Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (TEVA) September 2026 Conference Transcript

Well, welcome to the next company presenter at the B of A Global Health Care Conference. It's my pleasure to be introducing Teva Pharmaceuticals and President and CEO Richard Francis. My name is Jason Gerber. I'm a pharma analyst at B of A. I'll be joining this presentation via telepresence, unfortunately, but my colleague Richard Wagner is on site in person. So the two of us will go through this presentation. So first off, Richard, apologies for not being able to be there in person this year.

That's okay. Good to have you on the screen, Jason.

Great. Well, maybe we can start with a few overarching general questions around Teva strategy, capital allocation, given the company's recent improvement in its credit profile and overall just evolution of the business and the portfolio. So I thought it would be helpful to start with um you know now that teva has reached investment grade with uh three credit rating agencies um you know how does that change the view the criteria you know for uh assets that the company might consider for future bd uh transactions i know in the past there was a laser focus on uh improving the the debt profile so does this in any way change how you think about maybe capacity uh can the company maybe be more opportunistic on the on the bd front so maybe i think that would be a good place to start yeah okay thank you and uh um so um the fact that we

got a credit rating uh of investment grade from all three of the credit rating agencies and we did that to remind people a year ahead of when we said we would we said we'd do that by the end of 27 so we did that a month or so ago and uh an important aspect to which i'm sure everybody knows but i'm quite proud of and i know my cfo ellie kalif who sits here is very proud of is you get a credit rating upgrade not because you paid down the debt only it's because you've actually show a future direction of your ebitda and so when you look at net debt to ebitda and where the company's going they actually think okay it's not that we pay down our debt and now what it's the future of the company looks a lot better and why does it look a lot better and why is the EBITDA going to grow and we'll talk a lot about that so i think that's important for people to understand because i always say that that metric of investment grade highlights our discipline capital allocation to pay down debt but our capital allocation within the company to grow our revenue to grow our EBITDA to show that that journey of financial stability and i'd argue opportunity is there um so so that's one point which uh i think is important to uh you know there's another milestone another metric that we set out to do and we've done ahead of when we would do it and there's others we can talk about the other one is to that how do we allocate capital now and do we do bd and we had four capital allocation criteria pay down debt invest in our growth drivers which was our commercial products instead of you said jovi and product launches third one was develop our pipeline which is very exciting um and do bd and the fourth one was return capital to shareholders so as you've highlighted pretty much number one is gone because we'll have a chunk of debt this year and early next year and and and as we've also seen ellie and the team refinance some of our debt a few weeks ago and we did that at a really good rate because we're a good company we're investment great so a lot of things have improved that side which allows us now to think about how do we want to deploy the capital to those other three areas and so a few things we have yes we are very active in bd and and although we've only done one transaction amalax which i think was a good transaction and it was very synergistic with what we do that's based on the fact that we we have a very disciplined approach to value and return on that capital and and although we've been in discussions with other assets and companies If we don't feel it's the right price and the right return for us, we won't do it. And we can be disciplined in that. One, because I think we've come from quite a difficult position, from a balance sheet position, and so we're thoughtful. And the second thing is we have a great organic pipeline, which allows us to be choosy about what we bring in. And as you know, we also potentially could be getting an asset, BioXcel, which is in bankruptcy, and we've been looking at that for some time. So we will do more. We do look at a lot, but if the price is right, we won't do it. And those transactions could get bigger. But we do, and Eric Hughes, head of R&D, CMO is here, we do look at what we're buying and is it better than what we have? And if it is, then we can do it and then we'll have to stop doing something internally. We're very agnostic about where our pipeline comes from. But definitely we are planning, Jason, for the world where our balance sheet starts to build cash on it, because it will very quickly just to refinance the debt we're probably going to save 400 million of finance expenses uh next year so that just shows you the progress that's cash and and so we're planning for what we can look at what size those deals can be in two years time versus now and so we're planning for them now hoping to get some uh good deals but being mindful of of price We're also planning for what those could look like in three or four years where our balance is very different. But we have a great pipeline, which we'll talk a lot about. And so it's not a must, it's an and or.

Okay, great. Maybe as we think about where you will be opportunistic to look to add more substrate, if you will, into the pipeline, are investors right to think that Teva's strategic priority is more on the brand side versus the generic side in terms of where you'd look to support with any BD investment. And within brands, I would imagine the focus remains within your kind of core therapeutic area footprint. But if you could, you know, provide any colors in terms of how you're thinking about, you know, areas where there's maybe a higher priority to augment?

Yeah, I think you're broadly right. I mean, the capital allocation for in-licensing and BD will be predominantly innovative. It will be predominantly in CNS neurology and more specifically, if we can, in and around the areas we operate, psychiatry, for example, movement disorders, things like that. And then also potentially immunology because of our immunology pipeline that's coming through. So you're right there. I would add, though, that we have been and we will continue to look at rare disease. And rare disease will be more agnostic as to what TA that is in because we think rare disease is an area where it's based on core competencies, pricing, supply chain, go-to-market Those things that we think we have, we've built with Estedo, we're going to expand with like a pipeline and we think that's we can leverage but has to be the right asset the right price that's just one nuance um i would say that we still do deploy capital to our generics businesses more biosimilars so you've seen us do deals on biosimilars partnering and so you know that will continue because we're at 29 biosimilars now in our pipeline or 15 on the market 14 in our pipeline and we want to keep expanding that so we will be allocating capital to that but the far majority of the capital will be to the innovative side, as you say. Okay.

And you've mentioned a couple of times now, just some of the success stories, you know, in terms of drugs that you guys have internally developed via Duba-Kittu or the IL-15 antibody. So how should investors think about Teva's internal drug discovery capability, right? And, you know, how do you, I guess, how do you benchmark productivity of the organization? and the success of this part of your business relative to, say, other established biopharma companies?

So, look, I think the difference, I think, with us first is we think of our R&D as little r, capital D. And so that's an interesting differentiator. But let me explain what that means. when we do discovery, we do discovery on things that we believe have a high probability of success in our hands. And so let me explain. So we will not discover a new target. We will not discover a new MOA. We won't do that. What we've done, and you've seen with TL1A, anti-TL1A and anti-IL-15, is we will, because of our amazing discovery team that focuses on antibodies, we will understand what targets we believe have been validated but an antibody has even not been optimized to have the maximum efficacy tolerability and safety despite people making that antibody we like that approach and so productivity wise we like that approach because we think we we significantly de-risk the asset straight away because we know the target's relevant we know the target works right well i think our secret source is we we can then make a a TL1A that's better than anybody else's, and I think we've shown that, and we'll make an anti-IL-15 better than anybody else's, and we'll show that, and we'll make a T-slip IL-13 better than anybody else, and we'll show that Q1 next year. And that's not arrogance, that's because we invest so much time and effort in building capability in antibody engineering, which is something that a lot of people don't do. They discover antibodies and targets, which is great, but we believe the work and the capability we build in developing antibodies that are more sophisticated can add real value. real value. I think we all saw that already in T1A. And I think that will start to permeate more as more data comes out. So from a productivity point of view, Eric and I, head of R&D, talk a lot about probability of success. We both don't like taking big bets on capital. And so he set up his team in a way that allows us to have significant wins while reducing the risk associated with those as in when i came in and spoke to him four years ago till 1a even i and i'm pretty uneducated in science knew till 1a was an exciting target we had a really good one ntr 15 the more i looked at that i realized that and so okay yeah these are de-risk now how do we make the best and can we make the best and that's all our capability so that's where our productivity is really good the other side is on cns you know i think one core aspect of tevra is we know what we don't know there's a level of humility in the company so do we think we can discover the new treatment for alzheimer's or parkinson's despite how much we desperately want to no or do we think other people in academia in biotech around the world could discover some of the treatments for cns and some of the distressing disorders yes do we look and and monitor them and talk to them constantly yes because that's where we think we can leverage that ecosystem which is so broad and wide and so many people trying different things and then when we think to the same principle as i mentioned earlier things that do risk because that moa that target that pathway is validated we will go in and we will we will partner with them that said sometimes we are so focused on making sure we have the right risk as you saw with eco pipa and with tourette's we followed that company for two years and although we saw some really good data in phase two we still didn't feel comfortable enough to allocate capital to until phase three and i think if you put all that together i've never thought about looking at it but i would say our productivity is very high but it's based on the fact that we purposefully think about probability of success and we purposely think about how do we make sure these assets have a very high likelihood of getting to market and so i think we've but i haven't actually done the analysis but that's how we think about it so um which is why jason i think we've ended up in this position where we have this late stage pipeline that everybody's got excited about and excited because i think everybody has a view that's quite a lot of it could come to market and if it does come to market that could be a meaningful inflection in the growth of teva both on the top and bottom line and so it becomes really material.

The industry is moving fast and there's a lot going on. We hear from pharma companies about leveraging AI to get better compounds into the clinic. China is a source of drugs that pharma companies are able to get through structured licensed transactions with lower upfront costs. So there's favorable trade-offs there, ways to augment the portfolio and the pipeline. Do you see kind of leaning into all those avenues kind of in the future as, you know, now that you've kind of transitioned the company through this phase of coming out of like higher leverage and legacy litigation profile into now, looking at this as a growth company? I'm kind of curious, you know, how we think about the next five years and sort of the pipeline of evolution.

Yeah, so a couple of things is firstly, yeah, I think Eric and Evan, Evan Lipmo, head of MNMPD, they're both in China again in August. So we visit China. We're very agnostic as to where the science is. And I think that's another strength we have because I think people have gone to China, but it's more gone to China because of either failures or because somebody's moved faster. Because we have that little hour approach, we just follow where there's great science. And that could be West Coast, East Coast, that could be China, that could be Europe. We don't really care. All we know is we're looking for it. And it doesn't have to be something. And by the way, we're not precious about our own pipeline. The pipeline is what products we bring to market. If it's internal, okay. If it's external, okay. One is not better than the other. Absolutely not. And I think that's another key area which is a focus. The other thing I would say is as we look at all of that, and don't forget we did some really interesting things like our PD-1 IL-2. by the way, we're going to have data at the end of this year on, which will also show our antibody engineering capabilities into an area where people have maybe thought PD-1, L2s had their day. Once again, I think it goes back to the quality of the engineering, but I haven't seen the data. We don't have data yet, but let's see. But we did a deal with Fuson to accelerate that. So they're working on that study in China. So we think super creatively about how do we get to data, and that's another thing. from a company point of view we sort of have a mindset like biotech which is we need data and we need it fast and we need it cheap because capital is important and so how do we get data fast eric will run clinical studies really quickly and effectively so i get to read that so we know it works it doesn't work if it works let's accelerate it i'll come back to that but as we think about ai as we think about all these things the other thing i'd remind people is we have two Two assets in our pipeline, Duva-Ketu and anti-R15, they all are multiple indication assets. So Duva-Ketu we now have four indications, we'll probably add another four, I mean we've got a list of 20 plus, so probably not four, maybe more. And then anti-R15 we have vitiligo, celiac disease, alopecia will follow, and then whether we had to adopt a termoditis and some other areas are logical. So suddenly we have two pipelines in products in a small company, which is game-changing. So while we look at all the things around partnerships, opportunity, and CNS in different parts of the world, we will constantly do that. But I think people need to recognize we have a very significant pipeline based on two assets also, which have multiple indications. And they are shown to be very safe and tolerable, which allows you to go into other indications. So that makes it very exciting. So I think those are the things that we sort of consider. But I think, you know, do we consider all those different areas? Absolutely. But we have to balance it. We have a pretty good pipeline now. And I remind people, we'll probably have five launches in five years, the next five years. and we'll probably have a launch every 12 to 18 months after that if you believe vitiligo will work, celiac disease will work, and the two new indications in Duvacito, which I think there's a high likelihood they will work because they're validated and actually Merck have come out with data that shows it does work. So those launches are going to happen. And then the final thing I'll say on that is when you're looking from an investor point of view, we're going to keep launching innovative products which have 90 plus percent gross margin, onto a business currently that has a 55 percent gross margin. So it's not hard to work out the maths that if we're disciplined on OPEX, what will drop to the bottom line. So I gave you more than you asked for there, Jason, but hopefully it's helpful.

Definitely, definitely. Maybe we'll shift to the pipeline and the IL-15 program, which had some interesting data recently. I guess at a high level, you talk about discipline on OPEX on the one hand, but you've also been very creative at how you've funded both this and do between the partnership with Sanofi, the Royalty Pharma and Blackstone type of transactions for these two assets. And so it begs the question as the company's financial health improves and as you you move along with the IL-15 program, you said it's a pipeline and a drug, right? Is there a natural inflection point where it makes sense to find a partner for an asset like this and get this through phase 2B where you've established dose and a real strong group of signal that is, I guess, the registrational endpoint in these populations? I'm just kind of curious how you're thinking about, you know, how you take some of these assets forward, you know, within the confines of your kind of current R&D constraint versus perhaps, you know, over time, we can see kind of a meaningful step up in R&D investment.

Yeah. So I think this comes back to one very, very important principle we have at Teva, and once again, it's about how we think about assets and R&D is the first important principle is if we have something we believe works, our job is to get it to market as fast as possible. That's the number one principle. As fast as possible, in as many indications as possible. When I came here, and by the way, and we'll work out the financing, it's sort of the crude way I look at it. So, if you've got it, it works, move fast across every indication, we'll work out the And I'll come back to that. When I came to the company, I can remember talking with Eric about these products, and I can remember speaking to CEOs who are fortunate enough to have pipelines in one product, and And I said to them, if there's anything you would have done differently, what would you And they said, if I knew what I knew now, I'd have done all the indications parallel straight Now, obviously, that's extremely you can't do. You need to have safety tolerability and play things out. But the principle was there, which is if I knew what I had, I would have just gone even faster and harder. So I remember that. And so for ours is when we go about to the key to and eight indications, 10 indications, out of 15, two indications, five indications as, yeah, we need them all. And we need them fast where the science is logical, where we have that probability of success rationale I said at the start. And then we work out the financing. And by the way, working out the financing is the easy part of it. Finding a drug that works is so, so hard. Finding a drug that works in multiple indications is, I really, this is the only time it's happened to me in my career. And I'm older than I would like to be. So I recognize it. And so the finance people work out. And so that's what we do. We think about how do we finance it? Now on anti-R15, the question is, do we need to find more financing? Well, first of all, we have Royalty Pharma, who I think a really good judge of an asset with the due diligence that they've done and they do. And so I think we're in a good place. I think always the way I think about it is how do we maximize an asset, which is how quickly you bring it to market, and then how do you maximize it in the market? And once again, I constantly think about that. And I think, well, is that more financing? is that more capability is it partnerships and all of those in play and i see none of those as a weakness all of them should be in place a different play for a different time and if you're constantly flexible and agile on that i think you'll you'll maximize things and and that that's all about how do you maximize create return on the capital to create something that creates shoulder value so So I suppose the punchline is dynamic and fast. Understood.

So maybe just thinking about these market opportunities, Celiac and Vitiligo, you guys have put out some peak revenue projections. I think investors struggle to know how big these markets can truly be. I think rightly so, right? Because there's the lack of advanced therapies. We just don't know how these markets will evolve over time. I would almost characterize your peak sales guidance as a placeholder, a conservative placeholder. So maybe just talk about how you're thinking about both these settings where they are kind of new spaces for advanced therapies. Are there any analogs that get you excited when you think about the potential of these different disease areas?

Yeah, it's interesting. Just to give you a bit of context of how the narratives change. so when we went into vitiligo and celiac disease it was celiac disease is it a disease is it a druggable will anybody take it and pay for it um it's like i do really people suffer from it you know as many to now one billion of of of pixels seems super conservative and and and you know come on now obviously celiac i think we have over four million uh patients actually not too dissimilar for vitiligo but if you break it down as to how many will be treated so the rationale for people to challenge us on our peak sales is valid right what i did on the pipeline is say that every product in our pipeline has a billion dollars of peaks of of potential sales whether some are going to be a lot more i wasn't trying to make that point i was trying to say that we have over 13 billion dollars of sales in our pipeline which i think is highly probable if you just take a billion for each. Now, to your point, we're getting challenged on celiac should be a lot more and vitiligo could be more than a billion. And my answer to that is, as we get closer to market and we understand product profiles, patient populations, then yes, I agree the number is wrong, how wrong we can see. But then I remind people, if we have a 55% gross margin and with the size of the company we are, If SIDAC's a billion, Vitiligo's a billion, Duvikito in all indications is a billion, which is probably all hugely conservative, it's an absolute game changer for us. And so in a way, I like this question because it should bring people back to, well, if I just model what I think is conservative, it still looks like an amazing outcome from a value creation story. Now, will we start to frame a bit more what could happen in these indications? But, you know, we're not in an IPO fundraising event here to try and actually create excitement about something. We're trying to give something which is quite methodical and predictable and say, this is what we think. This is how it will evolve. Because I think we've built a lot of credibility at Teva. and so why we want to get people excited about the future you know we want to do that in a way that builds on that credibility and that thoughtfulness and and i feel the time is getting right because now people are challenging me quite a lot so i'm thinking okay we need to update and we will do um whether we'll be seen as ambitious as what people want we'll we'll seem we'll see but but then on that i would say i don't think we i think whatever we've commercialized, we have beaten everybody's expectations considerably, even ambitious ones. So don't ever think what we say about these rough guidances ever takes away from our desire to do the utmost best we can when we launch drugs.

Yep. Okay. You mentioned speed earlier in terms of advancing some of these assets. And I wanted to come back to the Celiac timeline, the 2034 more time to a BLA submission. And so as I think about that, in my mind at least, something like an adaptive phase two three design and potentially an ability to use gluten challenge in a pivotal study, like these are factors that could probably shave years off of that development timeline. So am I at least conceptually in the right ballpark in terms of thinking about some of the variables as you approach FDA and have a negotiation, I'm not looking for you to front run your development plan and all that, but as I just think about some of the possible swing factors in a development timeline, are those two of the major ones?

Look, I think you touched upon something which is quite sensitive for us and quite emotional, so it's a good thing. So we believe we can run studies faster than anybody, right? So your challenge is a good and a fair challenge. and what i mean by that is even the work that we're doing on eric's team and done on vitiligo he started to move and plan for success even when we had no data so the speed of that transition into the phase two study will be faster than anybody's ever done because we planned for it though we didn't wait have a committee check it out and then move he'd already done it and the phase two and you see in cd and and do the key to phase three was the shortest transition time ever done right and that's why we're working with a partner who probably doesn't work as fast as we do so our ambition to do everything really fast is actually there so your challenge is a fair challenge uh and uh eric gets it quite a lot when we're in these meetings what we do say is i don't think anybody's going to challenge our speed on vitiligo because we know that regulatory pathway we know exactly what is expected we know exactly what the fda want from a primary import everything So super clear. So that's just execution. And Eric and Teva execute really, really, really well. So we will be as fast as physically possible, and we'll be faster than anybody's ever done I guarantee. On Celiac, we're still trying to work through, we're in discussions with the FDA about what are those things you said. And I think we'll be exploring all of those opportunities because we want to bring it to the market as fast as possible. But we do have to work with the FDA to get that. We don't want to be in a position where we run a study and we go out to the FDA and they go, well, I'm not quite comfortable with these endpoints. I'm not quite comfortable with this. So I think in this situation, we have to go a bit slow to go fast. Once we get that, and we've got a lot of credibility now with the FDA, I think once we get that, then we go fast and we do some of the things if we can, like you said, to be really creative. But you need to get that body on board. And that's why we're in that position. And look, no one's developed a drug in C-like disease, so that's exciting, but also that throws up these challenges. It won't be the same in alopecia. It won't be the same in atopic dermatitis. It won't be the same as the two new indications we've got in Duva-Kittig, because there's a pathway already there. So yes, you should expect us to be the fastest.

Maybe on Duva-Kittig, just one, because I do want to prioritize the 2027 launches. But, you know, I think everybody's in wait and see mode at the moment on Merck's phase three data that are going to be coming here in the coming months. And you're actually in meetings with Merck yesterday and where they defined, I think, success as being efficacy on far with top tier biologics in the inflammatory bowel disease setting. Would you characterize things similarly? Do you think that that's sort of the right way to be thinking about what success looks like another MOA, perhaps different, obviously, properties like antifibrotic properties and just efficacy matching perhaps the IL-23s in the IBD setting?

So, look, I think what we saw in the phase two for our data for Duva-Q2 was we saw, and you can't cross compare, but I think everybody suddenly did. We saw really impressive efficacy data in the induction and the maintenance. um so i think efficacy is good could it be differentiated for us could it be a differentiator within the class and just within the the the indication i think it possibly could i think one area that is really important uh which i would i would highlight is safety and tolerability you know the ability to make sure this is safe and well tolerated is for chronic condition is really really important and many of the products here do have either black box warning or monitoring requirements. So, you know, that's an added burden. So one could argue if it was similar to the top tier, it would still be differentiated on safety and tolerability. But the way we look at our asset is we think, you know, there is a potential that it could push that efficacy, but we'll have to wait and see for the phase three. But I do think because of the failure rate in CD and Crohn's disease and the amount of cycling that goes on, there is a desperate need for new MOA. And so I think TL1A would do very well with comparable efficacy of the top tier biologics with that safety and efficacy, safety and tolerability profile because of the cycling that happens, unfortunately.

Okay. Maybe olanzapine LAI, if you can just give us a sense of how the regulatory review is going, is everything on plan? I think the label and and the monitoring requirement is so critical to the value proposition of your drug relative to Eli Lilly's RELPREV. So just wondering if you could speak to sort of the continuity of the review and the review team and anything we should know about.

So yeah, the review is following the timelines you'd expect and so there's nothing unusual in that and the communication and the cadence of that. And that's all I'll say.

Yeah. So I guess ahead of the year and approval decision, I wonder if you can just talk a little bit more. You've talked in a few, Arteva as a company has talked about the evolution of payer coverage as being kind of a really important thing for investors to be mindful of in 2027 and probably 2028. So I guess on the one hand, you know you you flag variable adoption as like a key uncertainty when speaking about the cadence of the launch inflection but you know on the other hand i think you've said in the past that with duzzetti um you know there were delays and you weren't able to hit the ground running whereas you should be able to hit the ground running with olanzapine so i'm trying to flip these two ideas and um i guess you know maybe is the timing of this not it can maybe reconciling with like the part d kind of contracting cycle um some of the dynamics that we need to be mindful of when we think about sort of how uh olanzapine should um realize its sort of pay or pick up next year yeah so look uh let me make that clear some real clarity so olanzapine will have a really good

launch like you'll have a really good launch and i'll have a launch better than your study and i think people tell me you said it was a good launch so it'll be better than you said it and it'll be a really good launch. What I am making sure people fully understand is the payer environment. And the payer environment in the U.S. means, because of this patient population, we have to get Medicaid first. People cannot prescribe it unless it's on Medicaid formally, and Medicaid is done state by state. So we have to go, and some states will look at it day one, and some states will look at it in six months' time, and they won't look at it before, and some nine and some 12. We'll have about 86% coverage at 12 months of Medicare, but we have to still visit every state when they're allowed things to be put on the formula, negotiate, and get it on. So that's just a rate-limiting factor, okay? And so that doesn't mean we're not going to have our sampling program out there. That does not mean we won't be expecting to see good TRX. That does not mean we won't expect to see a good breadth of physicians already prescribing olanzapine and a good spread that's good depth as well within those physicians so our aim is good terex good breath good debt good good inclusion in hospital formaries good usage of our sampling program like very good usage and then getting medicaid on board that's the those the things so i think the input metrics we're really excited about and i think investors should be ambitious around what we should do no question the revenue i say will probably come in more meaningfully in the second half of next year just because of the fact that we'll be sampling and we won't actually be getting access and so you just can't generate what i want to do is make sure we generate a lot of scripts a lot of usage a lot of breadth and a lot of depth and it becomes an integral part of a psychiatrist um prescribing that's the work we do that creates long-term value and the other thing to remind people we're not going to contract with medicare well we're highly unlikely to because we they'll probably ask for a discount which we won't think reflects the value of the product as with your study and so that means physicians do have to you know fight through that reimbursement and ask for it to get it now they do that already with your study so i think they've become pretty good at that and i think olanzapine is is an easier ask because there is no other long-acting olanzapine that's used but just those are the things to carry so i don't want you to anyway think we are conservative or hedging we're going all in But when it comes to revenue, those are the things that are the gating factors you just can't change. And so people should think about that when they're modeling.

Okay. Maybe in the last couple of minutes, Echopay Pam and the launch in Tourette's. This is a, since the acquisition, you know, a product that you haven't yet outlined a peak sales parameter for yet. Maybe just thinking about, I guess as I think about this category, you know, you've got, potentially some generics that you may have to cycle through prior authorization consideration orphan drug pricing is such a wide range of outcomes potentially right so i fully understand why you haven't guided um but maybe um if you can uh offer a little bit of context as you head into um the the launch of that and and how you're just going to be thinking about sort of the pricing and access dynamics in a category like this that's historically been a generic end market Yeah, look, I mean, it's, it's, it's a, I'm super excited by EcoPyPlan.

One, because, I suppose, in a career, you don't get opportunities to launch things because it can make a meaningful difference to, to, to children. As a father of three, that actually excites me a lot that, you know, children in their development stage have Tourette's and that, and that is horrendous. And so to be a part of that is, is, is pretty amazing and inspiring. Now, there are 100,000 children who suffer for Tourette's in the U.S. 50,000 do have some sort of therapy, whether that's psychotherapy, whether that's using an off-label drug that's not efficacious but safe, or using an antipsychotic, which has efficacy but has obviously safety and tolerability issues. So 50 end up on therapy. They don't stay on therapy long. 20% to 30% only stay on therapy after a year. So it's a clearly massively unsatisfied market. And when you actually speak to parents and physicians, they really, really are excited about having a treatment that was designed for Tourette's and has the efficacy and the safety that children will be able to take it. So I think the expectation that we're setting around it is pretty significant. Now, to one of your points, a pivotal part of this is pricing and access. And so we're doing a lot of work now to understand, you know, what is the appropriate pricing for the value we're bringing to an unmet medical need, but balance that with value and access which we always do is you know what is the value we think and what is the access we need and that's a that's something which you have to balance so that makes us very excited about it um you know maybe as we start to conclude some of those decisions we can start to give a range of what this could look like but we're still in the thick of that and and as i'm sure you're you seem to be aware we want to make that decision particularly around price will we will live with for long times we want to be really based on the latest data the latest conversations and, you know, no one can launch this in Q1. We have a bit of time still on that one. But people should be excited, as I am, about it. Another thing I'll say is it leans on all our capabilities. Patient identification, physician education, patient mobilization, all of those things we did with the Tourette's, with the Stedo, and so in the patient services, especially pharmacies, this is the thing we know how to do really well. We're going to apply that to EcoPyPan. And so that should also help us get off to a good start.

Great. Well, I'm imagining you're seeing red zeros in front of you for time left on our fireside chat.

I haven't actually got any red zeros. Can everybody see it? I mean, if you've all seen red zeros, then I think you need to see a physician.

Well, if there's time for one quick other question, right? You asked generics broadly, you know, 2026 was a rebasing year as generic linalidomide come out of the portfolio effectively. So at times, you framed U.S. Generics as maybe more of the problem child in the Teva portfolio. I'm just curious, you know, as we sit here today, your confidence level that this business is maybe more stabilized now and maybe there's even a pathway to returning to growth?

Yeah, look, I never would have called it a problem child. I think people consider it a problem child. As I said, again, as a father of three, you know, you never highlight the one who's a problem child, although you know it. By the way, if any of my kids are watching, none of you are problem children. It's just bad parenting, I've understood, that creates a problem child, if I had one, which I clearly don't, in case they're listening. But going back to the generics business. So look, our generics business, don't forget we took it from five years, six years of decline to Now we have a three-year KG of growth, and I think we've shown everybody in the U.S. and outside the U.S. that we've been able to grow this business and fundamentally change some of the things around manufacturing, supply chain, the ability to launch on time and full, and reshape the portfolio to more biosimilars. So we've done a lot of hard work. I think one of the things we're seeing this year, actually, is where we're probably getting a bit more traction than we thought. And so our biosimilar business is performing well. we've started to launch in europe we're performing very well in the us and that's performing well and some of the new products we've launched in the us are also performing a bit better than we thought and so i think i i probably said a few months ago that our generics business was going to be flat to to maybe slightly down it's probably going to be flat to slightly up now based on those strategic decisions we made which is to improve our product launches we've done that and they that's here to be bearing some fruit in some recent launches this year and our biosimilars we put that we put that portfolio together we've launched it and we're actually performing better in our markets that we're in than than we anticipated which i have been talking about for some time but it's it's becoming pretty material and that's why uh i think more optimistic for this year about about our generics business uh and our new generics business in the u.s great well thank you richard for joining us and enjoy the rest of your conference Thanks, Jason. Always good to talk to you. Thank you. Thank you.

Bye-bye.