AbbVie at Goldman Sachs Conference: Strategic Growth and Innovation

On Tuesday, 10 June 2025, AbbVie Inc. (NYSE:ABBV) presented at the Goldman Sachs 46th Annual Global Healthcare Conference, providing insights into its robust financial performance and strategic initiatives. The company highlighted its strong Q1 results and optimistic future outlook, while also addressing potential challenges such as drug pricing pressures and PBM reform.

Key Takeaways

• AbbVie exceeded Q1 revenue guidance by $550 million and EPS guidance by $0.10.
• The company increased its full-year revenue guidance to $59.7 billion.
• SKYRIZI and RINVOQ are capturing significant market share in immunology.
• AbbVie is focusing on early-stage business development opportunities in key therapeutic areas.
• The company anticipates substantial growth in the obesity market with the Gubra asset.

Financial Results

AbbVie reported a strong Q1 2024 performance, with revenue surpassing guidance by $550 million and earnings per share exceeding expectations by $0.10. The ex-HUMIRA business grew approximately 23% operationally year-over-year, demonstrating the company’s resilience post-HUMIRA’s U.S. loss of exclusivity.

For 2024, AbbVie has increased its revenue guidance by $700 million, now projecting $59.7 billion. Guidance for SKYRIZI and RINVOQ has been raised by $900 million, while neuroscience and oncology have seen increases of $200 million each. Despite economic headwinds, aesthetics guidance decreased by $200 million. Ex-HUMIRA sales are expected to rise by approximately 15% for the full year, with an operating margin guidance of 46.5%, including a 0.5% IPR&D charge.

Operational Updates

Immunology:

• SKYRIZI and RINVOQ are leading in Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis markets.
• Access remains stable despite the introduction of Stellara biosimilars.
• Phase III data for RINVOQ in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is anticipated next year.

Neuroscience:

• AbbVie aims to surpass Roche as the leading neuroscience business next year.
• Vylev is performing well internationally, with U.S. Medicare reimbursement expected in late 2025.
• Tirvapadone submission is planned for this year, with a launch expected next year.

Oncology:

• Development of an ADC pipeline in ovarian, colon, and lung cancer is underway.
• The BCMA bispecific (entantamig) is in Phase III trials, with potential for simplified outpatient use.

Aesthetics:

• The toxin market is stabilizing, with market share recovery underway.
• The filler market is experiencing a decline due to consumer sentiment.
• Trinobot E, a fast-acting off-toxin, was submitted in April, with approval expected early next year.

Future Outlook

AbbVie is focusing on early-stage business development opportunities in immunology, oncology, and neuroscience to drive growth beyond the next eight years. The company is building around the Gubra asset in obesity, targeting a $100-150 billion market by the mid-2030s. While anticipating some price erosion, AbbVie believes its differentiated products will maintain value. Additionally, the aesthetics business positions AbbVie uniquely in the cash-pay market.

Q&A Highlights

During the Q&A session, AbbVie expressed confidence in competing effectively despite PBM reform, citing product differentiation and broader formulary access. The company does not expect drug pricing risks to spill over from government channels into the commercial segment, drawing on past experiences with the Inflation Reduction Act. AbbVie is encouraged by the administration’s focus on affordability and innovation.

For more detailed insights, readers are invited to refer to the full transcript below.

Full transcript - Goldman Sachs 46th Annual Global Healthcare Conference:

Unidentified speaker: That are bearing down in the pharmaceutical sector, drug pricing specifically. Just frame for us expectations of what you’re looking for when our thirty days past the MF and EO. How have conversations with the administration been going? What’s the status? And does it feel like that there’s going to be a resolution anytime soon?

Look I’d

Rob: say we’re very encouraged by the engagement of the administration with the industry. We didn’t have that before. And so I’d say the conversations I’d say are productive. There’s a range of topics that are being discussed. Think importantly, we think about the focus around addressing affordability and access of medicines while at the same time preserving a healthy innovation ecosystem is the balance we’re trying to strike.

We’re encouraged by the fact that there’s a focus now on appropriate value being ascribed to innovation outside The U. S. And we’re engaged with trade on how to navigate the trade deal so that you can actually address this disconnect. And we know today that Europe is essentially paying half as much as our GDP on innovative medicines. We know it takes much longer for reimbursement decisions.

There’s an EU directive where 180 after marketing authorization, you need to have a reimbursement decision. We know on average it’s taking seven fifty days. The EU Pharma strategy is also focused on reducing regulatory data protection from ten years to eight years. So we are arming the trade representative with all this information as a way in the trade negotiations to address as has been addressed for other industries, I’d say more fair practices towards pharmaceuticals, which then that coupled with I think a greater focus on abuse in 340B and a willingness to potentially address that then gives you vehicles to then also address drug pricing in The U. S.

Which you know is a continued issue. And so we view it very holistically. I’d say we’re encouraged. I do understand the focus on MFN. I personally think it’s more of a way for the President to bring the industry to the table to ensure that there is dialogue.

And I’d say the conversations have been productive. There’s I’d say quite a long way to go in terms of where we land. But I’d say overall I am encouraged. I would also point to things like the pill penalty being on the table to be removed. That was clearly an unfortunate outcome of the IRA and limiting small molecules to nine years versus biologics at thirteen years and you’re then disincenting innovation for small molecules, obviously an important area.

PBM reform to me that’s really about transparency and finding ways to again address patient affordability. Can you base co pays off of net price versus list price to assist patients with their out of pocket? As you know, we were advocates for the changes in Medicare on reducing the out of pocket maximum, the smoothing. We’ve seen benefits utilization, albeit at a cost and we factor that into our guidance. But those are the policies I’d say we’d be focused on what can we do to address patient affordability and access while also preserving innovation in this country.

And I’m pretty sure the President does not want to take away the advantage The U. S. Has in terms of R and D leadership. And so there’s a motivation to preserve that, but also an interest in finding solutions with the industry for how we address drug pricing in The U. S.

Unidentified speaker: Just to the point on PBM reform, Rob, there still seems to be this investor perception out there that if it happens, it could disproportionately hurt AbbVie more relative to payers. Why is that a misguided perception?

Rob: Yes. I think it’s a fairly outdated perception by going back ten years to when HUMIRA was only one of two or three on formularies. If you look at it broadly, the way we compete globally, we’re very effective outside of The U. S. Those markets do not have a rebate based system because we compete on the attributes of our products.

And so you look at market share performance in markets outside The U. S, it’s very strong. And so that coupled with the fact that today these formularies have a dozen agents. It’s essentially parity access. You’re competing openly with other agents.

There isn’t exclusivity where that was a perception going back again ten years to when HUMIRA was more limited agents on the formularies. And so given the breadth of drugs that are on these formularies, given the fact that when you think about SKYRIZI and RINVOQ, we have nine head to head. So we demonstrated clinical differentiation and that has really driven the strategy for the company is to find an elevated standard of care. That’s why we’ve been able to return to peak revenue just two years after The U. S.

HUMIRA LOE is because we brought products forward that are truly differentiated. We’ve demonstrated that with nine head to heads with more to come. And so that ultimately is what’s really driving the performance. It’s not that we have an advantage with the PBMs. We’re certainly we utilize the tools that are available to us.

We’re effective at that. But I would say even in a world where there is PBM reform, we are very confident that we can compete very effectively because of the attributes of our products. And maybe before we leave the topic, there’s another debate about just potential spillover from government channels into the commercial segment. So what gives you confidence that drug pricing risks, MFN won’t actually spit out? Ask yourself how would you see broad adoption of MFN?

And the only avenue that it would be apparent would be a demonstration project in Medicare. We’ve also gotten a similar question when the IRA was implemented about would you see spillover? And we’ve said look there have been prices in the government channels in the past, VA, DoD as an example, where you don’t see that type of spillover. So that hasn’t been our experience. We haven’t seen that come to fruition with the IRA, so we wouldn’t expect the same in this example either.

Okay.

Unidentified speaker: All right. Let’s move on to financials. Maybe just sort of level setting on 2025 guidance. Just high level framing in the context of your recent guidance range and the momentum phenomenal business momentum you guys saw in the first quarter earnings report. So give us an overview of where the business stands today, including around your core franchises.

Rob: I’ll start and I’m going have Scott cover most of the question. I think just if you think about the performance of the company and just the very strong execution, we put ourselves in a position again to return to very robust growth this year, exceed our peak revenue in just two years post HUMIRA in The U. S. And that’s never been done before in our industry. And now we have a clear runway to growth for at least the next eight years.

And so the business is in a very strong position. As you look across our growth platform. I mean clearly leadership in immunology, a very strong and emerging pipeline in oncology. Neuroscience, we are the it’s our largest therapeutic area. It’s our fastest growing business.

And it will be the leading neuroscience business in the industry next year. We expect to surpass Roche next year. So very strong neuroscience franchise that I think is underappreciated when you think about we’re more than psych. We have a very compelling migraine franchise that covers a full spectrum of the disease between BOTOX Therapeutic, KULYPTTA and UBRELVY, a very exciting emerging Parkinson’s franchise with Violet and Tavapinon in the pipeline that came to us from Cerevul. And obviously then when you think about aesthetics, we have good plans there for recovery in aesthetics.

It’s our largest business, one that we can certainly continue to fund innovation given the significant growth of the other three that I just mentioned. And so we’re in a very strong position which is why our investments in the pipeline, our investments in BD are really focused on what can drive growth in the next decade and beyond. So I’d say the setup for the company is very strong. But I’ll let Scott speak to the particulars around the first quarter performance.

Scott: Yes, happy to. We’ve been very pleased with the execution of momentum. When you look at our first quarter results, we were ahead of our guidance from a revenue perspective by $550,000,000 from an earnings perspective by $0.10 And I think what’s especially important there is it was across the board. So within immunology, SKYRIZI and RINVOQ together were roughly $350,000,000 ahead of our guidance. In the neuroscience space, we are roughly $180,000,000 ahead.

Oncology, dollars 130,000,000 ahead. And aesthetics, even with the economic headwinds that we’re experiencing, was right in line with our guidance. So very broad based over performance relative to our guidance in the quarter. In fact our ex HUMIRA business grew approximately 23 on an operational basis year over year. So very, very strong performance.

And what we did with that, then we looked for the full year guidance and we increased our guidance again across the board. Dollars 700,000,000 on the top line in total puts us just shy of $60,000,000,000 $59,700,000,000 in total sales. As Rob mentioned, that’s a new peak sales for us very shortly after the HUMIRA LOE event. And we raised SKYRIZI and RINVOQ together $900,000,000 We did take HUMIRA down. We’re seeing a little bit faster erosion.

But immunology as a whole continues to grow and so that’s a net positive. Neuroscience, another $200,000,000 increase on our overall guidance between BOTOX Therapeutics and our oral CGRP franchise. Oncology, dollars 200,000,000 increase between VENCLEXTA and IMBRUVICA. And then in the aesthetics side, we did take that down $200,000,000 because we’d had initially assumed some economic recovery in the back half of the year and we just didn’t think that was prudent to continue to assume that with the economy as it was. So we took that down slightly $200,000,000 But again, an overall strong increase.

We increased earnings by $0.10 And again, that ex HUMIRA sales increase for the full year is approximately 15%. So we’re seeing very strong performance.

Rob: I’d say that the XuMirror platform makes up 90% of

Scott: our business. That’s great point. Yes.

Rob: It’s almost at this 90 percent of the business.

Unidentified speaker: Just in terms of cost cuts, several of your peers are talking about honing in on efficiencies and cost cuts in the context of the external environment. So maybe just give us an update on how you’re thinking about this.

Scott: Yes. The point is that we certainly are very thoughtful with every dollar that we spend and every dollar that we invest. And as we’ve tried to ensure that we’re investing in the future growth, we’re setting a good priority there. But we are pretty efficient. When you look at our operating margin, 46.5% is our guidance right now, which is includes zero five point of IPR and D charge.

So we’ve got a pretty efficient profile and we’ll continue to look at that. I would say with respect to any impacts from pricing or the tariff impacts, we’ll certainly look at when we understand what those actual impacts are going to be and how we approach that. But I think that we have a good track record of doing things necessary to mitigate impact. And again, the business is performing well. So that momentum will be helpful as we face any challenges.

Rob: We always look for ways of driving efficiencies. But I think given the strategy we’ve pursued and been successful with of elevating standard of care and bringing forward assets that are truly differentiated, we’ve essentially been able to go through an LOE period where we did not have to cut R and D. ’ve been able to continue to grow the dividend and that’s because of the strategy we’ve put in place. And so we’ve been fueling the pipeline investment as we think about the long term growth potential of the company. We always would look for efficiencies, productivity as a way of mitigating any issues.

But I’d say you haven’t seen us announce major cost reduction programs because of the strength of the business and the way the strategy has played out and our ability to invest in innovation both internally and externally to drive that future growth.

Unidentified speaker: One last big picture question, high level question, and then I want to bring Jeff and Ruplin. Just business development more broadly, just Rob or Scott updated thoughts on size, scope, and

Rob: is there any appetite for bigger deals? Bigger deals. Look, I think it’s always based on what the business needs. And as I mentioned earlier, we’re in a position today where we have a clear line of sight to growth for the next eight years. So the focus that I have now is about bringing in, whether it’s the internal pipeline or external innovation, what are assets that can help us drive growth in the next decade and beyond.

And so as a result, the focus has been more on early stage opportunities. You’ve seen us since the beginning of last year execute more than 25 early stage deals across our growth areas. And so in immunology, the focus has been on new mechanisms that can either as monotherapy or in combination with SKYRIZI RINVO can elevate the standard of care. We also acquired Nimble Therapeutics to give us an oral peptides capability, very excited about that. In oncology, the focus there has been more on multi specifics in situ CAR T opportunities as we think about the future pipeline in oncology that nicely complements the emerging pipeline we have across ADCs, bispecifics from our internal pipeline and as well as the acquisition of Immunogen.

In neuroscience and that’s an area I mentioned earlier underappreciated, but it’s really again four segments. So think about psychiatry, migraine, Parkinson’s and then neurodegeneration particularly focused on Alzheimer’s. We’ve executed deals in essentially all those areas. But when you think about in psychiatry we extended our discovery collaboration with Gideon Richter who discovered Vraylar. We also have nine thirty two in our pipeline today.

We executed a deal with Gilgamesh on a psychoplasticin for mood disorders as a novel approach in psychiatry. And then we also acquired a next generation antibody from Aliyada that has great potential in Alzheimer’s. And so that’s where we’ve been focusing our investments. And then as I think about the company in the next decade, we’re going to be a very large we already are a large company, going to be even bigger in a decade’s time. And so we’ve been evaluating other new sources of growth we should consider and that’s why we pursued the opportunity with GUPRA.

As we look at obesity, obviously large market, high unmet need, but we wanted to see something that was truly differentiated to enter this space and the GUBRA opportunity presented that. We’re very excited about the role that Amylin can play. We think about tolerability, potential muscle benefit, bone benefit, as we think about the need for maintenance therapy, there’s a lot of opportunity here. A lot of space is a market that is projected to be 100,000,000,000 to $150,000,000,000 in the middle part of the next decade. So in terms of BD, we all in addition to our current growth areas, we do intend to continue to build around the Gubra asset in obesity because we see that as an important growth driver potential growth driver for the company in the next decade given how large we will be.

Okay. I want to come back to obesity, but I want to just maybe start on

Unidentified speaker: the product side, talk about immunology. Jeff, maybe I can bring you in here. Just give us talk to us about what you’re seeing in the immunology markets broadly with respect to the competitive environment. You’ve got Tremfya now launching in IBD, specifically in the subcu in the induction period which J and J has been framing as a bit of a competitive advantage. You’ve also got the Stellara biosimilar launch now I believe six months in.

Any color on sort of high level market and pricing dynamics? And also, is the switching dynamic that you saw with HUMIRA compression similar to what you’re seeing with with Stilara biosimilar? Yes. Great question. Me sort of lay

Jeff: out what we’re seeing from a competitive standpoint and a biosimilar Stilara standpoint. I think we take a step back and think about why are we seeing such dramatic growth with SKYRIZI and RINVOQ. We’re capturing one out of every two newer switching patients in Crohn’s and one out of three every newer switching patients in ulcerative colitis. And that’s because of the work that Rupel’s team did where we started to restate the value drivers of that market. So it sort of shifted from normal symptom resolution to like endoscopic disease control.

And when you look at the results that you’ve seen across our assets, it’s absolutely exceptional. And so that’s what’s been driving this very, very significant growth. And in terms of overall what we’re seeing with the competition, you mentioned Tremfya, we don’t have a direct head to head comparison, but you can see relative performance across these head to head trials with STELARA. So, for example, in our clinical trial with that endoscopic endpoint like the healing of the bowel, it was double what used to be the formal market leader STELARA. So, it’s quite dramatic when you look at that.

And I have to say when you look at the cross study comparisons, they’re not precisely the same. So we think our data stacks very, very well and we have both assets that we’re co positioning very effectively in that marketplace. I think the other context is J and J is a very good competitor, but it’s not a zero sum game. We believe that certainly the IL-twenty three category or subcategory will be the dramatic leader over the next five years and SKYRIZI will continue to play the leading role in that subcategory. The other part, you mentioned induction.

And induction is an important part of the patient journey, but it’s really one small piece. Most of these patients will be on their medication for three or four years because of the power of a drug like SKYRIZI. And if you think about the overall convenience, we have every eight week dosing where the standard dose for TREMFYA will be every four weeks. We have a unique delivery system called the Onbody device or the OBI. And we have patient preference data that we’ve recently released that shows that the Crohn’s patients and UC patients, they love the OnBody device.

In some cases significantly better than an oral medication that they may have tried earlier in their journey. So overall net net we’re very, pleased with the performance that we see across the IBD portfolio. Now you mentioned Stellara. It’s about six months since the availability of Stellara. And the aspect is we haven’t seen any material change in our ability to make sure to maintain and continue to grow our access position.

And I think it goes back to what Rob highlighted is the level of evidence that we put particularly a striking transformational head to head trial we call SEQUENCE, has really helped differentiate the asset. And physicians can see it, payers can see it. And so we haven’t seen any material degradation in our pricing guidance or formulary position. And I think that’s been strong. Now, I think it’s a little early other than the normal ratability of Stellara shifting over to the newer mechanisms.

We haven’t seen something disruptive like we saw in the year of LOE where CVS took an action and then there was more movement. I I think it’s just been normal market movement. But we’ll continue to monitor that over time. It wouldn’t be a surprise if we started to see some of that, however, just based on how physicians are thinking about that chance to upgrade the control with a medication like SKYRIZI or RINVOQ. So, all good in terms of our ability to continue to compete very strongly.

Unidentified speaker: That’s very helpful. And then maybe just how are you thinking about the impact of the introduction of the oral IL-23s into the market? I kind of Yes.

Jeff: We’ve studied that very strongly over the years because we saw the of course the adoption of Otezla many years ago. We watched the TYK2s very carefully. And we take all those competitors very seriously. Now what we’ve seen over time is that the oral products in the immunology marketplace, they kind of carve out a position for certain patients in the more mild or early moderate level for people that maybe aren’t quite ready to go to the full strength biologics. I think the most important point to think about is that this oral IL-twenty three is not operating in its efficacy like a biologic IL-twenty three.

It just doesn’t it doesn’t have that level of basically of efficacy. And these are some serious conditions, right? So the physicians are very much always leaning there. It’s almost like a separate market space that gets carved out, a market expansion dynamic in terms of what we’re seeing in these marketplaces. So I suspect the J and J product as we continue to see that move forward will compete very effectively in the oral market space.

But I think there’s going to be a clear distinction in terms of where that’s going to play relative to the higher orders of a SKYRIZI or RINVOQ, for example.

Unidentified speaker: Maybe we can just shift to Violab. That was another product that outperformed in the first quarter. Just maybe speak to the trend that you’re seeing there.

Jeff: Yes. We’re very happy with Violet and the performance that we’ve seen so far. And it’s primarily been in the international markets. So Scott has guided to roughly $300,000,000 of essentially that’s like really the full year of momentum that we’ve seen because The U. S.

Has not had the Medicare reimbursement. It’s coming in the back part of the year. So that sort of ramp largely based in the international space is very, very significant. And frankly, it’s been above our expectations. We always believed that this was going to be an important medication because essentially the market structure is patients don’t do well on oral medication as their disease continues, have to take more and more oral pills, eight pills a day, six pills a day, even more.

And then ultimately they’re faced with a very difficult choice. What do I do next? And typically that has before Vylev entailed a surgery, deep brain stimulation or our own DUOPA, which was a GI surgery. But now with a simple subcu, a smaller pump, we’ve created this subcu space after orals start to fail. And it’s really captured the passion of the movement disorder specialists.

So we see a couple advantages. One, great efficacy, no surgery, and probably more importantly is it’s a twenty four hour continuous infusion. So the ability for patients to sleep well, sleep through the night without being frozen in their bed or wake up off, they can wake up on and immediately start their day. That’s been a quite striking impact to the marketplace. So we’re very excited about the ramp.

We’re very confident that the Medicare patients are going to come online as we exit ’twenty five and move into ’twenty six. And then, as Rob mentioned, it’s one of our big pillars in neuroscience and it’s beyond even Violet because now we have tevapadon which is going to be earlier positioned. And so around the world we have a great commercial footprint, a great medical footprint of medical experts and representatives that are going to bring a full portfolio to the space. So it’s very exciting from what we’re seeing in the taste from the market.

Unidentified speaker: And tirvapadone is getting filed later this year, right? Yes.

Rupol: Rupol? Yes. This is our D1, D5 differentiated asset from the older generation. And that will get submitted this year, and we anticipate launch next And we’re seeing high levels of efficacy that are approaching levocarbidopa in that naive patient population that hasn’t seen an oral as a monotherapy. And there’s very strong data as an add on.

So it will give a different patient population than the BioLev patients a new therapeutic option that would be a once a day, twenty four hour half life option as they’re trying to optimize that. And we think the uptake there can be better than what we’ve seen with the older generation because of the efficacy profile, but definitely the safety profile, which over time the older dopamine agonists showed sedation, which was unpredictable, and impulse control disorder, which really decreased utilization. These are people that would eat uncontrollably, spend money, gamble. So we don’t see those levels of adverse events. Even peripheral edema, which is quite a nuisance to these patients, we don’t have any of that.

So that creates, as what Jeff was saying, a portfolio or franchise opportunity in Parkinson’s.

Unidentified speaker: Rupul, let’s just stay with you then and dig a little bit deeper on parts of the pipeline that recently from my conversation seem to be capturing investor attention, certainly thematically. Just starting with the PD L1 VEGF bispecifics in oncology, obviously there’s been a lot of movement in this area. It’s emerged as a highly watched mechanism with the potential to disrupt the standard of care. So I guess how are these new partnerships and trials that are showing the validation of this class shifting the mindset on this opportunity in oncology from where you guys are concerned? And then what is your level of interest in participating in this market?

Rupol: So our focus right now has been ADCs, we’re building that pipeline in ovarian, colon, lung, and as part of lung, non small cell cancer and small cell cancer. And I would say it hasn’t been really a shift in our thinking. We always felt with ADCs it would be important to have a combination in the immuno oncology space. So we are developing in TGF beta and anti CCR8. But that being said, if there’s other opportunities like the one that you’ve brought up that we’ve seen some data readouts, that could be something that we would be interested in that could result into a unique combination with some of our ADCs.

We’re also interested in T cell engagers, which we’re in non Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a partnership with Epkinly, and then our own three eighty three or entantamig asset in multiple myeloma, which is in phase III. So we see these novel mechanisms as long as they’re effective and safe and can combine well, we think that could be a component of our overarching strategy.

Unidentified speaker: You mentioned three eighty three, and that was actually my next question. I saw that you had this is the BCMA bispecific. Yes.

Rob: And I saw that you advanced this into a Phase III trial in relapsedrefractory multiple myeloma recently. So talk to us about how you’re thinking about that opportunity. So I think one way to consider this is the market where you’re seeing more movement into these bispecifics.

Rupol: One of the challenges is the combinability and the utilization of it, especially in the community. It can be challenging to give these inpatients. They have CRS. They have significant amounts of neutropenia and in hospital dosing, multiple step ups, and weekly to twice a month dosing. But they’re showing efficacy and there’s enhanced utilization, and that’s competing with CAR T, which likely will still be reserved for later lines because of the safety profile.

And we were just talking about Parkinson’s. There is a neurologic effect that can happen later on. There may be another one that’s on the market that may not do that as much, but still we see the majority of the prescriber base in the community, which could be sixty, seventy, 80%, depending on the jurisdiction that we’re talking about. So in comes something like a three eighty three and tantamig, which we are seeing a single step up dosing as part of the regimen and then immediately going to once a month. And we’re seeing a very safe profile that could enable a simplified outpatient use and less utilization of inpatient resources.

So that could be a large benefit to health systems in addition to the patient and to the community prescriber. What we’re working on in parallel with the phase three program is numerous combinations with other known assets because we feel the safety profile would enable an easier combination, a more tolerable combination, that could allow this asset to move into earlier lines of therapy. And that plus the other parameters I mentioned would allow it, albeit late, to still differentiate when it comes to the market because that could then become the go to one as people are accustomed to using these. Now here’s an easier one and maybe one that I can combine with greater confidence because I’m not as concerned about safety.

Unidentified speaker: And I guess just last ripple on immunology, HybriDentis Super Tiva, HS. Yeah, HS is obviously an indication in derm that’s again getting a lot of attention recently. I know that RINVOQ is going to have some phase three data next year. It doesn’t seem to get a lot of attention. And you’ve also, I think, started a phase three study for lutekizumab in HS.

And there, the Phase II data,

Rupol: from what we could tell, were very compelling. So help us frame the opportunity there. Doctor. This is one that we recognized many, many years ago with HUMIRA. And we were the to market, not just with the biologic, but with any approved therapy.

So we know the market well. Jeff’s team, Jeff himself knows it very, very well. And it was a terrific launch for HUMIRA that maybe surprised us a little bit. Now that being said, knowing the information that we have in front of us along with what we’ve learned in IBD, now you’ve heard about that structure and our in place share with SKYRIZI and RINVOQ in Crohn’s and in UC, that is a similar dynamic we can see in HS where you have an oral asset, a JAK inhibitor, that can come in after biologics. And that’s where it’s positioned in IBD.

And then we have luticizumab, which is a differentiated mechanism for the TNFs and the 17 class, which is an IL-one alpha beta bispecific. And we don’t see a threat of worsening IBD in HS patients. And in fact, we learned about HS through IBD because we saw overlap in patients with Crohn’s disease that actually had HS. So you would have that asset that could play in the naive population and even in some biofailure population. So that’s how those two are being studied now.

So when they would launch, we would see that playing out similarly as how we’ve positioned SKYRIZI and RINVOQ in IBD quite successfully.

Unidentified speaker: And then I guess I want to come back to Rob, you were talking to obesity. You already spoke about sort of the update on the Gruber assay as a foundation for cardiometabolic. But I guess just high level again recognizing it’s early but how is this debate on eroding pricing dynamics in obesity just playing into your own assessment on how you’ve modeled out this opportunity for the Amylin class? I’d point

Rob: to two things. One, when you actually bring differentiation to the market, you tend to see those assets get valued appropriately. That said, by the time we’re thinking about the Gubra asset coming to market early part of the next decade, one attribute that we have that our peers don’t have is an aesthetics business that knows the cash pay market very well. And so as we’ve modeled it, do we’d expect over time prices to come down, over time an important cash pay segment. But that said, if you can bring forward therapeutics that demonstrate differentiation and command real value, that can also factor into the pricing equation.

So we’ve thought of it both ways, but we do think we are uniquely positioned given our presence in aesthetics and our knowledge of that cash pay market. Perfect segue to my last question, which is on aesthetics.

Unidentified speaker: And we haven’t really talked about that business. I guess the University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment did show a little bit of it was revised upward in

Rob: the May report. So I guess any are

Unidentified speaker: you seeing any signs of stabilization? Well, we’re

Jeff: certainly seeing a more stable toxin market. One of the things that we’re seeing is that our share versus some of the dip that we saw based on the loyalty program is starting to recover which is very encouraging. We’ll have to see on the filler market. The filler market is certainly down sequentially. It’s a little bit more sensitive to the consumer sentiment because it’s more expensive for the procedure and it’s viewed as a little bit more discretionary.

So I think at some point that we will see the stabilization. I think we’re getting close. I think it was the right call based on what we’re seeing here in the first quarter with the sentiment to to Scott’s point is to decrease the expectations a little bit. But overall, we’re super pleased with this business. It’s a very nice business.

It’s very profitable. And we think we can really lead, particularly because we’re going to run into the approval of Trinobot E or the the fast acting off toxin, on off toxin, which is a real trial toxin that we think ultimately will help us stimulate the market and also move towards the share because it’s been safely studied with that transition of Botox. And the real innovation is that in toxins. And the

Rob: of that is still later this year, the approval? We submitted it in April, so twelve month review. So next year.

Unidentified speaker: Early next year. Early

Rob: next year.

Unidentified speaker: Okay. Great. Well, we’re just about out of time. Thank you very much for your time. Was great conversation.

Thank you. Thank very much. Thank you.

Scott: Thank you very much. Thank you.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.