Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the revamped Stirling Square Bank, and good afternoon to everyone in the room. And to those listening on the webcast, good morning, good afternoon, good evening. It's been a very busy week for earnings and other events, but we are ending the week on a high note with the Q1 ratio of Novo Nordisk. The speakers don't really need an introduction, but just out of courtesy, we have Karsten, the Group's CFO; Camilla, the Group Commercial Strategy Head; and Martin, the Head of R&D, joined by us and already from Investor Relations. Usually, I would hand it straight over to Karsten for some slides and Q&A. However, I think it’s important to pause and recognize Mr. Daniel Bohsen as he takes on his last function as the Head of Novo Investor Relations. This acknowledgment is significant for everyone in the room. I've known Danny for over 15 years when he was an analyst covering Novo Nordisk. We discussed instruments back in the day, and with Martin's influence, he was sent to Colombia for sales. He returned in 2020 to become the Head of Investor Relations. We can all agree that holding this position from 2020 to 2024 for Novo is quite an achievement. Danny, I sincerely hope I represent everyone's sentiment when I say that your professionalism, patience with all of us, responsiveness, helpfulness, and your friendly nature have been truly appreciated. We wish you the best in your next venture with Novo Nordisk. Many good times, and I particularly appreciated our meeting in 2016, which was a highlight. Before we part ways with Danny and wish him well, I have a small gift for you that aligns with my compliance policy of less than $25, intended to help you immerse yourself in Taiwanese culture. So, on behalf of everyone here, thank you for everything, and good luck going forward. I will now ask Karsten about Taiwan and the change in performance over the next few quarters under new management. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Pete, for those nice words to Daniel. We are all sad he's leaving, but we're also very much looking forward to following him in Taiwan. And we have a materiality assessment on what we report externally in terms of our segments business on. And every week, we'll be tracking in our weekly sales, if Taiwan sales is becoming big enough to include in the quarterly external announcement. So we're all rooting for you, Daniel, for Taiwan to make one of the coming quarters. And thank you to Pete and Citi for hosting in your beautifully revamped premises here, so we appreciate that. And then we're bringing another strong quarter from team Novo in terms of performance. So continued growth, continued momentum from last year amongst the strongest growth stories in the industry, as you know, and we keep pushing that. So as you know, the future is uncertain and it might play out differently. And hence, we have a nice deck with the forward-looking statements included. So no further details on that. Then every quarter, we bring a status on our strategy execution, and I'm not going to go through all the details. You'll hear a lot more about it in the coming hour. Just to say on the environmental side, we keep pushing forward. Now we started reporting on full Scope 1, 2 and 3, and you see that being up 32%. And there's one single key driver for our CO2 emissions being up that much. That is the fact that we're building a lot of new factories, which goes directly into our Scope 3 emissions. So we don't take it lightly, but now we are fully transparent around our environmental footprint. 42 million people now on Novo products, up 4 million compared to a year ago, and then continued strong commercial execution that Camilla will come back to. I think actually, one of the biggest years ever in Novo history in terms of the magnitude and importance of an R&D readout.

Thank you, Karsten. And just a recap on our sales growth numbers, this first quarter, we had 24% sales growth, 30% operating profit growth. As you can see from the slide here, 35% growth in North America and 11% growth in International Operations. The growth is really driven by GLP-1. We see a 32% growth in GLP-1 in diabetes, 42% growth in obesity. We are very pleased with the progression of, of course, our GLP-1 business both in diabetes and obesity. On total diabetes, we continue to gain market share. We have also increased market share this last quarter and now at 33%. And if we now look at the obesity business here, you see a gradual increase in supply continuing to expand our obesity business. We very much, of course, understand that at this point in time, the obesity business is a lot driven by the supply into the market. The underlying business is performing very well. There are no major changes to that compared to last year. So we continue to be pleased with the progression that we see here. We have gradually increased our supply of the lower-dose strength since May last year, but again from January this year. And the fourth commercial access on the formularies means that we have approximately 50 million lives covered in the U.S. And we have now also launched Wegovy in 9 countries in International Operations plus Canada. So that means 10 countries now where we have made Wegovy available. We'll probably talk a little bit more about that later. So now I'll just hand over to Martin to say a few words about R&D.

Thank you very much, Camilla. As you all know, we conducted a small study called SELECT that read out last year, and we were very excited about the results. We are equally excited about the update to the U.S. label that we've received during this quarter. We received the CV indication, showing that semaglutide is associated with a 20% risk reduction from major adverse cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death. This risk reduction is now reflected in the label and is consistent across various demographics such as gender, age, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and renal function. Additionally, we were allowed to indicate data outside of the testing hierarchy, showing a 15% numerical reduction in cardiovascular death and a 19% significant reduction in all-cause mortality, which is now also included in the label, and we are very excited about this. Furthermore, the FDA noted that the mechanism behind the CV benefit is not fully understood, indicating that this benefit encompasses more than just weight loss. We've mentioned previously that semaglutide provides cardiovascular benefits that go beyond just weight loss, potentially also impacting the renal benefits we've observed. As part of our broader cardiovascular strategy, we continue to make acquisitions to strengthen our pipeline. Our focus is on the metabolic aspects of cardiovascular disease, particularly on inflammation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. We recently acquired a company called Cardior, which has a lead asset targeting microRNA 132, directly involved in heart failure pathophysiology. This aligns with our strategy to expand our cardiovascular presence, focusing on heart failure and other areas of interest, and we are very excited to advance these cardio assets into further clinical development.

Thank you, Martin. I will walk through the slides, as always. Joking aside, we had an amazing year in R&D with numerous readouts and actions. It's hard to recall a year with so much activity and so many decision points. It's crucial that we deliver on this. The results for the first three months are reflected in our recent company announcement, showing a 24% growth that continues the momentum from last year, driven by Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus. In the quarter, we experienced a one-time accounting estimate adjustment that boosted growth by 5%. Adjusting for that, we're looking at around 19%. While last year's comparison was easier, there were also some supply challenges. The run rate for the first quarter is approximately 20% on an apples-to-apples basis. Regarding our capital and resource allocation, as mentioned on Capital Markets Day, we're focused on driving productivity while maintaining a stable gross margin. Commercial investment growth is lower than sales growth due to our established infrastructure and the demand for our products. However, as seen in the previous slide, there is significant opportunity in R&D, leading us to aim for a broader pipeline with a 28% increase in R&D investments. Overall, operating profit is up 30% and earnings per share have risen 29% for the quarter. Looking ahead, if we adjust for the accounting estimate in the first quarter, our guidance remains unchanged at constant exchange rates but is increased by 1% due to the one-off. Our full-year expectations are for top-line growth between 19% and 27% and operating profit growth between 22% and 30%. Additionally, with the strengthening dollar, currency conditions are slightly more favorable, although we have incurred significant losses on net financials. This concludes the formal presentations, and we have Daniel Bohsen facilitating his last Q&A. We look forward to that, and any specific questions regarding Taiwan can be addressed by Daniel himself.

Luckily, I know Camilla has been the General Manager for Region China, so she will cover those questions today. But please state your name and institution. Let's go with one question per person; then we can take several rounds. And Emily had her hand up very fast.

I'm not going to ask directly about the competitor data overnight, but when could we expect to see the Phase I data from your once-monthly GLP-1/GIP? And how important do you think it is to have dosing convenience that goes beyond once-weekly?

The study for the once-monthly GLP-1/GIP is currently ongoing, and we expect to see the readout around the beginning of this year. I believe the current dynamics indicate a strong emphasis on efficacy over preference in this area. Our focus, as we assess our pipeline, is on achieving differentiated efficacy, with convenience being a secondary consideration. We will continue to prioritize efficacy as our main goal.

So let's go to Simon.

It seems highly unlikely that it will be the same in 2030 as it is today because of your own products that you have as well as others. It also seems unlikely that everything else outside Novo's development will fail. Equally unlikely, everything will work. So what's your assumption of how this market evolves both through your own portfolio evolution and the efforts of others?

So of course, if we take a starting point in the number of people living with obesity, we know that there are more than 800 million. We know also today, we are helping treat less than 1 million in terms of full-year equivalent patients, if we may call it like that. And that basically means that there's ample opportunity to grow in this space and to help many more patients. It's likely that there will be different segments in the future where the high-efficacy segment is, of course, where we have our strong focus. From a science point of view, we have a strong label now with SELECT on Wegovy, where we're addressing not just weight loss but also beyond weight loss, the cardiovascular risk profile. We know that, that is what people die from. 31% of everyone dies from cardiovascular issues. Now we have also, of course, our FLOW data. And so to complement the Wegovy label with that is, of course, a life cycle management plan for us. In addition to that, we have been bringing on new compounds with also hopefully greater efficacy. But it's not to say that there will not also be a space for high-convenience products maybe with lower efficacy. So having said that, today, there are 2 companies that are competing in this space. It's still early days. There's probably room for more just given the magnitude of the numbers. So I do expect that we've seen a lot of progress in the last few years on physicians that are willing to prescribe obesity products. Just a few years back, we all remember, it wasn't exactly like that. So there has been a lot of development. And hopefully, this means we can address more of these comorbidities related to obesity. And that, of course, clearly goes beyond just weight loss.

Thanks, Camilla. So let's move over here, yes?

How much more capacity do you think you can get from the 3 facilities from Catalent? And what does that do to the supply of all of your products by 2026?

Thank you, Evan. And Karsten?

In terms of the FTC, it's completely normal to have a process in place for big transactions to assess any antitrust considerations, so there's nothing unusual about that. Our expectations regarding deal certainty and confidence remain unchanged. Regarding scalability, we aren’t specifying the exact magnitude, but currently, with our limited filling sites, adding three new filling types of varying sizes will significantly increase our overall capacity. For single-dose syringes, we currently have very limited in-house capacity, which mainly relies on CMO setups. By making this change, we will bring an important production platform in-house under our full control, which also helps manage risk. This is a significant increase, and the main reason for this move is to enhance speed and scale, allowing us to ramp up capacity as quickly as possible compared to other options.

Thank you, Karsten. Thanks for the question. Jo?

In the market today for obesity, people have moved from Saxenda to Wegovy. They've really moved up and not stayed at the lower efficacy. So let's assume that CagriSema has good data. Should we be assuming that you would expect pretty much everyone to move from sema to CagriSema? Because that seems to be an even more difficult manufacturing problem given that cagrilintide you're making externally. And I just wonder whether governments, particularly when sema is cheaper if it's in IRA, will say that's good enough and that sema will be your baseload of product. And then CagriSema would just be reserved for the more difficult patients.

Thank you, Jo. Camilla?

Thank you, Jo. You are correct that this is a completely different situation compared to what we have with Saxenda and Wegovy, especially considering the efficacy of Wegovy today, which includes the SELECT trial that Martin just presented. Due to the significant numbers and the many people being treated, along with the existing demand, it is more probable that we will see market expansion with new products and a solid foundation with Wegovy for many years ahead. Therefore, I don't view the introduction of a strong pipeline as merely a cannibalization strategy. That wouldn't be appropriate given the many patients who need treatment. Some patients require a greater emphasis on weight loss, while others need more attention on comorbidities. Thus, there is room for new innovations that complement the existing base we are developing for the future alongside Wegovy.

Thank you, Camilla. Let's go to yes, James?

I have a question for Martin about muscle sparing. What are you hearing from doctors regarding the ideal ratio of fat loss to muscle loss? Is it simply about losing weight in general? Additionally, considering SELECT compared to STEP 1 and SUSTAIN 8, which has a 40% loss from lean body mass, have you observed any data from SELECT that indicates this trend may improve over time?

So what we hear from training physicians is that, that is currently not a consideration. I think it comes from a lot of these physicians have introduced weight loss with non-drug interventions for a period of time. And if you look into sort of the broader literature, when you introduce a weight loss, the proportional weight loss coming from lean body mass is typically somewhere between 25% and 45%. And the driver of that ratio between lean body mass loss and fat mass loss is typically the speed of weight loss. So when you have a proportional weight loss from lean body mass around 35% to 40%, that's actually within that realm. And that basically means that, that is a normal and healthy weight loss. You could actually argue, and this is obviously also why we are super happy with data from SELECT, we can actually show even in cardiovascular risk, sick patients, so presumably slightly more frail patients, we show that we improved not only cardiovascular morbidity but actually also all-cause mortality. And that basically, again, just plays into this. This appears to be a healthy weight loss. So based on current treatment, I don't see this as a broader problem. I think it has to be a focus area also with current treatments, in particular, in frail patients. And when we move into the potential for bigger weight loss, it has to continue to be a focus area. This is where we take some comfort from the animal biology because based on animal studies, both from us but also from others, it appears to be associated with an even bigger improvement of the lean-to-fat mass ratio. Then to body composition assessment in SELECT, so I don't have any data from there. But again, based on what we see, also based on the actual outcomes for patients, do they live longer, do they live healthier, we are quite comfortable with what we see right now.

Thank you, Martin. Thank you, James. Let's go to Sachin Jain on the first row.

Perhaps at Karsten on S&D phasing through the year alongside supplies. The question is first quarter S&D and the full year guide obviously implies an inflection in spend through the year. So any color on what is gating that inflection in spend? Is it linked to an inflection in supply? And is the supply inflection linked to whatever promotional activity you do around Ozempic, Wegovy, say, for example, SELECT or heart failure towards year-end?

Thank you, Sachin. Karsten, any comments on S&D phasing?

S&D accounted for 20% of sales in the quarter, and we anticipate it will be around 22% for the full year. You are right that our S&D timing is slightly backloaded, which is connected to our commercial strategies. These strategies depend on supply availability and R&D results. For example, with the recent SELECT outcomes, we will enhance our promotions based on the updated label from SELECT, which includes some promotional spending in the U.S. However, you shouldn't directly associate this with manufacturing output in a specific quarter, as everything is interrelated. That's as detailed as I can be on the matter.

And on R&D, sorry, is there anything other than SELECT that you'd call out?

Well, you could say in terms of weekly launches, there will of course be some launch preparations taking place there. And then Martin's, in pipeline slide there, you saw that whatever we get in terms of feedback from the Advisory Committees also on HFpEF will impact our commercial strategies for the rest of the year.

Thank you, Sachin. Thank you, Karsten. So we can go to Richard.

I have a follow-up question related to potential market segmentation, similar to what I asked yesterday. Other companies are focused on developing scalable oral options to target a larger population, particularly those who are severely obese or have health issues. Your focus seems to be on rimonabant. How confident are you that the drug does not enter the brain and therefore is unlikely to result in psychiatric side effects? Other companies developing BTK inhibitors are engaged in discussions about the data on their drug's brain penetration capabilities. What gives you confidence that your drug won't have similar issues?

Martin, this one's for you.

Thank you. We are quite confident that brain penetration is significantly lower than what has been observed with previous drugs in this class. While we have never claimed to eliminate the possibility of some brain penetration, historical data indicates that it was primarily about exposure. Given the very low penetration we anticipate based on the data and clinical evidence we have observed so far, we are not concerned. We take this seriously, which is why we plan to conduct a large-scale Phase II study specifically to rule out any new psychiatric risks before moving into Phase III and further development.

Thank you, Martin. We can go to Laura. There's a mic behind you.

Just going back to the once-monthly, what is the latest on applying your once-monthly technology to your other pipeline assets? So could you apply it to amycretin, CagriSema? And if not, what's the limiting factor? And does once-monthly tie into why you progressed the GLP-1/GIP combination, even though it's a once-weekly progression?

Thank you. Martin, that's also for you.

We have actually several different modalities for projected actions. And obviously, the ones that we have in the clinic right now is attracting some attention. That could potentially be applied elsewhere. But we currently have, as I said, several modalities being investigated in the preclinical space. And what we, at the end of the day, will move forward also into later stages, development depends obviously on the efficacy but also the potential for scalability. So we are not committed to anything yet, and we have to see the current ongoing once-monthly with GLP-1/GIP. As an exposure, we started to investigate the technology.

Thank you. So we can go to Peter.

Can I come back to a topic that came up a while ago on Wegovy in terms of the different formulations or types that could be available in the U.S. and sort of, in general, the U.S. strategy. Have you revised at all your current thinking in terms of sticking with the single-use pen in the U.S. market and not launching any other alternatives? And equally, any thoughts on a sort of direct distribution system that I think what your competitor obviously has done as well, where we just cut out the middleman to some extent to supply U.S. patients?

Thank you, Peter. Camilla, portfolio considerations?

Yes. So we continue to, of course, evaluate how can we optimize our portfolio considerations also for the U.S. And right now, we are very focused on the single-dose device. But of course, over time, we are looking at also how can we make efficient dosing of GLP-1s in fixed dosing regimen. How can we do that in a smarter way that requires less capacity? It's something that we constantly look at across our value chain. How can we optimize with the presentation format we have across the world? How can we release small products? And with that, also increase our scalability? So constantly, we will be evaluating those things.

Good. Let's go up here to Rajesh.

It wouldn't be appropriate for me to ask you to comment on how others might structure their clinical trials. However, given the data we have observed so far with semaglutide, if you were to design next-generation trials for your upcoming products, would you consider using a placebo control as in the SELECT trial, or would you opt for semaglutide? Additionally, how does that influence the trial's power and the size needed for it?

Thank you. Martin, trial design consideration?

That's a complex question with many regulatory factors to consider, and we're observing various approaches across the industry. In the context of obesity and cardiovascular treatments, if there is a recognized gold standard, comparisons must be made to that standard rather than to a placebo. Semaglutide may serve as that gold standard. This implies that if we look at CagriSema and aim to claim similar benefits to semaglutide, we need to demonstrate comparable effectiveness in a potential head-to-head study. Achieving this would likely necessitate a standard-sized outcomes trial targeting the same endpoint. If we aim to prove superiority over semaglutide, the requirements become more challenging, involving considerations around sample size, potential endpoints, and trial design elements that could effectively demonstrate superiority on relevant endpoints. We see others increasing the number of composites in primary endpoints, which can help to raise the event count and enable studies to proceed with a smaller sample size. All these factors are important to consider. In situations where there is no gold standard, comparing against placebo remains a valid strategy. For our product, CagriSema is indeed compared to placebo regarding cardiovascular outcomes, primarily because there was no gold standard at the time we began the trial.

Thank you, Martin. So let's go to Richard Vosser here in the front row. We have time for a few more questions.

Just a thought on the Part D redesign that we're going to see next year, how that could impact the net pricing for Ozempic and Rybelsus into '25?

Thank you, Richard. Karsten, I think this one is for you.

First of all, we are in negotiations, and so we haven't seen the outcomes yet. There is a lot of uncertainty at this point. I would break it down into two parts. There’s the redesign and then the negotiations dynamics in Part D. Regarding the redesign, it's important to note that while the elimination of the donor toll offers a benefit, it also introduces different exposures concerning catastrophic coverage and other aspects. Overall, while we initially viewed the redesign as a positive, we now see it as largely neutral. Additionally, the impact of the redesign on plan sponsors, and consequently on insurance companies and their ability to pass costs to customers, remains to be determined. However, the competitive landscape among suppliers in the marketplace has not changed, so it’s too early to comment further.

Thank you, Karsten. Sachin, you had a question? And we take Emily afterwards and then end.

For Martin, sema, NASH, increasing flex towards year-end. Just wanted to clarify a comment you made on the call yesterday. I think your wording, and correct me if I was wrong, was if you repeated the Phase II, it would be a good outcome. Just wanted to clarify, the Phase II didn't hit that thing on fibrosis. So is just NASH resolution enough without fibrosis for filing commercial? And if that is incorrect, what's your confidence around hitting fibrosis? Is the effect size you saw in Phase II enough to get you across the hurdles in Phase III?

Thank you, Sachin. Martin?

For regulatory approval, both improvement in steatosis and fibrosis is required, and the study is designed to look at that. Our dialogue with the FDA was that our Phase II trial was never sample-sized to look from a statistical perspective on fibrosis. So we saw a highly significant reduction in steatosis, which actually saw a great numerical reduction in fibrosis as well. And the statement from the FDA was if we saw a similar numerical reduction in a properly sample-sized study, obviously, that will become statistically significant. And from a regulatory perspective, that would also be acceptable. So instead of asking us to conduct 2 Phase III studies, they said that the Phase II study could serve as one of the 2 regulatory studies, and we now are doing ESSENCE as the other study.

Despite the 10% delta? If that's repeated in Phase III, is that going to account for that?

Slightly more than 10%. And yes, if that becomes statistically significant, then we are in a good place.

Thank you, Martin. Thanks, Sachin. Let's take the last questions from Emily, and then we will have time to talk with management afterwards also before they depart.

Regarding Wegovy pricing, I know this was discussed yesterday, but there's a Financial Times article today about Novo reducing the price of Wegovy. Could you share how the net price evolution for Wegovy in the U.S. aligns with your expectations? Additionally, you mentioned pricing changes in specific channels. With more Medicare involvement anticipated with SELECT, could you elaborate on what you meant by that?

So Karsten?

This is completely as expected, right? So what we're looking at in the market is that this is a volume opportunity, and we are very happy with the market access we have in the U.S. So we have more than 50 million people with obesity covered in the U.S. today. So our market access is very good. And of course, then we'll work with the payers to ensure that we have the appropriate market access that ensures this level of coverage or even more. And then, of course, the market is also defined through competition and competitive entry. So there are no surprises in pricing in the U.S. And just reminding you, this is a significant volume opportunity. So the 50 million people with obesity that we have covered for today, we are only serving a fraction of that, so less than 1 million now.

That concludes the Q&A session. Before I turn it over to Karsten for his final remarks, I want to thank Pete for the kind words and express my gratitude to all of you. Many of you I have met several times over the last four years, and I have truly enjoyed our conversations, including the challenging questions and the pushback. Thank you very much, and please remember to keep them on their toes in the future. Karsten, it's your turn. Any final thoughts?

Very briefly. Thank you, Citi, again. We feel we're on a roll. So amazing levels of sales growth continuing into this year, 24% for the quarter, turning into attractive profit growth, 30% for the quarter at the current exchange rates. Our innovation machine is really also on a roll in terms of readout and what you just have seen thus far between SELECT, FLOW, and hopefully, to be replicated into the near future on the coming readouts. So a very strong push on innovation for the rest of the year. So thank you for your attention. And we'll be around for another quarter, so looking forward to discussing in more detail. Thank you.