Ryan Beal, Chief Executive Officer at Dyve Biosciences

Jesus Moreno (00:01.317)
Welcome back to Global Trials Accelerators, the podcast where we dismantle the barriers to clinical innovation and explore the strategies driving the next generation of life-saving therapies. Every geobiopharma spends billions of dollars trying to discover brand new cancer targets, yet one of the most effective shields, a tumor uses, a wall of intense acidity, has been sitting in plain sight for decades.

That acidity mode disarms our immune system and shuts down T cells just as effectively as any generic checkpoint. But the industry largely gave up on it because swallowing oral anti acid or buffering agent destroys patients' stomach stomachs long before reaching therapeutic levels inside the tumor. It wasn't a failure of biology, it was a failure of

delivery. Our guest today solved that exact trap with a brilliant cap capital excuse me.

Jesus Moreno (01:11.869)
Our guests today solved that exact trap with a brilliant capital effective strategy. Dr. Brian I'm so sorry. Dr. Ryan Beal is the founder and CEO of Dive Bioscience. His team created the DYV 800, a topical formulation using their proprietary.

DMAX platform to deliver a buffering agent systematically right through the skin, bypassing the gut entirely to disarm the tumor's acid shield and let T cells do their job. Instead of gambling millions taking an unproven delivery patch straight into a high-risk cancer trial, Ryan de-risked the technology by proving its efficiency in a phase two gut trial.

Gout excuse me. Ryan de risked the technology by proving its safety in a phase two gout trial first. Now backed by impressive data published with Mofitz Cancer Center.

Dive Science has teamed up with Moffitz to launch First in Human Clinical Trial. Ryan brings a unique background to this story. He spent seven years as a pharma strategist at Mackenzie and holds an MD from UPenn and is a cancer survival himself. Ryan, welcome to Global Trials Accelerators. It's a great honor to have you with us today.

Ryan Beal (02:54.488)
Thank you, Jesus. It's a it's a pleasure to be here. I appreciate the time.

Jesus Moreno (03:00.563)
We're glad to to have this conversation, Ryan. And you've seen this industry from every angle, advising major drug launches at Mackenzie, trying trained as a physician and fighting cancer as a patient. I would like to start by asking why do you think the biopharma world spent billions chasing exotic new targets while leaving a well known barrier like tumor acidity completely untouched?

Ryan Beal (03:31.607)
Yeah, it's a it's a really good question, Asusa. Yeah, I think so much in pharma innovation is driven ultimately at the start by scientific interest and sci and scientific study that links way back to your interests in grad school and and the lab you were in and things like that. So it's very pathway specific.

And in a way, development, not just in oncology, but across pharma, in many ways happens in these silos of scientific interest and and intellectual curiosity about a path, you know, a specific pathway or a specific protein in that pathway. And while great, and and while it has led to significant innovation in those drugs.

People, I don't want to say they forgot along the way, but they were working downstream of this upstream regulator, which was acidity. And in many ways, that's what we're doing is is we're saying, hey, wait a minute, guys, there is this underarching issue that if addressed could help a broad slate of therapies work better and the hum and the the patient's immune system itself work better.

And if we could target that, it's not just one new drug that's coming to market. Well, it is one new drug that comes to market. It's a drug that improves all existing drugs out there. So, in a way, Asus, one of the things I've I I talk about with the team is you can think about all these individual drugs that have been developed as cars. And you know, we've been working on these cars to make them more efficient, faster, better for

You know, decades, but no one looked at the road itself. Or or we just imagine that the road is the road. It may be broken, it may be sandy, it may be an off-road adventure. But if we make the cars better, if we make the suspensions better, if we make the fuel better, if we make the brakes better, we'll have a better car and we'll be able to get to the destination. So in this race to cure cancer, everyone's been focused on the cars. And we said,

Ryan Beal (05:53.421)
Wait a minute, what if what if we fix the road that all these cars operate on and fix the road? And all the cars can drive on this now new and improved road. that's what we focused on. But I think it links back to that siloed study and siloed intellectual curiosity, which again, while great and while leading to significant innovation and significant advancement in the field, there's this underlying road that we that we think we can fix.

that'll make all these cars or drugs run better.

Jesus Moreno (06:26.897)
Of course. And that's a great analogy, that captures that distinction between the biological problem and the delivery, which is is huge. We we know that buffer agents could neutralize the acidity, but swallowing them wrecks the gut. And that presents a a major issue with with this avenue exploration. So I'm curious to learn when when you set out to build

Mm dive bioscience. What gave you the confidence that skin could act as a highway using your your analogy to deliver this agent deeper into the body? What gave you that intuition?

Ryan Beal (06:58.616)
Yeah.

Ryan Beal (07:12.034)
Well, like a lot of founders in a lot of industries, there's no doubt that there was some luck involved and even perhaps some naivety as I as I started. And just a belief knowing that, you know, transdermal drug delivery or taking drugs through the skin has been something that people have looked at for 50, 60, 75 years. And

While there have been a a handful of drugs that have been approved for transdomal delivery, historically it was l it's been limited to a very small subset of molecules. And early on as we were developing the science, our goal was well, the hypothesis was, what if we could deliver a broader set of molecules than traditionally traditionally able to be taken through the skin? So traditionally.

Had to be a very small molecule, less than 500 Daltons, had her had to be moderately lipophilic or moderately fatty, and in general had to be highly potent, which is just code for you weren't going to expect to get much in to have a biologic effect. And what we challenged was the dogma around those Lipinsky's rules of delivery: less than 500 Daltons, moderate lipophilicity, high solubility, highly potent, all those things. And

Believed that we had a very different approach to transgenal delivery that, if successful, would open up a broader set of actives to go after. And what we were looking for early on is not to be a transgender platform that could be used for anything, but very specifically, where are there opportunities where

We know if you get the drug in, it works. And maybe we know that from existing human trials that are encumbered with a terrible adverse event profile. Or maybe we know it from animal trials where we see the biology work, but it's not feasible in humans, like the case with the buffering agents in oncology. We said if we identify those where there's known biology, but a specific delivery bottleneck.

Ryan Beal (09:37.069)
We think we could really do something impactful and do it in a way that's also patient-friendly, easy to use, less expensive to manufacture than you know, genetically engineering a new compound or developing a biologic, et cetera, et cetera. So we were looking for known actives with a known effect from a biology standpoint, but some delivery challenge. And early on.

We were largely focused on cutaneous applications or even skincare applications. And that's where I say there was a little bit of luck involved. I mean, we thought we would have a delivery platform or delivery science that would take active ingredients from the surface of the skin and get it deeper into the viable dermis and epidermis and and have more of a biologic effect. And

where where the luck was involved is we realized, wait a minute, we're not just getting deeper into the skin, we're actually getting down into the vasculature and making something available systemically. And that really changed the trajectory of the company, where we said, this isn't just a a topical dermatology delivery system. This is something that is really delivery science that can be used systemically. And that opened the aperture on what was possible.

And led to what we're doing in oncology today.

Jesus Moreno (11:04.529)
That's so interesting. It's a unique strategy. that gets really interesting for other founders, especially when you when you think about how you executed it. Taking a brand new delivery platform straight into a cancer trial is incredibly risky and expensive. But you chose to de-risk the technology with a phase two trial for gout.

before launch launching it into into a cancer program. I'm I'm curious to learn how did proving your technology in a non-cancer trial change your timeline, your credibility and even those conversations with with investors. Was there a noticeable difference in in how that you know rump up process came about?

Ryan Beal (12:00.342)
Y yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, in drug development, so much of the dollars are spent in early drug discovery. So we already bypassed that by looking for, you know, we weren't we weren't in the drug discovery business, we were in the delivery business. That said, like all these studies, you have to start with the animal studies. And we started with onc you know, can cancer studies, oncology studies in animals. and

We're seeing excellent results. But everyone, especially in oncology, knows. oncol cancer smart and oncology is a different beast. And those trials are very competitive and ext and ergo expensive. and so while we were working on the animal studies and letting that data kind of mature and working through multiple studies there, we saw an opportunity to

address the big question, which is can you deliver it in humans? And so we started to look for other therapeutic areas or other pathophysiology where acidity played a key role in that pathophysiology. And you know acidity plays a key role in numerous different disease states from the immune response, which is obviously where we're focused on the oncology side, but also the inflammatory response and cardiovascular and neurodegenerative disease.

Nash, but but again, also competitive spaces from a trial perspective. but gout was one that that stood out where you know uric acid crystals thrive and form in an acidic microenvironment. The pain of inflammation cascades in an acidic microenvironment.

And we had some anecdotal evidence and some of the literature that pointed us to this idea that if you addressed that acidity in a locally acidic joint, you could intervene in the pain of an acute gout attack. Gout is also one that's relatively a relatively easy trial to do. An acute gout attack is a you know generally lasts about a week with today's standard of care. relatively easy to enroll.

Ryan Beal (14:23.444)
And so we said this could give us a good opportunity to test the hypothesis. Can we deliver, can we view pH as a target? Can we treat a locally acidic microenvironment, in this case the joint instead of the tumor? But can we get the drug to have an effect on a pathophysiology that's driven by acidity? And that on top of the fact that

There's still a lot of unmet need in acute gout. There'sn't there hasn't been a lot of innovation there in the acute side. There's been great innovation on managing chronic gout. We said, let's let's go do this trial and obviously look at the gout response itself, but along the way, look at biomarkers that would give us a read-through on modulating pH itself and see if we have an effect there. But very intentionally, as a way to test human delivery and de-risk.

That human delivery question on the oncology side. Because what we were hoping is we would be sitting with a Venn diagram with on one side we had great animal data and oncology. And on another side, we had this question on being able to deliver pH modulation in humans. If we could show that that overlap is pH modulation in oncology patients. But we we at least have the two circles now and two green circles. And now this.

Pending human trial in oncology is where we hope that Venn diagram shows that that the biology not only translates into humans, which we're confident it will, but that the delivery in humans in gout translates to delivery in humans with cancer. So we're quite excited about it. And and it absolutely changed the dynamic of the conversations that you mentioned. I mean, you know, with the topically delivered therapy and transnormal delivery.

There's no question that that carries baggage. you know, people have been trying to take things through the skin for a long time and largely failing. And so there is a lot of baggage amongst the industry and amongst investors. you know, they've seen the movie before. And so we've had to adopt the approach approach that, hey, we recognize there's baggage. We'll just let the data speak for itself. But to do that, you have to be very strategic in terms of how you deploy capital.

Ryan Beal (16:46.362)
and when you deploy it and where you deploy it to try to de-risk along the way so you can tell that story and bring let the let the market catch up if you will. but they can only catch up if if there's data and it's real data.

Jesus Moreno (17:02.333)
Absolutely. And taking a a novel skin patch therapy from from a mouse model to a real human, a patient is is a massive leap. I I would like to hear from you what have been the hardest you know, transitional hurdles you've had to clear to convince both regulatory and clinical trial doctors that topical patches could work.

systemically in in cancer. well I know the cancer trial is st still upcoming, but in in the go gout trial or or even you know in in those initial conversations about the cancer trial, how have you approached those hurdles?

Ryan Beal (17:51.555)
I think there are kind of two components to it. and one, just I guess before I answer, just a slight clarification. The science itself or what we've developed doesn't require a patch. That's one of the unique things about it. So it's a it's a microemulsion or a cream. It from a end use case, it could be loaded onto a patch, but doesn't require a patch. but to answer your specific question.

That is a big challenge. And again, it goes back to the the dogma around transdermal delivery and the questions about it. And it goes back to, I think, two, two components. One, building that data set in in animals, which isn't humans, but you've got to at least bring that data and show that, okay, traditionally this didn't work in animals either, what we're doing, and we've been able to show it at least works there.

and whether it's rodents or mini pigs, etc., bringing that data and having a collection of data across multiple molecules to show that, hey, this is different. There is something here to believe. Now we we don't know if it works in humans yet, but there's at least this is rooted in some some good science. And if you double click on the science and the mechanism of action, there's a real reason it's working. So it's coming with the the data

And the mechanism of action that at least is plausible to a clinician. And that's kind of part one. But I you've always got to bring bring the data. And that's not unique to trans transdermal delivery. That would be the case with with most new drug discovery. The difference here is the discovery wasn't drug discovery, it was delivery discovery. But we still had to bring that data. But then the second component, which I think

Is is something we've we've really tried to do intentionally and strategically is think about where that data is applied in the human setting. And so what I mean by that is looking for areas where you could get a clinician to the point of if this works, that's a really big deal. So it's allowing them to understand the data, but also make the leap that, okay, if indeed you're right.

Ryan Beal (20:16.374)
And this does work in humans, I get it. This is a big deal. it's not another incremental improvement, it's not a me too, it's not an evolutionary step up, but a potentially a big step change in what's in what's possible. And so you you you want them to to make to take that leap of faith with you. And of course, buried in that leap of faith is being able to tell the safety story and adherence story and that it's patient-friendly.

And all those things. So you're you're you're basically going down saying, look, the data is good. And if and and we believe the approach is safe, the molecule is well understood, the biology is well understood, the adverse events are are either de minimis or can be mitigated. And if you combine those two things and it works in humans, imagine the impact. I mean, clinicians ultimately want better options for their patients and they want them to be.

safe and they want high adherence and they you know all those things. And so if you couple all of that with the, and it could be transformational, not just incremental, you get people to go along on the journey with you. And that's what's that's what's really helped us. And you know, those things merged nicely with what we're doing with Moffat Cancer Center, which you brought up in the the intro. You know, a lot of the science around buffering tumors and

And neutralizing that acidity around tumors was was developed and worked on and advanced at Moffitt preclinically and clinically, where and that's where they ran into challenges. But they understood the science very well and they understood the potential. And so a lot of our preclinical work was done with the team at Moffitt before we have had this strategic alliance.

But going back to them and saying, okay, you understand the biology, you've seen the results in animals if you can modulate pH, but you've ran into a translational challenge. So let's go back and repeat a number of the animal studies you've done with orally delivered compound, but now let's add an arm where we're delivering DYV 800 through the skin of the animal and see if we can replicate what you saw in animals. And not only did we replicate, but we improved upon.

Ryan Beal (22:34.678)
what they saw there. So they were, they were along the ride with us preclinically and c you know collectively we were getting excited about what we saw. And you know, that institution, the the preclinical and clinical teams are very collaborative and work together. So along that journey, the clinicians were involved with what biomarkers to look at, what cancer types made sense, et cetera, et cetera. So they were along that journey. And so while

From the outside in, it may look like a big step to convince a clinician. And it was, but it wasn't one big step. It was, you know, we didn't do a box jump. We we walked up an incline ramp over over four or five years of preclinical studies.

Jesus Moreno (23:21.907)
that's that's a wonderful partnership and and partnering with premier institutions like Moffits is a huge win for an emerging biotech. but there's a there's a risk reward relationship there because academic industry partnerships can easily get bogged down in red tape, IP disputes and slower timelines. That's just the the nature of of academia.

So what is your advice for small startups on how to structure partnerships with major cancer centers or other, you know, academic oriented institutions so it stays fast and agile as you, you know, run against the clock and and try to to extend that burnout as much as possible.

Ryan Beal (24:18.454)
Yeah, it's a it's a great question. I mean, you cannot make an academic institution move faster. and so what we try to do is control what we can control and make sure that we're never the reason something's waiting. So that's one one thing you can do. and that's critical. I mean, you have to make sure you are never the bottleneck. and we've we work very hard to do that.

The other thing is picking the academic institution very carefully. And in this case, like I said, there's a big history at Moffitt in particular around this science and a lot of enthusiasm around this science and and layers of enthusiasm from very very senior leadership all the way down to to postgrads because it's been embedded over 20 years of of research. And

And then ran into translation challenges. So there's this sense of we on on their side, they understand the science, they know the science, they know what's possible if they can solve this translation gap. And that's been helpful too, because there's a lot of internal motivation to move as quickly as possible on their side, versus if we'd gone to, and this is where I think.

founders can often stumble is they go you know what collectively we would just call in the field like logo shopping. So I want to go, I, you know, this PI is known in this field. I'm going to convince them that this is great science that they should investigate and we should partner. I think selectively that that may work, but

Finding an institution that's already passionate about something and happens to share your interest is at least from my experience, a key part of what's allowed us to move as quickly as we can. and then coupled couple that with making sure you're never the bottleneck. and you you always have to push too. I mean, that's part of just business. You always gotta push push your partners. But I think the key, the key thing is to avoid the logo shopping.

Ryan Beal (26:41.164)
Which is which is pretty prominent. Or do the logo shopping strategically. It still can be valuable, but you have to recognize in many cases that is going to develop more slowly. It still could be valuable over time, but you've got to think through your development timelines and how that pace is going to sync up with yours. The the industry is going to, by necessity, because it's driven by dollars and innovation and investment.

You have to move quickly, but it doesn't mean you can't have a partner that moves at a different pace. You just have to think through how that syncs up with your overall development timelines.

Jesus Moreno (27:19.591)
And I I have two follow-ups to to this line of questioning. And first one is how did you vet the academic institution? What are the things that you're looking for in a academic partner that you you think are critical to allow that partnership to thrive in the context of a startup and and you know, again running against that that

financial clock, let's say. And the second question is how have the conversations with investors and potential you know reg even regulators how how how have those conversations changed when they see that you have a an academic partner in the mix you see you know some some differences there?

Ryan Beal (28:17.368)
Sure, yeah, I'll I'll take each of them in order. So in terms of you know, vetting an academic institution or how you would think about it, I mean, I think, you know, the obvious answers or the obvious answers, the the expertise in the field and all those things. So I won't go into those in detail. I think what we looked for, and not only in Moffitt, but in other discussions and and partnerships is

Almost, you know, maybe this is a bit of my background and coming to it with kind of the business business lens. But what's been helpful to us is looking for individuals within that institution where they've got a challenge that you think you can solve. so just like you know, it's one thing to pitch to a big company, it's another thing to find the individual within that company.

where that where you can quote unquote make their life better. If it, you know, if we're if we're talking outside science and biotech, kind of sales 101, I mean what's your solution to their problem? And so in our case, what what that means is, you know, in many cases looking for an investigator that may be studying a challenging tumor type that has a highly acidic component to it.

Jesus Moreno (29:18.847)
Mm-hmm.

Ryan Beal (29:41.443)
Or has a delivery challenge, or if we were able to address that acidity, how it could change how they're treating patients for the better and in a meaningful way. How do we get them excited about what we're bringing to them? you know, what's the solution to some challenge they're facing, versus trying to convince them why they should be interested in what we're doing. I think it's understanding their pain points.

what solution are you bringing is the biggest the biggest thing. and you know, that was that was true in the Moffitt Moffitt case where you know they'd they'd taken the science in into human study and ran into a translation problem that we thought we could solve. That was key for that relationship. but it's been similar in others as well, where we're looking to overcome some, you know, obviously it's a delivery challenge.

But that could mean a bioavailability challenge. It could be a clinical feasibility challenge challenge. It could be just avoiding needles. it could be GI toxicity, it could be a bunch of different things. but what is the the challenge you're solving for them? to get to your second question on how it's changed the dynamic with conversations, with you know, having a premier.

academic institution, a world leading ac academic institution as your partner. How does it change the the dynamic and conversations with with others, regulators, investors, potential partners, etc. it's a really big deal in in particular for smaller, smaller biotechs that are emerging, especially when you're doing something that dogma would say you can't do, or that others have tried and failed.

Having that institutional validation goes a long way. One. And then two, they have a different set of relationships, which is always valuable too. You know, they have different relationships with regulators. You know, bit these big institutions do, you know, tens or hundreds or even thousands of trials over time and interact with the FDA on a regular basis.

Ryan Beal (32:01.504)
Either as part of working under a sponsor's IND or as part of IITs. So they have very deep regulatory expertise. so those that collective knowledge sharing and the ability to expand your team and expand the just the intellectual knowledge base of your team is a huge, huge component. And that that kind of ripples through.

all your conversations, whether it's with the regulators, partners, investors, et cetera. So, you know, partnerships, you know, we we always say you can you can go fast alone, you can go far with with a partner. And I think it's very true in biotech development. you want to go fast. We're under pressure to go fast always, but you can go far with a partner. And as we talked about earlier, there are things you can do to to manage the speed of those relationships or try to.

But finding the right partner and and leveraging, jointly leveraging each other's experience, i i there's no question it's it's extremely valuable.

Jesus Moreno (33:14.473)
That's that's a wonderful achievement. And not only finding this this new delivery mechanism, but also navigating and and finding how to leverage academia and in and the fast paced world of startups. since acidity is a problem across multiple almost all solid tumors, I I I think it's fair to say

this technology has a huge potential. if there if this first in human trial proves successful, talk let us know a little bit of what's your vision for where D V DYV 800 goes next, and which cancer or drug combinations will you target first? give us a sneak peek into the future of of this technology.

Ryan Beal (34:09.13)
Yeah. Well, I'll answer that by by going far out first down the timeline and ultimately how broadly applicable we think it could be, and then I'll then I'll jump back to immediate next steps. But ultimately, as we talked about at the the beginning, you know, acidity is that broken road that all these cars or all these therapies operate on. we, you know, typically think of

Acidity is is a big driver and inhibitor of the immune response, but it also plays a large role in not only the immunotherapy response, but also the chemotherapeutic response, the radi radiation therapy response, the the body's own immune immune response, etc. And so very long term, I mean the hope is this becomes.

Essentially a force multiplier for the field. It is that innovation of the road itself, paving the road that all these therapies drive on. if I back up one step, the immediate application are not the immediate applications, but if I back up one step from there, any therapy that involves T cell activation or natural killer cell function.

has a huge acidity component to it. If I back up from there, where do we look at targeting initially? we couple those therapeutic approaches, whether it's you know, the checkpoint inhibitors, lag threes, the antibody drug conjugates, cell therapies, all of those you know, w at least the the the the data would say would benefit from operating on that better road.

That more neutral, neutral environment. if we back up a step from there, now we're getting closer to where we are now. We are looking for the initial ex, not only our initial trials, but the trials that follow to be in cancers that have that are essentially more aggressive, which is another way of saying they they have a more acidic component to them. the other thing we're looking for is cancers.

Ryan Beal (36:34.484)
That from a trial perspective allow us to gat to tell the biology story better and test the biology story better. So, what does that mean? That means relatively easy access to the tumor and to paired biopsies. And what does that mean? Well, that means in general, we're going to be looking at superficial or cutaneous cancers first because they allow us those paired biopsies. So a biopsi at diagnosis.

easy biopsy biop biopsies throughout treatment, access to tumor and being able to easily measure tumor pH, and look at local bio you know biomarkers very easily, things like that. So initially we're focused on, you know, squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, you know, we look as we go out, we'll look at head head and neck cancers, triple negative breast.

you know, start to start very very basically start cutaneously and look then look at some of the more superficial tumors, but where you still have access to either the tumor itself or lymph nodes, et cetera, where you can study and learn before you go to the large organ tumors, which just from a trial perspective become more complex to really understand that biology. So the goal is, you know, to

To understand the biology first and prove the biology, prove that we're not only modulating pH one, but then two, we're seeing the effects that we expect to see when we modulate that pH in terms of biomarker studies and biomarker readouts. and then of course, tumor growth, tumor spread, all those things as well. But so to recap, you know, our basic strategy is start where.

It's easy to study the biology, which by the way is also the area where it's more clinically intuitive, both to the physician and the patient. I've got a topical, you know, I've got a superficial lesion. A topical makes sense. So there's less of a leap of faith of how's that going to make it to my pancreas. For example, it's hey, I've got a I've got a melanoma on my forearm. I'm going to treat it with a topical. To the patient and the clinician, it makes sense, but it also gives us a great way to study the biology. So

Ryan Beal (38:53.858)
To recap starting superficial to understand the biology, monitor its impact on tumors, and slowly go deeper and deeper into the system, but ultimately be in a position where we're improving the environment that all of these therapies work work in. and that's you know our ultimate hope. And what gets the team excited every day is we become something that really raises the field, whether it's immunotherapies, chemotherapies, radiation therapies.

just to give patients better options going forward.

Jesus Moreno (39:28.713)
That's wonderful, Rain. And and for me, the big takeaway from our conversation today is is a lesson every founder and investor needs to hear. true clinical breakthroughs don't always require spending hundreds of millions of dollars to discover a new target. Sometimes the fastest way to saving lives is simply fixing the delivery mechanism for a targeted, well-understood therapy strategy. Solving

The marriage problem between academia and startups always goes a long way in in that process and opens up new avenues of exploration that are both promising and potentially life changing. Ryan, it's been a pleasure having you with us today. Thank you for sharing your story and your strategy. And we are very excited to hear how this technology unfolds and and what where it

It will take us.

Ryan Beal (40:29.176)
Thank you, Jesus. It's a pleasure being here and I look forward to our next conversation.

Jesus Moreno (40:34.471)
Me too. And for you tuning into Global Trial Accelerators, if this conversation gave you a new perspective on drug delivery or trial strategy, share it with a colleague or founder who needs to hear it. Subscribe where you listen to the podcast and we'll see you next episode. Until next time, keep accelerating.