Conference Transcript - AMGN 2026-09-15

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Thanks for joining us, everybody. I'm Terrence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Biopharma Analyst. For important disclosures, please see Morgan Stanley's research disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com backslash research disclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. Very pleased to be hosting Amgen this afternoon. I'm going to turn it over to the company's new CFO, Thomas Dietrich, who's going to make some opening remarks, and then we'll launch into Q&A with the rest of the team. But thank you, everyone, for being here.

Thomas Dittrich, CFO

Terrence, thank you so much, and it's really good to be here. Before we get into Q&A, I'd like to take some time to introduce myself and share a few thoughts on how we see the business today. As many of you know, this is my second chapter at Amgen. I spent nearly a decade here earlier in my career and worked with Bob and the rest of the Amgen team back then. And since leaving, I've had the opportunity to serve as CFO of three publicly listed companies where my remit extended beyond finance, traditional finance, to strategy, transformation, and operations. And I gained experience also in a more consumer-oriented healthcare environment, and before that, actually in a rare disease environment. So I come back to Amgen knowing the company well, but also looking at it through fresh eyes, informed by my experiences over the last 12 years. Also given my recent background with a private equity-led IPO of a fast-growing company in a more consumer-focused healthcare environment, my focus will be on working together with my fabulous colleagues at Amgen as one team, driving execution and financial discipline to enable growth acceleration commercially as well as off the pipeline. And I'll focus on cash-on-cash returns, which is very consistent with Amgen's long-standing approach to capital allocation. On to the second quarter. Our second quarter results were really driven by the breadth and depth of the portfolio and once again demonstrated our ability to grow through patent explorations and increase competition. Our six growth drivers, Repatha, Avenity Tespire, our rare disease portfolio, Innovative Oncology, and Biosimilar portfolios, really delivered. Together, they grew 26% year-on-year in the quarter and represented nearly 70% of second-quarter product sales. Overall, in the quarter, total revenues exceeded $10 billion, up 10% year-on-year, and 22 products delivered double-digit sales growth. So these results, including strong margin and earnings performance, were achieved while we increased the investment in innovation reflecting the really solid financial structure that Amgen has. And here's the point. Many of our medicines address large underpenetrated disease areas, and that gives us confidence that there are significant opportunities ahead to reach many more patients as we move forward. And we're adding new indications to some of our products like Tespire, Uplizna, and Imdeltra, while also broadening our geographic reach for those and other medicines. And we have recently announced exciting Phase III results from two of our approved medicines. First, we announced landmark Phase III results from Delphi 305, evaluating IMDELTRA in combination with Dervalumab as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. The study demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate compared to Dervalumab alone. We view these data as important inflection point for ImDeltra. As you know, in the first line setting, ImDeltra is already becoming a standard of care supported by strong survival benefit, clear clinical differentiation, NCCN recommendations, and rapid adoption across sites of care. These landmark results from Delphi 305 suggest ImDeltra will further revolutionize the standard of survival earlier in the treatment journey and meaningfully shift the treatment paradigm for people facing this devastating disease. Therefore, we are advancing in DELTRA through a broad Phase III program across first-line extensive stage and limited stage at CLC, while also pursuing more convenient administration. Together, these programs represent a combined addressable population of approximately 28,000 U.S. patients. Yesterday, we also announced that the FDA has approved an update to the ImDeltra label that substantially reduces the recommended monitoring time for the first two doses of treatment in an appropriate health care setting. What does this mean? This means the patients receiving IMDELTRA should now be monitored for six to eight hours from the start of the first two doses compared with the previously recommended 22 to 24 hours, an important step in simplifying care for people living with and treating extensive stage small cell lung cancer. We believe Imdeltra has the potential to become a foundational medicine across the small cell lung cancer continuum and will continue to be an important growth driver for our innovative oncology portfolio. We also recently announced positive top-line results from the Phase III study of TASPIRE in people living with esinophilic esophagitis, EOE, and positive Phase III data for TAPESA in Japanese patients with chronic thyroid eye disease. So beyond these programs, our late-stage pipeline is progressing well and provides additional opportunities for growth. And we're advancing Maritide, for instance, Zazidalabab, and Xaluridemic in Phase III development. All of those programs have the potential to address areas of significant unmet medical need and to drive long-term growth. We continue to develop Alpazoran targeting LP-A for cardiovascular risk reduction. Recently, a competitor announced top-line results from their Phase III program targeting LP-A, raising many questions for the field. We look forward to seeing the detailed presentation of these data to better understand the potential implications for the field and to our ongoing clinical research with Alpazoran. Now, moving on to our biosimilar portfolio, we are advancing a third wave of biosimilar candidates to Keytruda, Optivo, Ocrivus, and ILEA-HD. We recently completed a Phase III study of ABP234, our biosimilar candidate to Keytruda, which met both primary and secondary endpoints. The full results will support our planned regulatory submissions in the second half of this year. And for ABP 206, that's our similar candidate to Optivo, our Biologics license application with the FDA has been submitted and accepted for review. There we expect an FDA action on this BLA by the end of the year. So as we look ahead, our business continues to perform well. We're excited about the future and our ability to drive durable growth well into the next decade. And with that, Terrence, happy to take your questions.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Great. Looking forward to it.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

I guess the first place I want to start, I've been asking most companies this, is just, you know, it seems like we're in a different place from a policy perspective versus last year. And so anything that the company is picking up coming out of D.C. as we head into midterm season that we should have on our radar screen?

Kaveh, Other

Yeah, Terrence, I'll take that and then ask Jay or Thomas to add. And, you know, thus far, it's early days going into the midterms. Obviously, we don't know the outcomes of the midterms yet. There's a lot of conversations going on in D.C. around reimbursement, pricing. 340B is a particularly hot topic at the moment and just generally value of innovation. We're also seeing a pickup in policy work outside the U.S. as countries around the world respond to some of the policies from last year when we were with you. So we stand ready to engage with both sides of the aisles on each of these matters. Our focus is trying to make sure medicines remain accessible and affordable and that there continues to be a good environment for innovation. And as a U.S. domiciled company with a hefty U.S. domiciled manufacturing network, continue to be incentives to manufacture in the U.S. But beyond that, too early to tell, given what's coming up in about 60 days now.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Okay. And then the kind of related question is 340B, I know, has been a tailwind for a number of companies in 2Q, and there's this pilot that's going in place in January. So how should we think about that heading into 2027 as a potential tailwind of the business?

Kaveh, Other

Yeah, I'm going to take that in two parts. So generally on the macro side of 340B, we still see that program with substantial growth. And if you look at last year, there were $100 billion of purchases in the program, $80 billion of incremental discounts across the board, grew 23%. That's the fourth straight year of over 20% year-over-year growth. program has tripled in size since 2020. That's driven by this kind of lack of meaningful safeguards within the program that allow hospitals to buy at very low government prices and then resell to insurers, employers, patients, everyone in this room at a substantial markup. Without reform of the core program, we don't see that incentive really changing or the dynamics changing on that overall growth. Now, within that program, and I've been around it for 20 years, you do see from time to time, quarter to quarter variability, year to year variability along those lines. There was some buying patterns that we had detected late last year when enforcement looked like it was picking up that hasn't really materialized. So we're not in a position to call it going forward other than to say reform needed and without reform, you could expect that growth rate from a macro standpoint to largely go unchecked. In terms of the pilot, there's a rebate model specific for MFP drugs, drugs, quote-unquote, negotiated by Medicare. That will help one of our medicines going forward, potentially, Embril, and in the future, Otesla, again, considering it, was negotiated last year. But too early to tell at this point, on exactly what it means outside of those particular products.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Okay, great. Maybe, Thomas, over to you. I guess whenever you have a new CFO in the role, it's interesting to hear about perspectives on setting guidance, obviously one of the more important roles. And so as you think about that, anything you can say at this point about your approach to setting guidance versus maybe a path?

Thomas Dittrich, CFO

Yeah, I think our philosophy will remain consistent here. It's basically about giving a realistic view of the business, knowing the headwinds, tailwinds, and getting that out there, and also the investments we are making to achieve our value creation outcomes over time. And then clearly from a maybe style standpoint or philosophical standpoint, setting guidance, Terrence, is always about promise and deliver, and I think that will stay true to that one as well.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Okay, and I think you addressed this in your prepared remarks, but just capital deployment, what's the kind of latest strategy there, and then any insights on kind of the current market dynamics?

Thomas Dittrich, CFO

Yeah, on capital deployment, our strategy or hierarchy is very clear. It's about really number one, funding innovation, and then, number two, funding the business to bring that innovation to as many patients as possible. That means commercial investments. That also means investment in manufacturing footprint, all of those things. And then on the innovation side, we're pretty agnostic. It's about best innovation, be it inside the company or outside the company. And then when it's outside the company, clearly the priority is, Is it on target? Is it part of our therapeutic areas? Is it really the best possible science here? Are we the best owner? And then do we see positive cash-on-cash returns over time, risk-adjusted? We'll prosecute that very hard. And then clearly can we integrate anything we would buy rapidly to go into value creation mode quickly?

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Okay, great. Maybe, Jay, we'll pivot over to you. I want to talk about LP little A, but before we go there, I think the next upcoming pipeline read on the late-stage side is DAZO for Sjogren's. So maybe just talk to us about what success looks like in these two trials, and then probably the related question might be more for Casey, is just disclosure plans around the data.

Jay Bradner

Yeah, thank you. DAZO DALIBEP is a CD40 ligand-targeted complex biotherapeutic that we're developing presently in lead indication of Sjogren's disease. This is an area of huge unmet need. It's actually a relatively common autoimmune condition, and there's been very little innovation in this disease until recently. The CD40 hypothesis is strong biologically, and it's supported further still by very compelling phase 2 proof-of-concept data with DASO-DALIBEPH that included patients both in the systemic as well as in this more symptomatic or local stage of disease. Building upon these findings, we started two phase three clinical trials that are quite brilliant in their design. They segregate the symptomatic and the systemic disease populations, applying different and more focused scores to each on a regulatory paradigm. These two studies we'll read out in the second half of this year, which we are in, and so we're very much looking forward to seeing these data and then reporting them out. It's a humbling thing to develop in Sjogren's disease. There have been a lot of failures, but the support of proof-of-concept data both on the receptor side and on the ligand side from our company and a competitor are a good setup for these trials. And what we're hoping to achieve with these studies is both a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit to patients, in particular around the symptoms that they experience that are keeping them from their activities of daily life.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

So more to follow on the completion of those studies later this year. and then Casey anything in terms of just like disclosure because the question we get a lot is just do they come together do they come separately are the trials close enough to read them out together yeah Terrence in terms of disclosure we try not to pre-define you know how and when we'll we'll disclose so as Jay said the studies are on track to read out second half of this year and we'll have more to say once we have data in hand okay and then Jay you mentioned it I mean there there have been a lot of failures I think high placebo responses have been one issue historically So just anything that you guys have done here versus maybe, you know, some prior trials that maybe had ran into that issue.

Jay Bradner

Yeah, placebo responses in autoimmune conditions are challenging, in particular where they're being scored by endpoints that aren't quite as hard as like resist criterion on a CAT scan measured in millimeters. And in these multi-parametric questionnaires, ESPRI, STI, DASPRI, there is always that chance. And so to mitigate that, we power up the study to success. We segregate the two populations with bespoke scores for each that define the integrated Sjogren's disease experience. And we run the studies out just that little bit longer. These studies will run 48-week readouts, and we hope that all three of these measures will sharpen up the placebo response, giving us an even better chance to quantify a potential benefit of days of value.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

And any early read if you think you could file on just one positive study? Obviously, you said you segmented the population, so there's kind of two different groups here. So let's say, again, pick which one of them. There's one positive one, one negative trial. Would that be enough to file on, on just a single study, do you think?

Jay Bradner

You know, we're not operating against a predefined regulatory strategy. A lot depends, as Casey said, by what we see in the data, and so we'll have more to share on that when we see the data.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Now I want to go over to Opasserin, and again, you know, Tom has addressed some of this in his opening remarks, so I think I know the answer to some of these, but I figured I'd ask them anyway. So, obviously, we need to see more data from Novartis, but before we see that, just remind us of kind of the key differences in terms of your asset, but also the trial design, and then what you'll be looking for in the Novartis data to either give you more confidence or less confidence in those features of your drug and your trial that we should all look to when we see the data, assuming it's AHA in November.

Jay Bradner

Opaciran is a small interfering RNA that targets LP little A, which is a genetically defined cardiovascular risk factor. And that risk for cardiovascular disease increases with increased LP little A in populations. One in five of us here today has LP little A. so get yours checked. It's now part of the lipid guidelines to do so and know your risk and modify your risk around Lp-A for sure. These are facts that aren't influenced by the Novartis readout of late. Opaceren is a very powerful medicine. It has about a 95% reduction of Lp-A, 95% to 99% compared to pelicarsin, which was more like 70% to 80% in various clinical studies. This medicine is also given quarterly, which is a potential advantage of the medicine. Our clinical trials are a little bit different. We targeted a higher index LP measure, 200 animals versus 150 on that study, and we chose a different endpoint rather than a four-point MACE endpoint that includes stroke. We focused on the three-point MACE endpoint as our epidemiology analysis did not see stroke as a strong driver of outcomes mapping to LP little A. With that said, the Novartis data caught our attention. We had going into their data readout a predefined set of actions, and we're not just waiting to see what the data actually are. All that's been communicated to date is missing the primary endpoint in the overall study population. That can mean a lot of things. And so we'll go into AHA, where we presume also these data will be presented. And like many in the community, we'll be interested to dissect several parameters. It's a long list, by the way, and so I don't want to consume the rest of our time together. But these large cardiovascular outcome trials afford a possibility to really go deep into a statistical hierarchy if you hit the primary, which they apparently did not. So we're going to take directional, descriptive guidance from things like response to the medicine, a graded response to the endpoint based on the index LpA, the admixture of LDL-C control, which has been improving thanks to Cave's work and Repatha in the broader community, as well as, you know, predefined subsets of patient populations. You know, a lot of people are interested in ASOs versus siRNAs as a general theme, and we are as well, intending to be a real contributor to this pharmacology. I'm interested to know how that medicine was tolerated as an ASO with respect to local active site injections, systemic responses, and maybe also how they navigated COVID, which was tricky for cardiovascular outcome trials. So there's just a lot to learn from that study, and we just haven't learned it yet.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

You mentioned one of the things that was a question, I think, going into the trials, just background treatment, obviously that has improved significantly thanks to Repatha, also GLP-1s. Is that an area that you think could have influenced it, and are there any differences in terms of your population versus their population high level that you think could also be another factor we need to think about?

Jay Bradner

You know, I won't speak too much to the differences in populations. There's a lot we've not shared for competitive reasons about the parameters of the patients that we've enrolled on this study. But I do hope that the reason, one of the driving reasons that the event rates are a little bit lower is improving background care. I will say that our real-world evidence would suggest that we still have a very long way to go, even with the tools that we have, like PCSK9 inhibitors like Evolocumab or Repasa, in order to really read drug efficacy through to broad population drug effectiveness. But LDL-C will be an interesting and important parameter to look at as these two biologies, both inflammatory lipoparticles, are converging on the same endothelial and vascular smooth muscle pathways of inflammation and atherogenesis.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Maybe just one for Caves, just on the importance of treatment guidelines in cardiovascular disease. So again, let's say Opasorin has positive data, 2028, what does it mean from a guideline What's going to be needed for guidelines to really kind of move the needle? Jay mentioned increasing testing on LP little a, but how important are guidelines? What have you guys learned from kind of the Repatha situation?

Kaveh, Other

Yeah, so I think when it comes to guidelines, especially in cardiology, they're obviously quite important. I'd say specifically more recently for Repatha, not only were the guidelines important from an update, even though they did not yet include Vesalius, but the adoption by the primary care community of those same guidelines, I think has been a major driver of better LDL-C control more recently overall. In terms of the guidelines for LP little a, look, It's really hard to predict the timeline of guideline updates in cardiovascular disease. I think it was seven or eight years between guideline updates this last time. We were excited to see that LP little a testing was in these guidelines, obviously pending readout of trial. But after the fact, it may be several years before guidelines are updated. I will say there is a different behavior when a patient gets a high LP little a than a high LDL-C. With that high LP little a, given how infrequently it's tested and just seeing that it's a genetic disease, we do see patients much more open to really managing cholesterol in a major way. And so we do see an activation pathway through its normal risk scoring into the LDL pathway that's different than with a high LDL-C where we see patients obviously often try to diet, exercise, and take minimal statins in order to get their LDL down. So a different patient population may ultimately yield something. Again, we have to wait and see what we see from the Pellicarsin data to understand what it could mean going forward, though.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Okay, got it.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Maybe just going over to another cardiometabolic pipeline asset, which, again, is, I think, going to increasingly be front and center here as we go into 27 is Maritide. Maybe, Jay, you could just remind us kind of the target profile here that you're aiming for with these large phase three trials that you're rolling out. and it sounds like enrollment's been going pretty good.

Jay Bradner

Enrollment to the Meritide Phase 3 program has been outstanding. We've recently completed enrollment, end of August, I believe, Casey, of our obstructive sleep apnea studies. And this is a sweeping set of, in the fullness of time, a dozen Phase 3 clinical trials that will establish Meritide, we believe, as an important medicine for the treatment of obesity and its most core morbid conditions. And in studying these diseases in one parallel approach, we are starting to get a shape of the rising target product profile. And in a field that has had a lot of innovation and a lot of, I would say, redundant innovation around weekly injectables, Meritide starts to emerge as a bit of a singularity, a medicine that because of its monoclonal antibody background is by design built to be monthly or less frequently dosed. This is very important when we think about persistence. There's now more Americans who've taken a GLP-1 and no longer take it than are on it right now. Why is that? Why do half of patients stop this medicine, these helpful weekly medicines, at a calendar year? And we've been working to really understand this out in the community, and Kaveh and others, Susan Sweeney, have led this effort. And a lot of it comes down to challenges associated with weekly injectables, symptoms associated with the weak injectable, access and durable access to the medicine. Because of the monoclonal antibody backbone, we expect Maritide to be an optimal medicine to start on if it's your first GLP-1-based medicine and then stay on for the long haul, as well as to switch from a weekly injectable or an oral that can also not be very well tolerated or as efficacious to switch and then stay on Maritide. And the phase three program will create these data. We've reported the activity of Maritide on an every eight-week administration basis, and we've also shared the insight that on every 12-week basis, Meritide with more of a maintenance mindset is also quite active. When you couple this with outstanding tolerability at target dosing, the target product profile of Meritide starts to be really unique. Now, you might know that the GLP-1 injectables grew up as twice-a-day medicines and then chemistry achieved once-a-day medicines and miracles of chemistry achieved, ultra-long-acting weekly medicines. And this medicine, owing to its flexibility in dose and schedule, will be very appealing to patients, very appealing to providers, and potentially to payers as well. So it's our work now to focus on the execution of the broad Phase III program and turn in outstanding data, which won't be this calendar year on the Phase III program, but we'll have more to say about that in the new year.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

And just remind us on the, I know you guys have done a lot of work on the titration steps to kind of minimize the GI tolerability that you see with the GLP-1 axis. So where are we on that journey now? And do you ultimately think you'll end up in a place that the rates look very similar to what you see with, you know, ZepBound, for example?

Jay Bradner

Yeah, thank you. It turns out for Meritide, just like all the GLP-1 medicines, whether they're injectable or oral, that the index dosing, the initiation of therapy benefits from dose escalation over a period of time. And through a series of phase one and phase two clinical trials, we prepared the data necessary to establish the right dose and schedule for Meritide, a three-step dose escalation to target dosing that takes two months to complete, from 21 to 35 to 70 milligrams. Curiously, once a patient has had 70 milligrams, they are attenuated to the GI or other side effects of Meritide largely, such that you can go right to target dosing, even if it's 350 milligrams owing to a need for substantial weight loss. And then that turns out to be quite unique. So we will see in our Phase III program if these Phase I learnings read through to competitive tolerability, which we expect. Importantly, at target dose, we think Maritide can be quite differentiating. We more and more hear about day of injection, nausea and vomiting, and challenges associated with the weekly injectables and the orals even. And here, Maritide, owing to its very smooth pharmacokinetics that the antibody just kind of hangs out in the bloodstream, not hitting the area post-streamal with GLP-1 agonism with every excursion from trough to peak in C-max, Target dosing with Meritide is remarkably well-tolerated. So we'll have more to say on that when we see the phase three data, but we expect a competitive profile.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

And maybe just last one is Pfizer is working on a monthly program as well. Again, maybe just talk to us about anything that struck you at ADA about their profile versus what you see for Meritide and differentiation, because I think a lot of investors are doing these cross-trial comparisons side-by-side, like who's going to have more share in the monthly market, the timelines are pretty similar. So as you look across, you know, that long-acting program, what are some of the key features that you think give Meritide a leg up?

Jay Bradner

Well, you know, Pfizer and others are performing a lot of the standard, I'm a discovery chemist, are performing a lot of the standard discovery chemistry moves to make one of our really short-lived biomolecules longer-lived. Adding a lipid can lead to association with albumin, stays around in the bloodstream just a little bit longer. Various formulations and gel formulations, of course, have been used in the past. And these may lead to tolerability over one month, but I do believe that it'll be hard for them to measure up as an efficacy endpoint. We'll see as the data reads out, and it's always hard with cross-trial comparisons, but I know that some of these companies, including Pfizer, are studying those very medicines with weekly dosing. We have no weekly study of Maritide. In fact, we're moving more towards every eight and every 12-week dosing through our ongoing maintenance and switching studies. So I do believe that there's just nothing like Maritide from a durable efficacy and durability of effect today in late-stage clinical development.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Yeah. Okay, great. Maybe, Kaveh, I would just go to you. Just high-level, you know, this market has been front and center, I think, for the last several years in the biopharma sector, and I think estimates, our estimate's $190 billion. Just what's the company's kind of high-level go-to-market strategy? We've seen the rise of the DTC channel here. You guys have leveraged your own DTC offerings for some of your other products, so maybe just talk to us about, you know, how you guys lean into that, and then, Thomas, you mentioned you had, you know, some consumer background as well, so maybe there's something you want to add as well to that conversation, but...

Kaveh, Other

Yeah, so, no, thanks. Terrence, I think last year we announced our Amgen Now program for Repath. That was our first direct-to-consumer program. We now have, I believe, four or five medicines within it. It has served 20,000 patients over the last year. 18,000 of those are Repath patients, providing us early learnings of how to operate within that channel. Look, it's a huge category. I think there's almost a billion people on the planet that could benefit from these medicines. There are offerings, good offerings today, that are starting to penetrate that. Over time, we see that market fragmenting into separate submarkets. We think Maritide can play both in the induction phase and, importantly, in the maintenance phase, where we know, as said earlier, more patients have started and stopped these medicines than are on them today. We look forward to bringing kind of some of the capabilities that we've built around Repathen, Avenity, these very large markets We're retreating lots of patients to bring Meritide forward, building on those capabilities and going more into the traditional ACP setting, but also into the direct-to-consumer setting once we get there. A lot of this will depend on the profile we see, and we'll see the totality of that profile will help us define where we play and which markets going forward. But Thomas has really good perspective here from his Galderma days, specifically on the consumer side. Do you want to add, Thomas?

Thomas Dittrich, CFO

Yeah, as you said, it really depends on the profile, and I think Jay has characterized it really well, what we're expecting there. When you then translate that to the more consumeristic side of the market, there is a real shift happening where patients no longer act as patients but as active consumers and make a choice, and maybe in this case wear an aura ring, et cetera, that want to know about what their health status is and involve themselves in the choices. So that starts with how they consume data, how they use AI, that they go to social media. In the previous place, we knew exactly before any treatment decision would have five visits to social media websites. So therefore, it's important that you're not only showing up branded, but also you drive unbranded awareness to satisfy people's information collection requirements. And then the path to treatment is also a different one. and you have to make it as smooth and simple as possible. And then these patients go and choose the treatment outlet, maybe him's or hers or whatever, or even centers, on that basis. And then the final point is these patients are commitment patients. They make choices about their life, be it on the aesthetic side, but also about their health levels that they want to have for themselves and commit to that and stay on that for a longer term and are happy to pay cash with it. So you have to really treat them in that way, but what you get in return is a lot of stickiness from them. Really exciting area and, you know, couldn't be at a better place than Amgen at this point in time. Great.

Terence Flynn, Analyst — Morgan Stanley

Well, I think we're up against time, but thank you all so much. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.