Hello. Thank you for standing by. Welcome to Corcept Therapeutics’ Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker’s presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call over to, Atabak Mokari. You may begin.

Hello, everyone. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. Today, we issued a press release announcing our financial results for the second quarter and providing a corporate update. A copy is available at corcept.com. Our complete financial results will be available when we file our Form 10-Q with the SEC. Today’s call is being recorded. A replay will be available at the Investors, Past Events tab of our website. Statements during this call other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements based on our plans and expectations that are subject to risks and uncertainties, which might cause actual results to be materially different from those such statements express or imply. These forward-looking statements are described in today’s press release and the risks and uncertainties that may affect them are described in the press release and in our annual report on Form 10-K and our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Please refer to those documents for additional information. We disclaim any intention or duty to update forward-looking statements. Our revenue in the second quarter of 2024 was $163.8 million, an increase of 39% compared to the second quarter of the prior year. We expect our revenue growth to continue and have increased our 2024 revenue guidance to $640 million to $670 million. Net income was $35.5 million in the second quarter compared to $27.5 million in the second quarter of the prior year. Our cash and investments at June 30th was $492.5 million. I will now turn the call over to Charlie Robb, our Chief Business Officer. Charlie?

Thanks, Atabak. I don’t have much to report this quarter. As many of you know, in March 2018, we sued Teva to stop it from marketing a generic version of Korlym in violation of our patents. In December last year, the trial court ruled against us. We’ve appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing in the matter is complete. The documents are available at the government’s PACER website, if anyone would like to review them, and the next step is for the Federal Circuit to schedule oral argument. The timing of oral argument and the issuance of an opinion are entirely up to the Federal Circuit and can’t be known with certainty. As I said before, a reasonable expectation will be for oral arguments to take place in the fourth quarter, perhaps late in third quarter of this year, with the decision issuing in the first quarter of 2025, possibly very late in fourth quarter of 2024. If we prevail, Teva would lose FDA approval of its product and have to remove it from the market, at least until the expiration of our patents in 2037. As I’ve said before, we’re eager to advance this appeal. We strongly believe that our position is correct and the Federal Circuit with its deep expertise in patent law will agree. I’ll now turn the call over to, Joe Belanoff, our Chief Executive Officer. Joe?

Thank you, Charlie, and thank you everyone for joining us this afternoon. This has been an extremely active period at Corcept. Our commercial business continues to be very strong and we are making progress in all of our clinical development programs. The past quarter marked several significant milestones for our Endocrinology division. I will take a few minutes to elaborate on each area of progress. Individually, they are of great importance and collectively even more so. The commercial growth in our Endocrinology division was driven by another record number of new Korlym prescribers and by a record number of patients receiving Korlym. As physicians become increasingly aware that hypercortisolism is much more prevalent than previously assumed, they are screening and treating more patients. When Korlym is prescribed, we use the expertise and infrastructure that we have developed and refined over many years to support physicians and patients. We have known for some time that there were more patients who would benefit from screening for Cushing’s syndrome and ultimately from treatment than was commonly recognized. The findings from the prevalence portion of the CATALYST study make it clear that there are many more patients with hyperchorazolism than was previously recognized. CATALYST is the largest and most rigorous clinical study ever conducted to examine the prevalence of hypercortisolism in patients with difficult to control type 2 diabetes. Of the first 1,055 patients enrolled in the CATALYST study, one in four were found to have hypercortisolism. This is a far higher prevalence rate than was assumed with large implications for patient care. Hypercortisolism was even more common in patients in this study with already recognized cardiovascular disease, particularly in those who need a three or more medication to manage their hypertension. More than a third of this group of patients had hypercortisolism. The…

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Matt Kaplan with Ladenburg. Your line is open.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the questions and congrats on the strong quarterly results. Joe, you mentioned in your prepared remarks that you’ve seen an increase in screening treatment in terms of use of Korlym. I guess, where are we in terms of the awareness of the prevalence of hypercortisolism in the endo community now and in terms of the increase in screening?

Thank you, Matt, and good to hear from you. I really think we’re just at the beginning of that. I think that the results that you’re seeing in the second quarter really are not a function of what the results were released in the CATALYST study in late June. But in July, we certainly have started seeing a pickup in interest. I think that’s going to continue through the year. And, I think ultimately the treatment portion of the CATALYST study will also be very meaningful. But the short answer to your question is, I think we’re really just at the beginning of that expansion.

Okay. That’s helpful. And then, just stay on Korlym for a moment. What are you seeing in terms of generic Korlym in the marketplace now?

Okay. I’m going to pass you over just to reintroduce you to Sean Maduck, who is the President of our Endocrinology Division.

Hey, Matt. Thank you for the question. I guess I’ll answer it two ways. The first question is what are you seeing in the marketplace? The Teva product has been available in the channel for many months, so it’s out there, but it has had very little impact on our business.

Okay. Okay. And, just one more question maybe before I jump back in the queue. I guess following the presentation of the GRACE open-label and randomized withdrawal results at the recent conferences, What’s been the feedback you’ve been getting from the endo community so far?

Again, I’d like to reintroduce you to Bill Guyer, who is our Chief Development Officer. Bill?

All right, great. Thank you for that question. Well, the reception from investigators and clinicians has been outstanding, to be honest. They were excited about all of the relacorilant results because we have a positive study. So, hit our primary endpoint. But beyond that, we’ve seen that relacorilant hit almost every secondary and exploratory endpoint because we see a broad improvement across the broad range of signs and symptoms of Cushing’s syndrome. And, these positive results give clinicians insight into what they should expect in their patient. And another key piece is, that promise of what we had hoped to improve on the safety profile and they take away that due to relacorilant’s unique mechanism of action, the robust and broad efficacy was seen without relacorilant induced AEs like hypokalemia, vaginal bleeding with endometrial thickening, no adrenal insufficiency and no QT prolongation. So, when you put that package all together, the clinicians were very pleased to see that what we promised within relacorilant being unique and its selectivity has borne out to show that integration study.

Okay, very helpful. And, I guess maybe just one more, Bill, while I have you. I guess as we look forward to the DAZALS’ results, what would be a clinically meaningful change in the ALSFRS as we look to that?

Yes. So, in talking with ALS experts, we feel that the functional rating scale, the ALS functional rating scale, we are powered to see a 2.4 point difference in the Functional Rating Scale and we believe that, that is and so do investigators and clinicians, that’s a clinically meaningful change in the ALS Functional Rating Scale. So, we’re powered to detect that difference and it will be a clinically significant difference.

Thanks again, guys.

Thank you, Matt.

Thanks, Matt.

Please standby for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of David Amsellem with Piper Sandler. Your line is open.

Hey. Thanks. I just had a few. First, regarding the Korlym AG, can you talk about your thought process for bringing an AG into the marketplace? And, how does that play into your thinking regarding the potential for one or two more generic entrants, in other words, Sun or Hikma? Just wanted to get your thought process there on the AG, that’s Number 1? And then secondly, in terms of the new prescribers, are these coming from squarely in the endocrinology community or maybe adjacent to the endocrinology community, in other words, diabetologists, or maybe a better way of asking is, are you getting a lot of traction, among diabetologists who historically, have not prescribed the drug and have not screened for Cushing’s? So, that’s Number 2. And then lastly, as you think about the evolution of this space, with the prevalence being wider than what the community had thought it to be. How does that play into how you’re thinking about the pricing of relacorilant. I know it might be early to ask that, but I think it’s a fair question just given that the prevalence of this space and our understanding of it is evolving? Thank you.

Thank you, David, and thanks for those questions. I think all of them really fall right in, Sean Maduck’s house. So, I’m going to pass it over to him.

Yes. Thanks, David. So, I’m going to try to break these down. That’s a lot of questions together. So, I may have to check-in, but I think I covered it. So, your first question was around the AG and sort of what drove our thinking around that. And, the reality is that over time, given the availability of a generic in the market that payers may mandate that their patients receive a generic drug. And, making the AG available allows us, of course, have to ensure that these patients and their prescribing physicians have continuity care and are still able to access the robust patient support services and physician support services that we provide. The second part of your question then was how does I believe you asked how does this influence what might happen with other potential generics entering the market. I can’t speak to what their specific plans are, but I will remind everybody that Teva announced their launch on January 19th. And by statute, any additional filer, any second filer can enter six months after the first filer have launched, provided that they have the FDA approval. And, the earliest possible date was July 19th and that date has passed. And, as far as we know, neither Sun nor Hikma has FDA approved. All right. So, the third part of the question was around new prescribers and I guess how widely distributed are those across specialties. And, I can tell you that we’ve continued to promote broadly to endocrinologists and to other patients that we believe could be seeing patients with hypercortisolism within their practices. So, we educate through our field force and through other initiatives and we’ve seen new prescribers emerge in the diabetology space, the endocrinology space, as well as others. And, then the last question was specifically about pricing. Can you please maybe restate what the specific question was around pricing?

Yes, sure. And I apologize. I know it was a mouthful. So, in terms of the pricing, just in with this space, having a wider prevalent, how does that impact how you’re thinking about pricing of relacorilant? I guess what I’m trying to ask is, is pricing of relacorilant going to be somewhat below what you’re seeing what the AG for Korlym is priced at or the brand? That’s the most direct way I could ask it.

That’s a great question. Thank you. So, right now we expect that pricing will be roughly in-line with Korlym. There are real arguments, however, that relacorilant could be priced at a premium to Korlym given its favorable efficacy and safety profile. Now the crux of your question around the expansion of the population, I mean, we recognize that Korlym and the future relacorilant are high priced drugs that’s priced for right now a smaller patient population. We know that each market has a price threshold though and that a market with 2,000 patients is obviously different than one with 20,000 or 200,000. The hypercortisolism market is definitely still growing and when we know where we’re at, our price will accurately reflect that market and that’s our social contract. That’s something that that we firmly believe.

Thank you, David.

Thank you.

Thanks, David.

Thank you. Please stand by for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of RK with H.C. Wainwright. Your line is open.

Thank you. Thanks for taking my question. So, just on the quarterly revenue growth, I’m just trying to understand, you said that some of the uptake that we could think about coming from Endo was actually happening in July. So, going from where we are now, and how should we think about the mix? And also, what are you taking into account when you’re changing your guidance or you’re upping your guidance from where it was at the end of Q1?

Yes. Thank you for the question. This is Sean again. I think your question is related to sort of CATALYST and diabetologists. The reality is there’s been very little to no impact from CATALYST in our year-to-date results, and we have included modest benefit in our updated guidance. That said, I do think that the results presented at AADA that Joe had highlighted are going to be increasingly meaningful over time and that we could see more patients in the second half of the year than was initially expected. When the results of the treatment arm of the study are available at the end of the year, I think a very meaningful change could take place. So, we have all -- we’ve taken all those factors into account. We take many factors into account when we look at our range and the range that we stated is our best thinking.

Okay. Thank you.

Please stand by for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Joon Lee with Truist. Your line is open.

Hey. Congrats on the strong quarter, and thanks for taking our questions. We have two questions. First is what’s the reason for the delay in relacorilant NDA submission to 4Q? And what’s the rating rate limiting step for that submission? And then the second question is, regarding the Phase 4 CATALYST trial, how important is the outcome of the Part 2 in expanding the TAM? Specifically, regardless of the outcome of Part 2 in managing glucose levels, would the patients still need to be treated for hypercortisolism? Thank you.

I’ll answer just the second question first, if you wouldn’t mind, Joon. The answer is that we think that it’s very meaningful that we think that the problem with these patients -- just to sort of back up. The average hemoglobin A1C in patients who entered the CATALYST study was 8.8. And these are treatment patients who are treated by really in my estimation, but many others, the best diabetologist in the country using the best medications, including many who are taking GLP-1s and so forth. These patients clearly have another problem. And in a quarter of them, it’s hypercortisolism. I mean, that clearly is an issue for them. Now, I think the treatment study is very meaningful. I think the question we have really high hopes and expectations it’s going to do the medicine is going to do exactly what we think it’s going to do. But I really do think that showing that these patients exist, which has really already shaken the heads of these diabetologists and showing there’s really something you can do about it, I think it’s going to be very, very meaningful. I’m going to pass, just so Charlie can speak here. Charlie Robb, who is our Head of Regulatory and Chief Business Officer will answer your first question.

Yes. Hi, Joon. Yes, in the course of -- just to back up a little bit, any company including ours that’s preparing to submit an NDA is in regular conversation with the FDA and a lot of information is exchanged, things are discussed. And it was after that back and forth that we decided that to include data from our GRADIENT trial, which is, to remind everyone, is fully enrolled and we’ll have that data in the fourth quarter. But we decided to include that in the NDA submission. And that data will be available in the fourth quarter, so that’s when we’ll be able to submit the NDA. That’s all there is to it.

Alright. Thank you.

Thank you, Joon. All right. Well, listen, it’s a late summer afternoon for everyone. Thank you for dialing in, and we will speak to you in a quarter.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.