and results of interactions with and decisions by regulatory agencies, and the ability of any of our product candidates, if approved, to improve the lives of patients with food allergies.
These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause the Company’s actual results to differ significantly from those suggested by these statements. Given these risks and uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Please refer to the Company’s filings with the SEC and the French AMF for information concerning risk factors that could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from expectations, including any forward-looking statements made on this call.
Except as required by law, the Company disclaims any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to account for or reflect events or circumstances that occur after this call. Joining me on the call today is Daniel Tasse, Chief Executive Officer of DBV. I will now pass the call over to Daniel.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Thank you, Kevin. And thank you all for joining us today on the call. Today I’m joined by our CFO, Virginie Boucinha, our CMO, Paris Mohidin, and our Chief Operations Officer, Kevin P. Malobisky. Kevin is responsible for product engineering and development. He’s responsible for manufacturing and for quality at DBV. The third quarter of 2026 was a continuation of the work involved in becoming a commercial company. The highlight of the quarter was the filing of our BLA in 4 to 7 year olds, for which I will have to give a big shout-out to the DBV team, to our investigators, and to the food allergy community who have all been exceptionally supportive of our efforts. I also wish to recognize the FDA’s constructive engagement the last few months and look forward to working closely with them during the review process.
In tandem with this important regulatory work, DBV’s manufacturing and quality management teams have been working closely with Fareva Amboise, the Company’s contract manufacturing partner. That work, which includes extensive collaboration with third-party expert consultants, follows the April 2026 warning letter to Fareva. As we previously disclosed, the letter resulted from a September 2025 inspection of the manufacturing of a veterinary product, and it included some observations focused on quality management, operations, and systems, which makes the warning letter have sitewide implications at the site.
It is understandable and reasonable that there may be questions about this and what this means for our review process and the potential approval of a Viaskin Peanut patch in 4 to 7 year olds, and I hope to use some of our time today to discuss them. So let me introduce Kevin to provide more details of the remediation process and our pre-approval inspection preparation.
Kevin P. Malobisky (Chief Operations Officer)
Thanks, Daniel. As Daniel mentioned, my name is Kevin Malobisky and I am the Chief Operations Officer here at DBV. By way of a brief introduction, I’ve been in the pharmaceutical and biotech space for nearly 40 years, focusing my career on regulatory affairs and quality programs as well as building and leading teams through innovative development and operations. I joined DBV about four years ago and, as Daniel mentioned, I lead the global quality, development, manufacturing, and reg CMC teams here.
I would like to start by outlining and reviewing the responsibility and process for successfully addressing the warning letter received at Fareva Amboise. The responsibility for satisfactory remediation of the findings cited in a warning letter resides entirely with the company that received it, in this case Fareva Amboise. Since receiving the warning letter last April, Fareva has both accepted and embraced that responsibility and is working with DBV and our chosen third-party consultants on the remediation plan for the elements that could be applicable to manufacturing the peanut patch.
Remediation of a warning letter is an established, standardized regulatory process, and I would like to take a few minutes to walk you through that and how Fareva has responded to the FDA and how DBV has been involved in the remediation process. There are four parts. First, within 15 days of receiving a warning letter, a company provides a robust written response detailing the remediation plan. This plan includes proposed corrective and preventative actions, or CAPAs, and the cadence on which they will provide the FDA with written updates.
This is typically every 30 or 60 days until the remediation is completed. In this case, Fareva submitted their written response and their plan to the FDA within the 15 business days and has since provided monthly written updates to the Agency. Second, as you may know, the remediation process is typically supported by external consultants and teams having remediation expertise. Many of these specialists bring deep knowledge of quality management systems and often include former FDA personnel. Where a question is highly technical or specific to a product, the remediation team can bring in additional subject matter experts. As I mentioned earlier, DBV’s manufacturing and quality management teams are working closely with both Fareva and third-party consultants on remediation efforts that directly impact the manufacturing of the Viaskin Peanut patch.
Third, the work is managed against a detailed project plan developed by the company’s management team and the remediation experts together with the company’s quality teams. All progress is monitored against the plan and is the basis for the monthly updates provided to the FDA. In this case, Fareva shared its detailed project plan with DBV, allowing our teams of experts and our consultants to support elements of the remediation plan that may be applicable to the manufacturing of Viaskin Peanut patches.
This collaboration has allowed Fareva to focus their resources on sitewide remediation while also giving the DBV quality team direct access and line of sight into the work that matters most for the Viaskin Peanut patch production. Finally, as remediation progresses and the company is confident in the date when their remediation will be complete, they will invite the FDA to reschedule a re-inspection. Now, what does all of this mean for our BLA? To be clear, the review of our application and the remediation of Fareva’s warning letter are separate and distinct processes. Where they converge is with the pre-approval inspection, or the PAI, and its readiness. As is standard with FDA filings, DBV included a target date for PAI readiness within the BLA submitted to the FDA. That PAI readiness target date is after Fareva expects to have completed their remediation.
This background is important to understand how we are collaborating with Fareva and to reinforce how committed we are in the remediation process with them specific to the elements relevant to the Viaskin Peanut patch. I thank you for your attention and now hand it back to Daniel.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Thank you, Kevin. It should go without saying the work Kevin and his team are doing is a priority for the Company and will remain so until the remediation efforts are completed. It’s also very important that we not lose sight of the progress being made across DBV and would now like to provide an update on our toddler program. Over the last few months we have also discussed with FDA our upcoming filing in toddlers age 1 to 3 years as we were preparing to submit our BLA for children age 4 through 7 years. These discussions included a potential rolling submission of the 1 through 3 BLA. Now we welcome hearing the FDA’s perspective as we have a very unique dynamic here: we have two distinct BLAs to be filed in relatively quick succession. As we previously stated, no analogs exist.
Viaskin Peanut is novel. We are building a breakthrough therapy on unique biology and a novel mode of action. Now both BLAs share things and differ in many ways. Both BLAs share similar approaches to clinical development, although—with two distinct populations and two large data sets—there are meaningful differences between the two clinical sections. Viaskin Peanut also, as you know, is a drug-device combination delivering a biological API. Thus both CMC modules for each BLA are large and complex while still having important content overlap between the two.
But all of this background I’m sharing with you on commonalities and differences between the two BLAs matters because, most importantly, both BLAs will be reviewed by the same team at FDA. And although there are obviously efficiencies to the overall review of the two BLAs, we do not want to create a review bottleneck and wedge two BLAs in parallel, potentially putting us at risk of doing just that. Our goal is to solve for an expedient and efficient review of both BLAs as the outcome. We held discussions with the Agency and, in those discussions, the Agency indicated that starting the 1 to 3 review shortly after the 4 through 7 review will allow them to build on the important learnings from the first review and also benefit from the efficiencies we expect given the meaningful content overlap between the two BLAs.
But not only that, it would also give DBV and FDA an opportunity to align on the form, on the content, and on the best timing of the components of a 1 to 3 submission—all in support of an efficient review of both BLAs—and DBV is in full agreement with FDA’s approach. To give you a real example, we have asked for priority review in 4 to 7 and we certainly don’t wish to take FDA’s attention away from completing that review first and completing it efficiently. The efficiency of the subsequent review in our 1 to 3 application will clearly benefit from this well-coordinated sequential approach. We’ll continue our dialogue with the FDA over the next few months and expect to submit a toddler BLA in 2027. We will provide an update once the FDA discussions of these elements have been finalized.
And as a reminder, the FDA previously issued written communication confirming an accelerated approval pathway for the Viaskin Peanut patch in toddlers. Now, before opening for questions, I’ll ask Virginie to take us through our third quarter financial results, cash position, and highlights. Virginie.
Virginie Boucinha (Chief Financial Officer)
Thank you, Daniel, and good afternoon, everyone. We ended the third quarter with US$165.7 million in cash and cash equivalents. This includes US$50 million in gross proceeds from the sales of ADSs to RA Capital under our refreshed ATM program. Following the BLA submission, we updated our operating and liquidity forecast and on this basis we estimate that our existing cash will fund operations into the third quarter of 2027. This forecast reflects a stage-gated approach to investment.
Our spending assumptions are milestone-based, so the timing of certain expenditures is aligned to regulatory developments, while we keep funding what the FDA review and a potential launch require. This means continued investments in medical affairs, market access, marketing, account management, and pharmacovigilance, as well as in our launch infrastructure. Now turning to our P&L, the year-to-date operating expenses were US$164.4 million compared with US$107 million a year ago. That is an increase of US$59.4 million. About half of this increase went to the clinical and regulatory work behind the BLA filing itself, and this investment also reflects the ongoing advancements of COMFORT Toddlers, its open-label extension, VITESSE open-label extension, and THRIVE. The other half of our investments went to building a commercial-ready company.
Sales and Marketing grew from US$1.9 million to US$15.7 million as we build our commercial expertise and launch infrastructure. We also continued to build pre-commercial inventory and scale the corporate functions that will support commercialization. The third quarter was a quarter of execution. We submitted the BLA and laid the foundation to become a commercial organization, and we will keep pacing our investment to regulatory milestones. With that, I’ll turn it back to Daniel.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Virginie, thank you. In closing, the third quarter represented an important step forward for DBV. With our BLA for children age 4 through 7 now submitted, we are focused on supporting an efficient FDA review, working with Fareva in advancing manufacturing readiness, and preparing for the potential commercialization of Viaskin Peanut patch, if approved. At the same time, we remain committed to expanding the potential reach of our technology to younger children through our toddler program.
Recognizing the important work ahead, we’ll enter the next phase with clear priorities, energy, and disciplined execution. We look forward to keeping you informed of our progress. The lines are now open for questions.
OPERATOR
If you would like to ask a question, please press Star one on your telephone keypad now. You will be placed into the queue in the order received. Please be prepared to ask your question when prompted. Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press Star one on your phone now. And our first question comes from Kristin Kluska of Cantor Fitzgerald.
Kristin Kluska (Analyst)
Hi everyone, thank you so much for taking the questions and really appreciate all the color you provided today on the manufacturing progress. I had a few questions there. Just understanding the process, is Fareva sharing with you the monthly updates that they have in terms of what they’re submitting to the FDA and what the feedback has been? And then, are you able to say whether or not the actual FDA reinspection has been scheduled? And just trying to understand when we, the public, might be able to understand when that is and what the outcome eventually is.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
So Kristin, I’m going to take that one. They share with us a lot of the monthly report, but understand they have 70 customers, they make 100 products. A lot of these things are not for competitors or other companies to see. So we’re quite satisfied with the extent of what they share with us. It’s more than adequate for us to be comfortable with the progress, but we don’t get to see everything for those reasons. Makes sense. To your second question, the FDA visit has not been scheduled yet, but it would be a bit premature to do that.
Again, as these things progress, that would be part of what we’d be happy to share with investors as we cross those steps.
Kristin Kluska (Analyst)
Thank you.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Did that answer your question, Kristin?
Kristin Kluska (Analyst)
You did. Thank you.
OPERATOR
And our next question comes from Sushila Hernandez.
Sushila Hernandez (Analyst)
Yes, thank you for taking my questions. Just to clarify, so is Fareva currently tracking its detailed plan and is there sufficient time for complete remediation, with a potential buffer for potential delays, before the pre-approval inspection? And second one, have you completed and analyzed the data of the COMFORT safety study in toddlers? And last question, so is it that you will submit the toddler BLA only after the complete review of the children BLA?
Could you elaborate on that? Thank you.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Thank you. Let’s ask some questions on toddlers. I’ll have Faris answer them, while we’ll answer your question about the remediation process afterwards. So Faris, do you want to walk us through where we are with toddlers and the dialogue to come on what is the form of submitting that data, since that discussion has not yet fully taken place with the Agency? So Faris.
Faris
Yeah. So if you recall, COMFORT Toddler recruitment ended in the second quarter. It’s a supplemental six-month safety study, so you can add up the timing for that. I think the important point, as Daniel mentioned, is going to be related to the ongoing dialogue with the FDA related to the timing of the 1-to-3 BLA relative to the 4-to-7. And to emphasize what Daniel said, we’ve been in close correspondence and dialogue with the FDA. The last thing we want is the 1-to-3 to create a bottleneck or a delay in their ability to deliver the priority review for the 4-to-7 BLA.
Of course, nothing stops us from submitting the BLA if we want to from a regulatory legal standpoint, but that’s not the spirit of the relationship we have with the FDA. So I’m not sure if that exactly answered your question, Sushila, but I think behind what you’re asking and getting to is what Daniel had addressed.
Sushila Hernandez (Analyst)
Yes, that’s clear. Thank you.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Okay. And Sushila, if you could repeat your first question so I can give you a precise answer, I would appreciate that.
Sushila Hernandez (Analyst)
Yes. So is Fareva tracking its detailed plan that they have laid out? Is it on track with all the steps, and is there sufficient time for complete remediation before the pre-approval inspection?
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
I’ll have Kevin answer that one. Kevin?
Kevin P. Malobisky (Chief Operations Officer)
Thanks, Daniel. Hi, Sushila. Yes, so as I mentioned, we work very, very closely with Fareva as well as a number of consultants on a daily basis, and we’re quite comfortable with the progress that they’re making in terms of the remediation. The timing of that reinspection as it relates to the timing of our PAI, we’re also very comfortable with in terms of the buffer that would be there.
Sushila Hernandez (Analyst)
Okay, that’s clear. Thank you.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Thank you.
OPERATOR
And our next question comes from John Williban of Citizens.
John Williban (Analyst)
Hey, thanks for the update and taking the questions. I might have missed this, but can you discuss what the warning letter details included and what remediation activities are still ongoing? And then any thoughts on getting a second manufacturer to have redundant supply, or is that something that is a little too late in the game at this point?
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Let me start with the second half, and I’ll have Kevin answer the question on the remediation process. We need a second manufacturing unit somewhere in the world to support the outer years of our forecast, as we shared with investors here. So we need more capacity, but that’s investment we’re making to support the full flight of the product at approval. Setting up a new facility takes about three years, whether it’s a CDMO or your own site. So that obviously is not the backup plan to Fareva.
Our plan with Fareva—and again we’re confident—is to work through the remediation and launch essentially the product out of their capacity. Does that make sense? To your first question, Kevin, can you answer it, or do you need John to restate the question?
Kevin P. Malobisky (Chief Operations Officer)
Nope, I can answer it. Hi John, nice to meet you. So the focus of the FDA inspection that led to the warning letter, as Daniel had mentioned earlier, was on a veterinary product and an aseptic manufacturing process at their site. It’s completely separate from the work that’s ongoing on Viaskin Peanut patch. That being said, the remediation includes a site-wide look at how potential impacts to the aseptic filling and the citations against that may or may not relate, and that’s what’s ongoing in the remediation.
And again, we’re very comfortable with the progress that Fareva is making and the expertise that we have on hand to continue to track that closely.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
By the way, that warning letter is available publicly, John. We can send it to you. It outlines essentially exactly that. No observations around general quality management systems and training and the like. But those comments are common in a warning letter, and when such comment is made, obviously it touches every product made there as opposed to simply limiting it to the original observation, which was this veterinary product. I hope that was helpful as an answer.
John Williban (Analyst)
Thanks for the color.
OPERATOR
And as a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press Star one on your phone now. And our next question comes from Yatin Saneha of Guggenheim Partners.
Yatin Saneha (Analyst)
Hey guys, thank you for taking my question and also appreciate all the color you provided. So I don’t have a question on the CRO or the CMC. It’s more around what do you now expect—do you still expect a priority review? I mean, given that, you know, it’s a faster process if you get a priority review, do you think you have enough time to address all of that? And then, you know, the second part of the question is, if you get—are you also eligible for a priority review voucher, and have you thought about sort of monetizing it if you get one of those?
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Thanks for those two questions here. I’m getting old here—the first part of your question was what? I think the second one is on the priority voucher and the market.
Yatin Saneha (Analyst)
Yeah, the first one is more around: do you still expect a priority review for this application?
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Yes, thank you so much. Yes, we do. We are eligible for priority review given our Breakthrough designation at the Agency. The decision of giving priority review to a Breakthrough product does not belong to the reviewing division but to a different team at the FDA, so the decision is made independently from the review division. The request has been made. A large percentage of companies with Breakthrough designation do get the priority review, so that remains our hope here, and I would say expectation, but it is really our hope here.
All of our planning, whether it’s launch planning or whether it is remediation and preparation for the PAI, is all hinged on what would be a priority review. So we’re not giving ourselves any extra buffer time here. We’re planning for the best-case scenario, which is a tight timeline. We remain comfortable all that can be managed within the clock of priority review. To your second question, the rules by which we could monetize or access a pediatric voucher would assume that the population obviously is less than what is the target population—so 250,000 to 300,000 kids. Arguably 1 to 3 is a bit less than that. But the rules for priority review assume that the technology cannot be used in other populations, which obviously is the last thing we want to state with Viaskin Peanut here. We believe we can help kids 1 to 7, and also kids as they grow out of 7 are still eligible to be on therapy.
So unfortunately, the strict definition of the rules for a priority voucher would not apply to Viaskin Peanut—and not for lack of trying. I can answer your question. Yeah, we don’t have Kevin Trapp on the call, so obviously he’s the best person to answer those questions, but I’ve been working with them very closely. So to give you the highlights, as you know, there are 4,500 allergists in the U.S. They treat the bulk of the patients with food allergies, including peanut. We’re looking at a sales force of 50 to 70 people to target them.
Parents are important to the commercial mix here, so our ability to build the right mechanism and the right outreach through media to engage a dialogue with them is a big part of our marketing plan also, as is obviously engaging with payers to make sure that not only do we get the price that we think is fair for the therapy, but a review process or prioritization process by allergists that will be relatively straightforward. So all these are key elements of our marketing plan here, and as you saw from our P&L for the first nine months of the year, we are making those investments wisely.
Obviously, building up inventory to launch the product comes a bit later on. Obviously, hiring a sales force comes towards the end of the process. But many of the key investments we are making right now because you don’t launch a blockbuster on six weeks of preparation; you launch a blockbuster on 18 months of preparation. We’re just being, I think, very smart, very strategic, and very, very planful in making those investments as we move forward to the de-risking of the product vis-à-vis the agency.
Hopefully that was helpful.
OPERATOR
And our next question comes from Sam Slutsky of LifeSci Capital.
Sam Slutsky (Analyst)
Hey, thanks for taking the questions. Two for me: does the Breakthrough Therapy designation and potential for priority review also apply to 1 to 3, or is that strictly a 4 to 7 age group thing? And then the other question was on comfort toddlers. Is that basically just a box-check press release of, hey, safety in line, hopefully with prior studies, or what might we see in that press release?
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Yes. So I’ll come to the toddlers’ headline results here. To your first question, it’s untested whether or not one Breakthrough designation could support two BLAs, so we’re in uncharted territory here. But we do have the opportunity, given our accelerated approval pathway in 1 to 3, that also comes with eligibility for priority review in that process. So our thinking right now is priority review as a functional Breakthrough designation supports the request made in 4 to 7, and then the other one would come with the accelerated approval pathway offered in 1 to 3.
To be very clear, I’m sharing with you what our thinking is here. We don’t have those answers. We don’t have those commitments from the agency yet. Does that make sense?
Sam Slutsky (Analyst)
Yes. And then just on the—
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Did I answer the whole question?
Sam Slutsky (Analyst)
That was the first question. The second question was just on comfort toddlers. Is that going to be just a kind of a box-check press release that would be saying safety is hopefully in line, or what will be in that press release, you think?
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Yeah, we obviously press release the results here because—and I’ll have Faris add to this here—the pivotal study is EPITOPE. It’s been completed. This is a supplemental safety study. There are many ways to provide that to the FDA as part of the BLA, including as a safety update later on in the process here. All those discussions will take place with the agency going forward. But yes, I think it would be wise for us to announce the results once we have them to say the study completed, and obviously we expect that we’ll show no safety data that would be a deviation we’ve seen historically.
But I’ll invite Faris to add his 2 cents’ worth here since it’s his study and his publication team.
Faris
Thanks, Daniel. I would agree with that conclusion. But Sam, you know we have like a 2,000-patient database over the years and this product is very well characterized. So if anything did come of that, it would be very out of characteristic for the product, which we don’t expect. So to answer your question directly, it would pretty much be a check-the-box type of press release. As you know, for these safety studies—at least for the nature of the safety studies we do—there’s no primary endpoint and it’s not powered to show a specific thing.
So it’s all about mid and exposure numbers for the product. So very much in my mind at this point, a check-the-box type of press release.
Sam Slutsky (Analyst)
Got it. Okay, thanks.
OPERATOR
And our next question comes from Gavin Clark Gardner of Evercore ISI.
Gavin Clark Gardner (Analyst)
Hey guys, appreciate all the manufacturing updates, so I’ll just stick on that theme here. Could you just walk us through the scope of updates and the timelines for what you’re expecting to update us on over the next six or seven months as the review progresses? Like you have the remediation activities; I see in the 10 here there’s a mock PAI, small milestone with a February 1st date listed. Obviously there’s when the PAI gets scheduled. So I’m just wondering what we should be expecting to hear from you guys over the next six or seven months.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Correct. I want to make sure that I’m clear here; there’s no misinterpretation. February 1st is the date we have shared with the FDA that we’d be ready for an inspection, and there will be mock PAI before that. It’s not uncommon for manufacturers to do regular mock inspections—some surprise, some planned. It’s the way we make sure that our CDMOs stay sharp. We do the same thing with our own plant, by the way. So there’s going to be a number of inspections along the way to make sure we verify readiness.
And obviously those developments could be relevant and could be something that we choose to share with the markets as the dosing progresses here. Does that answer your question?
Gavin Clark Gardner (Analyst)
That’s helpful. Yeah, it is. Thanks.
OPERATOR
And once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press Star one now. And our next question comes from Theodora Beadle of Goldman Sachs.
Theodora Beadle (Analyst)
Yes. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. So firstly, to what extent have you already had discussions with payers ahead of the potential Viaskin Peanut approval, and what has been the early feedback from that process? And then secondly, how should we think about the first-year sales potential for Viaskin Peanut in age 4 to 7 year olds? Thank you.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Yeah, I’ll start answering your second question. We will not be providing guidance. We will have obviously a launch day for the benefit of investors and analysts as we get closer to launch, and Kevin Trapp will do a masterful job of walking you guys through how we think about the market so they can help us track it with us here. As far as conversations with payers, I’ll keep it obviously to be relatively limited at this point in time. It is part of launching a product. It is amongst those investments we should make prior to launching a product—to understand everything about payer and payer dynamics. Everything from health economic outcomes research, arguments for the price, as well as analyses, as well as understanding what would be the prior authorization process, which is likely given the nature of the product and of the indication.
Those discussions have been going on. We have account managers talking to all the big payers in the U.S. already, and all of this is being folded into what is, as you know, a commercial strategy where outreach and coordination with payers is a big part of value creation. But I’m very pleased with the efforts that Kevin and his team have led on that front. I trust that answers your question.
OPERATOR
And this concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Daniel Tasse, CEO, for closing remarks.
Daniel Tasse (Chief Executive Officer)
Paul, thank you. Nice job, everybody. Thanks for joining today. Thanks for the questions from the analysts. That concludes our call for this afternoon. I appreciate your time, appreciate your engagement, and have a wonderful evening. We’ll talk to you soon.
Disclaimer: This transcript is provided for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, there may be errors or omissions in this automated transcription. For official company statements and financial information, please refer to the company’s SEC filings and official press releases. Corporate participants’ and analysts’ statements reflect their views as of the date of this call and are subject to change without notice.
Recent Comments