Christian Heidbreder
Analyst · Jefferies
Thank you, Pat. I will now provide an update on our R&D pipeline, starting with INDV-6001. INDV-6001 delivered meaningful scientific and regulatory progress during the year, achieving its principal Phase II objectives, including a supportive safety profile, predictable pharmacokinetics consistent with modeling, and constructive engagement with the FDA. As part of our portfolio review, we evaluated INDV-6001 in the context of the evolving long-acting injectable buprenorphine landscape. In our view, SUBLOCADE is the only once-monthly long-acting injectable buprenorphine with a rapid initiation pathway in the approved label, continues to set the clinical and commercial standard in this category. SUBLOCADE's ability to achieve and maintain differentiated plasma concentrations without a complex induction regimen represents an important benchmark for future products. While INDV-6001 successfully demonstrated extended dosing intervals, including exploration of dosing up to three months, further analysis identified challenges, specifically achieving clinically meaningful plasma concentration profiles, particularly in a treatment environment shaped by high potency synthetic opioids, was anticipated to require a more complex induction protocol relative to SUBLOCADE's established approach, introducing additional development and implementation considerations. In addition, a comprehensive review of late-stage development and commercialization factors highlighted some remaining challenges, including: one, manufacturing scalability; and two, limited anticipated clinical and commercial differentiation in the payer and prescriber landscape, and the resulting impact on pricing and reimbursement dynamics. As a result, we have decided not to advance INDV-6001 into Phase III clinical development and have amended our license agreement with Alar Pharmaceuticals. Pursuant to these amendments, Alar will regain development rights to the asset and commercialization rights outside of the U.S. Indivior will maintain commercial rights in the U.S. Turning to INDV-2000. In a Phase II proof-of-concept study, our selective orexin-1 receptor antagonist under evaluation as a novel nonopioid treatment for opioid use disorder did not meet the prespecified primary endpoint of no treatment failure over 12 weeks when evaluated across the full dose range, 100, 200, and 400 milligram versus placebo. Interpretation of the overall dose response was confounded by unanticipated underperformance at the 400 milligram dose and a higher-than-anticipated placebo response. While this Phase II study does not support advancing INDV-2000 internally in opioid use disorder, we are encouraged by the broader body of data that emerged from the trial. Importantly, prospectively planned sensitivity analysis, together with converging supportive findings, identified a credible and biologically coherent signal at the 200 milligram dose. At that dose, we observed a higher abstinence rates over time versus placebo across cocaine and broader polysubstance use, including cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamine, benzodiazepine, and opioid in combination. While these findings are exploratory, they are directionally consistent with the underlying orexin-1 mechanism and its potential role in cue-driven drug seeking, stress reactivity, and relapse vulnerability. We also saw supportive directional improvements in anxiety symptoms as well as exploratory functional MRI findings that aligned with the clinical observations and further supported the biological activity of INDV-2000. Taken together, these results strengthen our confidence that the molecule is engaging relevant relapse-related pathways. Importantly, INDV-2000 demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile with no major drug-related safety signal identified. So while we do not plan to pursue development internally in opioid use disorder, we believe these findings support continued evaluation of 200 milligrams as the lead dose and position INDV-2000 as a credible business development opportunity while we continue to strengthen the data package through additional analysis, including exposure response work and further evaluation of supportive clinical and mechanistic findings. These decisions are expected to have a significant impact on the R&D organization. However, it does not reflect the quality of the underlying science or the team's execution. We are grateful for the rigor, dedication, and high-quality work of our R&D team, whose efforts advanced these programs and generated valuable scientific and regulatory insights that will inform future innovation. I will now turn the call over to Ryan.