U C B (UCB) September 2026 Conference Transcript

Morning everyone. I hope this is on. I hope you can hear me okay. Welcome to I think the last session before lunch. I'm Charlie Hayward from the Bank of America European Pharma team. My pleasure to be hosting Sandrine Dufour, the UCB CFO. So welcome. Thank you for joining us today. And I think, yeah, I think let's start big picture. Any sort of, you know, opening intro remarks, how are we feeling about, how are we feeling about things? Obviously a good start to the year. Lots of interesting stuff coming up, which I'm sure we'll dig into.

I'm sure, yeah. And thanks. Happy to start with just the big picture. So as you know, UCB is on this 10-year growth trajectory. And I think what makes UCB quite unique is that we have more than 10 years of exclusivity with our largest growth driver, which has been Zellex. and you've seen, you know, talking about recent trends that building on last year growth, we've put out H1 numbers which were quite strong for the first half, 27% growth net sales, very strong EBITDA growth margin expansion and we've also upgraded the financial guidance for the year and we also came with revised peak sales expectations for BMZX at at least 7 billion so nice very nice start of the year and I think the other part that we also really focused on is to work on shaping the future growth beyond the current commercial growth and so we continue to invest in innovation come up with you know establishing further differentiations of our assets and we were very pleased with the study on BIMZLX that is establishing the superiority of BIMZLX with a sky raising and also very strong safety profile and beyond that you've seen us move in also external acquisition with Neurona and Candid and there again it's about further innovating and bringing potentially disruptive medicines, both in the epilepsy side with Neurona, which is addressing quite severe epilepsy domain, but also potentially changing the immunology paradigm with T-cell engages with Candid. So that really has been the intense focus during the first half of the year to come up with potential growth drivers beyond the current commercial portfolio growth.

Got it. No, that's very clear. And I think as you, I guess, as you look at your pipeline as it sits, are there any assets you'd call out specifically, like one or two assets particularly exciting, and any data points that is worth for market tracking in the next couple of years?

Yeah, and it's always difficult to pick up, you know, one child when you look at the pipeline. But if I take it from my point of view, and again, it's not, you know, total management, it's really my point of view, I tend to look at what has the biggest potential because I'm focusing on establishing long-term sustainable growth and, of course, having in our hands Galvochemic on the one side that comes with multiple indications, which is the multispecific that we announced, by the way, yesterday that we are having enrolled faster the atopic dermatitis clinical trial. And on the other side, the acquisition we've done with Candid, which brings early assets, hisutamic, that has the potential to bring free drug remission and shape the next phase of immunology and also capturing a large potential of autoimmune disease. These two assets, they can certainly, you know, if things, of course, it's early stage, but if they are progressing, they have the potential to help us establish long-term growth. so growth beyond growth and that's why I pay particular attention to this now I could have answered you neurona is very also innovative treatment in the domain of epilepsy but you ask for two got it and as you look at your current BD strategy you've always done two nice deals since we last properly spoke but two big deals or two decent sized deals

going forward you're looking at a more early stage and I think sort of low-stage clinical commercial, like what's your current further BD appetite and how should we think about that? That's hilarious.

You know, what we've said is that we would focus more on early stage of the pipeline, you know, to think about the long-term potential, specifically because if you look at the current pipeline we have, as of, I would say, end of 27 with the Galvo data and atopic dermatitis and then on the next years we'll have a lot of data readouts and that will tell us what's in our hands and potentially the need for investing behind the pipeline we have and also the fact that we have very good visibility in mid next decade with our current commercial portfolio. So these two elements do not push us to go for late stage at this point and more earlier stage. But then of course when we have these readouts that will shape the next phase of a potential inorganic approach.

Got it. So it's fair to think that GovOck, maybe your face to be data end of next year now, that will be fairly sort of gating of how you're thinking about further investing in that.

Yeah, this and other results coming at that period of time, yeah.

Okay, got it. No, that's very clear. And then wanted to move on to BIMS-Lex. I think just sort of starting high-level, latest sort of feedback sentiment, how you're feeling about growth trends, et cetera, just sort of what's top of mind for you, and then we'll go to a few questions.

Yeah, so I think, you know, the B-board data were really coming with, for the first time, the ability to establish the superiority for the sky risk in the joints and very strong safety profile. And for us to communicate about this with rheumatologists, but not just rheumatologists, also dermatologists, this is clearly something that continues to establish the differentiation of BIMS-LX. We have now a body of evidence of efficacy and also the efficacy in duration. So we have five years data now in PSO, four years in PSA, three years in HS. And clearly we've progressed as well in terms of our access Yes, that speaks to the differentiation of the profile. We are growing our impact on HS. And HS, as you know, is a market where we need to continue to work on elevating the awareness because it takes a very long time for a patient to be treated. But all of that goes in the same direction. The consistency of the data of BIMS-LX, the real-world evidence that we have, and the feedback, the very homogeneous feedback we get from all physicians around the world. And that gives us the confidence behind BIMS-LX potential. And we do see this translated in the continued growth of our volumes throughout the various geographies.

Got it. That's very clear. And then on your guide that you gave at 1H, the 7 billion guide, I think you sort of haven't given too much in terms of contribution.

At least 7 billion.

At least, sorry.

I insist on that, yeah.

At least 7 billion. You haven't given too much in terms of the specific contributors within that. I know you historically always said psoriasis was your largest indication. Is it fair to think HS is now not dissimilar from psoriasis? And then second point is the timing of the guide was interesting. I guess what prompted you to give it at 1H results?

So maybe I'll start with the second part where I think, you know, we were waiting for B-BOLD results. So there was a set of assumptions in our internal model, But getting the Be Bold result that gave us the confidence that I was, you know, expressing before, I think was an important moment for us to move ahead. But then all the other factors that I've mentioned, the launch in HS, the potential there, the fact that we are confident that we'll continue to work on elevating the awareness, the potential of this market, which is still being shaped. I mean, we started with much lower prevalence, and as we move, we see that we're talking about 1% prevalence in this disease. So all of these were building on the overall confidence added to the data we have. And then, you know, we are also continuing to invest in lifecycle in BIMS-LX with PPP, which is another smaller indication, but we are convinced that it will help also on the halo effect that new indication can have. And also in adolescence, we are also exploring the, you know, developing the adolescent. So all of that together and the traction that we're getting gave us the confidence to come up and share the new revised at least 7 billion peak sales. Remember the context we were in when we put the first guidance of BIMZ-X. You know, I was sitting in these rooms with people telling me we would never do more than 500 million in BIMZ-X. So we came out with this number. And at some point, the more we were moving, we thought that we were not credible enough with the last guidance we got that prompted the change. Now, to your earlier question on how do we see the contributors per indication. So, considering the size of the PSO market, we still see this as the lead indication overall. But to your point, HS certainly would come as a solid number two in terms of our relative weight.

That's very clear. And then short follow-up, is PPP and the adolescent trials, are they included in there as a base case? They included risk-adjusted within the 7 billion, or have you not?

It is included, yeah.

Got it. And then, I mean, sort of on your 1H call, you've, you know, you got incremental access with one of the large US PBMs, and I think a big investor debate in question we've had is obviously, you know, prescription data since then, the volumes that you can see, obviously, you know, there was maybe some summary influence, et cetera. So how are you feeling about life since you've got that incremental access? How are your conversations? Were you expecting a quick ramp, slow ramp? Like, will it, you know, moving parts on the volume uptake given that?

Yeah, so in terms of access, maybe just stepping back a bit on access because I think it's a very important strategic topic there. From the very beginning, we've said that we wanted to progressively move on access. There was no point for us to rushing and investing in very high rebates and earlier line formulary position at a time when Binzelex was not experienced and in the hands of physicians. We've progressed, and honestly, if I look at analog, we've been able to gain fairly fast, very large access, 80% coverage in commercial contracts and a vast majority of Medicare and Medicaid. And in June this year, we continued on this strategy of steady progress and we gained first-line access with one of the large PBM moving from a double-step elite position to a first-line. What that does is that it opens a much larger eligible pool of patients that all have to step through and can be immediately available first line. And that comes to your point with higher rebates. And so what you see is our strategy then is to make sure that we push through as fast as possible and in the boundaries of this contract, make sure that we gain market share so that it becomes as fast as possible accretive to growth. And we're very pleased with what we've seen in the boundaries of this contract since 1st of June in terms of how fast we were able to gain share in the coverage of this large PBM. So that is effective. And I honestly also see that we are improving to do that because what it takes is that you need to be targeted. You need to assess where are the physicians and the potential patients which are covered by these payers and to address them. And I think we've really done a nice job of having a much more targeted approach to make sure that we are going through an accelerated gain momentum in this contract.

Got it. That's very clear. And I guess, so, you know, looking at IQVUS script data, it looked like, you know, you were flat for 10, 11 weeks after you gained the access. So, and I know this is obviously very short. So, you know, some people were expecting a quick uptick in acceleration or whatever, and it looked like you didn't necessarily get that. So if you're gaining share within the contract, is there something else where, you know, was it some summer impact? Was there some other impact in other contracts? Or have you got sort of any specific comment to that?

I tend to look at it relative. First, I'm not looking at every week. I look at average because, you know, there's peak and thrift, there's whatever holidays and seasonality, you name it. But then I also look at relative performance, you know, not just us in absolute, but what others are doing. And honestly, we are really, you know, we've been, I think, more than 9,000 scripts for many weeks now. So we do see that we are progressing. if I look at where we were at the beginning of the year and we were on track with our trajectory.

Got it. And when you say well on track with trajectory, I know on the full year, half-year call, you said you were comfortable with where consensus was. I think consensus hasn't moved that much. Have you given any updated commentary around?

I repeat, I'm comfortable with the consensus of 3.3 billion for BIMS-LX in this year.

Got it. That's very clear. And then the data we were looking at, and I think the August, as we report that, August TV spend, Vim's Lex was the highest drug TV spend of any company, any drug that was reported. So trying to understand, was that proactive? Was that reactive in any way? Was that base case? How should we think about that? Because it feels like a step change from prior.

Well, first, you know, we've now quite experienced in, you know, direct consumer investments advertising campaign. We started this in 24 and we've good established return as well. So it's really something that's clearly well thought through in terms of calibrating the spend, in terms of the expected return and in terms of looking at our relative, you know, share a voice, we see that there is still for us a real potential to elevate the awareness. You need to target multiple channels. And here it's really to speak to potential patients. And we are supporting this through all indications. Of course, with Be Bold, there's something for us new to voice. But with HS, remember, there's such an amount of patients who are not aware that there are treatments or even of their disease or even putting a name of the disease that they have. So the return of investing behind this is really significant because the demand is there. So how to stimulate this demand so that it triggers awareness, attention, share a voice, so that then patient goes through their healthcare journey, meets with their physician, and that turns into prescriptions. So I am very demanding in terms of how we allocate our resources and look at the expected return. And when we do that, we do this with the very high comfort that it's going to be a creative on growth and generating a return which is very good. So that's why we keep investing. And it's something that today we also constantly assess what's the right balance. And because we're at the beginning of our journey, we think the potential is there. So for us, as long as the return is there, we continue to push and support the potential growth. The objective is really to maximize what we have in our hands. And with the building of evidence, the efficacy, where we are, that's really pushing the growth with our BIMS-LX.

Got it. Okay. So it's fair to think of, obviously, it's only one data point, but I think you've historically had some sort of spending data points in terms of TV spend, et cetera. But it's fair to think that this was a targeted time where people are coming out of the summer and it was sort of strategically an interesting time rather than reacting to anything that you're seeing in terms of trends. Got it. That's very clear. And then on 26, I think it depends on how you do the maths, and obviously the biggest unknown for us is the price cut that you took and sort of the impact of that. but is it fair to assume to reach your guide, to reach your numbers, that you'd expect some script acceleration to get there or what sort of trajectory were you expecting within that?

And if I may, I don't call it a price cut. It's not something where you cut the price. It's an access strategy that translates into a change in positioning on your formulary that translates into an evolution of your mix. I think it's very important to... So we invest in access, and access comes with a different level of price. But it's not as if, you know, there's a price cut. It's a different positioning in the formulary. And what is important also to get is that there are various channels today. So we've mentioned the one where there's a PBM with a certain level of, you know, first line. But as you know, we still have a proportion of the patients which are going through medical exception, and they come with 100% price. So the channel mix translation is what drives the evolution of the price. Now, we expect, you know, the investment in access should translate and is translating into a growth of volumes, which will deliver on the expected total revenue that we said we were comfortable with, the $3.3 billion in consensus. So clearly, this is the plan and this is what we are executing there.

Got it. That's clear. And then just on, I think, one of your PBMs is still being blocked on the HS access side, which is obviously driving the unrebated volumes. I think there's certainly some risk that the company that's blocking or part of the blocking has upcoming competition coming and might launch next year in that setting with a new drug and therefore might want to keep fairly exclusive access on the contract. So how do you assess that risk and do you want to get access to that contract before then?

So what strikes us today is the proportion of medical exceptions still in HS, which speaks to the fact that BIMS-LX is the most efficacious to the point where physicians are able to take the hurdle it is in the U.S. to get through and have the drugs and the treatments in the hands of the patients. and that's why, you know, access is a strategy, but at some point it's not in our hands to say, you know, we need to look at the benefits of conceding high rebates to gain volumes and does it make sense or not. And so today apparently someone's giving much more money but we still see that there's very good traction in our current trajectory. And then to the competitive profile of what's coming, we have built a certain duration of real-world evidence in HS. And as you know, it's a disease, because it's a progressive disease that can get more severe, it's very important to come with certain years of data. So let's see what competition comes up with. but today the standard, the efficacy is there. We know it's heterogeneous, so it's good that new modes of action comes and help us elevate the awareness so that there's more patients who are aware of the disease. But we will see what data are coming from these competitive assets. One thing is to have access, but the other is almost ethical responsibility of a physician to put patients late on a treatment that then leads to irreversible tunnels and infection that then goes to surgery. Do you want to put a patient on the less efficacious drug when you know where that leads you is a key question.

That's very clear. And I wanted, yeah, I did want to search on competition quickly because, well, last time we were here, we were waiting for the Moon Lake data, which ended up all right for you. But just in terms of your guide, 7 billion, How much of that, of the competition is coming, you don't know how they'll play out. I think you've got strong rebuttals and we're strong believers in your data, but how much in that guide is reflected for potential HS competition over time?

Well, we aim at leadership position in HS and that's the assumption. And we think that the market potential is there and that we have enough longevity of data as well and the position when competition is not coming tomorrow there as well and still needs to establish where they are in terms of efficacy, safety. Safety matters as well. I mean, if you look at the fact that these patients potentially can end up in surgery and the fact that dermatologists are quite conservative, things in labels such as bleeding or bruising can be an element that they may think twice before electing this type of treatment. So we've seen, I think we've put out data where after three years on HS, 86% of patients are still seeing efficacy and improving efficacy. So that's the strength of the data that needs to be coming at par or being beaten, and that's why we're very confident.

Got it. And then last one on competition, BIMS-Lex. I guess from your seat, we'll see how data plays out in terms of competition, see how that looks. From your seat, from the UCB side, how should we expect you to react as such? What can you do from your seat? Is this heavier DTC? Is it spending down the line? Is it some sort of heavier pricing, better access? What's your sort of potential rebuttal if competition plays out?

Back to what we were saying, I think investing now is important. There's a window we're not talking about. Before, any competitor comes with the same body of evidence. There's a bit of time, but now is the window really to supporting and establishing the awareness and creating this real-world evidence and continuing as well to come up with more data, Data that, you know, the IL-17A and F, the F plays a key role in that. So continuing to invest in the scientific, you know, understanding of the biology, the longevity of the data, that's really what we will continue to do before even competition comes on the market. And again, anyone that is going to invest behind awareness will help grow the market. And one of the levers is not just market share, but it's the fact if we are able to move the time of diagnostic from 7 to 10 years where it is today much earlier, this is the more eligible pool of patients that will benefit all players as well.

Got it. That's clear. And then I wanted to touch on 27, just sort of, you know, moving parts from where you sit. It's obviously, you know, I guess, what would you call out in terms of 27 moving parts for the street, the market to be aware of? And then I think sort of guide philosophy, typically you've been sort of, I think historically BIMslex, there are some very big moving parts in terms of the pricing volumes, et cetera. You're obviously now at the stage where there's a reasonable amount of more, you know, certainty or conviction, I'd imagine, in volume growth. So how are you thinking of guide philosophy given, you know, BIMslex and dynamics there as well?

So, as you know, we will come in February with our guidance on 27th, a bit of months between today and February. But overall, one thing one should not forget is Breviact LOE, which started this year. But, of course, the effect will be also visible still in 27th, and that's on the adverse. Then we aim to continue to push the growth of our five growth drivers, BIMZX being the largest one. I don't think in 27 we're yet in a cruising altitude in terms of the mix. And I insist on this because the volume price combination is also where the volume is breaking down in terms of channels as an impact on the range of potential net price. And 27, we're not yet at a point where we've completely gone through a very stable mix. So this can create still some, I would say, range of outcomes, may I say. So it's a bit like in 26, in fact. But we'll see where we are. Of course, the exit in 26 will help us inform better for 27. For sure, we keep aiming at continuing to grow the assets, confidence in the volume, get the data, and with the DTC, with B-Bold, we have enough behind to create this volume continued growth next year that will help position the guidance on the continuous growth trajectory.

Got it. That's clear. And then, I mean, I don't know if you've, I think consensus gets to a 37-ish percent EBITDA margin next year. Obviously, you're talking to a continued leverage from BIMSLEC side of things. Just wonder if there's any thoughts on that, if you think any of the cost lines, any of the recent deals are well reflected or if that is a reasonable scenario of where you could look.

Yeah, so I will not comment on consensus next year, but directionally, what we've said for the mid to long term is that we aim to continue the growth top line, bottom line, and also we have room to further expand margin. Of course, look at where we come from the margin. we've been able to gain significant uplifted margin towards more in line with peers. But with operating leverage ahead, there's still room for further expanding the margin. Now, 27, we look at what's coming with, on the one side, there's the Bridge Act LOE, on the other, there's the impact of the acquisition. But overall, if I look at the R&D expenses, we've said that intentionally, we intend to invest around 25% of our top line in R&D and that gives you an idea of where to position the investment and that's really the core of our strategy to invest in innovation and that's why it's something that we indicate that you have this in mind on our innovation strategic approach Got it, and then last one on this I think you alluded to it already, but it's sounding like your exit rate will be almost the most important guide

of how you should think about 27 in terms of, you know, from what we discussed earlier, BIMS was a bit soft in the summer. It usually is. You've got the better access. That should start to play through. So is it, as the market, should we look at your sort of script rate the next sort of out to the end of the year as the best proxy of how to think about volumes?

Well, of course, where you end the year is the beginning of next year. So that's helping, giving you a view on volume, price, mix, and that's a good way to, that's helping shaping what 27 can look like.

Got it. I forgot to ask, actually, any more questions on BIMS Lex or 27? Oh, I think we're good. I wanted to jump to Gal Vokermig, actually. So the phase two, obviously, recruited quickly now. Data's coming at the end of 27. I think there's definitely an investor perception that, you know, the asset could be accelerated quicker potentially. You could read out at the 16-week, which is the primary endpoint versus the 52-week full data. We've seen Pfizer's got a triple agonist that's gone straight to phase three. So it's a competitive space. Your differentiation, I believe, you still frame as efficacy, not dosing. So how are you thinking about that program? Is there anything that would make you decide to go quicker to phase three or are you happy with your current timelines?

I think we're pleased with how we approach it because what we want to establish, to your point, is really differentiation and the space in that domain to build on the existing standard of care. And what we bring is an asset that captures a broader biology. So we are aiming at, you know, Th2 and Th3 inflammatory pathways here. And running a phase two will allow us to get some 52 weeks data And in a disease which is progressing, it's important to have this. And it's also, we did the first one in IV, now it's going to be subcontinuous. And then dose ranging, which is very important as well. And all of this is important for us to design the best phase three. And that's why we prefer to continue on our history of very high success rate of phase three, 86% success rate in phase 3 so we're consistent with how we've approached this and we don't intend to release the 16 weeks data because of IP issue as well Okay, interesting and the study will remain blinded post the 16 weeks?

This I defer to even, yes Got it and then just how are you feeling about the, obviously you've got two respiratory signal sequence studies you started? How should we think about the next steps at Galvo? Could you start further proof-of-concept trials ahead of those reading out, or are you waiting for the initial phase 2b to read out and then see how the asset looks? I think more coming from the asset looks potentially very exciting, but you're going into a market which is getting increasingly competitive across some of the indications, so speed to market matters as well.

So in a way, atopic dermatitis preliminary, this is quite new. So for us, it's good to have the evidence on these before making new decisions. And so we'll see what we have.

And then on neurona, just because I got asked, is there any chance you could file the data in 27 given the sort of pathway filing you have? I think you've got FDA RMAT designation. Is there any potential for an early file from that data? it's not before so we're going to initiate phase 3 next year so it's a no path from the phase 2 based on designation got it that's very clear and then on Docs TM I just wonder obviously in the launch of that feedback so far how should the market think of cadence of launch into next year what are the moving parts there?

Yeah, so first it's a very ultra-rare, as you know, and it was approved and launched in the US. We started with, you know, it's basically saving life of kids. So it's a treatment where we started, you know, before the access and giving the drugs, and now we're moving to paying, and it's going well, actually. But it's fairly small in the overall portfolio. But considering the impact it has, it's clearly something that is getting us some traction in the ultra-res segments where we bring it. So good start.

Got it. And then one bigger picture one. Obviously, you talked your decade of growth.

Should we read that as ambition to grow every year out to 2035? or is this as in is that the correct read well they are analog of the shape of the growth and as you know many times peak sales is achieved not the last year so so far we don't see difference which means that you know the shape of the growth might not be necessarily linear towards 2035, but it's fairly early. So let's see what else can we do with time to work on the shape of the growth.

Got it. That's clear. And actually, I moved up in Lex, but I had more questions there, so I will jump back. Just sort of HS market, how are you feeling about sort of latest dynamics, your sort of mid-teens growth ambition, market outlook, et cetera? Are you seeing any sort of uptick, any changing diagnosis rates, Is anything you're seeing changing there?

Yeah, well, we continue to grow. It's interesting to look at different markets here because that shows the difference how access can have an impact. And in geographies where, you know, access is the same throughout the country, we see that we are really already leading. And that gives us the confidence that if you think about the efficacy and the impact that justifies the confidence we have in our ability to lead in the space. But back to what we were discussing before, we are restricted with one PBM. We still are surprised to see the rate of medical exception in NHS. And so all of that gives us the confidence that we will establish the leadership in that space.

Got it. And actually on that medical exception, on those volumes, I think that obviously grew slower in 1H than it had done in 2025, for example. How, if you don't get access to that contract, how should we think about those volumes? Do you imagine they'll be increasingly restricted through that contract or are we at a level where they've sort of stabilized fairly well?

So we started in 2025 where we were surprised because they were not that restricted. And then at some point, you know, it probably hits the payer in terms of having to reimburse full price. So it's visible on their financials. And so they were a bit more demanding at closing the door, if I may say so. But I was expecting to see a faster decrease than what we've seen. So there's still a portion of medical exception that goes through, which shows that if I translate this in the benefit for patients, because it's so efficacious physicians are ready to really go through the process and make sure that in the end patients ends up on this treatment that's clear and then sorry just going through my main incoming pricing into 27 for bimslex what should we what moving parts should we consider obviously we're going to be lapping the year where you had the um concession that you gave for the contract, what are the big moving parts to think of?

Is it fair for the market to assume what you've done at 1H, to assume there will be some incremental access coming at some point, as that's the direction of travel? So what are the moving parts where you've lagged into 2017?

So the key moving part we've discussed is this progress in access that comes with investments in price that takes time to go through the established base and the growing volume. And the other one is what we've just discussed. At some point, if we improve coverage, you translate your medical exceptions into patients which are covered. So this mixed dimension, that's why I talk about channel mix, this mixed evolution drives an average net price evolution. That's the dynamic you should see next year. I think if you remember last year, we were talking a lot about the bridge program. We still have this bridge because it's making sure that we ease the access to patients, but this has been more stabilized in terms of use. We still have this program, which we think is important, but in terms of variation over time, we think it's fairly stabilized.

Okay, so they've got it, yeah. That's clear. And then the one that doesn't come up as much, just wondering if there's any sort of major moving parts to consider is ex-US, BIMS, Lex, as we go through second half this year into next year, it feels it's, you know, smaller moving parts in general continue good growth. Is there anything we should consider there or worth factoring in?

We continue to see a very good momentum in terms of growth in the various geographies we are. Interesting to see that the latest country we've launched into, because of more data, specifically B-Ball, et cetera, We are positioning it in the entire aisle, not just aisle 17, but aisle 17 and 23, because we are able to come with superior data versus sky raising. And so we see that we benefit from this body of evidence that helps us positioning in terms of market share. And that's clear on the latest country we've launched into the market. So that's good dynamics.

Got it. And then are there further country launches to be considering?

Well, now it's getting marginal, but we've not launched all indications in our market, for instance. So we continue to gradually roll this out in Taiwan, Brazil, et cetera, so that there's any given markets where we still have potential to get coverage and launch.

Got it. That's very clear. I think we're just up on time, so Sandrine, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you, everyone, for coming. Thank you very much.