Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Abeona Therapeutics Inc. full-year 2025 results conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode, and the floor will be open for questions following the presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during this conference, please press 0 on your phone keypad. Please note this conference is being recorded. During this call, we will refer to the press release issued this morning announcing the financial results, which is available on our corporate website at www.abeonatherapeutics.com. We anticipate making projections and forward-looking statements during today's call, which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the federal securities law. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and are subject to change. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to various factors including, but not limited to, those outlined in our Form 10-K and periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These documents are available on our website at www.abeonatherapeutics.com. Joining us on today's call with prepared remarks are Dr. Vishwas Seshadri, Chief Executive Officer; Dr. Madhav Vasanthavada, Chief Commercial Officer; Joseph Walter Vazzano, Chief Financial Officer; and Brian Kevany, Chief Technical Officer. After the prepared remarks, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. I will now turn the call over to Vishwas Seshadri to lead us off. Vishwas, over to you.

Thank you, Jenny, and good morning, everyone. We continue to see growing patient demand for ZivaSkin, the first and only autologous cell-based gene therapy for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, or RDEB. As a reminder, ZivaSkin was approved in April 2025, but our launch was delayed to Q4 2025 as we optimized a sterility test that was required for product release. Treating our first commercial patient this past December was a significant milestone for Abeona Therapeutics Inc., but 2026 is where the launch execution ramps up. We are not just looking at one-off successes anymore. We are focused on building a consistent cadence of biopsies, product delivery, and treatments. Since resuming manufacturing in late January, after our annual shutdown, we have treated one patient this quarter, biopsied three additional patients with treatment scheduled over the coming weeks, and expect to perform additional biopsies this month. All patient treatments and biopsies performed to date have come from the first two of our four qualified treatment centers, Lurie Children's Hospital in Chicago and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. As our third and fourth QTCs, which are Children's Hospital of Colorado and UTMB at Galveston, Texas, also begin to schedule their patients into upcoming biopsy slots, we anticipate a healthy cadence of patient biopsies in the coming months. This momentum provides Abeona Therapeutics Inc. an opportunity to demonstrate that the operational machine behind ZivaSkin works at scale from initial biopsy through final delivery. At the same time, we are hyper-focused on ensuring a seamless experience for every patient in the ZivaSkin treatment journey, and we are building a foundation of operational excellence that resonates with this close-knit RDEB community. We recognize that in this patient-driven market, providing a smooth journey is the most effective way to catalyze the organic demand needed to scale ZivaSkin in 2026 and beyond. To further elaborate on how our launch is gathering momentum, I will now hand the call to our Chief Commercial Officer, Dr. Madhav Vasanthavada, to review the commercial update. Madhav?

Thank you, Vishwas. Hello, everyone. Demand for ZivaSkin continues to grow. We previously had reported that nearly 50 potentially eligible patients were identified across our initial qualified treatment centers and community-based physicians. Starting this year, we have deployed a field team that has been engaging with community physicians, and the number of identified eligible ZivaSkin patients has now grown to more than 100. While demand continues to grow, the speed at which identified patients receive ZivaSkin treatment has significantly varied during these initial months of launch, but the momentum is picking up. Since our launch in Q4 2025, two patients have been treated with ZivaSkin, three additional patients have been biopsied for treatment over the coming weeks, and we expect to biopsy additional patients this month. Currently, we also know of at least 10 more patients who are advancing through the administrative process and targeting the second quarter 2026 biopsy. As Vishwas mentioned, the patient treatments and biopsies until now have all come from the first two QTCs that were activated in the middle of last year. While it has taken a long time to move the very first patients through the funnel to treatment, we have not seen patient attrition during this process, and no payers so far have denied insurance coverage for ZivaSkin, reflecting the strong value ZivaSkin offers to this patient community. As QTCs and payers treat more patients and gain experience with the overall process, we expect the speed of patient treatment to go faster. Additionally, as the remaining two QTCs treat patients, we anticipate that the number of ZivaSkin treatments will grow in the coming quarters. Now, regarding activating additional QTCs for ZivaSkin, becoming a QTC is a multistep process. It starts with a dermatologist who is an EB specialist championing ZivaSkin at their institution…

Thanks, Madhav. I would like to remind everyone that you can find additional details on our financial results for the year ended 12/31/2025 in our most recent Form 10-Ks. Starting with the statements of operations, total revenue for the year ending 12/31/2025 was $5,800,000. Total revenue includes $3,400,000 in license and other revenues and $2,400,000 in net product revenue. License and other revenues were primarily driven by a clinical milestone of $3,000,000 achieved in 2025 under our sublicense agreement for Rett syndrome with Taysha Gene Therapy. Net product revenue reflects the patient treatment in December. The patient treated was a Medicaid patient. We expect our average net revenues to normalize over time as the payer mix expands to include commercially insured patients. We received payment for this treatment in 2026. Cost of sales for 2025 was $1,500,000, primarily driven by the first commercial ZivaSkin treatment in December. Cost of sales also includes the costs from the August production batch that was not released due to technical challenges related to an FDA-mandated rapid sterility lot release assay. As more patients are treated, we expect our gross margins to increase significantly with better economies of scale related to production costs. Total research and development (R&D) spending for 2025 decreased $7,600,000 to $26,800,000 compared to $34,400,000 in 2024. This reduction was primarily driven by the April 2025 FDA approval of ZivaSkin, which resulted in certain production costs being capitalized into inventory, and engineering runs that are no longer classified as R&D expense. Selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses for 2025 were $65,000,000, an increase of $35,100,000 over 2024. This increase primarily reflects Abeona Therapeutics Inc.’s commercial transition following the April 2025 FDA approval of ZivaSkin, including $18,600,000 in personnel and stock-based compensation and $2,300,000 in direct commercialization costs. Additionally, certain engineering and training expenses previously classified as R&D were transitioned to SG&A post approval. In May 2025, we sold our rare pediatric disease priority review voucher awarded following the FDA approval of ZivaSkin. The company recorded a $1,524,000,000 gain on sale from this transaction after receiving payment in June 2025. Net income was $71,200,000 for the year ended 12/31/2025, or $1.034 per basic and $1.10 per diluted common share. Net loss in 2024 was $63,700,000, or $1.55 loss per basic and diluted common share. As of 12/31/2025, cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments totaled $191,400,000. With that, I will pass the call back to Vishwas for additional remarks before opening the call for Q&A.

Thank you, Joe. In closing, I want to reiterate that while 2025 gave us our first commercial proof of concept, 2026 is about solidifying our commercial blueprint. I am incredibly proud of the entire Abeona Therapeutics Inc. team, from our manufacturing and quality groups ensuring every lot meets our highest standards, to our commercial and clinical teams supporting our treatment centers. Every person in this company is focused on ensuring that the RDEB community's experience with ZivaSkin is nothing short of excellent. We are doing the heavy lifting now to get these foundations right, and I am confident that this collective focus on execution today is what will allow us to scale aggressively and deliver meaningful value in the quarters and years to come. We look forward to providing updates on our continued progress on our first-quarter 2026 conference call. With that, I will turn the call over to Jenny to open it up for Q&A. Thanks, Jenny.

Thank you very much, Vishwas. At this time, we will be conducting our question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your phone keypad now. A confirmation tone will indicate that your line is in the queue. You may press star 2 if you would like to remove your question from the queue. It might be necessary to pick up your handset before you press the keys. Please wait a moment while we poll for questions. Our first question is coming from Ram Selvaraju of H.C. Wainwright. Ram, your line is live.

Thanks so much for taking our questions, and congratulations on all the recent progress. I was wondering if you could comment on the cadence with which qualified treatment centers are likely to be stood up in the coming months and any specific factors that might influence the speed with which that occurs, if you expect that pace to increase. And if so, what might be the specific contributing factors to that? Secondly, I was wondering if you could comment on the specific drivers of R&D spending over the course of 2026 and beyond and if we should expect R&D spend to modulate somewhat over the course of the coming quarters, or if in fact you expect any noteworthy increases over the remainder of 2026. Thank you.

Good morning, Ram, and thank you for the questions. Regarding the cadence with the QTCs and the speed of ramp-up, I think there are a lot of factors that go in. We have some preliminary viewpoint just beginning this quarter. I will turn it over to Madhav to articulate, knowing that our projections are based on the first two sites just about ramping up. Madhav, why do you not take that one?

Thanks, Ram, for the question. So with regard to QTCs, as I mentioned, we are working with five centers, one of whom is imminent, and we expect to hopefully announce it in this coming quarter. And then centers are in varying stages of their onboarding process. Our goal is to have seven in total active by the end of the year. In terms of the aspects that drive the speed with which the centers come on board, there are various ones. Some centers wanted to obviously wait for ZivaSkin approval to take place before they invested additional resources. Some started looking at their payer mix, like the individual patients that are in their treatment pool to see what kind of payer mix exists, how many are commercially insured patients, and if Medicaid, what are the out-of-state Medicaid nuances there. And they essentially were also waiting to see coverage established. But now we have covered significant ground with regard to market access, having established coverage and these payer policies also in place. So that has given great confidence for these sites to initiate their process and speed that up. And then there are other factors with regard to institutional bureaucracies that exist with every institution, people getting to understand the cell and gene therapy units, because in the dermatology space, this is the first engineered cell therapy that we are moving to the treatment space. And so that requires greater cross-functional interaction. But we have learned a lot in onboarding the previous four centers, and our teams are doing a tremendous job in helping the upcoming centers to navigate that pathway and bring them to speed. So we think we are confident about having seven total. And if additional centers move faster, then yes, of course, we will be able to help them stand up sooner. I hope that gives some flavor.

And just to add to that, Ram, you said at steady state, what we anticipate is sites have communicated to us that one patient a month is kind of a cadence that we can definitely do. Some sites are saying perhaps two patients a month. So I think it is just a matter of we are projecting based on what we are hearing from the sites in terms of their plans and their patient visibility. We need to see that come through. I think we will be able to give more evidence-based cadence and the speed of getting there once we start seeing that steady state. We need to see three consecutive months of delivering that consistently. I think that is really what we are looking to get to by midyear. But as we also articulated, two of our four sites are yet to reach the point where they start layering their patients because the upfront setup time is what they are taking right now. Hopefully, that comes through in the second quarter, and we are able to show with data that, okay, sites are reaching their kind of cruise-control level of speed and, therefore, this is more predictable. So I hope that helps there. Regarding your second question about R&D spending, let me open it up to Joe first to just give a little bit, because we are so focused on ZivaSkin launch right now that our R&D spend is almost insignificant. But, Joe, why do you not go ahead?

Sure. Thanks, Vishwas. Yes, Ram, I believe the question was just drivers of R&D spend for 2026 and going forward. As you may recall, we have to do the registry study that was part of the FDA approval so that they, you know, track the registry. Study costs go into R&D, and then also the pipeline development costs will go into R&D. And, again, as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, there is a shift from R&D to SG&A just with the evolution of transition to a commercial company. But those two items that I mentioned are going to be the main drivers of R&D spend for 2026 and outer years.

Right. And also, to add—sorry. Go ahead, Ram. Go ahead. Go ahead. No. No. Go ahead, please. I was just going to say, as you know, we do have some preclinical programs. We are not spending a lot of energy and resources on those. It is kind of running in the background. We do not see preclinical programs to stack up R&D expenses in a significant way, at least in 2026. 2027 is a different story, and I think a lot of it is going to depend on the ramp-up speed of ZivaSkin and what we can bite into. So I think that is going to be a story that will evolve through the rest of the year.

Just with respect to the qualified centers, I was wondering if you could comment on the relative coalescing or concentration of patients around those centers, and if you expect on a go-forward basis the bulk of new patients coming in to go through the first two treatment centers to be stood up, or if you expect some of the other treatment centers to be just as significant contributors to the overall number of patients coming on to ZivaSkin.

Yes, that is a great question. Go ahead, Madhav.

We expect them to have a good, decent pool of patients similar to the currently stood-up centers, Ram. And our strategy right now, just to expand on your question, is very clear. It is a three-pronged approach that we are taking. One is to have patients that are in these qualified treatment centers. We want to place them on ZivaSkin therapy as soon as possible. The second is to focus on the community physicians who already have indicated they have patients that are motivated and would be eligible for ZivaSkin treatment. We want those referrals to be the second tranche. And in parallel, as we look to stand up these additional centers, that is going to pancake on top of the first two-pronged approach to have their own pool of patients. Our approach is to make sure that the centers are as geographically spread as possible, because that also obviously will help with the travel, etc., for the patients and their families, let alone payer barriers that will be easier to overcome once you have more centers that are geographically spread. So we anticipate some of these centers who have the infrastructure, who have the EB centers of excellence, etc., to bring their own set of patients as they get activated.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Our next question is coming from Maury Raycroft of Jefferies. Maury, your line is live.

Hi, thank you. Congrats on the progress, and thanks for taking my questions. I had a question on the QTCs as well. So it sounds like currently, the QTCs are able to manage about one or two patients per month. Just wanted to clarify that. And what do you expect the cruise-control state to look like? I guess, how many patients per QTC do you think you are going to be able to get at sort of a maximum capacity at these initial sites? I will start with that one. Okay. And can you also just comment on the current timeline from receipt of START form to treatment initiation? What does that timeline look like? And then could that become more efficient over time as well? Yep. That makes sense, and that is helpful. Maybe last quick question, and I will hop back in the queue. Just if you can comment on, based on the demand ramp that you are seeing, how confident are you in achieving profitability for the company this year?

That is correct, Maury. One or two patients a month. We think that their ability to ramp up is really dependent on the sites. Certain institutions have demonstrated performance to be able to have a greater number—even go up to three patients a month—which will really depend on what their experience has been like with regard to their resource allocation and the nursing staff that have to care for the patient post operating procedures. But for the most part, we expect one or two patients a month in the foreseeable future. We will have to see how that ramps up as their overall process experience looks like.

The current timelines are very variable. It depends on various factors. But if I were to average ballpark, it is more like a four- to five-month process, of which 25 days is manufacturing time. That is very much a hard fix there. So four to five months, and that includes roughly one month of manufacturing. And we expect that to improve over time. I am glad you asked this question, Maury, because another factor here is you mentioned the START form. I would say from the point of identifying a patient to when they receive treatment, because the START form is something that we are seeing has a lot of variation in when a site puts that form to us. Some sites do it soon after an identified patient is either referred or they have had a consult, and some sites wait until the entire payer process takes place and then put the START form. So it is a very variable input as to what point in the patient's journey we receive that. What Madhav is describing here as approximately five months is when there is a consult that happens and the patient intends to get ZivaSkin and that conversation has happened. The first few patients took about five months all the way to get to the treatment, whereas we are seeing that process is going to shorten over time because the administrative part of this is getting more efficient as a given site has been through two or three patients. We believe that we have a pretty good chance of achieving profitability. If you define it as an entire company-level profitability, there are numerous factors that you already know. We have mentioned that anything north of three patients a month takes us to the profitable zone, which is, you know, $100,000,000, give or take, about the company burn in a given year. So if you use your gross-to-net calculations, 3.5 or more per month is taking us to the profitable zone. I think this is a very achievable target. There are some uncertain factors as to how the third and the fourth sites are going to achieve their speed and reach cruise control, and also how quickly we are bringing additional sites on board and then up and running. So I think these are a couple of variables, but we feel this is a pretty reasonable goal.

Got it. Okay. Thanks for taking my questions.

Thank you very much. Our next question is coming from Steven Willey of Stifel. Steven, your line is live.

Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions, and congrats on the progress. Has the target number of QTCs that you want to bring online over the longer term increased at all? I know you have some early experience on the referral front. I am just curious if you are finding that it might be logistically easier to activate more of these centers as opposed to trying to increase the band of referrals. Okay. So when you say—oh, go ahead. Sorry. Just one clarification: when you say you are actively onboarding five additional centers, that does not include the two that have recently signed up, Colorado Children's and UTMB. Understood. Then is there just anything you can talk about on the reimbursement side specifically as it pertains to preauthorization? And just curious if payers are pegging themselves to inclusion/exclusion criteria from the Phase 3. Is it pegged to the label? Just any color there would be helpful. Okay. And then just lastly, I think you mentioned that there is, I believe, another 10 patients or so that are targeting biopsies for next quarter. Can you just speak to how those patients are distributed against the two QTCs that are already treating patients versus Colorado and UTMB that you will be activating here shortly?

Our target QTC number, Steven, has been five to seven, and we do think that seven this year is a realistic goal. That does help with certainly the bandwidth within the qualified treatment centers as well as just increasing the footprint overall. We think we will have more outlets for patients to get treated. We are going to be working towards bringing these centers on board. But in the meantime, of course, as the various community physicians have patients, we want that healthy awareness and healthy enthusiasm from all of the other physicians also, so that in the longer term, that is really where we will rely on these community physicians to funnel their patients into the qualified centers. So that is really our approach. Our target centers right now are seven. And as I said, we have more centers that are working with us and would like to be activated. So if we have more treatment centers, then certainly that only adds more to the process and even the logistics. As Madhav explained, the QTC onboarding process itself can take several months. So while we talked about five additional centers beyond the four that we are working with, which are already activated, giving you a bigger number, we anticipate that some of those may spill over to even next year because it is a lengthy process. But we are definitely looking to have seven activated sites this year. Correct.

We are seeing a mix—definitely to inclusion/exclusion criteria—given the high-cost nature of the product. They want to make sure that their initial set of patients are guided to the inclusion/exclusion. But then we also have major plans like UnitedHealthcare and many of the Medicaid states also looking to have coverage that are favorable to the label criteria. So it really depends on the plans. But regardless of the criteria, what we are seeing is with letters of medical necessity, physicians have been able to overturn the requirements. For instance, if there is an age—age is one major that you are seeing in the sense that six years and above was our inclusion criteria—but for patients that are less than six, physicians have been able to overturn that. Also, with regard to squamous cell carcinoma and their presence in the body location, that is also one of the factors that physicians have been able to overturn and get the patients onto the product. So as more patients go through the process, in terms of the overall timing, that is also improving because letters of medical necessity and the templates that are required—those templates are getting populated. For future and subsequent patients, for processes that are unique to ZivaSkin, we are seeing that time also improve at the QTCs that are already treating patients. So that is really the reimbursement process. These inclusion/exclusion criteria do not prevent a patient from getting reimbursed eventually with all these additional steps that we are taking. So even if the plan has that kind of restriction, we are able to work through that and get patients reimbursed. It is across all of the four QTCs.

All right. Thanks for taking the questions.

Thank you very much. Our next question is coming from Kristen Kluska of Cantor Fitzgerald. Kristen, your line is live.

Hi. Good morning, everybody, and thanks for all of this specific color this morning. I wanted to ask about the dialogue or the relationship between the QTCs themselves. It sounds like Stanford and Chicago, being the first two, are kind of paving the way here, having a little bit of additional time to get things on board. Are they working with the additional two QTCs just to be a sounding board and help as everybody familiarizes themselves with this process? Okay. And then, as we think about the fact that some additional biopsies are already scheduled, and we have two weeks left in Q1, should we be conservatively modeling that these are more likely to come in Q2 versus the current quarter? And then it sounds like we will get one more QTC pretty quickly and another two maybe before the end of the year. How are you thinking about dispersing throughout geography in the country, and how has that played an impact so far about getting patients on board and the ability to travel to these sites, etc.?

They are not that we are directly aware of. We certainly know it is a tight-knit physician community, so they do talk to each other in terms of sharing best practices as well as administrative steps. Plus, our teams are also actively working with them and helping them cross-pollinate the best practices.

We expect one for this month, Kristen. But, of course, until the biopsy is done, we do not know. We do not see a reason why there should be any attrition or a drop-off, but it is for this month that we expect additional biopsies. Our goal is to have a geographically dispersed footprint. Clearly, you can see that the Eastern Seaboard is an important area for us. So if we have a center in that region, I think that will certainly help with patient access. These patients, for other reasons with their other comorbidities, do travel significant distances to get therapies. We do not really think that even five or seven is going to impede their ability to travel for ZivaSkin. But, of course, as more centers come on board, that is definitely going to be a positive thing. Also, the flexibility that it offers—right now, certain patients, and I am not saying this is true for every patient, crossing state borders have extra paperwork to go through Medicaid. There are more bureaucratic steps. Those things will also be streamlined a little bit by offering more choice and flexibility on where they can get treated. So that is really what we are also excited about.

Thank you very much. Our next question is coming from Jeff Jones of Oppenheimer. Jeff, your line is live.

Good morning, guys, and thanks for taking the question. Maybe the first one on manufacturing. How comfortable are you at this point that the sterility testing is well behind you now? And just a reminder, if you would, on current production capacity and then the expansion plan of that capacity through the year. And then the second one, maybe on patient and physician feedback now that you have treated patients in the commercial setting. What is the feedback you have been getting from physicians and patients on the overall experience?

Thank you, Jeff. So your first question is about manufacturing, the sterility test—whether that is behind us and how we are ramping up capacity. We do have our CTO, Dr. Brian Kevany, on the call. Brian, can you take that one, please?

Thanks, Vishwas. As a reminder, we had a very healthy dialogue with the agency around the sterility assay issue. That was a very productive conversation with the agency, and we do feel that the resolution that came out of that is the solution going forward. We will continue to always look to ways to improve our manufacturing and testing process, but we do feel very confident that the resolution that came out of those discussions is going to support us going forward. As it relates to production capacity, currently, we are running at a cadence of six patients per month within the facility and continue to develop the space to be capable of reaching that 10-patient-per-month capacity that we have previously discussed throughout the rest of this year. All of those activities are on track to meet that goal, and it is actually lining up very well with onboarding the additional QTCs to maintain a steady level of supply for those sites as they come on board.

And I just wanted to also add on the sterility topic, Jeff, which is we have done a lot of work trying to minimize the probability that that problem occurs again. Whether we can go, say, 40 runs or 50 runs and never see this problem happen again—that is only going to be empirically proven. But all our feasibility studies point out that the probability is significantly reduced by at least a log order or more. That is what gives us the strength. But we are not stopping at that. Whatever we have implemented as an improvement to reduce those false positives, we are not stopping at that. We are also doing the next-generation rapid cellular redevelopment alongside this so that we can get to an even better level. When you say R&D, we are always thinking about pipeline. There is a lot of lifecycle management R&D that goes into optimizing ZivaSkin. That is really where some of our teams in the quality function are focused on. And as Brian said, we are already operating at six manufacturing runs a month cadence. With the current demand, it is keeping up, and that is going to be ramped up to about 10 a month by the second half of the year. The second question that you asked was about the patient and HCP feedback on the current treatment. I will just preface this by saying that there are only two patients that have been treated, and there is not enough time that has passed along, because you remember even our endpoints and assessments happen at six months. This is a therapy with a durability play. I do not know if we have enough feedback, but I will open it up to Madhav to see what he has on that.

Nothing more to add, Vishwas, to what you have said at this point.

Overall, when we talk to doctors and they say, “Oh, that patient is doing well,” what does that really mean? Are you talking about wound healing, or are you talking about general health of the patient? These are things that we do not really know. So it is too premature to comment on that.

Alright. Appreciate it, guys. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Our next question is coming from David Bautz of Zacks Small-Cap Research. David, your line is live.

Hey. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for the update this morning. So I have a couple of questions about the patients that you have already treated. First off, are you aware if they were also simultaneously being treated with VYJUVEK, say, maybe for their smaller wounds, if they had any? Do you anticipate the need to retreat either of those patients later in 2026? And then are you aware if there are any exclusions for retreatment, say, if any of the payers have restrictions on the ability to get retreated?

Go ahead, Madhav.

We do not know the wound-by-wound related question. What we do know is that these patients were not simultaneously on VYJUVEK. That is the information we have. With regard to their prior history of VYJUVEK, we think that most of these patients have received VYJUVEK at some point in their journey. Your second question with regard to retreatment: based on the physician feedback, these patients have significantly large wound areas, and physicians have said that, yes, these patients would require a second round of the ZivaSkin treatment. We do not know if that is going to be this year or if this is going to be next year or at some other point, because these initial set of patients and the foreseeable future—these patients have large areas of their body that require several areas to be treated. The third one with regard to exclusion: no, we do not see exclusion criteria with regard to a retreatment of a patient, which is really something we are very pleased to see—that payers are not blocking ZivaSkin for once in their lifetime. That is encouraging. If we do have a patient that requires a retreatment of a previously treated ZivaSkin area, then it really depends on what the payer policies there would look like. But we are not seeing any kind of a blockade based on the policies that have been published.

Okay. Great. Appreciate you taking the questions.

Thank you very much. We have now reached the end of our question-and-answer session. I will now turn the call back over to Vishwas for his closing remarks.

Thank you, Jenny, and thank you, everyone, for joining us today for the earnings call. We will talk to you again soon.

Thank you very much. This does conclude today's conference call. You may disconnect your phone lines at this time, and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation.