Click Therapeutics – David Klein, Co-Founder and CEO

Announcer (00:06):
Welcome to Cowen Insights, a space that brings leading thinkers together to share insights and ideas shaping the world around us. Join us as we converse with the top minds who are influencing our global sectors.
Charles Rhyee (00:27):
Welcome to the Cowen FutureHealth Podcast, part of Cowen's 5th Annual FutureHealth Conference, held virtually this year on June 24th and 25th, 2020. Over the past five years, the Cowen FutureHealth conference has brought together thought leaders, innovators, and investors to discuss how the convergence of health care, technology, consumerism is changing the way we look at health, health care, and the health care system. My name is Charles Rhyee and I'm Cowen's health care services analyst.
(00:51):
In this episode, we continue the discussion around digital therapeutics, which holds the potential of a new class of drugs with software as the therapeutic agent. Here to explore the topic further, I'm joined by David Klein, co-founder and CEO of Click Therapeutics, which develops software as a prescription medical treatment using cognitive and neural behavioral mechanisms to enable change within individuals. Welcome, David.
David Klein (01:12):
Thank you, Charles, and thanks to Cowen for having me today.
Charles Rhyee (01:15):
Great to have you here. Why don't we start with a little of your background? You're a little bit more non-traditional here than getting into digital therapeutics. Maybe tell us a little bit about yourself and how you came about founding the company.
David Klein (01:28):
Sure. Thanks for asking, Charles. I'd say 13 years ago, about, I started working for a biotech finance company, kind of a merchant banking, hedge fund type, hybrid where we were really looking and in-licensing compounds and forming companies around those compounds. I'd say around, call it 2011, 2012, we started to really see a pretty significant retreat from pharma out of the CNS space, as you I think well know that those end points in the studies can be kind of notoriously subjective. It's not like shrinking a tumor in an oncology trial. Pharma was really retreating pretty significantly in R&D from the space, and at the same time, we really saw this very significant rise in, and an uptick in, mobile phone usage. The smart phone was becoming enormously popular.
(02:35):
What we saw with that was that, really, the phone itself was changing people's behavior. So we pretty much put two and two together and thought, well, if we could really harness the power of the mobile phone and direct that change towards specific disease areas, we could potentially drive clinical and then ultimately economic outcomes using the phone to target specific diseases in a biotech-like model where we would create apps that target diseases and study those in a very similar way as you'd study a drug. So in 2012, we created this term called digital therapeutics and founded a company called Click Therapeutics, based on that premise, that these would someday potentially be as big, if not in many instances bigger, than the drugs would be.
Charles Rhyee (03:36):
David, you have a program right now for major depressive disorder that's heading into phase three. What can you maybe tell us about this program and a little bit of what's sort of the end point you're looking to achieve?
David Klein (03:49):
Sure. We partnered our program called CT-152, which is an investigational device for the treatment of major depressive disorder, with Otsuka about, I'd say, a year and a half ago in a co-development and commercial partnership. The program itself really addresses what is a pretty significant unmet need in major depressive disorder. I think that if you look at the statistics out there, even within the next few years, call it 2025, there would be a pretty significant shortage of psychiatrists and even psychologists and medical students who enroll. Enrollment in psychiatry has dropped substantially over time. I think only about 3 or 4% actually selecting the specialty.
(04:47):
So the program itself is really, frankly, a novel treatment for MDD in patients, and it's delivered through a mobile application, so through your phone, that provides real, call it, proprietary interactive cognitive and behavioral interventions. Safety and efficacious use actually will be established through an adequately and very well-controlled clinical trial that will be reviewed via FDA.
Charles Rhyee (05:15):
And maybe this is a good way to ask the question, when you think of digital therapeutics, and it's something that you thought about quite a while ago, 13 years ago, maybe for the audience you can help us understand, how do you define digital therapeutics? You touched on two points there, safety, efficacy, clearly thinking about in terms of drugs, but maybe help us here and let us know how you define the term.
David Klein (05:42):
Sure. Thanks for asking, Charles. I'd say about eight years ago is really when I started thinking about the space, maybe eight and a half. The definition to me is and has always been a relatively simple definition. It's software that is a safe and effective treatment for disease. Things can often be over complicated as people try to, whether it be included in the space or include other companies in the space, but it's actually always been a pretty simple definition. The software is the treatment, right? So in my view, when you have something that the software might help a treatment or the software might drive adherence to a treatment, that necessarily wouldn't fit in the category. Certainly when software is used really primarily to facilitate telemedicine or coaching, that really doesn't fit in the category either.
Charles Rhyee (06:46):
Yes, that's helpful.
(06:48):
I want to go back to the partnership with Otsuka, an agreement that you signed about a year and a half ago. Partnerships with large pharma, not just for digital companies, I think for a lot of even small biopharma companies, those partnerships can be tricky at times. We've already seen in this space maybe some examples of partnerships that have not always worked out probably as intended. Maybe speak to us a little bit about the partnership, how you guys came together, what brought you there, and then how do you get comfortable or alleviate any of the potential concerns or issues that could arise because of the imbalance of resources?
David Klein (07:37):
Sure, that's a really good question, Charles. I'd say in terms of partnerships in the space and just generally, I think in the real digital therapeutic space, there's only been one partnership that split up, as I know, and that would be Pear and Sandoz. I think if you start to clump in some of those other things that are not digital therapeutics, then you've got to clump in the thousands of other things that have worked great in this space. Whether that's Flatiron or whatever it is. But there's been I think one that has at least publicly announced that they split up, but on the flip side of that, there's been now almost I'd say a dozen real partnerships in this space. Whether it's Welldoc and Astellas, or Aqilion and Shionogi, or I'd say there's Happify and Sanify, there's Otsuka and Click, so you're really seeing a pretty significant group of new partnerships in this space that are coming.
(08:43):
I think one of the core reasons why we partnered with Otsuka, and one thing that's always important in partnerships, is that there's a mutual appreciation and essentially value. The company has to value what the pharma company brings to the table and vice versa. When all is said is done, and you have your deal champions and all of these types of things, it's all going to come down to, is there a real mutual value? Does each company really assign a high value to what the other company is bringing to the table?
(09:24):
In the case of Otsuka, we've gotten to know that team, from Kabir on down, for years now, probably for a good year or two even before we did the deal. There was just really an amazing amount of synergy. Otsuka's a very significant leader in the CNS space. They're also deeply interested in understanding the role that digital can play. Never really looked at it as additive to the space, but really as something that could be potentially be, not only for assigned treatment in CNS space, but something that there is likely to be more innovation in treating mental disorders than even in the drug space.
(10:22):
We found that there was a great amount of synergy, many of the aspects that Click doesn't have as a company in terms of the vast commercial presence and experience, were things that Otsuka really has in spades and has proven success in that area. So there's a lot of synergy in terms of a therapeutic area, and then Click really specializing in what we do, and Otsuka having a very strong track record in the space. I'd say to this date I've been very, very happy with the way that that partnership has gone. I think to your point of, how do you not get smothered by a pharma company a thousand times bigger than you, it's been a very collegial relationship that's worked very well. I think companies always have to establish certain touchpoints, whether that's through alliance management and so on, and try to control that in a way that's scalable. I think we've been pretty successful at that, and at the same time I think there's a good amount of common sense and self-awareness that [inaudible 00:11:39] Otsuka.
(11:42):
That's been a great partnership. I think as time goes on, even in the next month, you'll start to see more and more of the digital therapeutics and pharma company partnerships.
Charles Rhyee (11:55):
That's interesting, and you touched on a good point. You spend time working with the team, or meeting with the team, before reaching that. What would you say are some guidelines that you would recommend to others in this space as they think about partnerships? What are some of the key characteristics that you think they should look for that would make a digital therapeutic company comfortable that this is the right partner for them? I think in this case you talk about similar expertise in CNS, maybe touch on a few of those, what do you think people should look out for?
David Klein (12:35):
Sure. We've really honed our skills here in that sense. I think from a technology perspective, we probably have by far the most advanced technology platform in this space, and as such we've had a great deal of inbound business development interest. Even just one meaningful [inaudible 00:12:56] can take a whole lot out of a small company, even just the negotiation process. It can be a great burden, so identifying a good partner is really key. Even early on, like all spaces, I think of paramount important is the fact that you have to understand the value that the company is assigning to something.
(13:29):
Is this company willing to allocate tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to this program? I think that that's key, first of all. You only get out what is being put in. So if a pharma company is coming to you and it's their manager of digital that's doing the whole thing, and there's not really key therapeutic area heads or business leaders involved, and they're not willing to put up meaningful capital, these are all red flags. Whereas if you've got ten, fifteen people flying over from Europe for week-long meetings at a time, the due diligence, that's probably a better sign that you're going to enter into a meaningful partnership with a company that actually cares.
Charles Rhyee (14:23):
That makes sense. Otsuka obviously diving pretty big into digital, you named a few others, obviously, Sanify highly in the digital space, or place a lot of value on digital. Do you get a sense that the rest of the biopharma industry is really catching onto this? Or is it, right now we're looking at a handful of probably more progressive companies that understand or feel like this is where the future's going?
David Klein (14:52):
Yeah, that's a really good question, Charles. Frankly, I could go back to when we first created Click in 2012. We just thought, wow, we would create this company, we would prove that our programs work in a randomized controlled trial to treat diseases, and pharma's just going to go absolutely nuts about us. I think that paradigm has happened slower than we had thought or really hoped, but in recent years you've seen this exponential rise in interest, and, frankly, investment into this space out of pharma.
(15:34):
And that's for good reason. Whereas maybe a few years ago it could have been more exploratory, I think every big pharma at this point has at minimum a digital division and a digital head, but at maximum are going all in at this space. And what we're starting to see, I think, frankly, just barely scratches the surface. Where we are now, and looking at the first family of digital therapeutics that will be launched soon or in the process of launching to treat disease, what you're seeing now is that these programs are really on the cusp of either competing with drugs for revenue or adding substantial revenue streams to existing drug sales, right?
(16:28):
And as soon as you have that happen, which will happen in the very near future, I think you're going to see a real tipping point here, where it goes from, whether it's hundreds of millions of dollars a year in the space, to billions. Hopefully we'll talk about this new environment that Covid has spurned in a bit, but I think that's vastly accelerated this space for a wide variety of reasons as well.
Charles Rhyee (16:58):
That's interesting. You talk about, we'll go into the billions here, do you think part of the hesitancy on pharma maybe rests with watching and seeing how the payer environment looks, the reimbursement environment looks? Because it seems, at least to me, maybe not recently, I haven't spoken to a lot of payers about it as much in maybe the last year or so, but there seems to be a hesitancy or thinking about how do we reimburse for something that's not a drug, that's software. Is the payer side of it a big key component to unlock some of this market? How do you think about that side of it?
David Klein (17:42):
Yeah, that's a great question, Charles. I think that probably has been for a while now the final piece, right? You've seen regulators and an extremely collaborative FDA who, just a couple days ago, the director of CDRH literally announced that FDA is committed to facilitating regulatory pathways, or creating regulatory pathways, for safe and effective innovative digital therapeutics. I think I'm paraphrasing, but the point is the FDA's now on a number of occasions publicly called out their commitment to this space.
(18:32):
On the same side, you've had patients who have been ready for a very long time, and providers who have been ready too. I think it's somewhat of a common misconception, to be frank, Charles, that payers aren't ready. I think some of the early things we've seen happen in this space have been a little less traditional from a therapeutic perspective, right? It might be a company that has garnered FDA clearance based on academic data, never really looped payers into the registration trial, because there really wasn't one, right?
(19:06):
I think as you really do the homework here, it's almost a lazy person's way out to say, oh, well, we don't think payers will reimburse, because now what you're seeing, and there's been recent very substantial survey data here showing that the vast majority of payers actually do want to reimburse for this space. But to get a little more detailed, if you take target product profile of one of Click's products to payers, which we do and have done, and really canvas that space, you're getting a very high percentage of the payers that will say, if successful in the clinic, we will reimburse for this program.
(19:55):
So I think that it's been somewhat of an easy way out to say, oh, well, we're not sure payers are going to reimburse, but anyone who really does the homework will see that actually payers not only are reimbursing, but will reimburse, they want to reimburse, they see a great need for this space. And that's actually been dramatically accelerated in recent history. And on top of that you're also seeing entirely digital [inaudible 00:20:22], like the Express Scrips one, start to gain a huge amount of traction. So I think that that's historically been the last frontier for the space, but those walls have come down in many respects and are coming down rapidly.
Charles Rhyee (20:40):
Yeah, I appreciate that more detailed analysis here and thoughts on it. I guess maybe to expand on that a little bit, my question was more a little bit about levels of reimbursement, right? I think some companies several years ago were saying, hey, we think we can get drug-like pricing, and the question I guess was more specific, are payers looking at them saying, okay we will give you drug, biotech, or spec-pharma-like pricing for software? Or, because the software does the pricing model change, and in part maybe because your reach can be more extensive?
David Klein (21:27):
Yeah, that's a great question. We're actually seeing some, just with Clickotine, which is our one marketed product, some actual very meaningful value-based contracts, for example, and even systems putting the program in [inaudible 00:21:44]. But I will say that in terms of pricing, I think payers are really looking to price this space based on values, so the same way they would price, in many respects, a drug, and in some respects a device. But what we're seeing, I wouldn't go so far, Charles, as to say a new branded drug spec-pharma prices, but certainly in the realm of a new brand of primary care drugs pricing. We are seeing the potential for pretty meaningful pricing power there.
Charles Rhyee (22:23):
Should we talk a little more about Clickotine. Because it, and correct me if I'm wrong, this one you don't really need a prescription for? Am I correct in that?
David Klein (22:30):
Yeah, that's exactly right. So Clickotine has more of a BDB model, as the FDA specially called out smoking cessation software as an area that they don't want to regulate in this way. So we initially commercialized that through Magellan Health, and in the last couple of years have signed up, and Magellan's been a terrific partner. For those that don't know them, they're probably the largest behavioral health insurance company in the country. Through Magellan we've been able to enter about 15 commercial payers, approaching even 250 self-insured employers. We also actually recently, I'd say about six months ago, decided to commercialize the program outside of Magellan as well, and actually we have some very, very meaningful partnerships that we'll be announcing in the next few months that we have [inaudible 00:23:27].
Charles Rhyee (23:28):
That's exciting. When you think about that model of commercialization, BDB or direct to employers, versus your other programs which look more like a drug going through a prescription pathway, going with the FDA, is one necessarily easier than the other? What are the differences as you consider the different paths to commercialization for programs? Obviously, each one will be unique, but when you look at your pipeline, do you see the rest of it going mostly through an FDA path or do you foresee maybe some of those could also follow a more of a Clickotine path? And maybe is that just really dependent on how the FDA views programs?
David Klein (24:14):
Yeah, that's a very question, Charles, and it's a big question. What needs to be understood is that, if you want to make a treatment claim, so this program is for the treatment of insomnia in adults, or this program is for the reduction of LDL in recently hospitalized ACS patients. In order to make a treatment claim, you have to go through the agencies. On top of that, I don't think physicians are going to be comfortable generally, surely not en masse, prescribing something that is not FDA-approved, especially when there are FDA-approved alternatives.
(24:55):
So I'm a big believer, and actually have been since I founded the company, that the point of care is not going to pivot from the physician. When somebody has major depressive disorder, or any of these other serious diseases, really it's not really the HR person that they go and seek help from, right? It's their physician. So I think that they're incredibly different business models. I think going the FDA route certainly is more cost-intensive, but should be and more likely be much more rewarding, at least from a fiscal perspective, but also from addressing an unmet need.
(25:44):
I think that the way medicine gets to patients is through physicians. And you'll also see that even, obviously there's reasonable examples even on the market. If you look at the old omega-3's or even fish oil, the FDA-approved version is doing hundreds of times more sales than the over-the-counter version.
Charles Rhyee (26:15):
Right. Well that makes a lot of sense. You talk about unmet needs, and I think at the beginning you talk about CNS and how you saw that pharma was kind of retreating from this space, and you thought about the opportunities using technology to address that area. When you look across the digital therapeutic space, a lot of the companies, Aqilion, Pear, a few others, Cognoa, really going after areas within CNS, very specifically. And I think probably most people who spend time looking in the space can really see intuitively that that makes sense. There's a lot of synergy with smart phones and visually looking at something to maybe help in CNS categories.
(27:07):
When you move outside of that, how do you think about the opportunities for digital therapeutics outside of CNS? Obviously we have some in diabetes, but when you think more broadly, do you see digital therapeutics being applicable in lots of other categories? Or do you think it might just be, hey, there's a lot of unmet needs in CNS alone and there's a lot of opportunities just there?
David Klein (27:32):
Yeah, that's a good question, Charles. When you're looking at disease areas where, let's say, a behavioral treatment is indicated in the guidelines a the first-line treatment, right? So you're looking at things that are mostly in the CNS space, that's kind of a very obvious fit for what we're doing. If behavioral treatment's indicated as the first-line treatment but there's obviously limited access or people don't want to go or there's not good enough coverage, those will probably be the first things to fall in this space, or be almost taken over by FDA-approved digital treatments, will be very, very prominent.
(28:19):
But when you start to look at things like migraine, or overactive bladder, where frankly also behavioral treatment is recommended first-line treatment, or you start to look at things like chronic low back pain, or even things like, we have a program for post MI, it doesn't sound obvious, but if someone has a heart attack, sure they will need their meds, but probably the most important thing, in addition to remembering to take those meds and being on the right meds which digital can help, but the most important thing is that that person change their behavior.
(29:05):
So there are these very substantial behavioral components behind almost every disease, even if that's limited to taking and being on the right drugs, but most of them are much more expansive than that. If you look at even obesity drugs, in this new class of obesity drugs, they are essentially adjuncts to behavior. They're prescribed as an adjunct essentially diet and exercise. This is a space that's really going to be at the forefront of treatments and will expand well beyond CNS and already is and I think what you'll start to see, Charles, this is when those folks who you mentioned earlier who are not up on this space will be.
(29:56):
We're on the cusp of seeing these programs even contribute to, let's say, increased overall survival in oncology studies. So you're talking about things that are going to be just everywhere.
Charles Rhyee (30:13):
Yeah, that's really interesting. Sometimes I don't think about that, I don't think it's obvious to a lot of people, oh, I had a heart attack, there's a behavioral component, but you're absolutely right. A lot of things, if we change our behaviors, we can obviously prevent or avoid certain things happening. I'd be remiss if we didn't talk a little bit about the impact of Covid across, obviously, everything. How we're living now, the fact that we're doing this remotely from each other, is a perfect example. What I think is most interesting is, right now and a little bit tangent to digital therapeutics, is how much there's been a quick embrace of digital solutions. Namely, here in this case, telehealth, and I think what you've seen is how much consumers have embraced it, and particularly probably providers more than anything, have embraced it.
(31:11):
I guess two questions from that really is, first, do you think this embrace, particularly I'd say the providers side, probably both provider and consumer, is durable? Is there real stickiness to it? And how do you think that this helps maybe prime the market for digital therapeutics?
David Klein (31:30):
Yeah, that's a good question. I'd say, being in the business of behavior change, I can tell you that this certainly appears to be a habit-forming behavior, right? You've got all the surveys coming out now, in fact I think just yesterday I saw one cross my desk for 83% of patients, I believe it was doctors.com that had put this out, said that they were going to stick with telemedicine. So you're seeing something that will for certain result in significant, lasting change in the industry, in the way that medicine is practiced.
(32:07):
And that really affects us in a number of ways. There's tangible and then some intangible ways. The bottom line is, digital therapeutics were really on a not so slow but a curve upwards in adoption. I think what you've seen now is that we might be in the same place as we were three months ago from an adoption perspective, but that curve is now very steep way upwards. So you're going to see just extreme, rapid adoption in this space, and I can tell you why for a variety of reasons.
(32:54):
So I think everything that we thought would happen in 2024, 2025, we had believed or even daresay known that there would be massive adoption in this space, and that it would trend toward standard of care. What you're seeing now is there's been a very significant acceleration of that trend. So in the breaking out of its box, from emerging, heading toward standard of care, that's going much, much quicker now for digital therapeutics. And there's a variety of reasons why.
(33:31):
One, and this goes to the slightly less tangible rationale, is that the stigma, the understanding of, that a patient can be digitally and remotely is now completely dissipated, right? And believe me, eight years ago when I would talk about treating patients digitally, not a small percentage of people thought that that was kind of crazy. And now it's a generally accepted fact that you can treat people digitally and in fact it's becoming standard of care.
(34:09):
On top of that, you're seeing payers and policymakers put in place very meaningful components to facilitate reimbursement for remote-patient-provider interactions. So payers and policymakers are moving very quickly to establish new codes that essentially that make remote-patient monitoring, let's say, services for patients who really requite extended interactive communication, more beneficial for a physician. So there's a environment being created where, finally, and these are things we thought would happen in a few years more generally but are happening now, could be not only safer and more effective for a physician to prescribe a digital therapeutic either as a monotherapy or in conjunction with a pharmacol therapy, but it frankly could be more profitable.
(35:20):
If one were to design or dream of an environment that would be conducive to success in a digital therapeutic space, there would be an environment where, let's say, physicians are spending an enormous amount of time in front of their computers, patients and physicians or payers are comfortable with people being treated remotely and through digital means, and payers are establishing codes to reimburse for those interactions. All of these different things will contribute to a very, very significant and quick rise in this space. So no longer are you seeing the kind of slow slope upwards, but a very sharp incline that we'll see in this space now. And frankly it'll move much, much quicker because of this disaster, this pandemic, than we had even ever dreamed of.
Charles Rhyee (36:22):
Yeah, understandable on that. Obviously no one would wish this is the way to get there, but obviously it has created an environment that is leading us to something hopefully positive, at least a byproduct is positive. So as we kind of wrap up here, so what's next for Click? I think we started at the beginning, you have a program going into phase three, is there an expected timeline on when you would expect that trial to read out?
David Klein (36:58):
Yeah, thanks for asking, Charles. I can't talk too much around the details there, as you know that's a partnered program, but it'll be a massive inflection point when and hopefully as this program is approved, I think it's one of the first programs, if not will be the first program, for the treatment of major depressive disorder that has FDA clearance. I think we're talking about a very significant inflection point for the industry.
(37:38):
That's one of several pretty advanced programs that Click has. As you know we have our one commercial program, Clickotine, which, to kind of piggyback on the question before, has seen an even more substantial interest during this whole Covid thing. Obviously people are pretty concerned about their respiratory health.
(38:02):
But on the clinical side, we've got programs for insomnia, and migraine, and overactive bladder, and cardio, all in different stages of development and we're moving toward FDA clearance really on all those programs.
Charles Rhyee (38:21):
Which would you say is next? Is insomnia probably the next closest for you?
David Klein (38:24):
I'd say our insomnia and our migraine program are certainly getting there.
Charles Rhyee (38:29):
So David, as we close this out, and I think you've touched on a lot of these themes, I guess the final question would be, where do you see this going in the future for digital therapeutics in the sense that, have we reached this inflection point, and if not, what do you think needs to be seen to really get to that steep part of the curve that you were eluding to earlier?
David Klein (38:54):
Yeah, sure, I think we're kind of right at the beginning of it, Charles. I think that this whole Covid thing has been a very significant inflection point for the industry and the end result of that will be a much quicker incline in that curve than we'd expected before. There'll be a variety of very meaningful inflection points here, that'll come down to real successful commercial launches, and these programs getting to the patients who need them. And as you start to see these programs provide meaningful competition to pharmacol therapies or, frankly, add very significant additional revenue streams in addition to pharmacol therapies, I'd say that'll be the next very significant inflection point. When you start to see these programs generating hundreds of millions, frankly if not billions, of dollars in revenue each, that's going to be a very meaningful inflection point in this space as well.
(40:04):
I'd say the one other factor here is really the technology factor. So you have Microsoft and Google and Apple and Amazon all kind of nibbling around the edges of this space, if that makes sense, I don't think anyone's taken a real plunge, but I think as you start to see, and for a variety of reasons we think this'll happen in the relatively near future, and those are more than just hypotheses, but as you start to see the tech players encroach on this direct-to-physician, traditionally pharma space, then that'll be another inflection point, per se, in terms of capital allocated here, because I don't think this is an area that pharma wants to lose to big tech companies.
(41:06):
The amount of control that these programs give you in a market, let's say we launch our migraine program as a complementary to any CGRP, not only are we paid per script, and frankly as an overall regime more safe and effective and payers can get much more data on how these programs are working, but we start to generate data on which, let's say, drug is better for what person and are able to stratify that and maybe person A will benefit more from a oral CGRP as opposed to injectable, and so on and so forth. So whoever really ends up being the big players in this space will also, especially when you start to turn to real-world evidence and so on, will have a real big amount of control even within many different pharmaceutical markets.
(42:05):
I think that this is one inflection point, there's probably a couple other big ones, one certainly would be extremely successful commercial launches, the other will be, I'm predicting, somewhat of a turf war here as this space heats up and becomes much more commonplace and, frankly, heads toward standard of care, I think it is a space that pharma's not going to want to cede to big tech. That'll be an interesting thing to watch too.
Charles Rhyee (42:43):
Definitely will be watching out for that in the future. I think we'll wrap it up there, but David this was a great conversation. Really interesting here, and looking forward to see how Click progresses as we go forward and excited to see how things turns out here. And I really appreciate your time joining us today of this podcast, and look forward to hopefully having you back at some point.
David Klein (43:06):
Yes, thank you so much, Charles, thanks for having me and good luck with the rest of the conference.
Charles Rhyee (43:10):
Great, thank you.
Announcer (43:11):
Thanks for joining us. Stay tuned for the next episode of Cowen Insights.

This podcast should not be copied, distributed, published or reproduced, in whole or in part. The information contained in this recording was obtained from publicly available sources, has not been independently verified by TD Securities, may not be current, and TD Securities has no obligation to provide any updates or changes. All price references and market forecasts are as of the date of recording. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are not necessarily those of TD Securities and may differ from the views and opinions of other departments or divisions of TD Securities and its affiliates. TD Securities is not providing any financial, economic, legal, accounting, or tax advice or recommendations in this podcast. The information contained in this podcast does not constitute investment advice or an offer to buy or sell securities or any other product and should not be relied upon to evaluate any potential transaction. Neither TD Securities nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or any information contained in this podcast and any liability therefore (including in respect of direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage) is expressly disclaimed.