IQVIA at BofA Securities 2025: Strong Q1 Amid Market Challenges

On Tuesday, 13 May 2025, IQVIA Holdings Inc. (NYSE:IQV) presented at the BofA Securities 2025 Healthcare Conference, showcasing its robust Q1 performance amidst market uncertainties. Despite softer bookings due to delayed client decisions and potential macroeconomic impacts, IQVIA exceeded its revenue guidance and maintained a positive long-term outlook.

Key Takeaways

• IQVIA exceeded Q1 revenue guidance, with strong growth in its TAS segment.
• Bookings were softer, with a book-to-bill ratio of 1.02, due to client decision delays.
• Revenue guidance was raised by $275 million due to favorable FX changes.
• Capital deployment focuses on M&A and share repurchases, particularly in TAS.
• Despite macroeconomic concerns, long-term growth prospects remain positive.

Financial Results

• Revenue: Surpassed high-end guidance; guidance increased by $275 million due to FX changes.
• EBITDA: Achieved above the midpoint of guidance.
• EPS: Reached the high end of guidance.
• TAS Growth: Recorded a 7.6% increase at constant currency.
• Cash Flow: Increased by 13% year-over-year, representing 89% of adjusted net income.
• Margin: Adjusted EBITDA margin projected to contract by 20 basis points due to FX.

Operational Updates

• Bookings: Slower client decision-making resulted in softer bookings; RFP to award time increased by 10%.
• Emerging Biopharma (EBP): Contracts signed but not added to backlog due to funding delays.
• RFP Flow: Increased by 6%.
• Cancellations: Remained within normal range, unlike the previous year’s elevated levels.
• Policy Changes: Agency changes, tariffs, and pricing actions introduced uncertainty affecting client decisions.

Future Outlook

• Revenue Growth: Anticipates 6-9% constant currency growth in the medium to long term.
• Growth Drivers: Includes 3-5% growth in pharma spend, 1% market share expansion, 1% outsourcing growth, and 1-2% M&A growth annually.
• Capital Allocation: Focus on M&A and share repurchase, with a preference for TAS-related acquisitions.
• Margin Improvement: Aims for modest annual margin improvements.

Q&A Highlights

• Macro Factors: Discussed potential impacts of agency changes, tariffs, and pricing actions.
• Competitive Dynamics: Addressed pricing pressures in the FSP business and competitive landscape among CROs.
• TAS Business: Emphasized TAS as a differentiator from pure CROs.
• M&A Strategy: Focused on TAS acquisitions, particularly in patient engagement, digital marketing, and real-world evidence.

For a detailed analysis, please refer to the full transcript below.

Full transcript - BofA Securities 2025 Healthcare Conference:

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: My name is Mike Ryskin. I’m on the Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team, and I’m pleased to host IQVIA. Joining me for our next chat is Ron Bromans, CFO. Ron, thanks for being here.

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Thanks, Mike.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: Kick things off, let’s maybe take a recap of the first quarter you reported a couple of weeks ago. So the key puts and takes of the results, what stood out to you? What was most surprising from how it put out?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Look, think the results overall were really strong. We were above the high end of our guidance on revenue. We came in above the midpoint of our guidance on EBITDA and at the high end of our guidance on EPS. So earning results strong, particularly pleased with the performance in TAS that had a growth of over 7.6% and at constant currency. And so good P and L performance.

Cash flow strong. First quarter is typically the softest quarter for cash flow and actually came in up 13% year over year and 89% of adjusted net income, which is kind of at the high end of what we forecast for full year. So really encouraged by that. You saw we took up our revenue guidance by $275,000,000 Now that was FX, so we left our profit guidance unchanged because what you typically see is we don’t have much impact on the bottom line from FX even with movements on the top line. The only thing that I suppose was a bit soft in the quarter was our bookings.

I know you guys all focus a lot on book to bill more than we like to, but it was 1.02 in the quarter. And you know, the interesting thing was unlike last year where we saw an elevated level of cancellations as clients, particularly large pharma reprioritized their portfolios. In this year’s fourth quarter, I mean first quarter, we saw a normal, within normal range of cancellations, nothing out of the ordinary. And it was really that we saw certain clients delaying decision making towards the end of the quarter. We did see a lengthening of the time between when we got an RFP and when we got an award, it was up about 10% sequentially and year over year.

And that can have an impact in the quarter because a lot of the decisions get made towards the end of the quarter. We also had an unusual number of EBP biotech contracts that we signed that we didn’t take into orders or backlog because they didn’t yet have the funding. So we have a signed contract, but our policy is we won’t put something in backlog unless it has the funding. So I think those two things together combined to make it a little bit softer in bookings. But if you look at some of the underlying other underlying demand indicators, our RFP flow was up, I think 6%.

We had low single digit qualified pipeline growth. Our backlog is up over 4% year over year. So the other indicators were fine. We just saw a little bit slower decision making than we normally saw. And we attribute that to some of the uncertainty that’s been generated by, recent actions by the current administration.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: And that’s slower decision making. You talked about some of the differences in emerging biopharma and maybe large pharma. What do you think are the various pushes and pulls and what’s driving that?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: In the between large pharma and emerging biopharma? Well, look, in the emerging biopharma area, clearly you’ve seen some slowdown in funding levels. It’s actually pretty good growth in funding of biopharma last year, particularly in the first half, but then we saw it trail off a little bit and wasn’t particularly strong in the first quarter or even in the month of April. And I think that probably, we saw it happen with us that it slowed down, putting certain orders into backlog and also just decision making on the part of EBPs and large pharma obviously funding is not an issue. Think it was just more an issue of pulling the trigger on some trials that they want to do.

It’s happening a little bit slower than we normally would see it.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: Okay, maybe sticking with the biotech angle first. You talked about the funding environment. Yeah, year to date, not off to a great start. April seemed a little bit quieter as well. I think macro plays a big part in that.

Any sign from your customers in terms of how they’re responding to that longer term? I mean, called out that RFPs are still, contracts are solid, but it’s not showing up in orders. It really just a matter of funding coming back? That the one that we’re working for you?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: That certainly would be helpful. We actually saw decent we saw growth in biotech, emerging biopharma RFP flow in the quarter. So it’s not like the demand isn’t there. I’d say that the better funded firms obviously and those that are later stage are the ones that are have more activity. That’s typically where we participate is in later stage work and better funded work.

Think about 10% of our backlog is pre commercial EBP. Not a huge percentage point. I would draw that distinction between the two. And look, we always see biotech funding go through cycles. Goes up and down and I’m sure it’s gonna come back.

It’s just a matter of time.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: And when you talk about large pharma, some of the policy, what’s going on with the administration, More specifically, is it about the risk of pharma tariffs? Is it ongoing IRA conversations? Is it some of the senior agency heads and announcements, things like that? So like what are the biggest pressure

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: points? Well, we talked about this some on our call, and I think you can group it broadly into three areas. One would be agency change, the other would be tariffs, and the third would be pricing actions. And on the agency, you know, in the agency and funding and so forth, we don’t see a big impact there. First off, I know some of our competitors have been affected by BARDA contracts going away.

We don’t have any business currently with BARDA. In fact, we do actually comparatively little business contracting directly with the US government, some in our TAS business that really hasn’t been affected. On the NIH side, most of the cuts there have been to overhead rates, pulling down the maximum rate to 15% on overhead reimbursement to make some of the private universities and foundations so forth in line with other parts of the market. So no big impact there and know, FDA, most of the cuts we have seen have been to support administrative personnel, not to the people who directly participate in trials. In fact, that trial work is funded by PDUFA, by the pharma industry, and we have seen no slowdown in trials whatsoever, decision making or you know, getting FDA’s attention.

I mean, every now and then you’ll hear about an anecdotal incident that somebody will bring up, but for us, really no impact there at all. So I’d say that the agency stuff is more noise than signal. Now you go to the tariffs. We are not directly affected by tariffs. We have, it was a little bit of lab business that we thought might be, doesn’t look like it’s gonna be much affected at all.

Now with our customers, it could be a different story. Obviously, if there were tariffs on pharma, they would be directly affected. And we just don’t know where that’s gonna go right now. I suspect if I see what’s going on with other things in administration, administration is going to take a practical approach towards that. Obviously, nobody wants to see no drug availability because you can’t import certain drugs or certain, precursors or whatever.

So, and you’ve seen a lot of pharma companies respond by announcing big investment programs in The US. So they’re certainly sensitive to the issue that the administration raises about producing more molecules here in The States. I suspect that’s gonna be worked out, but, you know, we’re gonna have to see. It hasn’t even been announced yet exactly what these tariffs will be, so there’s a bit of unknown there still. The pricing issue is one I would say, you know, we had this recent executive order come out of the Trump administration, and, it’s very recently.

So there are a lot more questions than than answers right now, like exactly how that’s gonna be implemented, what timeline, what drugs, how does it dovetail with the, you know, getting rid of the pill penalty issues like that. And then there are, you know, broader issues like does it need congressional approval? What are the legality? You know, back in 2020, there was a similar executive order that was struck down by the courts on challenge. So a of questions there.

We don’t know exactly where going to end up going. But we would say this, think the farm industry is going to make a point to point out to the administration just how important the biopharma sector is in The US. I mean, just to quote a few numbers, US Biopharma firms spend $200,000,000,000 a year in R and D. They’re responsible for almost 1,700,000,000,000.0 in annual economic output, 5,000,000 direct or indirect jobs, and an average salary of close to $160,000 which is 2x plus the national average. The U.

S. Biopharma industry is dominant in both sales and in new drug development. So there are a lot of reasons to think this is a very critical sector to The US and this whole issue will get worked out over time in a practical manner.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: So do you feel on the R and DS, given what you just talked about in terms of large pharma, do you think it’s just a matter of time until sort of the pharma companies get a lot of, you know, get their heads around the agency change and tariff impact pricing and things sort of normalize a little bit?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Oh, of course. Look, we’ve been through any number of, we call them crises in the industry and everyone has its own unique dynamics. But when you look back over time, the pharma industry always works its way through these issues and emerges on the other side stronger. I mean, it’s really one of the most powerful forces in our economy and we expect the same will be the case. But you know, it’s some of the uncertainty that’s been created recently is obviously slowing down decision making and we saw it in our Q1 bookings as did others, but we don’t expect it to be persistent.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: Okay. Maybe let’s pivot a little bit to TASS. As you said, that was a little bit better than expected in the quarter, mid to high single digits constant currency growth. On the other hand, that’s been a little bit choppier over the last couple of quarters prior to that. So you talked about TASS being shorter cycle and expecting a recovery.

Is this a good sign of things to come and sort of what drove that once you’ve given the pharma cautions elsewhere?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Well, when we were in the beginning of last year and our sales growth in TAS was pretty anemic, we told everybody, look, we expected to come back in the second half of the year. Pharma cut back first post IRA on discretionary spending, but there’s been a huge amount of new drug approvals by the FDA over the last few years. And ultimately, a lot of work needs to get done around that, be it launch planning, to pricing and market access, to real world evidence, to support drugs going on to formularies and things of that nature. And some of it can be brought internal within pharma, but not that much. And ultimately it needs to get done and the work’s gonna come back because it supports the commercialization of drugs and the growth in sales and profits in the industry.

And in fact, that’s exactly what happened in the second half of the year. And it carried on into the first quarter of this year. The question I’ve been getting in some of our private meetings today as well, okay, but given all the, you know, the atmospherics around the pharma industry, could that change in the second half of the year? And all I can say is, look, all our indicators right now in that business are green. I mean, we track very carefully our pipeline of work, how that compares to prior years, our win rate, how that compares to prior years, how much we have in the backlog versus how much is yet to come, what our customers are telling us.

And we have no reason to believe that the growth is going to slow down in the second half of the year. The comparison will get a little tougher, but the actual absolute level of revenue progression will deteriorate. And, you know, okay, okay, it’s a short cycle business, things can always change. But right now all the indicators look really quite positive.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: I mean, to exactly that point, the shorter cycle business, what’s the visibility like there?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Well, it depends on the part of the business. So if you take the information business, we’re a data business for about a third of our business, visibility is very good there. We sign, many cases, multi year contracts or at worst, you’re signing a year at a time out in front. There are other parts of the business like real world late phase that are contracted business that stands out for multiple years. You have technology solutions where you have extended license contracts.

And then there’s a portion of it, particularly a portion of real world, a portion in analytics and consulting that is more short cycle and can change very quickly. So, maybe you’re looking in some cases at contracts that last months rather than quarters or years. It’s a mix of the two. As opposed to R and Ds where you have a backlog that’s going to burn over the next five years, clearly there’s a mixture of longer cycle and shorter cycle there. So you can get some volatility and so you’ll see a little bit choppier levels of revenue growth there, sometimes very high, sometimes lower, but whereas the R and DS business is kind of a smooth flow.

Within

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: TASS, one of the things you called out was the strength in real world evidence. Can you talk about sort of what’s the driver there? Is that a structural change? Is that just some timing of contracts, customer decisions? I

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: don’t think it’s, I think a lot of it relates to the introduction of new drugs and doing work to support commercialization of those drugs, proving to payers, be they private payers or governments that the drugs are effective in real world settings that helps with use in new indications. This kind of, it just has to do with the overall strength that new introductions, new drug introductions into the market. It’s a sector that I think structurally is going to continue to grow because we, you know, as we and others have increasing amount of data, there’s a lot that you can do with that data. And we’re really in, you know, kind of the catbird seat as far as data goes and being able to use that for real world evidence. So while we have competition in that space, there’s plenty of growth for everybody.

It’s a real nice area. And look, there elements of real world that, people are less familiar with that we include in the real world category, like patient engagement and so forth that have been sources of growth for us as well.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: Some network to support the new drugs, projected to continue? Is there sort of like once you work through that, is there a pause until the next project start?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Well, there’s always new things starting. That’s when you have the FDA approving fifty-fifty five drugs per year. There always seems to be a pipeline there. So yeah, maybe it doesn’t go away entirely, but it shifts from one drug to another drug in terms of the locus of the spending.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: I guess my question is the new drugs that are driving the growth now, is there anything unusual about them that’s making them more RWE intensive or is it a pharma decision?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: I don’t think so per se that there’s anything that makes them more RWE intensive per se, but there is certainly more scrutiny from payers than there used to be. So there’s more, I think pressure on providing evidence in real world use. And you know, with the FDA now, that’s one thing that I suppose is that you could call a structural change. The new FDA Commissioner, Marty Makary, has said that this is important to HHS Secretary Kennedy has said the same thing that proving safety and efficacy over long term studies in real world groups is good, is important. They’re going to put more emphasis on it.

So that would be something I would say would be kind of a tailwind for the real world business going forward. Now, did we see that in our Q1 results already? No, because probably that would that data back to decisions that were made in the past. But I think going forward, that’s a good harbinger.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: And how should we think about TAS margins, specifically RWA margins relative to total company?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: RWA margins are a little bit lower on average than other parts of TAS, although they have been improving over time. So you could say that there’s a little bit of mixed drag in that part of the business growing faster than other parts of the business, but you won’t see it.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: Okay. Back to R and DS. I hate asking the quarterly backlog question, quarterly book to bill question, but maybe we can think about it on a trailing twelve month basis or just sort of some of the factors impacting that. Why do you think that metric or that value has sort of has not been as predictive of revenue growth as it has in the past?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Well, I don’t know that it’s ever been the best metric. It is a metric. I understand why people focus on it because it gives you some new information about bookings. But it’s has a lot of issues with it. One being that it’s a single quarter metric in a long cycle business.

That’s probably the biggest issue. It’s a snapshot in time and you’re trying to compare it to a movie over four or five years because the average clinical trial lasts four or five years. The other thing I would say is that every company has slightly different policies on bookings. That’s an issue. So you can’t necessarily compare one to the other that well.

If there’s a numerator denominator problem and if your revenues happen to be low, that’s gonna help your book to bill. If your revenues happen to be high, that’s gonna hurt your book to bill. Look, Ari cited this example on our Q1 call and it was, we have a competitor who’s had almost exactly the same quarterly and trailing twelve month book to bill as we do, actually exactly the same on a trailing twelve month basis. And we’re growing our R and DS business 4% or if you take out the COVID, add the COVID impact back in three percent this year. And that’s probably eight points better than what they’re doing in their business, which is entirely clinical trial.

So it’s just an indicator that this metric is something you’ve got to be very careful with. It can lead you to the wrong conclusions if you focus on it too much.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: Okay. You mentioned one of your competitors in the space. I mean, I think ironically, lot of companies put up a 1.02 and a 1.14 trailing twelve month this quarter, but maybe you can touch on the competitive dynamics, what you’ve seen over the last couple of months, last couple of quarters, touch on pricing environment.

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Well, look, anytime that the market tightens up a little bit, you could expect to see pricing get a little keener. That’s just the nature of business. I don’t care what business that you’re in. I think we’ve seen it a little bit more in the FSP business and that’s understandable because the FSP business is one where it’s harder to differentiate yourself than it is in the full service business. And but you know it’s crept over I think to a little extent in the full service business, but you know it’s our job as management team to offset pricing pressure with cost reductions.

And I’ll also say that this is a metric that tends to, a phenomenon that tends to move when things loosen up, so does the pricing pressure. And over a backlog that’s going to burn over five years, you’ll never see it. The goods and the bads tend to even themselves out and you don’t see all that much movement in gross margins as a result of it. Okay.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: Are you seeing more competitive pressures, whether it’s from the top three, four CRO players or maybe from some of the smaller competitors?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Well, look, I think there are a few of the smaller, first off, are several thousand CROs. So if you’re going to talk about the really small guys, we don’t probably bump into some of these guys. But if you’re talking about kind of the next tier down from the top three they’re probably hurting a little bit more for business. I don’t know. I hate to single out individual competitors, but naturally the more you’re fighting for business, probably the keener you’re going to be on price.

Let’s just leave it at that.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: Okay. All right. That makes sense. Maybe we could talk about a little bit on the margin profile and how we should think about it over the course of this year and beyond.

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: What do you see

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: operating leverage this year given your assumptions for top line growth?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Well, first thing I would say is if you look at our adjusted EBITDA margin, I think we are projecting coming into the year about 20 basis points of growth and we’re probably projecting about 20 basis points of contraction now. I said, gee, what’s going on? Well, it’s very simple. It’s FX. We’ve increased our guidance on revenue by $275,000,000.

We don’t get a due to FX, we don’t get a significant or the same benefit on the bottom line. And so it causes some margin contraction. So if you’re looking at that, it’s just noise, it’s FX. If FX goes the other direction, then that’ll come back. There are some mix pressures that I talked about, like faster growth in the RWE business that weigh upon us a little bit.

Still have a small amount of stranded costs from the projects that were previously delayed, but I don’t think that’s a big deal anymore. We’re working really hard to take out cost across the organization. We always do. But so any margin pressures that we’re feeling, you know, we’re going to offset with cost takeout. That’s just our commitment.

And I think that’s what you’ll see going forward. Of course, FX, can do nothing about, but that’s noise.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: If you think about those moving pieces for this year versus sort of going forward, most of it is tied to this year, right? Is there any change in terms of how you think about the long term margin algorithm?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: No, I don’t think there’s any change in the long term margin algorithm. We expect to modestly improve margins on an annual basis going forward. Most of where we’re going to get our profit growth is from revenue growth. We said at our analyst meeting, expect six to nine percent constant currency revenue growth going forward. And even in a year where we’re a bumpy year, we’re close to that this year.

We don’t have any reason to believe that’s going be different. Where do we think that’s going to come from? Just to recap, 3% to five percent growth in pharma spend, a point of market share expansion per year, a point of outsourcing expansion per year, and one to two points of M and A growth. And we think, we continue to think that kind of growth is achievable over medium to long haul.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: Okay. Since you just touched on it Ron, maybe I’ll switch to capital deployment, M and A relative to debt pay down or buybacks. How do you think about the market opportunities are now today and capital deployment plans for the rest of the year?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Well, look, I’d say we tend to focus on two things as you guys have seen in the past. One would be M and A and one would be share repurchase. We’re less concerned about debt pay down. We’re comfortable with our debt levels where they are. Our net leverage ratio has been in kind of the 3.3 to 3.5 range and very comfortable with it at that range.

I mean, we could be comfortable at a higher range, but it’s kind of in that range. And so we’re looking at and we generate, call it $2,000,000,000 for free cash flow and spending that split between M and A and share repurchase. And it just depends on the comparative attractiveness of the opportunities we have. M and A is nice because you can provide a platform for growth. But if we feel that our shares are out of line in terms of valuation, like I think they are now, they’re cheap.

It obviously becomes more attractive to repurchase shares. And we would total a little bit that way. It certainly sets a different bar for M and A and will be scrutinize M and A transactions more carefully. Not saying we won’t do them, we will. We have at least right now a higher bar for those because our shares are so attractive.

Okay.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: And in terms of the M and A between R and DS and TAS, between scale versus new capabilities, sort of how do you think about the various options?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: I would say count on us spending more on TAS and R and DS typically because there are more opportunities there and areas where we can fill in to enhance our growth. In the R and DS area, okay, you might see us do some in the lab area or to enhance certain capabilities, perhaps in, we’ve a few in the area of clinical trial staffing and so forth. But in the case of TAS, we’ve recently been looking at areas like patient engagement and digital marketing and medical and scientific communications and areas that are growing and real world evidence that are growing real well within the industry. And there are more opportunities there. Is most likely where we’re going to be putting our money.

And I would call that more new growth areas than scale expansion. Although in some cases we’ve already built a little bit of a base there. So I guess it’s a little bit of both, but we’re putting our money where we feel we have the need to, both the opportunity and the need to grow.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: Okay. With that, we’re almost out of time. Maybe we’ll go to our standard closing question. What do you think is most underappreciated or misunderstood about IQVIA?

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Well, since we’re short on time, we’ll limit it to one thing. And that’s that we’re not a pure CRO. We have a TAZ business that represents 40% of our business. And I think it’s because we have CRO comps out there in the public market, we tend to be compared purely against them. But if you look at our comparative performance versus some of our CRO peers this year, not only are we outperforming in the R and D area, but where we have the TAS business, which is doing very well.

And I think that’s an underappreciated part of our business. And I try to focus everybody back on that, that we’re servicing pharma across research and development and commercialization. And it’s a nice place to be having that kind of breadth with our customers.

Mike Ryskin, Analyst, Bank of America Life Science Tools and Diagnostics team: Great. Well, thanks so much, Ron. Thanks everyone for joining us and appreciate it.

Ron Bromans, CFO, IQVIA: Thank you, Mike. Thanks for being here. Thanks for coming.

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